Blogging, Scholarship and Conversations on the Internet

We note a recent addition to the field of online scholarship, Criminal Law Conversations.  Oriented towards academics, the site seeks nominations for law pieces worthy of discussion.  The site seeks to encourage "conversation" about a published piece in the criminal law area.  As the site notes:

• The goal of Criminal Law Conversations (CLC) is to promote thoughtful critiques of important issues. Too often opposing advocates talk past each other. CLC's web based virtual "conversations" are designed to help opponents join issue. The website is not a blog but rather a vehicle for nominating and organizing the project's topics and contributors.

• The selection of core texts will be made by the criminal law scholarly community at large, as people express interest in the topics on which they would like to comment. All scholars are invited to submit nominations for the subjects of a "core text" based on either previously published articles or new material. All are also invited to submit comments on any one or more of the nominated core texts.

The site contemplates four steps:  First, a published piece is nominated. Second, interest is expressed by those who want to comment on the piece. Comments must be short (no more than 800 words).   The author of the piece is then invited to submit a "core draft" consisting of 3500 to 5000 words on the piece.  In other words, a tight summary of the longer article.  The core text will be posted once sufficient interest by commentators has been generated.  Once posted, the core text cannot be changed.  Thereafter, the comments are posted.  The author will have a right to post replies.

It is a thoughtful, interesting model designed to encourage reasoned debate and commentary on current matters.  It continues a slow movement of law analysis on blogs away from short notices of, or commentary on, current developments to more thoughtful, in depth legal analysis.  It is still the case that most references to law review articles involve rote repetition of the abstract, with no additional insight into the contents of the piece or useful commentary.

Still, the approach raises concerns.  The barriers to entry (the general need for the author to write the synopsis and the need for a critical mass of commentary) may ultimately slow down the debate.  The synopsis could be written by persons other than the author and could be posted even if the requisite number of comments are not received.  Whether law faculty in the area will have time to write lengthy comments on pieces remains to be seen.  They may do so early in a site's history but sustainability over a longer period is more difficult.  Admittedly a different kind of blog, the comments on The Race to the Bottom are infrequent and pithy. 

The brain child of Professors Paul H. Robinson of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Kimberly Ferzan of the Rutgers School of Law at Camden, N.J., and Stephen P. Garvey of Cornell Law School, the site is nonetheless located on the UPenn servers (the URL is http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/phrobins/conversations/status/).   In other words, although generically named, it will be hard to move if Robinson changes schools.  In addition, the institutions of the others participating (Rutgers & Cornell) get less "reputational" benefit from the effort since the site is identified with UPenn.  The founders might want to consider moving it ASAP to an independent Internet platform. 

It is a good idea and is consistent with the point made in Of Empires, Independents, and Captives:  Law Blogging, Law Scholarship, and Law School Rankings, where I contended that over time all serious law scholars would need to have a significant presence on the Internet.  Criminal Law Conversations, by the way, would be inserted under the category of "captives."