In this paper, we argue that novels, mysteries and nonfiction books can provide undergraduate students with an accessible and exciting place to explore sociological concepts. Using storytelling as a pedagogical tool, we teach students key theoretical ideas by analyzing the books in their specific sociocultural contexts. First, we put forward three different strategies for using nontraditional readings in the classroom. We then present standardized assessment data to measure how well these strategies helped to meet our student learning goals: increasing engagement, enhancing conceptual understanding and improving analytic ability. We also discuss what we consider to be the pedagogical costs and benefits of using these approaches in the classroom.

An ethnographic study of four Midwest mental health courts was focused on how case managers influence the judicial response to offender noncompliance. Mental health courts, which bear little resemblance to traditional work group models, are staffed by teams of legal and social service professionals working collaboratively toward reducing recidivism and community reintegration for high‐risk offenders. Few studies, however, have explored how treatment providers practice their trade in this new court organization. I investigate how case management professionals, working at the intersections of the social welfare and criminal justice systems, leverage courtroom decision making that results in greater leniency or enhanced punishment. The findings suggest that mental‐health‐court case managers act as boundary spanners in terms of their strategic use of resources to facilitate treatment goals. I conclude that case managers act as “double agents” challenging the state to advocate for clemency while enforcing client rules to uphold the integrity of the court.

In this article, the author presents three fieldwork strategies for managing role conflict in criminal justice settings. One of the most critical issues for ethnographers immersed in fieldwork is balancing the tension between the researcher and participant-observation roles. Ethnographers in criminal justice settings as well as other types of street-level bureaucracies are commonly confronted with dilemmas involving physical risk, highly sensitive data, marginalized clientele, and the exploitive use of power and domination by institutional gatekeepers. Researchers venturing into challenging fieldwork settings, such as criminal justice environments, must be highly attuned to the constraints and opportunities for collecting data. The author argues that these strategies can augment ethnographers' "data collection toolkit" to better address fieldwork problems. In addition, deploying these strategies can help to reveal unforeseen findings in the study.

Problem-solving courts (PSCs) are a popular and fast-growing alternative to the usual way of handling criminal cases. In place of the adversarial process, they provide court-supervised treatment to certain groups of offenders by addressing the underlying causes of criminal behavior. They take on a variety of forms including drug courts, mental health courts, domestic violence courts, veterans' courts, and homeless courts. PSCs, as relatively new innovations in the criminal justice system, are still evolving in scope and in practice. This article then attempts to synthesize what we know about these specialty dockets. To do so, this article (1) explores the origins and developments of PSCs as well as highlights their defining characteristics; (2) examines the theoretical approaches and empirical findings of contemporary research on problem-solving courts; (3) critically discusses whether this new approach to old problems compromises core judicial principles; and (4) suggests directions for further research to better understand the cautionary promise of problem-solving justice.

Mental health courts (MHCs) offer community‐based treatment in lieu of criminal prosecution for chronic offenders with psychiatric disabilities, and MHC judges enjoy expanded powers to achieve the court's objectives. Because scholars know little about how judges transition into a new occupational role in the problem‐solving courtroom, this ethnographic study of four MHCs in the United States focuses on how judges learn to orchestrate their responses to treatment noncompliance in this novel court setting. The goal of this article is to examine the professionalization of MHC judges and the emergent craft of therapeutic adjudication. To achieve this goal, I investigate judicial strategies for motivating, questioning, and defending participants accused of wrongdoing. I conclude that the art and practice of problem‐solving justice requires judges to rise to the larger institutional challenges embedded in the alternative courtroom, a process I call the politics of benchcraft.