AbbottAndrew. 2007. “Notes on Replication.” Sociological Methods & Research36:210-219.
2.
American Sociological Association. 2011a. “Action of the 2010-2011 American Sociological Association Council on Preparing an Amicus Curiae Brief on Walt- Mart v. Dukes et al. by Unanimous Email Vote of Those Responding.” Retrieved July 31, 2011 (http://www.asanet.org/images/asa/docs/pdf/January_27_2011_Council_Minutes.pdf).
BergBruce L.2008. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
BielbyWilliam T.BielbyDenise D.1992. “Cumulative Versus Continuous Disadvantage in an Unstructured Labor Market : Gender Differences in the Careers of Television Writers.” Work and Occupations19:366.
BersoffDonald N.1987. “Social Science Data and the Supreme Court: Lockhart as a Case in Point.” American Psychologist42:52-8.
8.
CreswellJohn W.2006. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
DixonLloydGillBrian. 2002. “Changes in the Standards of Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases aince the Daubert Decision.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law8:251-308.
10.
DonohueJohn J.1992. “Advocacy Versus Analysis in Assessing Employment Discrimination Law.” Stanford Law Review44:1583-614.
11.
DonohueJohn J.SiegelmanPeter. 1991. “The Changing Nature of Employment Discrimination Litigation.” Stanford Law Review43:983-1033.
12.
EdelmanLauren B.UggenChristopherErlangerHoward S.1999. “The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation: Grievance Procedures as Rational Myth.” American Journal of Sociology105:406-54.
13.
FiskeSusan T.BorgidaEugene. 2008. “Providing Expert Knowledge in an Adversarial Context: Social Cognitive Science in Employment Discrimination Cases.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science4:123-48.
14.
FreeseJeremy. 2007. “Replication Standards for Quantitative Social Science: Why Not Sociology?” Sociological Methods & Research36:153-72.
15.
GatowskiSophiaDobbinS. A.RichardsonJ. T.GinsburgG. P.MerlinoM. L.DahirV.2001. “Asking the Gatekeepers: A National Survey of Judges on Judging Expert Evidence in a Post-Daubert World.” Law & Human Behavior25:433-58.
16.
GlaserBarney G.StraussAnselm L.1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
17.
GordonRandall A.1987. “Social Desirability Bias: A Demonstration and Technique for Its Reduction.” Teaching of Psychology14:40-2.
18.
HartMelissaSecundaPaul M.2009. “A Matter of Context: Social Framework Evidence in Employment Discrimination Class Actions.” Fordham Law Review78:37-70.
19.
KalevAlexandraDobbinFrankKellyErin. 2006. “Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies.” American Sociological Review71:581-617.
20.
KrafkaCarolDunnMeghan A.JohnsonMolly TreadwayCecilJoe S.MiletichDean. 2002. “Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices, and Concerns Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law8:309-32.
21.
LoflandJohnLoflandLyn H.1994. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadworth Publishing
22.
MitchellGregoryMonahanJohnWalkerLaurens. 2011. “The ASA’s Missed Opportunity to Promote Sound Science in Court.” Sociological Methods & Research40:605-20.
23.
NederhofAnton J.1985. “Methods of Coping with Social Desirability Bias.” European Journal of Social Psychology15:263-80.
24.
NelsonRobert L.BridgesWilliam P.1999. Legalizing Gender Inequality: Courts, Markets, and Unequal Pay for Women. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
NielsenLaura BethMyrickAmyWeinbergJill D.2011. “Siding with Science: In Defense of ASA’s Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Amicus Brief.” Sociological Methods and Research, 40:646-67.
26.
NielsenLaura BethNelsonRobert L.LancasterRyon. 2010. “Individual Justice or Collective Legal Mobilization?: Employment Discrimination Litigation in the Post-Civil Rights United States.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies7:175-201.
27.
PagerDevahQuillianLincoln. 2005. “Walking the Talk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do.” American Sociological Review70:355-80.
28.
PattonMichael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
RandallDonna M.FernandesMaria F.1991. “The Social Desirability Response Bias in Ethics Research.” Journal Business Ethics10:805-17.
30.
ReskinBarbara F.McBrierDebra B.KmecJulie A.1999. “The Determinants and Consequences of Workplace Race and Sex Composition.” Annual Review of Sociology25:335-61.
31.
RoeschRonaldGoldingStephen L.HansValerie P.ReppucciN. Dickon. 1991. “Social Science and the Courts: The Role of Amicus Curiae Briefs.” Law and Human Behavior15:1-11.
32.
RothLouise Marie. 2006. Selling Women Short: Gender and Money on Wall Street. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
33.
SandersJosephDiamondShari S.VidmarNeil. 2002. “Legal Perceptions of Science and Expert Knowledge.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law8:139-53.
34.
SchultzVicki. 1990. “Telling Stories about Women and Work: Judicial Interpretations of Sex Segregation in the Workplace in Title VII Cases Raising the Lack of Interest Argument.” Harvard Law Review103:1749-843.
35.
SchultzVickiPettersenStephen. 1992. “Race, Gender, Work, and Choice: An Empirical Study of the Lack of Interest Defense in Title VII Cases Challenging Job Segregation.” University of Chicago Law Review59:1073-181.
36.
SørensenJesper B.SharkeyAmanda J.2011. “The Perils of False Certainty: A Comment on the ASA Amicus Brief in Dukes vs. Wal-Mart.” Sociological Methods & Research40:635-45.
37.
WalkerLaurensMonahanJohn. 1987. “Social Frameworks: A New Use of Social Science in Law.” Virginia Law Review73:559-98.
WeisbergRobert. 2005. “The Death Penalty Meets Social Science: Deterrence and Jury Behavior under New Scrutiny.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science1:151-70.
40.
YudofMark G.1978. “School Desegregation: Legal Realism, Reasoned Elaboration, and Social Science Research in the Supreme Court.” Law and Contemporary Problems57-110.