Extended Sites of Action
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6015376 |
|---|---|
| Authors | N Halstead (0000-0002-1751-138X, University of Sussex, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 2 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | v-viii |
| Publication date | 2018-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Legal Anthropology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1758-9584 • E-ISSN: 1758-9576 |
| Publisher | Berghahn Books (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.3167/jla.2018.020201 |
| OpenAlex | W2929821266 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 7 |
The forum in this issue, reflecting on the problematics of the relationship between anthropology and law, as a timely focus is also indicative of how these debates revolve around disciplinary and cross-disciplinary issues. That such co-presence of anthropology and law, incorporating research in informal and formal settings, various kinds of collaboration and, in some instances, sceptical views about its value, continues to merit close attention also signals how views of differences animate a well-populated and extended field. The concerns are often articulated around an epistemic divide between anthropology and law, and allow for questioning both within and across disciplinary areas, even as much is made of the richness of an ethnographic approach to law alongside other methods and analyses, as indicated. Lawrence Rosen, in his response to the commentators in the forum, notes ‘our special area of interest is actually a great doorway into many key issues for both disciplines’, as he identifies the spaces where it is incumbent for anthropologists to act to address these cross-disciplinary challenges
Action (physics · Cross disciplinary · Data science · Discipline · Epistemology · Ethnography · Field (mathematics · Focus (optics · Skepticism · Social science · Sociology · Value (mathematics · Anthropology · Computer Science · Law in Society and Culture · Philosophy
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |