Among the diverse approaches to comparison in socio-legal studies, those that employ qualitative research, richness of detail and attention to context are the focus of this special issue. The Introduction draws on comparative law and social science literature to argue that comparison amongst studies of laws in contexts can follow different trajectories: the comparison may start from an assumption of similarity – in form, purposes or context – in order to identify significant differences; or it may identify significant similarity across social and cultural divides. What unites many of the projects of comparison undertaken by qualitative empirical researchers is that the points of relevant comparison are identified within the complexity of the empirical studies at hand; and they are allowed to emerge, or change, as the researcher comes to understand the facts and issues more deeply.

This paper distinguishes three ideal-type contexts in which comparisons are used: comparison as a contribution to disciplinary enquiry, as part of deliberately trying to learn lessons and as an essential element of a new form of governmentality concerned with ranking places in terms of social indicators. After offering examples of the way comparisons are employed (and criticised) in each of these exercises, the paper ends by discussing the overlap and feedback between them.

This paper examines the idea of a common European legal culture by exploring its foundational component, ‘collective legal consciousness’, in three EU states: the UK, Poland and Bulgaria. Using a comparative research design and a variety of methods of data collection, it suggests that, underneath the thin layer of EU consensus, there are some fundamental differences in perceptions of law. The evidence shows that legal ideas are infused with perceptions of the political system. This finding suggests that the creation of a shared European legal culture depends on the prior formation of a common transnational polity right across the EU, together with a sense of political identity and of trust in the legitimacy of the European political authorities. The paper also demonstrates the multilayered character of collective legal consciousness, allowing different images of law to co-exist, underpinned by the perception of the source with which each image is associated.

This paper examines the potential use and limits of Zweigert and Kötz's classical functional approach in comparative law for an empirical socio-legal research project. The project involves a comparison of the formal labour laws and informal norms and institutions which regulate restaurant work in the cities of Melbourne, Australia, and Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The paper argues that the functional approach is a necessary but incomplete method for overcoming the many issues of comparability between the two research sites; the method requires both extension of its analytical steps and explicit explanation of its limitations.

This paper looks at expectations people have of informal justice mechanisms through a rich empirical dataset of 2,775 recent ombudsman users in Germany and the UK. In a cross-cultural comparison, the ombudsman as a model of justice is explored. Not much is known about people's expectations of the ombudsman model; this paper starts to fill the gap. Four roles became apparent in cross-cultural narratives in the dataset: people who interact with ombudsmen expect them to be interpreters, advocates, allies and instruments. The identified roles are largely common to both countries, but in some aspects they show national specificities. These national specificities are seen mainly in the use of language; in Germany, it is more legalistic in comparison to the UK. I argue that this might be related to what has been described as the general legal culture of each country and the institutional set-up.

Through an ethnographic study of the immigration law system in Russia, and interviews with legal professionals and Central Asian migrants themselves, this paper asks: What are the lived experiences of the highly complex, though ambiguous immigration law regime of Russia? According to what ‘rules of the game’ does it operate? Are they specific to Russia only? This paper develops the concept of ‘the spiral effect of the law’ to capture the image of law, as formed through people's experiences of the legal system. Drawing on the comparative tool of analogy, this paper suggests that ‘the spiral effect of the law’ is perhaps not that different from the observable effects of immigration law in other major migration-receiving jurisdictions, namely the US, framed as ‘legal violence’ by Cecilia Menjívar and Leisy Abrego (2012).

Since the late nineteenth century, ideas about law, both Albanian and ‘other’, have played significant parts in the development of a sense of ‘Albanian-ness’ and remain central to the ongoing construction of the nation. In this paper, I examine how comparative thinking about ‘Albanian law’ in northern Albania and predominantly Albanian Kosovo has contributed to nation-building aims, with particular reference to comparative thinking around the Kanun of Lekë Dukagjin, an early-twentieth-century legal code rooted in northern-Albanian customary practices. I look at this from two perspectives: comparative thinking by the law-writer in the Kanun and comparative thinking by a contemporaneous writer about the Kanun. Through these perspectives, we gain a more nuanced understanding of the intellectual context of the Kanun’s production than is reflected in the existing literature, and a glimpse of its continued relevance today to ideas of nation.