Cornell Graduate Legal Studies has this CFP “Changing Faces in Legal Thinking: Revisiting Legal Methodologies” up, looks so interesting. Deadline on CFP is Jan 6.
One of the most fun discussions in any viva/dissertation defence is always the one about methodological choices. I learnt that trick from my mentor Toni Williams, now at Kent. It produces a very rich discussion with form and substance intertwining – every time. Also, Cornell = Ithaca = Moosewood Restaurant (which is on the list of things which keep coming up this week, strangely).
Legal scholarship has benefited from this methodological richness. This conference aims to further a more refined and sophisticated understanding of the use of interdisciplinary methodological tools. We can now critically reflect on the limitations, shortcomings, and challenges of employing interdisciplinary methodologies in the analysis of law. To that end, this conference hopes to stimulate a discussion that will reevaluate and refine our methodological techniques, addressing questions such as are there certain research methods that are privileged, and if so why? What sources do we rely on for our data? Are there sources and voices that are being excluded? How do our methods impact on and shape our research agendas?
We seek papers that combine substantive legal scholarship with a clear use of methodological tools. To be clear, we are not exclusively seeking papers that directly or explicitly analyze methodology, but we expect authors to be able to explain the methodological approach used in their papers, critically reflect on the choices made, and elaborate on how such methodological commitments have influenced some of the substantive points made.