The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming . . .
Abstract
The emergence and transformation of disputes, especially before they enter formal legal institutions, is a neglected topic in the sociology of law. We provide a framework for studying the processes by which unperceived injurious experiences are—or are not—perceived (naming), do or do not become grievances (blaming) and ultimately disputes (claiming), as well as for subsequent transformations. We view each of these stages as subjective, unstable, reactive, complicated, and incomplete. We postulate that transformations between them are caused by, and have consequences for, the parties, their attributions of responsibility, the scope of conflict, the mechanism chosen, the objectives sought, the prevailing ideology, reference groups, representatives and officials, and dispute institutions. We believe the study of transformations is important. Formal litigation and even disputing within unofficial fora account for a tiny fraction of the antecedent events that could mature into disputes. Moreover, what happens at earlier stages determines both the quantity and the contents of the caseload of formal and informal legal institutions. Transformation studies spotlight the issue of conflict levels in American society and permit exploration of the question of whether these levels are too low.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Operating Room: Relational Spaces and Microinstitutional Change in Surgery
Kellogg, K. C. (2009) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/603535 · Cited by 574
Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Härtel, C. E. J. (2008) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496407304921 · Cited by 159
“What He Did Was Lawful”: Divorce Litigation and Gender Inequality inChina
Li, K. (2015) · Law & Policy · doi:10.1111/lapo.12034 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Felstiner, W. L. F., Abel, R. L., & Sarat, A.
- ORCID
- Abel, Richard L.
- Venue
- Law & Society Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1981
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 631-654
- ISSN
- 0023-9216 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5893
- OpenAlex
- W4240855012
- Cited by
- 1,431
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 86 · 2020: 102 · 2019: 100 · 2018: 77 · 2017: 66 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 40
- FWCI
- 32.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Law & Society Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
- Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Keywords
- naming, blame, attribution of responsibility, informal dispute resolution, conflict intensity, sociology of law, reference groups
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review