Way beyond legal research: Understanding the research habits of legal scholars

Law Library Journal

Volumn 102, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 561-579

  Davidson, Stephanie ^a,b  

^a Department of Public Services ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650161002     PISSN: 00239283     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (153)

1. For the law librarian's perspective on the changing nature of legal scholarship, see David A. Hollander, Interdisciplinary Legal Scholarship: What Can We Learn from Princeton's Long-Standing Tradition?, 99 LAW LIBR. J. 771, 2007
2. LAW LIBR. J. 47;
3. Stephanie L. Plotin, Legal Scholarship, Electronic Publishing, and Open Access: Transformation or Steadfast Stagnation?, 101 LAW LIBR. J. 31, 2009
4. LAW LIBR. J. 2.
5. The changing roles of collection development librarians with respect to faculty are discussed in Connie Lenz, Faculty Services in Academic Law Libraries: Emerging Roles for the Collection Development Librarian, 96 LAW LIBR. J. 283,2004
6. LAW LIBR. J. 18. Where circulation, routing, and interlibrary loan data might have provided a clear picture of what faculty used twenty years ago, we now rely on usage statistics spread among many electronic databases. These statistics are not standardized, not consistently available, and generally do not report usage by patron type.
7. Different aspects of faculty services have been addressed in some relatively recent articles. For example, Jane Thompson emphasizes differences between the culture of faculty and librarians, and implications for working with faculty. Jane Thompson, Teaching Research to Faculty: Accommodating Cultural and Learning-Style Differences, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 280 (1996).
8. Sheri Lewis promotes tracking details of individual faculty needs and preferences, responding reactively, and creating proactive services tailored to their needs. Sheri H. Lewis, A Three-Tiered Approach to Faculty Services Librarianship in the Law School Environment, 94 LAW LIBR. J. 89, 2002
9. LAW LIBR. J. 5.
10. See Susan Nissen Lerdal, Evidence-Based Librarianship: Opportunity for Law Librarians?, 98 LAW LIBR. J. 33, 2006
11. LAW LIBR. J. 2
12. (discussing incorporating research into library decision making generally, and the practice of evidence-based librarianship specifically). See also Gaby Haddow & Jane E. Klobás, Communication of Research to Practice in Library and Information Sources: Closing the Gap, 26 LIBR. & INFO. SCI. RES. 29 (2004).
13. Collaboration is one of the themes identified in Richard A. Danner, S. Blair Kauffman & John G. Palfrey, The Twenty-First Century Law Library, 101 LAW LIBR. J. 143, 2009
14. LAW LIBR. J. 9.
15. Understanding the "why" of information behavior represents another avenue for study. Identifying connections between characteristics of scholars and their scholarship on the one hand, and aspects of their research process on the other, may yield some answers to this question.
16. See, e.g., Mareia J. Bates, Learning About the Information Seeking of Interdisciplinary Scholars and Students, 45 LIBR. TRENDS 155 (1996) (examining prior studies and proposing a study of interdisciplinary researchers);
17. Cecelia M. Brown, Information Seeking Behavior of Scientists in the Electronic Information Age: Astronomers, Chemists, Mathematicians, and Physicists, 50 J. AM. SOC'Y INFO. SCI. 929 (1999);
18. Chern Li Liew & Siong Ngor Ng, Beyond the Notes: A Qualitative Study of the InformationSeeking Behavior of Ethnomusicologists, 32 J. ACAD. LIBRARIANSHIP 60 (2006).
19. See Raya Fidel & Maurice Green, The Many Faces of Accessibility: Engineers' Perception of Information Sources, 40 INFO. PROCESSING & MGT. 563 (2004) (utilizing interviews);
20. Judith M. Nixon, How Scholars Work: Panning for Gold in Libraries, 49 REFERENCE & USER SERVICES Q. 231 (2010) (describing panel discussions of scholars asked to describe their research methods);
21. Maxine H. Reneker, A Qualitative Study of Information Seeking Among Members of an Academic Community: Methodological Issues and Problems, 63 LIBR. Q. 487 (1993)
22. (using both quantitative and qualitative analyses). For more on the use of qualitative inquiry to collect and analyze information, see CONSTANCE ANN MELLON, NATURALISTIC INQUIRY FOR LIBRARY SCIENCE 64-66 (1990);
23. STEVEN J. TAYLOR & ROBERT BOGDAN, INTRODUCTION TO QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS (3d ed. 1998).
24. See, e.g., Danner, Kauffman, & Palfrey, supra note 5;
25. Amanda M. Runyon, Trie Effect of Economics and Electronic Resources on the Traditional Law Library Print Collection, 101 LAW LIBR. J. 177, 2009
26. LAW LIBR. J. 11.
27. But see Barbara Bintliff, What Can the Faculty Expect from the Library of the Twenty-First Century?, 96 LAW LIBR. J. 507, 2004
28. LAW LIBR. J. 30.
29. See Steven M. Barkan, Deconstructing Legal Research: A Law Librarian's Commentary on Critical Legal Studies, 79 LAW LIBR. J. 617, 625 (1987) (stating that "[legal research] practices do not lend themselves to empirical measurement");
30. Morris L. Cohen, Research Habits of Lawyers, 9 JURIMETRICS J. 183, 183 (1969) ("we know ... almost nothing about the actual procedures used by lawyers in their search into the law");
31. Richard A. Danner, Contemporary and Future Directions in American Legal Research: Responding to the Threat of the Available, 31 INT'L J. LEGAL INFO. 179, 184 (2003) ("Although librarians and others have long shared the sense that lawyers are less effective researchers than they might be, the published literature on the subject suggests that we actually know very little about how lawyers go about their research.");
32. Judith Lihosit, Research in the Wild: CALR and the Role of Informal Apprenticeship in Attorney Training, 101 LAW LIBR. J. 157,167-70,2009
33. LAW LIBR. J. 10,11 25-32
34. (reviewing previous studies, which she says "tend to focus on students," id. at 167,1 25). AALL made note of this much-needed research, including it prominently in its research agenda: "How do lawyers in various professional settings actually conduct research, how do they use law libraries and librarians, and how do their approaches to research relate to those in other professions?" Am. Ass'n of Law Libraries, AALL Research Agenda §IV(A) (Sept. 10, 2000), http://www .aallnet.org/committee/research/agenda.asp.
35. See, e.g., Robert C. Berring, Legal Information and the Search for Cognitive Authority, 88 CAL. L. REV. 1673 (2000);
36. Barbara Bintliff, From Creativity to Computerese: Thinking Like a Lawyer in the ComputerAge, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 338 (1996);
37. Lee F. Peoples, The Death of the Digest and the Pitfalls of Electronic Research: What Is the Modern Legal Researcher to Do?, 97 LAW LIBR. J. 661,2005
38. LAW LIBR. J. 41.
39. Lihosit, supra note 11, at 167, ¶ 25. Lihosit's own model study of attorneys in San Diego spotlights notable discrepancies between the way legal research is taught to students and the way attorneys actually conduct research: namely, that attorneys report beginning research with a secondary source or consulting with a more experienced colleague, that they rely regularly on a network of colleagues for advice, and that they don't use the West Digest System the way it was taught to them. Id. at 174,1145-46.
40. A recent dissertation reporting on a study of legal scholars and practicing lawyers appears to be a significant step in the right direction, however. Stephann Makri, A Study of Lawyers' Information Behaviour Leading to the Development of Two Methods for Evaluating Electronic Resources (2008) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University College London), available at http:// eprints.ucl.ac.uk/14729/l/14729.pdf.
41. Texts representing the process-centered approach include MARJORIE DICK ROMBAUER, LEGAL PROBLEM SOLVING (5th ed. 1991);
42. CHRISTOPHER G. WREN & JILL ROBINSON WREN, THE LEGAL RESEARCH MANUAL (2d ed. 1986);
43. and the more recent CHRISTINA L. KUNZ ET AL., THE PROCESS OF LEGAL RESEARCH (7th ed. 2008).
44. For a reflection on the game-changing nature of the Wrens' work, see Robert C. (Bob) Berring Jr., Twenty Years On: The Debate Over Legal Research Instruction, 17 PERSPECTIVES: TEACHING LEG. RES. & WRITING 1 (2008);
45. Paul Douglas Callister, Beyond Training: Law Librarianship's Quest for the Pedagogy of Legal Research, 95 LAW LIBR. J. 7,11-19,2003
46. LAW LIBR. J. 1,118-26.
47. Notable texts representing the bibliographic-centered approach are: STEVEN M. BARKAN, ROY M. MERSKY, & DONALD J. DUNN, FUNDAMENTALS OF LEGAL RESEARCH (9th ed. 2009);
48. ROBERT C. BERRING & ELIZABETH A. EDINGER, FINDING THE LAW (12th ed. 2005);
49. MORRIS L. COHEN, ROBERT C. BERRING & KENT C. OLSON, How TO FIND THE LAW (9th ed. 1989).
50. For an interesting comparison of Fundamentals and the other texts, see Steven M. Barkan, On Describing Legal Research, 80 MICH. L. REV. 925 (1982)
51. (reviewing J. MYRON JACOBSTEIN & ROY M. MERSKY, FUNDAMENTALS OF LEGAL RESEARCH (2d ed. 1981)).
52. See, e.g., Paul D. Callister, Time to Blossom: An Inquiry into Bloom's Taxonomy as a Hierarchy and Means for Teaching Legal Research Skills, 102 LAW LIBR. J. 191,2010
53. LAW LIBR. J. 12.
54. For the importance of professional networks to practicing attorneys' research process, see Lihosit, supra note 11, at 172-73, H 39-41.
55. See Kristin Cheney, Marketing Law Libraries: Strategies and Techniques in the Digital Age, LEGAL REFERENCE SERVICES Q., nos. 1/2,2007, at 281;
56. Bret N. Christensen, Livin' la Vida Virtual, AALL SPECTRUM, Mar. 2008, at 12.
57. Thompson, supra note 3.
58. Id. at 282-83.
59. There is limited evidence about faculty perceptions of librarians, and it is not always consistent. See John B. Attanasio, The Research Librarian in the Educational Mission of the Law School, 81 LAW LIBR. J. 143 (1989) (law professor's discussion of the contributions of academic law librarians);
60. Robert M. Jarvis, What Law Professors Will Want from Law Librarians in the Twenty-First Century, 96 LAW LIBR. J. 503, 504, 2004
61. LAW LIBR. J. 29,1 8 (likening librarians to doormen, elevator operators, and travel agents in their impending obsolescence);
62. Susan Westerberg Prager, Law Libraries and the Scholarly Mission, 96 LAW LIBR. J. 513, 516, 2004
63. LAW LIBR. J. 31 1 12
64. ("I will only emphasize that librarians' engagement with the research agendas of faculty and students has been growing dramatically, and this reality has contributed to the scholarly culture and the research productivity of our law schools"). See abo Richard A. Danner, Supporting Scholarship: Thoughts on the Role of the Academic Law Librarian, 39 JX. & EDUC. 365,369 n.17 (2010). Danner recalls the 2008 Association of American Law Schools' workshop for law librarians, and the address of John Garvey, then dean of the Boston College Law School and president of the Association, who admitted discounting librarians in early stages of his career, as he believed himself to be far more knowledgeable about how to find the law.
65. See, e.g., Univ. of Chi. Law School, Library Services for Faculty, http://www.law.uchicago.edu/ faculty-staff/library (last visited Aug. 3,2010);
66. UNIV. OF MICH. LAW LIBRARY, SERVICES FOR LAW SCHOOL FACULTY (July 28, 2009), available at http://www.law.umich.edu/library/faculty/Documents/2009-10- faculty-services-brochure.pdf.
67. See also Academic Law Libraries Special Interest Section (ALL-SIS) Faculty Servs. Comm., Am. Ass'n of Law Libraries, Faculty Services Survey 2005 and Comments, http://aallnet.org/sis/allsis/committees/faculty/surveys.asp (last visited Aug. 3, 2010) (providing access to full survey results, including comments to open-ended questions) [hereinafter ALL-SIS Faculty Services Survey].
68. See Cheney, supra note 17, at 289 (noting difficulty of gaining faculty participation in user surveys and focus groups).
69. See also ALL-SIS Faculty Services survey, supra note 21 (when asked in question 100: "What is the normal attendance by faculty for group presentations?" 48.8% responded "less than 10%"; 38.8% responded "10-25%").
70. The ALL-SIS Faculty Services Survey, supra note 21, included questions about individual and group training for faculty on new electronic resources, faculty responses to various marketing methods, and the success of marketing services to faculty. Survey responses indicated a wide variation in perceived success rates for these initiatives.
71. See Robert H. Abrams, Sing Muse: Legal Scholarship for New Law Teachers, 37 J. LEGAL EDUC. 1 (1987);
72. Cheryl Hanna, The Nuts and Bolts of Scholarship, or the "New" Rules for Legal Scholars, available at http://www.aals.org/nlt2004/hanna.pdf (last visited July 17,2010). Both contain advice to faculty about producing scholarship.
73. See Abrams, supra note 24, at 7 ("The hard creative work is in the organization process. Far and away the most intellectually demanding part of writing any article is determining how its pieces fit together into a logical and persuasive whole. The most time consuming parts are the research and drafting, but these are not as difficult as most neophyte legal academics imagine.").
74. Many have noted this in the context of teaching legal research to law students. See sources cited supra note 14. The bibliographic vs. process approach battle appears to have ended years ago, but what of "teaching" the faculty how to do research? Jane Thompson noted a variety of issues with teaching faculty about research. Thompson, supra note 3, at 284-87.
75. Richard A. Danner, Skating with Donovan: Thoughts on Librarianship as a Profession, 27 LEGAL REFERENCE SERVICES Q., 117,130 (2008).
76. For more on the rise of interdisciplinarity in legal scholarship, see Harry T. Edwards, The Growing Disjunction Between Legal Education and the Legal Profession, 91 MICH. L. REV. 34 (1992);
77. George L. Priest, The Growth of Interdisciplinary Research and the Industrial Structure of the Production of Legal Ideas: A Reply to Judge Edwards, 91 MICH. L. REV. 1929 (1993). The Association of American Law Schools tracks the educational background of candidates who submit their information to the Faculty Appointments Register (FAR). In 2008-09, out of 875 registered faculty, 328 (37%) had advanced degrees in disciplines other than law. Ass'n of Am. Law Sch., 2008-2009 AALS Statistical Report on Law Faculty, http://www.aals.org/ 0809stats.php.
78. Barkan, supra note 11, at 624. Barkan wrote in response to the implied attack of the Critical Legal Studies movement on legal research ("the nature and effects of categorizing legal problems," id. at 618), and used legal research texts as a model for the research process.
79. Id. at 625.
80. Two articles reviewing studies of research needs of physicians are Paul N. Gorman, Information Needs of Physicians, 46 J. AM. SOC'Y. INFO. SCI. 729 (1995)
81. and James D. Haug, Physicians' Preferences for Information Sources: A Meta-Analytic Study, 85 BULL. MED. LIBR. ASS'N. 223 (1997).
82. See, e.g., Brown, supra note 7;
83. Susie Cobbledick, The Information-Seeking Behavior of Artists: Exploratory Interviews, 66 LIBR. Q. 343 ( 1996);
84. Thomas E. Pinelli, The Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of Engineers, Sci. & TECH. LIBR., no. 3,1991, at 5.
85. See CAROLE PALMER ET AL., SCHOLARLY INFORMATION PRACTICES IN THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT 4 (2009), available at http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/ library/2009/2009-02.pdf.
86. Robert Richards, Legal Information Systems and Legal Informatics Resources: Information Behavior (Selected), http://horne.comcast.net/ ~richardsl000/InformationBehavior.html (last visited Aug. 3, 2010), is an extensive bibliography of scholarly works on users of legal information.
87. F. Allan Hanson, From Key Numbers to Keywords: How Automation Has Transformed the Law, 94 LAW LIBR. J. 563,2002
88. LAW LIBR. J. 36.
89. Bert J. Dempsey et al., Design and Empirical Evaluation of Search Software for Legal Professionals on the WWW, 36 INFO. PROCESSING & MGMT. 253 (2000);
90. Gillian Kerins et al., Information Seeking and Students Studying for Professional Careers: The Cases of Engineering and Law Students in Ireland, INFO. RES., Oct. 2004, http://informationr.net/ir/10-l/paper208.html (examining how law students develop information-seeking strategies).
91. See also Carolyn R. Young & Barbara A. Blanco, What Students Don't Know Will Hurf Them: A Frank View from the Field on How to Better Prepare Our Clinic and Externship Students, 14 CLINICAL L. REV. 105 (2007) (reporting results of a survey of externship directors on which skills students lack).
92. Melody M. Hainsworth, Information Seeking Behavior of Judges of the Florida District Courts of Appeal (1992) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University), abstract available at http://ssrn.com/abstract= 1367308.
93. Stephann Makri, Ann Blandford & Anna L. Cox, Investigating the Information-Seeking Behaviour of Academic Lawyers: From Ellis's Model to Design, 44 INFO. PROC. & MGT. 613 (2008).
94. See also Makri, supra note 13.
95. See Makri, Blandford & Cox, supra note 38, at 614-15.
96. DONALD O. CASE, LOOKING FOR INFORMATION 260 (2d ed. 2008).
97. They quote Stuart Sutton as saying that "both Lexis and Westlaw were designed with no apparent attention being paid to the information-seeking behaviour of attorneys." Makri, Blandford, & Cox, supra note 38, at 617
98. (quoting Stuart A. Sutton, The Role of Attorney Mental Modeb of Law in Case Relevance Determinations: An Exploratory Analysis, 45 J. AM. SOC'Y INFO. SCI. 186, 198 (1994)). Makri continued his work to inform the development of legal information systems in a larger study of law students, faculty, and practicing lawyers that formed the basis for his Ph.D. dissertation. Makri, supra note 13.
99. The ISP model is explained in Carol C. Kuhlthau, A Principle of Uncertainty for Information Seeking, 49 J. DOCUMENTATION 339, 342-44 (1993).
100. C.C. Kuhlthau & S.L. Tama, Information Search Process of Lawyers: A Call for "Just for Me" Information Services, 57 J. DOCUMENTATION 25,29 (2001).
101. Gloria J. Leckie et al., Modeling the Information Seeking of Professionals: A General Model Derived from Research on Engineers, Health Care Professionals, and Lawyers, 66 LIBR. Q. 161 (1996).
102. Id. at 174-75.
103. See Yvonna S. Lincoln, Insights into Library Services and Users from Qualitative Research, 24 LIBR. & INFO. SCI. RES. 3 (2002)
104. (discussing the benefits of qualitative research). See also generally YVONNA S. LINCOLN & EGON G. GUBA, NATURALISTIC INQUIRY (1985).
105. Many recent articles cover the use of surveys to gather information about users and their needs, and their satisfaction with the library, through quantitative methods. See, e.g., Cheney, supra note 17, at 286;
106. H. Kumar Percy Jayasuriya & Frances M. Brillantine, Student Services in the 21st Century: Evolution and Innovation in Discovering Student Needs, Teaching Information Literacy, and Designing Library 2.0-Based Services, LEGAL REFERENCE SERVICES Q., nos. 1/2, 2007, at 135, 147-52;
107. Dwight B. King, Jr., User Surveys: Libraries Ask, "Hey, How Am I Doing?," 97 LAW LIBR. J. 103,2005
108. LAW LIBR. J. 5.
109. For a discussion of the importance of asking the right questions and designing surveys based on the user's experience, see Steve Hiller, Assessing User Needs, Satisfaction, and Library Performance at the University of Washington Libraries, 49 LIB. TRENDS 605,623 (2001).
110. See generally MELLON, supra note 8;
111. JULIET CORBIN & ANSELM STRAUSS, BASICS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH (3d ed. 2008).
112. For more background on qualitative inquiry, see generally NORMAN K. DENZIN & YVONNA S. LINCOLN, COLLECTING AND INTERPRETING QUALITATIVE MATERIALS (2d ed. 2003);
113. NORMAN K. DENZIN & YVONNA S. LINCOLN, STRATEGIES OF QUALITATIVE INQUIRY (3d ed. 2008).
114. "Qualitative research aims to investigate and understand the social world rather than to predict, explain and control behaviour." Linda Finlay, "Going Exploring": The Nature of Qualitative Research, in QUALITATIVE RESEARCH FOR ALLIED HEALTH PROFESSIONALS: CHALLENGING CHOICES 3,7 (Linda Finlay & Claire Ballinger eds., 2006).
115. Though there is no one definition, qualitative research is rooted in "a commitment to some version of the naturalistic, interpretive approach to its subject matter and an ongoing critique of the politics and methods of postpositivism." Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln, Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research, in STRATEGIES OF QUALITATIVE INQUIRY, supra, at 1,14.
116. See Makri, supra note 13, at 61-62 (discussing ways to avoid bias in data collection)
117. (citing ANSELM STRAUSS & JULIET CORBIN, BASICS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 44 (1998)).
118. See also LINCOLN & GUBA, supra note 46, at 305-07;
119. Clara M. Chu, Literary Critics at Work and Their Information Needs: A Research-Phases Model, 21 LIB. & INFO. SCI. RES. 247,269 (1999).
120. Reneker, supra note 8. Reneker tracked sex, age, academic degrees and disciplines, areas of current academic interest or study, scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and status in the university and incorporated these into cross-tabulations of various information needs.
121. See Kuhlthau & Tama, supra note 43, at 31-34.
122. Makri, Blandford & Cox, supra note 38, at 613.
123. Carol C. Kuhlthau, Investigating Patterns in Information Seeking: Concepts in Context, in EXPLORING THE CONTEXTS OF INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR 10,13 (Thomas D. Wilson & David K. Allen eds., 1998).
124. Gary J. Bravy & K. Celeste Feather, The Impact of Electronic Access on Basic Library Services: One Academic Law Library's Experience, 93 LAW LIBR. J. 261, 268, 2001
125. LAW LIBR. J. 11,1 14 ("A dramatic shift in the focus of what libraries measure is needed to provide more inclusive evaluation techniques.");
126. Martha Kyrillidou, LibQual+ and Beyond: Library Assessment with a Focus on Library Improvement, 9 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT & METRICS 155 (2008).
127. See Attanasio, supra note 20, at 146;
128. Lewis, supra note 3, at 93-95, 98, ¶¶ 13-14, 26-27.
129. See, e.g., J.B. Ruhl, The Hierarchy of Legal Scholarship, JURISDYNAMICS (Sept. 21, 2006, 10:29 P.M.), http://jurisdynamics.blogspot.com/2006/09/ hierarchy-of-legal-scholarship.html;
130. Lawrence B. Solum, Ruhl on the Hierarchy of Legal Scholarship, LEGAL THEORY BLOG (Sept. 22, 2006, 1:09 P.M.), http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/ 2006/09/chen-on-the-hic.html (response to Ruhl);
131. Jim Chen, A Value-Based Hierarchy of Legal Scholarship, JURISDYNAMICS (Sept. 23,2006,10:50 A.M.), http:// jurisdynamics.blogspot.com/2006/09/value- based-hierarchy-of-legal.html (response to Ruhl and Solum).
132. Some works, however, address the enterprise of legal scholarship, analyzing a range of purposes, aims, and goals of legal scholars and their work. See, e.g., Stephen M. Feldman, The Transformation of an Academic Discipline: Law Professors in the Past and Future (or Toy Story Too), 54 J. LEGAL EDUC. 471, 488-89 (2004) (suggesting categories of approaches taken by modern legal scholars with respect to the connection to the practice of law);
133. Robert Post, Legal Scholarship and the Practice of Law, 63 U. COLO. L. REV. 615 (1992) (discussing a "crisis of identity" in current American legal scholarship);
134. Edward L. Rubin, The Practice and Discourse of Legal Scholarship, 86 MICH. L. REV. 1835 (1988) (using the critique of methodology as a means of assessing legal scholarship).
135. James Donovan, Back Away from the Survey Monkey, AALL SPECTRUM, NOV. 2009, at 20, 23 (providing a brief introduction to IRB requirements for librarians conducting even small surveys).
136. J. Douglas Toma, Understanding Why Scholars Choose to Work in Alternative Inquiry Paradigms, 40 RES. IN HIGHER ED. 539,541 (1999).
137. Id. at 543-44. Toma borrows the typology of Lincoln and Guba, following Thomas Kuhn.
138. See Yvonna Lincoln & Egon Guba, Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research, in HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 105-17 (Norman Denzin & Yvonna Lincoln eds., 1994). Lincoln and Guba included methodology in their calculus; Toma, acknowledging the presence of both empirical and normative work in legal scholarship, eliminates it as a distinguishing aspect. Toma, supra note 60, at 544-46.
139. Toma, supra note 60, at 544-545 & tbl.2.
140. Id. at 540.
141. There is a line among the fragments of the Greek poet Archilochus which says: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." Scholars have differed about the correct interpretation of these dark words, which may mean no more than that the fox, for all his cunning, is defeated by the hedgehog's one defense. But, taken figuratively, the words can be made to yield a sense in which they mark one of the deepest differences which divide writers and thinkers, and, it may be, human beings in general. Lawrence B. Solum, Foxes, Hedgehogs, and the Legal Academy, LEGAL THEORY BLOG (July 10,2007,1:06 P.M.), http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2007/07/foxes- hedgehogs.html
142. (quoting ISAIAH BERLIN, THE HEDGEHOG AND THE Fox 3 (rev. ed. 1978)).
143. Id.
144. Responding to a graduate student expressing interest in building credentials for the law teaching market, Lawrence Solum wrote: Increasingly, what separates candidates is the possession of some significant set of interdisciplinary tools-the ability to do law and economics, normative legal theory (moral and political philosophy), to do empirical work (data acquisition and analysis), to deploy PPT (positive political theory or "game theory" applied to political problems), and so forth. If I were advising someone who was just starting a postgraduate legal education, I would counsel that their projects should enable them to develop and master some transdisciplinary tool set. Lawrence B. Solum, Belle Lettre on "Packaging" LEGAL THEORY BLOG (Sept. 20,2006,7:44 A.M.), http:// lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2006/09/belle-lettre-on.html.
145. See also Lawrence Solum, Tools and Disciplines, LEGAL THEORY BLOG (Sept. 20, 2006, 1:29 P.M.), http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/ 2006/09/tools-and-disci.html.
146. Margaret A. Schilt, Faculty Services in the 21st Century: Evolution and Innovation, LEGAL REFERENCE SERVICES Q., nos. 1/2,2007, at 187.
147. See Ass'n of Am. Law Sch., supra note 28. Lawrence Solum collects data on entry-level hires at U.S. law schools on his Legal Theory Blog. In his 2009 report, which captured 158 placements as of April 27,2009, he notes that thirty-five candidates (22%) possessed a Ph.D. in addition to the J.D. The majority of these Ph.D.s were distributed among philosophy (5, or 14%), economics (4, or 11%), history (3, or 9%), and political science (3, or 9%). Thirty-six of the entry-level hires had LL.M.s or an equivalent;
148. six had S.J.D.s or Ph.D.s in law. Lawrence Solum, 2009 Entry Level Hiring Report, LEGAL THEORY BLOG (Apr. 26, 2009, 6:59 P.M.), http://lsolum.typepad. com/legaltheory/2009/04/2009-entry -level-hiring-report.html.
149. See, e.g, J.M. Balkin, Interdisciplinary as Colonization, 53 WASH. 8C LEE L. REV. 949, 952-57 (1996);
150. Douglas W. Vick, Interdisciplinarity and the Discipline of Law, 31 J.L. & SOC'Y 163, 167-69 (2004).
151. See, e.g., MICHAEL J. GRAETZ 8C DEBORAH H. SCHENK, FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION: PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES (2005).
152. See, e.g, ANTHONY C. INFANTI 8C BRIDGET J. CRAWFORD, CRITICAL TAX THEORY (2009);
153. Anthony C. Infanti, Bringing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity into the Tax Classroom, 59 J. LEGAL EDUC. 3 (2009).