Traditional legal scholarship often comes under fire. Commentators lament that law review articles are too long, too stuffy, too heavily footnoted—just “too traditional.” Legal scholars have responded by seeking out less traditional avenues of publication such as online blogs, social media, and op-eds. These also come with attendant risk—lack of nuance, lack of depth, and statements asserted outside one’s area of expertise. I propose the “Goldilocks Path” of scholarship as an optimal method of spreading knowledge and ideas. This Goldilocks Path lies in a balance between producing traditional and nontraditional pieces. Doing so engages academics and broadens their audience, allowing for more diverse readership, an opportunity to obtain early critique of theories, and a chance for scholarship to create a stronger impact. Walking the multi-outlet path, where the nontraditional enhances the traditional, can facilitate a more meaningful dialogue within the legal community and with the public at large.
The Goldilocks Path of Legal Scholarship in a Digital Networked World,
Loy. U. Chi. L. J.
Available at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol50/iss2/8