Here’s the abstract for Jeffrey J. Rachlinski’s The Politics of Legal Empirics: Do Political Attitudes Predict the Results of Empirical Legal Scholarship? (2018): “Empirical legal scholarship has emerged as a dominant trend in legal scholarship. At its best, empirical scholarship subjects assertions about the effect of legal rules to a neutral test. But is empirical inquiry truly neutral? The validity of an empirical study should rest on the reliability of the methods used, rather than the political implications of its conclusions. Scholars might choose targets of inquiry, sources of data, or methods of analysis that support their political allegiances. This paper tests this thesis by matching the political beliefs of authors of empirical legal scholarship with the results of their research. The political allegiances of authors mildly correlate with the results of empirical inquiry in legal scholarship.” — Joe
- Tech Advances Cause BigLaw Firm to Offer Buyout to All Legal Secretaries
- The Seven Patterns of AI
- Does Peer Review or Bibliometrics Better Predict Scholarly Impact?
- Maintaining Scholarly Integrity in the Age of Bibliometrics
- Gorsuch’s A Republic, If You Can Keep It
- Are Concurring Opinions Justifiable?
- First Law Prof Rankings of Citations in Non-Law Journals
- The Rise of the Big Four Accounting Firms Move into Legal Services
- The Judicial Demand for Explainable Artificial Intelligence
- Buying Machine Learning Algorithms
Just in case you don't get it: The views expressed are solely those of the blog post author and should not be attributed to anyone else, meaning they do not necessarily represent the views of any organization that the post author is affiliated with or with the views of any other author who publishes on this blog.
- 226,559 hits