Law Review: Scholarship and Pedagogy in Canadian Law Journals Revues de droit: la recherche et la pd

1
Law Review Scholarship and Pedagogy in Canadian
Law JournalsRevues de droit la recherche et la
pédagogie en droit dans les revues juridiques
canadiennes

• Neil Craik and Phil Bryden
• University of New Brunswick, Faculty of Law
• The Legal Cultures and the Cultures of Legal
  Education in Canada
• Les cultures du droit et de lenseignement du
  droit au Canada
• CALT Annual Conference
• Colloque Annuel de lACPD
• May 27 28, 2008

2
Two Questions

• What scholarly roles are law school based,
  general law reviews performing in Canada?
• What pedagogic roles are student-edited, general
  law reviews performing in Canada?
• First question provides context for answering the
  second

3
Methodology

• Looked at all journals (76) to ascertain some
  basic information regarding format
• Examined a subset of 14 journals all law school
  based, general law reviews (all used in Law and
  Learning Report)
• Author profile
• Subject matter
• Methodology
• Used same categorization as Law and Learning
  Report which some minor revisions

4
Law and Learning (Arthurs Report), 1982

• Background study on scholarship surveyed 22 (18
  general, 4 specialized) Canadian legal
  periodicals from 1958 to 1980 looked at author
  type, subject matter and methodology
• Major recommendations
• Retrenchment and reorientation too many
  (generalist) journals
• Flagship publication to foster sense of
  scholarship

5
Journal numbers
6
Journal Format

• General (30) v. specialized (70)
• Regional (8) v. national/international (92)
• Peer reviewed (84) v. editor-reviewed (16)
• Student-edited (28) v. peer or professionally
  edited (72)
• Language (English 42 French 5 Bilingual
  53)
• Dissemination (30 unavailable electronically)

7
Format of law school based, general law journals

• Peer reviewed / exclusive submission (14)
• Student edited (8)
• Varying degrees of faculty involvement
• Faculty edited (4)
• Dalhousie, Thémis, Cahiers de Droit, UofT
• Mixed editorship (2)
• Osgoode and Saskatchewan

8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
Author profile

• Sharp differentiation between individual journals
  based on author profile
• No journals outside Québec operating as principal
  outlet for their own facultys scholarship
• Quebec higher of law academic
• Reflection of civilian system
• Not significant avenue for student scholarship

13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
Subject Matter

• Little differentiation between journals
• Exceptions Alberta Dalhousie reflect
  regional economic interest oil/gas/maritime
• weighted towards public law
• Notwithstanding specialty journals in those
  fields
• Some major subject areas not covered, i.e., IP,
  health law, commercial subjects, (possibly
  migrating to specialty journals)

16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
Methodology of Journal Scholarship

• Little overall drop in doctrinal scholarship
• Minimal amount of empirical/interdisciplinary
  scholarship
• Methodological differentiation
• Faculty involvement
• Normative / critical scholarship
• Overall methodological division identical to law
  professors methodological division

27
Final comments and remaining questions

• L L recommendations not followed
• Scholarly role undefined
• Substantively
• Methodologically
• In terms of audience and authors
• Scholarly role contested
• Do we need to control quantity
• Electronic dissemination
• Do we need to identify quality
• Role of peer review floor or ceiling
• Impact factors

28
Implication for Pedagogical Role

• What are we trying to accomplish?
• Scholarship
• Editing
• Writing
• footnoting
• Are we making the most of the opportunities
  journals offer?
• How do we assess outcomes?

29
The Final Word

• Meanwhile a spot of trouble! The L. Rev.
  editors mutilated my article by making major
  excisions of what they think is irrelevant or
  fanciful. They have made a ghastly mess of it
  and of the references to Bentham and I have
  written to say they must not publish it under my
  name with these cuts which often destroy the
  precise nuance. I took great care and much time
  over what they have coolly cut out.
• Could you induce them to be sensible? Such an
  interference with an authors draft is
  unthinkable here and I am astonished that so
  gross and insensitive a thing should be possible
  at Harvard.
• So sorry, but it is important to get precisely
  what I said printed.
• HLA Hart, in reference to the editing of
  Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals
• From Jean Leclair, A Review of Law Reviews
  Comments of a Contented Victim (2005), 31
  Queens LJ 385

30
Contact info

• Neil Craik craik_at_unb.ca
• Phil Bryden bryden_at_unb.ca
• URL http//law.unb.ca/LawJournalResearch.html