Is legal research too important to be left to lawyers?

Is legal research too important to be left to lawyers?

The question may seem needlessly provocative. Shouldn’t legal academics be the best qualified to conduct and evaluate legal research? How could it be otherwise? The current context with the accelerating trend towards interdisciplinary approaches, however, makes the question legitimate. Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against interdisciplinary legal research. Quite the opposite. Most of my research qualifies as interdisciplinary. (Some may argue that I’m not really a lawyer, but that’s another debate.) The problem I see has more to do with the research attracting funding and appearing (or not appearing) in top law journals.

A Primarily European Problem

The problem is primarily a European one. Legal scholarship in the United States and in places like Israel has long embraced interdisciplinarity. It is common for law professors at top US law schools to have a PhD in another discipline as well as a JD in law and the Israeli legal academy has very few researchers left doing only doctrinal analysis. These places already have a solid ecosystem of practices, institutions and, crucially, knowledgeable scholars to supervise, produce and assess interdisciplinary work.

Not so in Europe. In most corners of the European legal academy (there are, of course, some exceptions), doctrinal approaches continue to reign supreme. Compared to other academic disciplines, there is little in the way of a methodological discussion. In the Dutch-speaking world articles and PhD dissertation have been citing the one same methodology handbook for years. My French colleagues still talk about the “plan binaire” as if it added up to a scientific methodology. Given the emphasis of the doctrinal approach on textual sources and interpretation you would expect legal scholarship to be to some degree conversant with advances in linguistics and neighbouring disciplines. But you might count the number of European law professors familiar with relevance theory, post-Gricean pragmatics and semantic prototypes on the fingers of your hand. (Some lawyers would retort that they are perfectly able to produce correct/valid interpretations of legal texts without all this theoretical baggage. But that’s the difference between being right and being able to provide a rigorous, scientific explanation for such a claim. It is also, by the way, the difference between the idiot savant, who is always right but doesn’t quite know why, and the scientist, who may not always be right, but is able to supply a systematic explanation for her assertions.)

Interdisciplinary Legal Research Is Evaluated by Scholars Without Interdisciplinary Background

The upshot is that legal research claiming to make innovative use of methods – whether randomized controlled experiments, statistical modelling, Natural Language Processing (NLP) or machine learning – developed outside the legal field is largely reviewed and evaluated by people who have little, if any, knowledge of their assumptions, strengths and limitations.

Methodological ignorance is often betrayed by silly comments. Recently, I submitted an application to the legal panel of the Flemish research agency proposing to investigate differences in legal thinking across legal traditions using randomized controlled vignette experiments. One reviewer objected that my suggestion to conduct statistical robustness checks – a standard practice in quantitative research to ensure that results are not driven by problematic assumptions – was “discriminatory” and would go against “diversity” because it would exclude some observations! Another reviewer objected that the assumption of the controlled experimental design was that “lawyers don’t differ”. A comment that flies directly in the face of the main reason randomized controlled experiments have become the gold standard for causal inference across all empirical disciplines. Randomization and control groups are precisely there to account for unobserved or even unknown differences (as well as well-known observable ones). Similarly, commenting on a manuscript applying various NLP technique, including one known as probabilistic topic modelling, the scholar who was then serving as the editor in chief of the prominent law journal where I had submitted it described text-mining as “status quo oriented” (unlike the doctrinal method, which is seemingly presumed to be reform-oriented)!

Methodological ignorance can induce enthusiastic reactions to interdisciplinary approaches as well as hostile ones. As a reviewer for various research funding bodies I occasionally see proposals from legal academics that seek to impress panelists by proposing to apply some NLP procedures or other quantitative techniques. I’ve once looked at a proposal that basically proposed to use feedback from US in-house lawyers on the regulations that worked for their own corporation to train a supervised machine learning to predict what legislation would be good for business and innovation in the European Union. To anyone remotely familiar with NLP and machine learning, it was not only manifestly infeasible under the current state of the state, but it can be confidently said that machine learning and NLP will never develop techniques to extract from legislative texts information that is simply not there. Still, I heard some colleagues were ecstatic about the “awesome methodology” of the proposal. So I’m afraid to say that the such a “fake it” strategy is often rewarded.

What Can Be Done?

If reviewers and panels can’t tell the wheat from the chaff, it’s neither good for science nor for society and the taxpayers who foot the bill. Yet there’s something akin to a chicken and egg problem here. We need more interdisciplinary legal scholars to evaluate interdisciplinary legal research, but we won’t get the critical mass of interdisciplinary scholars unless we train and fund more of them. So what can be done? One solution is for research funding bodies to make panel interdisciplinary (it’s already the case for ERC panels). Law journals, as some already do, should also consider inviting more reviewers from other disciplines. Finally, European law schools should be encouraged to recruit academics with training in other disciplines.

These solutions are not easy to implement. To get computer scientists with little background in law and lawyers with little background in computer science to engage in a fruitful dialogue over the merits of a piece of interdisciplinary legal research isn’t easy. But, at this point and until the emergence of a more established community of interdisciplinary researchers, legal research – as Clemenceau once said about war and the military – is too important to be left to lawyers alone.

#legalresearch #NLP

Julien Bois

Postdoc at Uliège (law and political science). Previously @Hertie School, @Paris 1 and @Université d'Orléans

3 年

Thank you for this brilliant analysis. Interdisciplinarity works both ways. If legal scholars should open themselves up to other social scientific inspirations, political scientists and sociologists also must make an effort to consider legal scholarship as a source of theoretical inspiration. I think we often fail to capture lawyers' attention because we stress too much contextual factors and we fail to "take the law seriously" as Joeges said a few years ago. Doctrine is not only another way to produce scholarship, it is also the result of a social configuration (disagreement about what the state of the law/should be) that should inform us empirical scholars about the stakes deemed releveant by the people we study: lawyers. If we could show to legal scholars that we actually engage with their work - rather than just mention it as an element of background or simply ignoring it - we would get more positive responses. Forming interdisciplinary scholars is one thing, combining scholarships is a step further. The challenges about interdisciplinarity in legal research goes beyond squabbles about methodology. The methodological turn in legal scholarship is in full swing (see the forthcoming "Researching the European Court of Justice" by Nicola, Madsen and Vauchez and "The Politics of Legal Research" by Bartl and Lawrence) and shows that the malaise is not only about methods, but also about epistemological disagreements. This "status-quo oriented" arguement precisely shows this. Lawyers have a prospective purpose, irrespective of their belonging to black letter scholarship or hy brid movements like ELS or CLS. Political scientists willing to prove a causal argument are on the contrary looking at the past in order to explain it. Therefore, the way to convince legal scholars could be to be very honest about it, saying that causal research does not have normative purpose like political theory or legal scholarship but can still bring light to further research having those objectives in mind. And I would explicitely recall - although this may seem overly tedious - the elements associated with methodology. "Robustness checks" and "control groups" may be ABCs for 21st century political scientists but remain alien to most lawyers. And since you rightfully point out that there are not as of now computational legal scholars, fostering interdisciplinary dialogue may only happen if one is able to free himself from the core tenets of their disciplines that are increasingly becoming shackles (in the same vein, many political scientists are not familiar with the idea of a hierarchy of norms, which is the cornerstone of legal thinking) and to explain these stakes to others interested but not acquainted to those. This lack of interdisciplinarity is too often the result of a deaf dialogue between disciples speaking different languages. The solution could be to soften the language and be very open about what we do in order to close this growing gap between doctrinal research and judicial politics, which is clearly visible in the research on the CJEU.

Marlene Wind, PhD

Professor, Director, Centre for European Politics (CEP) University of Copenhagen | Special Advisor to HR/VP (2020-2024)

3 年

Thanks for this Arthur - spot on!

回复
Roquilly Christophe

Full Professor. Directeur du EDHEC Augmented Law Institute. Doyen Honoraire du Corps Professoral. Honorary Dean of Faculty chez EDHEC Business School

3 年

Interesting paper. And on the other side, when you discuss with scholars in Economics, Finance, Strategy.... they usually consider that ??doctrine work?? (legal doctrine) is not research. Both worlds need to better know each other.

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Arthur Dyevre的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了