English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We explore the apparent disruption of legal scholarship wrought by leximetrics—variable-oriented, predictive methods. We view the skepticism surrounding leximetrics as healthy, in that it focuses attention on some central inferential challenges relevant to most empirical methods. Scholarly anxiety may be a natural by-product of this disruption, as scholars navigate the rise and fall in popularity of various ideas and approaches. Some of this anxiety is related to a perceived hierarchy of methodological approaches in social science. Nonetheless, we are hopeful that broadminded, ecumenical tastes will prevail. One likely future for legal scholars is similar to that of political science, whose practitioners have largely embraced methodological pluralism, and maintained the value of case-oriented research.

On disruption and leximetrics: A reply to Niels Petersen and Konstantin Chatziathanasiou