Fresh from a seminar @BristolUniLaw, with @thebigbogg and @MichaelFordQC on the changing role of legal academics; very much based on recent twitter exchanges with @SpinningHugo and many others. Thanks to all those who were able to make it. 1/
Among the threads which prompted the event were and ; and more today too... 2/
What did we find? Just some thoughts. First, legal academics are concerned both with 'legal'/'internal' arguments, based on rationality, fit, logic, coherence, etc; and with 'external'/'critical' arguments, drawing explicitly on 'extra-legal' norms. 3/
My view is that both are valuable; but that legal academics could and should do a better job of distinguishing between, and enabling our students to distinguish between, arguments of various sorts. 4/
We found that academics are perhaps less likely than they used to be to engage in fully-fledged doctrinal analysis of the law, collating and systematising the positive law; and creating and criticising the taxonomies lawyers rely upon. 5/
Why? For a number of reasons: academics now tend to have PhDs, and social science research expertise. They tend not to be practitioners, and may not have close links with legal practice. The REF rewards critical and interdisciplinary work. 6/
At the same time, judges have less time and inclination to read academic work. Submissions need to be brief (excuse the pun). 'Theory' is often inaccessible and remote. 7/
But... it is possible to influence the Courts. In UNISON, social research on the impact of tribunal fees was used by the Sup Ct. And @thebigbogg is justified proud of the impact his work is having; eg in Hounga. 8/
All in all, a very interesting discussion. It is certainly provoking me to think more about the evolving role of legal academics, and the different way in which we need to speak in order to be heard by the various audiences we may be seeking to engage with. 9/9
