Programs of Interest to Empirical Legal Researchers at the AALS Annual Meeting

Several programs at American Association of Law Schools (AALS) Annual Meeting were of interest to those involved in empirical research. Of particular note were the following programs:
1) The Challenges of Empirical Work in LawModerator: Michael B. Dorff, Southwestern Law School
Speakers: Katherine Y. Barnes, The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law Daniel Chen, Duke University School of Law D. James Greiner, Harvard Law School Daniel E. Ho, Stanford Law School Andrew D. Martin, Washington University School of Law

Description: Empirical work conducted by those trained in it is a relatively new phenomenon for law schools, especially outside of the elite schools. What are the challenges we face in supporting such work? Is it possible to train existing law professors interested in starting to do such work short of enrolling them in masters or Ph.D. programs? Can student-edited law reviews adequately evaluate (to the extent they adequately evaluate anything) empirical work? How does empirical work in legal scholarship differ from empirical work being pursued in other (more traditionally empirically-oriented) academic disciplines (e.g., sociology, psychology, economics, etc.)? What (if anything) can legal academics bring to the project of empirical scholarship that is not contributed by academics working within these other disciplines? What counts as good empirical scholarship in the legal academy? Do we and should we apply the same standards in evaluating the quality of empirical work as other disciplines do? What is the relationship between empirical scholarship in law and more traditional methods of legal scholarship? How has the empirical turn in legal scholarship impacted our understanding of what counts as high-quality legal scholarship?

This was a great program. The moderator mentioned that it was being recorded for podcast.

2) Translating Research into Action: A Crucial Role for the Legal AcademyCo-Moderators: Katharine T. Bartlett, Duke University School of Law john a. powell, The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law
Speakers: William T. Bielby, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Chicago IL Anthony G. Greenwald, Ph.D., University of Washington Department of Psychology Seattle WA
Alexandra Kalev, Professor, Sociology Department, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ Jerry Kang, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law Gregory Mitchell, University of Virginia School of Law Laura Beth Nielsen, Northwestern University School of Law Susan P. Sturm, Columbia University School of Law

Unfortunately, I was not able to attend this program. I hope that a podcast of this program will be available in the near future.

3) What Should the Future of PACER-based Research Capabilities Include and How Should Law Schools Be Training Law Students With Respect to PACERDescription: The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts has initiated a project to develop the Next Generation Case Management/Electronic Case Filing System (CM/ECF), which researchers and others access through PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) … The session solicits information from researchers and law librarians relating to (1) their experience and satisfaction with PACER, (2) their thoughts on access to and costs of PACER, (3) proposed functional improvements, (4) designing a new system that incorporates current technologies, (5) comments and suggestions regarding new and proposed requirements, and (6) training law students.

Because this was a feedback session rather than a formal presentation, I do not believe it was recorded for podcast. A recap of some of the conversation is below:

Judge J. Rich Leonard indicated positive consideration of a suggestion to have a flat fee based arrangement of access and use of PACER. He indicated that such an arrangement has already been reached with the Department of Justice.

Judge Leonard also noted there currently exists a waiver of fees for distinct academic research projects. However, he also indicated an understanding that because waiver is a local court decision, he was aware of instances where researcher had been granted waivers in some jurisdictions and not in others.

Judge Leonard also noted the desire of all users of the system for a functional system improvements.


About dwkj

Director of the McKusick Law Library, University of South Dakota School of Law
This entry was posted in Programs. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s