Thread by @Dr_Joe_McIntyre

I look forward to hearing @AmeliaLoughland response to this - what a great thing for the work of young graduate to invite such a detailed response from leaders in empirical judicial studies t

This type of scholarship is still new in Australia, and we are still probing out the uses and limits of it. However, like all legal scholarship it should be discursive. The debate is enriched by disagreement and counter analysis

There appear to be methodological differences between the two studies- though this needs to be unpacked. It seems that most of the concern with loughland piece is that the sample was unrepresentative and that propositions went beyond the data.

In both of these critiques though we need to bear in mind the limited ambition of the original piece. Loughland was not trying to be definitive, and if the claims went too far that is (as @jeremy_gans points out) more a concern for the @MelbULRev review process

The methodological complexity brought to bear in the latter part of the new article demonstrates the skill set that political science can bring to this type of analysis.

This is beyond the ken of most judicial scholars in Australia - not least because this form of research is in its infancy in this country. @zeerobs is doing so great work building the tools to make this easier for all.