AMERICAN TRIAL COURTS ARE FACED WITH TWO MAJOR PROBLEMS: RATIONALLY ALLOCATING RESOURCES TO DEAL WITH THE EXPANDING SCOPE OF LITIGATION; AND IMPROVING THE INTERNAL OPERATIONS OF THE COURTS. SYSTEMATIC, EMPIRICAL STUDY OF TRIAL COURTS BY SOCIAL SCIENTISTS IS RELATIVELY RECENT. SUCH RESEARCH HAS TENDED TO FOCUS ON DECISIONS RATHER THAN OPERATIONS. IF SOCIAL SCIENCE IS TO REEXAMINE THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF TRIAL COURTS, THEIR SOCIAL ROLE, AND THE DYNAMICS OF THEIR INSTITUTIONAL LIFE, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS ARE NEEDED TO IDENTIFY SALIENT RESEARCH ISSUES AND TO DELINEATE RESEARCH PRIORITIES. TWO SUCH FRAMEWORKS ARE EXPLICIT IN EXISTING TRIAL COURT RESEARCH: THE FUNCTIONALIST APPROACH, WHICH SEEKS TO IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES AMONG COURTS AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS ASSUMED TO PERFORM SIMILAR FUNCTIONS; AND THE ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACH, WHICH CONCENTRATES ON INTERNAL PROCESSES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COURTS AS ORGANIZATIONS. THESE TWO FRAMEWORKS POINT IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. THE FUNCTIONALIST APPROACH EMPHASIZES RESEARCH ON THE RELATION OF COURTS AND OTHER DISPUTE-PROCESSING INSTITUTIONS. THE ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACH INDICATES A NEED FOR INQUIRY INSIDE THE COURTS THEMSELVES. EACH APPROACH COMPLEMENTS THE OTHER; EACH REQUIRES A VARIETY OF RESEARCH TECHNIQUES. THERE IS A NEED TO STUDY TRIAL COURTS IN A HOLISTIC MANNER, TO GAIN AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF THE COURTS, AND TO DEVISE STRATEGIES FOR APPLYING RESEARCH TO DAY-TO-DAY PROBLEMS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)