Because the term stalking has been applied to such a diverse range of behaviors and situations, there have been gaps and ambiguities in both the language and enforcement of legislative efforts to criminalize stalking. Empirical research has suffered from the lack of a more thorough understanding of this phenomenon as researchers rely on varying definitions, ad hoc measurement instruments, and different conceptualizations. Emerging lines of inquiry that hold promise for providing a solid base of empiricism to support legal and clinical stalking interventions are showcased in this special issue. The first thread of research in stalking involved erotomania, which was attributed to individuals in many of the most widely publicized early stalking cases. The second area of research with significant relevance to understanding stalking emerged from the domestic violence literature as victims and their advocates became aware of the potentially lethal consequences of attempting to terminate a violent relationship. Despite years of clinical attention focused on erotomania and domestic violence, an early precursor to what would now be considered a stalking study emerged out of the interpersonal relationship literature. Many of the studies to date are not hypothesis driven. One gap in the literature is the gap between the research knowledge and criminal justice practice. In a review of violence risk factor studies, meta-analytic techniques are used to examine correlates of stalking-related violence in the small sample of relevant studies to date. An analysis of typical versus atypical behaviors is presented, along with information on the development of an instrument for measuring intrusive contact. False reporting of stalking is addressed in a study of two large samples of victim reports. Two studies are discussed that examined a number of rater and situational variables that might influence judgments about whether the behavior constituted stalking. Cross-cultural literature on stalking is examined by comparing and contrasting responses from a United Kingdom sample and a sample from Trinidad. 5 references