Network Analysis of Innovation in Legal Scholarship: Law & Economics, Law & Society, and Empirical Legal Studies

Abstract

Innovation in legal scholarship is a constant, but some innovations are more successful than others. We use descriptive and inferential network analysis to study the dissemination and adoption of empirical studies from three sub-fields—law and economics (L&E), law and society (L&S), and empirical legal studies (ELS)—to one another and to the traditional academic legal community. We find that L&E scholarship and L&S scholarship mostly do not overlap with one another in terms of the topics that are addressed (research frontiers) and the authorities that are cited (knowledge base). Even when topic choice overlaps, L&E scholarship and L&S scholarship cite different authorities, reflecting different fundamental principles and assumptions. In contrast, ELS covers topics that are specific to either JLE or LSR and co-cites landmark works from both sub-fields. By encompassing a diverse array of topics and methodologies, ELS effectively bridges and extends the boundaries of both L&E and L&S, which might have helped facilitate its dissemination to the traditional legal academic community. Our Exponential Random Graph Models further confirm these findings and suggest that ELS simultaneously draws from but also has something useful to offer to scholarship in other areas of the law. In an academic world where fields are dominated by hedgehogs (who know one big thing), ELS scholars are quintessential foxes (who know many things).