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

Abstract

Abstract 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.