Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Papers

No. 1 (2025)

Researching legal geography: some methodological coordinates

  • Francesco Chiodelli
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/rgioa1-2025oa19487
Submitted
febbraio 25, 2025
Published
2025-04-14

Abstract

Legal geography has certain methodological peculiarities that make it useful to provide geographers with a ‘methodological compass’ to guide them in their legal-geographical explorations. After identifying the main force fields acting in legal geography, the article discusses the most appropriate research methods for each of these fields. These methods are seen as the outcome of a twofold shift away from the ordinary research techniques of human geography: adaptation and appropriation. Within this framework, a number of variations and deviations on specific themes and approaches are possible, as it is illustrated through the analysis of legal-geographical research on illegal phenomena.

References

  1. Anderson B., Ruhs M. (2010). Researching illegality and labour migration. Population, space and place, 16(3): 175-179. DOI: 10.1002/psp.594.
  2. Andreas P., Greenhill K.M. (2011). The numbers in Politics. In: Andreas P., Greenhill, K., a cura di, Sex, drugs, and body counts: The politics of numbers in global crime and conflict. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. DOI: 10.7591/9780801458309.
  3. Asoni E. (2022). Away from the border and into the frontier: The paradoxical geographies of US immigration law. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 40(4): 744-760. DOI: 10.1177/02637758221110575.
  4. Asoni E. (2024). Spazio, diritto e la loro relazione: percorso e confini della legal geography. Rivista Geografica Italiana, 131(1): 5-22. DOI: 10.3280/rgioa1-2024oa17374.
  5. Banakar R. (2014). Normativity in Legal Sociology. Methodological Reflections on Law and Regulation in Late Modernity. Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-09650-6.
  6. Baude W., Chilton A.S., Malani A. (2017). Making Doctrinal Work More Rigorous: Lessons from Systematic Reviews. The University of Chicago Law Review, 84: 37-58.
  7. Best J. (2001). Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. DOI: 10.1525/9780520953512.
  8. Blomley N. (1989). Text and Context: Rethinking the Law-Space Nexus. Progress in Human Geography, 13(4): 512-534. DOI: 10.1177/030913258901300403.
  9. Braverman I. (2014) Who’s afraid of methodology? Advocating a methodological turn in legal geography. Advocating a Methodological Turn in Legal Geography.
  10. In: Braverman I., Blomley N., Delaney D., Kedar A., a cura di, The Expanding Spaces of Law: A Timely Legal Geography. Stanford: Stanford University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9780804791878.
  11. Campana P., Varese F. (2012). Listening to the wire: criteria and techniques for the quantitative analysis of phone intercepts. Trends in organized crime, 15(1): 13-30. DOI: 10.1007/s12117-011-9131-3.
  12. Campesi G. (2021). Geografia giuridica dei confini. Sociologia del Diritto, 3: 15-42. DOI: 10.3280/sd2021-003002.
  13. Chiodelli F. (2023). Cemento armato. La politica dell’ illegalità nelle città italiane. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
  14. Chiodelli F., Coppola A., Belotti E, Berruti G., Clough Marinaro I., Curci F., Zanfi F. (2021). The production of informal space: A critical atlas of housing informalities in Italy between public institutions and political strategies. Progress in Planning, 149: 100495. DOI: 10.1016/j.progress.2020.100495.
  15. Chui, W.H. (2007). Quantitative Legal Research. In: McConville M., Chui W.H., a cura di, Research Methods for Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9781474404259.
  16. de Sousa Santos, B. (1987). Law: A Map of Misreading. Toward a Postmodern Conception of Law. Journal of Law and Society, 14(3): 279-302. DOI: 10.2307/1410186.
  17. Delaney D. (2010). The spatial, the legal and the pragmatics of world-making: Nomospheric investigations. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203849101.
  18. Desmond M. (2004). Methodological Challenges Posed in Studying an Elite in the Field. Area, 36(3): 262-269. DOI: 10.1111/j.0004-0894.2004.00223.x.
  19. Dobinson I., Johns F. (2007). Qualitative Legal Research. In: McConville M., Hong Chui W., a cura di, Research Methods for Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9781474404259-005.
  20. Drisko J.W., Maschi T. (2016). Content Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190215491.001.0001.
  21. Düvell F., Triandafyllidou A., Vollmer B. (2010). Ethical issues in irregular migration research in Europe. Population, Space and Place, 16(3): 227-239. DOI: 10.1002/psp.590.
  22. Ewick P., Silbey S.S. (1998). The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226212708.001.0001.
  23. Fairclough N. (1992). Discourse and social change Cambridge: Polity Press. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500017309.
  24. Fairclough N. (2013). Language and Power. Abingdon, Oxon & New York: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315838250.
  25. Ferrari V. (1997). Lineamenti di sociologia del diritto. Azione giuridica e sistema normativo. Bari: Laterza.
  26. Ferrell J., Hamm M.S., a cura di (2016). Ethnography at the edge: Crime, deviance, and field research. Boston: Northeastern University Press. DOI: 10.1093/bjc/41.1.210.
  27. Gains F. (2011). Elite Ethnographies: Potential, Pitfalls and Prospects for Getting ‘Up Close and Personal’. Public Administration, 89(1): 156-166. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01912.x.
  28. Giubilaro C., Mauri D., Picone M., Sardo M., Starita M. (2024). Al crocevia fra geografia e diritto. Un progetto di ricerca interdisciplinare su legal geographies e cambiamento climatico. Rivista Geografica Italiana, 113(4): 71-79. DOI: 10.3280/rgioa3-2024oa18437.
  29. Gorman C.S. (2017). Redefining refugees: Interpretive control and the bordering work of legal categorization in U.S. Asylum Law. Political Geography, 58: 36-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.12.006.
  30. Griffiths A. (2005). Using Ethnography as a Tool in Legal Research: An Anthropological Perspective. In: Banakar R., Travers M., a cura di, Theory and Method in Socio-Legal Research. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
  31. Hall M., Wright R. (2008). Systematic Content Analysis of Judicial Decisions. California Law Review, 96(1): 63-122.
  32. Hanretty C. (2012). The Decisions and Ideal Points of British Law Lords. British Journal of Political Science, 43(3): 703-716. DOI: 10.1017/s0007123412000270.
  33. Hobbs D., Antonopoulos G.A. (2014). How to research organized crime. In: Paoli I., a cura di, The Oxford handbook of organized crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199730445.001.0001.
  34. Hutchinson T. (2002). Researching and Writing in Law. Sidney: Thomas Lawbook Co.
  35. Ingrascì O. (2018). Le fonti giudiziarie nello studio delle mafie. Riflessioni per un dibattito. Rivista di studi e ricerche sulla criminalità organizzata, 4(4): 28-40. DOI: 10.13130/cross-11273.
  36. Johnston R., Harris R., Jones K., Manley D., Wang W.W., Wolf,L. (2019). Quantitative Methods I: The World We Have Lost – or Where We Started From. Progress in Human Geography, 43(6): 1133-1142. DOI: 10.1177/0309132518774967.
  37. Johnston R., Harris R., Jones K., Manley D., Wang W.W., Wolf L. (2020). Quantitative Methods II: How We Moved On–Decades of Change in Philosophy, Focus and Methods. Progress in Human Geography, 44(5): 959-971. DOI: 10.1177/0309132519869451.
  38. Kellehear A. (1993). The unobtrusive researcher: A guide to methods. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin. DOI: 10.4324/9781003137344.
  39. Khosravi S. (2010). ‘Illegal’ traveller: an auto-ethnography of borders. London: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI: 10.1057/9780230281325.
  40. Kirkham R., O’Loughlin E.A. (2019). A Content Analysis of Judicial Decision-Making. In: Creutzfeldt N., Mason M., McConnachie K., a cura di, Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Theory and Methods. Abingdon, Oxon & New York: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780429952814-24.
  41. Kitchin R. (2006). Positivistic Geographies and Spatial Science. In: Aitken S., Valentine G., a cura di, Approaches to Human Geography. London: Sage. DOI: 10.4135/9781446215432.
  42. Layard, A. (2015). Freedom of expression and spatial (imaginations of) justice. In: Kochenov D., de Burca G., a cura di, Europe’s justice deficit? Oxford: Hart Publishing. DOI: 10.5040/9781474201193.
  43. Layard A. (2019). Reading Law Spatially. In: Creutzfeldt N., Mason M., McConnachie K., a cura di, Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Theory and Methods. Abingdon, Oxon & New York: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780429952814-17.
  44. Lillie K., Ayling P. (2021). Revisiting the Un/Ethical: The Complex Ethics of Elite Studies Research. Qualitative Research, 21(6): 890-905. DOI: 10.1177/1468794120965361.
  45. Mantovan C. (2022). Dalla law in books alla law in action: i processi di implementazione delle norme. In: Altopiedi R., De Felice D., Ferraris V., a cura di, Comprendere la sociologia del diritto. Roma: Carocci.
  46. Marsh, B. (2019). The Logic of Violence: An Ethnography of Dublin’s Illegal Drug Trade. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780429424311.
  47. Nelken, D. (1984). Law in Action or Living Law? Back to the Beginning in Sociology of Law. Legal Studies, 4(2): 157-174. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-121x.1984.tb00439.x.
  48. Nicolini M. (2022). Legal Geography: Comparative Law and the Production of Space. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-19410-8.
  49. Orzeck R., Hae L. (2020). Restructuring Legal Geography. Progress in Human Geography, 44(5): 832-851. DOI: 10.1177/0309132519848637.
  50. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos A. (2019). To Have To Do With the Law. An Essay. In: Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos A., a cura di, Routledge Handbook of Law and Theory.
  51. Abingdon, Oxon & New York: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315665733-24.
  52. Piquero A.R., Weisburd D., a cura di (2010). Handbook of quantitative criminology. New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-77650-7.
  53. Poncibò C. (2021). Geografia del diritto. Un’ introduzione. Torino: Giappichelli.
  54. Pound R. (1910). Law in Books and Law in Action. American Law Review, 44: 12-36.
  55. Rhodes R., Noordegraaf M., a cura di (2007). Observing Government Elites: Up Close and Personal. Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1057/9780230592360.
  56. Santoire E., Desroche J., Garcier R.J. (2020). Quelles méthodes d’enquête pour les recherches géo-légales? Retour d’expérience à partir de la mise en concurrence des concessions hydroélectriques en France. Annales de Géographie, 733-734: 228-249. DOI: 10.3917/ag.733.0228.
  57. Sarat A., Kearns T.R. (1995). Beyond the Great Divide: Forms of Legal Scholarship and Everyday Life. In: Sarat A., Kearns T.R., a cura di, Law in Everyday Life. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. DOI: 10.3998/mpub.23345.
  58. Sciarrone R. (2009). Vecchie e nuove mafie. Radicamento ed espansione. Roma: Donzelli.
  59. Sciarrone R. (2022). Fare ricerca sulle mafie. In: Ingrascì O., Massari M., a cura di, Come si studiano le mafie? La ricerca qualitativa, le fonti, i percorsi. Roma: Donzelli.
  60. Sisk G.C. (2007). The Quantitative Moment and the Qualitative Opportunity: Legal Studies of Judicial Decision Making. Cornell Law Review, 93: 873-900.
  61. Smith K.E. (2006). Problematising Power Relations in ‘Elite’ Interviews. Geoforum, 37(4): 643-653. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.11.002.
  62. Tilley N., Farrell G., Tseloni A. (2018). Doing Quantitative Data Analysis in Criminological Research. In: Davies P., Francis P., a cura di, Doing Criminological Research. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4135/9780857024404.
  63. Treves R. (1987). Sociologia del diritto. Origini, ricerche e problemi. Torino: Einaudi.
  64. Vick, D.W. (2004). Interdisciplinarity and the Discipline of Law. Journal of Law and Society, 31(2): 163-193. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6478.2004.00286.x.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...