Out of time? Going back to the Cotterrell–Nelken debate

These brief comments revisit my side of the argument in the so-called Cotterell–Nelken debate in the light of responses from two younger scholars. I suggest that the debate presupposed a considerable level of shared commitment to studying sociology's relationship to law, together with some disagreement about what was required for sociology of law to be truly reflexive about the limits of its own intellectual resources.

Amongst the valuable points made by the commentators on our debate is the idea that Cotterell's concern was more to understand the role of the various participants who make and use law, whereas Nelken was more interested in exploring how discourses reproduce themselves. Going forward, I suggest that there is considerable scope for bringing these concerns together through empirical research into the various ways legal institutors and procedures embrace or reject ‘scientific’ forms of expertise, including those generated by the social sciences.