« Ballparks as public spaces and free speech | Main | The new abortion laws and judicial departmentalism (Updated) »

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Goldilocks and the Future of Legal Scholarship - Symposium Issue

Last semester, Loyola Chicago held an excellent conference on the big question of "The Future of Legal Scholarship". The symposium issue of the journal is now available and includes articles by the anonymous illustrious Law Prof co-authored with Darren Bush, LAW REVIEWS, CITATION COUNTS, and TWITTER (Oh my!): Behind the Curtains of the Law Professor’s Search for Meaning;Caprice Roberts on Unpopular Opinions on Legal Scholarship; The Law Review Follies by Eric J. Segall; Picking Spinach by Anthony Michael Kreis, and finally, my article:The Goldilocks Paths of Legal Scholarship in a Digital Networked World.


My piece is short and concerns the challenge of balancing traditional academic writing with more popular, shorter, digital, broader audience writing. Here is the abstract, and you can download the full paper here, and as always, happy to hear your thoughts:

Traditional legal scholarship often comes under fire. Commentators lament that law review articles are too long, too stuffy, too heavily footnoted—just “too traditional.” Legal scholars have responded by seeking out less traditional avenues of publication such as online blogs, social media, and op-eds. These also come with attendant risk—lack of nuance, lack of depth, and assertions outside one’s area of expertise. In this article, written for a symposium on the future of legal scholarship, I propose the “Goldilocks Path” of scholarship as an optimal method of spreading knowledge and ideas. This Goldilocks Path lies in a balance between producing traditional and nontraditional pieces. Doing so engages academics and broadens their audience, allowing for more diverse readership, an opportunity to obtain early critique of theories, and a chance for scholarship to create a stronger impact. Walking the multi-outlet path, where the non-traditional enhances the traditional, can facilitate a more meaningful dialogue within the legal community and with the public at large.

Posted by Orly Lobel on May 15, 2019 at 03:04 PM | Permalink


It's just right, Orly! ;-)

Posted by: Marty Lederman | May 15, 2019 5:58:52 PM

By the way Orly,you may find great interest in that link( Jurist)and links therein,bearing the title:

"Labor Board says Uber drivers are contractors, not employees"



Posted by: El roam | May 15, 2019 4:51:24 PM

Interesting, but really problematic. If as claimed, a scholar can reach greater audience by electronic means, surly it is efficient. But it is only the technical aspect of sort of marketing. The real and substantial issue, is not that. Even law review articles, are far from being comprehensive. They offer indeed, deeper and more sophisticated insights on one narrow issue typically ( vertical analysis ). But all this, has little to do with the law effectively so. For, effectively, the law is formed by cases. Mostly in courts, and in other situations in life. It is about prevailing a case, one given concrete case. In order to solve a case, one needs such integral capacity and knowledge ( multi fields, procedure, litigation and so forth...) that whatsoever, it is doomed. Prevailing a case, means many times, that the side issues, shall prevail in fact, and dictate what is the law reigning the land. The law otherwise is meaningless. Words and no more ( without having a case ).

You shall not steal the property of the other. That is good. But it is meaningless, just hanged in the air,until a case is formed. And when a case is formed,one will have to deal with Bitcoin for example :

Is it a coin? Is it an asset ? Can one steal it ? Has to do with digital fraud, or, actually like stealing money from convenient store ? Is is legal coin if it is a coin ? And what about territorial jurisdiction ? Is it an offense here, there, abroad, all around ? All this without touching hell of procedure and litigation issues: Admissibility, statutory limitation, temporary injunction, you name it.

So, whatsoever, we are all doomed, and stay dependent on lawyers and judges and the system. There is no other way simply.And all, just for the sake of understanding even.


Posted by: El roam | May 15, 2019 4:25:36 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.