| Sumario: | Between 1974 and the early 1990s, scholars carried out a series of longitudinal studies of trial courts. While the high tide of that research came in the late 1970s, scholars continued to conduct longitudinal research throughout the 1980s, even as they expressed increasing doubt about its value. Finally, by the mid-1990s, the field was no longer considered a viable social science research program. The waning of this once popular field has had two consequences. First, it has left a void in social science research. Currently, we find no robust social science study of trial courts across space and time. Second, the demise of this research program has helped to discourage the development of empirical theories of trial courts. This article argues that, contrary to received opinion, the longitudinal study of trial courts, once it is detached from modernization theory, is a productive field of research, despite the difficulties of operationalizing the units of analysis to be employed in such research. The article concludes that a renewal of the longitudinal study of trial courts along pragmatist lines could supply the data to construct innovative theories of trial court activity, in turn spurring further productive empirical research into the nature of court activity to fill a gap in current social science research. Such a research program would not only facilitate the understanding of contemporary judicial dynamics, but also allow students of comparative historical analysis, law and development, American political development, and legal history to collaborate with students of law and courts, bringing much-needed attention to the operation of trial courts within society.
|
|---|