Thread by @marinklevy

Following up on an insight from the great @joshchafetz (naturally), a quick thread on what I see as one of the blind spots of the legal academy, concerning methodologies… (🧵1/9)

I’ve always started from the position that the primary goal of the legal academy – as with the rest of the academy – is the production of knowledge. If that’s so, then it would seem we should value a number of different methodologies and approaches… (2/9)

It is important that we acquire more information about how the world works from empiricists – both quantitative and qualitative. It’s important to know how the world once worked from legal historians. (3/9)

It’s important to have scholars who can speak to doctrine and how lines of cases fit together. And it’s important to have scholars who can step back and generate “big theory.” (4/9)

Indeed, I would submit that the academy works best when it has at least some scholars in every category & those developing models or theoretical frameworks can rely on info from empiricists & those developing qs to ask about the world can be informed by those focused on doctrine

Because of this, I have been puzzled by the apparent focus within legal academia on those who can do “big theory” – and the frowning upon those who do “merely” descriptive work or doctrine-focused work (“case crunchers”). (6/9)

As best as I can understand it, one's ability to do “big theory” is seen as a proxy for raw intellectual horsepower, with the thought that few can do it well, whereas almost anyone can do descriptive or doctrinal work. (7/9)

I am not sure if that is the primary driver (and would very much welcome thoughts from those who have considered these issues before, including @joshchafetz and @OrinKerr - though apologies for cold-calling you two!). (8/9)

But whatever the cause, this preference or even bias, I fear, is something of a blind spot for the academy and, I would argue, negatively impacts what – and who – we prize. (Fin)

(P.T. or "Post Tweet" - I will now go back to my regularly-scheduled tweeting about Judicial Administration, how I am running for Senate (ironically, with @scottjshapiro & @jonahgelbach), how I love the Lizzie (with @CharlesFinch), and how I love Gilmore Girls (with @joshchafetz)