An empirical analysis of empirical legal scholarship production, 1990-2009

University of Illinois Law Review

Volumn 2011, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1739-1752

  Heise, Michael ^a  

^a MIT Sloan School of Management   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 83155160604     PISSN: 02769948     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (40)

1. Indeed, not only did Professor Ulen observe this trend in 2002, but his own work contributed to it. See, e.g., Thomas S. Ulen, A Nobel Prize in Legal Science: Theory, Empirical Work, and the Scientific Method in the Study of Law, 2002 U. ILL. L. REV. 875.
2. While I acknowledge that the point is disputed, when I speak of empirical legal scholarship, I refer only to the subset of empirical legal scholarship that uses statistical techniques and analyses. By statistical techniques and analyses, I mean to reference those studies that employ data (including systematically coded judicial opinions) to describe or support inferences to a larger sample or population. Such studies must also be amenable to replication by other scholars. My narrow definition of empirical legal scholarship admittedly excludes a rich array of legal scholarship that can also plausibly be construed as empirical. (For one example of an alternative definition of empirical legal studies, see, e.g., Mark C. Suchman & Elizabeth Mertz, Toward a New Legal Empiricism: Empirical Legal Studies and New Legal Realism, 6 ANN. REV. L. & SOC. SCI. 555 (2010).) While others may quibble with it, my narrow definition has the advantage of focusing on one of the more visible and distinct types of empirical legal scholarship and sets it apart from its more traditional theoretical and doctrinal counterparts.
3. See, e.g., Michael Heise, The Importance of Being Empirical, 26 PEPP. L. REV. 807, 810-11 (1999) [hereinafter Heise, Importance];
4. Michael Heise, The Past, Present, and Future of Empirical Legal Scholarship: Judicial Decision Making and the New Empiricism, 2002 U. ILL. L. REV. 819, 820-21 [hereinafter Heise, New Empiricism];
5. Peter H. Schuck, Why Don't Law Professors Do More Empirical Research?, 39 J. LEGAL EDUC. 323, 323 (1989).
6. See, e.g., NEIL DUXBURY, PATTERNS OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE 445 (1995) ("Law and society scholarship never really caught on in the American law schools.");
7. JOHN HENRY SCHLEGEL, AMERICAN LEGAL REALISM AND EMPIRICAL SOCIAL SCIENCE 252 (1995) ("Why has empirical legal research not caught on, not taken hold in the law schools?").
8. Richard H. McAdams & Thomas S. Ulen, Tribute to Gary T. Schwartz, Introduction, 2002 U. ILL. L. REV. 791, 791 (discussing empirical and experimental methods in law). The authors also went on to note "signs that empirical and experimental methods are becoming more common in legal scholarship. " Id.
9. See, e.g., Heise, Importance, supra note 2, at 815-23; Schuck, supra note 2, at 325-26.
10. Robert C. Ellickson, Trends in Legal Scholarship: A Statistical Study, 29 J. LEGAL STUD. 517, 528-29 tbl.4 (2000).
11. Tracey E. George, An Empirical Study of Empirical Legal Scholarship: The Top Law Schools, 81 IND. L. J. 141, 147 (2006) (replicating and updating Professor Ellickson's 2000 study).
12. A related, though distinct study published in 2010 analyzes different types of empirical legal research (primary vs. secondary data analyses) in a select number of student-edited law reviews (the proverbial "top-30") in two distinct years (1998 and 2008). Shari Seidman Diamond & Pam Mueller, Empirical Legal Scholarship in Law Reviews, 6 ANN. REV. L. & SOC. SCI. 581 (2010).
13. As Professor Ellickson notes, efforts to deflate such databases have persisted. Id, at 522 n. 9. See also Ian Ayres & Fredrick E. Vars, Determinants of Citations to Articles in Elite Law Reviews, 29 J. LEGAL STUD. 427, 435 nn. 27 & 31 (2000) (deflating changes in the Social Science Citation Index database);
14. Theodore Eisenberg & Martin T. Wells, Ranking and Explaining the Scholarly Impact of Law Schools, 27 J. LEGAL STUD. 373, 384-85 (1998) (deflator-adjusting data obtained in searches conducted on different days). (Pubitemid 128426692)
15. See, e.g., Theodore Eisenberg, Why Do Empirical Legal Scholarship?, 41 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 1741, 1741-46 (2004);
16. Heise, New Empiricism, supra note 2, at 826-32.
17. For an extensive description of the entry-level law professor market, see David W. Case, The Pedagogical Don Quixote de la Mississippi, 33 U. MEM. L. REV. 529, 530-33 (2003).
18. See Pati Abdullina, 2006-2007 AALS Statistical Report on Law Faculty, ASS'N AM. L. SCH., http://www.aals.org/statistics/0607/FAR-spss/degree.html (last visited July 19, 2011);
19. Pati Abdullina, 2008-2009 AALS Statistical Report on Law Faculty, ASS'N AM. L. SCH., http://www.aals.org/statistics/2009far/degrees.html (last visited July 19, 2011).
20. See, e.g., William M. Landes, The Empirical Side of Law & Economics, 70 U. CHI. L. REV. 167, 167 (2003) (noting the high number of JD/PhDs in economics on the University of Chicago Law School faculty) ; Ulen, supra note 1, at 916 (observing that JD/PhD candidates "are among the most highly sought entrants into the legal academy").
21. For examples of recent scholarship that has used these types of data sets, see, e.g., Theodore Eisenberg et al., The Decision to Award Punitive Damages: An Empirical Study, 2 J. LEGAL ANALYSIS 577 (2010);
22. Theodore Eisenberg & Michael Heise, Judge-Jury Difference in Punitive Damages Awards: Who Listens to the Supreme Court?, J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD. 325, (2011);
23. Theodore Eisenberg et al., Juries, Judges, and Punitive Damages: Empirical Analyses Using the Civil Justice Survey of State Courts 1992, 1996, and 2001 Data, 3 J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD. 263, 264-65 (2006);
24. Theodore Eisenberg et al., The Predictability of Punitive Damages, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 623, 624-25 (1997).
25. For examples of recent scholarship that has used these types of data sets, see, e.g., Kevin M. Clermont & Theodore Eisenberg, Xenophilia or Xenophobia in U. S. Courts? Before and After 9/11, 4 J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD. 441, 452 (2007).
26. In the interest of full disclosure, I have coedited the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies since 2005.
27. Harry T. Edwards, The Growing Disjunction Between Legal Education and the Legal Profession, 91 MICH. L. REV. 34, 34 (1992) ("[M]any law schools... have abandoned their proper place, by emphasizing abstract theory at the expense of practical scholarship and pedagogy.").
28. See generally SECTION OF LEGAL EDUC. & ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR, AM. BAR ASS'N, LEGAL EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT-AN EDUCATIONAL CONTINUUM: REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON LAW SCHOOLS AND THE PROFESSION: NARROWING THE GAP (1992) [hereinafter MacCrate Report].
29. See also Craig Allen Nard, Empirical Legal Scholarship: Reestablishing a Dialogue Between the Academy and Profession, 30 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 347, 348 (1995).
30. Deborah L. Rhode, Legal Scholarship, 115 HARV. L. REV. 1327, 1330 (2002).
31. Harry T. Edwards & Michael A. Livermore, Pitfalls of Empirical Studies that Attempt to Understand the Factors Affecting Appellate Decisionmaking, 58 DUKE L. J. 1895, 1963-66 (2009).
32. Id. at 1356. Of course, a limited but growing number of law-school-based, peer-reviewed journals that specialize in empirical legal scholarship exist. Examples include the University of Chicago's Journal of Legal Studies, Cornell's Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, and Harvard's Journal of Legal Analysis.
33. See, e.g., Robin Feldman, Law's Misguided Love Affair with Science, 10 MINN. J. L. SCI. & TECH. 95, 111 (2009).
34. Kathleen M. Sullivan, Foreword: Interdisciplinary, 100 MICH. L. REV. 1217, 1222 (2002).
35. Theodore Eisenberg, The Origins, Nature, and Promise of Empirical Legal Studies and a Response to Concerns, 2011 U. ILL. L. REV. 1713.
36. Emblematic of Professor Ulen's contribution to the recent surge of empirical legal scholarship is his contribution (along with University of Illinois colleagues Robert Lawless and Jennifer Robbennolt) to the publication of a new casebook for the field, ROBERT LAWLESS ET AL., EMPIRICAL METHODS IN LAW (2009). The publication of this new casebook makes the lives of those considering developing an empirical methods class for the law school environment a bit easier.
37. See, e.g., Thomas S. Ulen, The Impending Train Wreck in Current Legal Education: How We Might Teach Law As the Scientific Study of Social Governance, 6 U. ST. THOMAS L. J. 302, 329 tbl.1 (2009)
38. (citing RICHARD A. POSNER, CATASTROPHE: RISK AND RESPONSE 206 (2004)).
39. See, e.g., Nuno Garoupa & Thomas S. Ulen, The Market for Legal Innovation: Law and Economics in Europe and the United States, 59 ALA. L. REV. 1555, 1569-70 tbl. 1 (2008).
40. I had the pleasure of participating in the symposium. See Heise, New Empiricism, supra note 2.