Boyd — Volume 63, Issue 2

The empirical legal studies (ELS) movement provides important scholarly insights into law and legal systems through systematic, data-driven analysis. Boyd defends ELS against academic detractors who question its methodological rigor and relevance compared to traditional legal scholarship. The article distinguishes ELS from non-ELS scholarship by its reliance on objective observation and experience rather than theory, myth, or casual observation. Boyd addresses two key ELS challenges: avoiding personal bias in research design and simplifying legal complexity through measurement. The author argues that quality ELS work employs reliable and valid metrics, accounts for alternative hypotheses, avoids selection bias, and produces replicable results. Boyd contends that ELS scholars can successfully navigate the tension between rigorous measurement and legal complexity, providing scientific knowledge about legal phenomena beyond anecdotal observation. The article responds to recent academic critiques—particularly Todd Pettys's challenge to the Epstein-Parker-Segal study—by defending empirical methodology while acknowledging that not all empirical work meets rigorous standards.

Topics: Legal Theory · Evidence & Procedure

Keywords: empirical legal studies · methodology · legal research · data analysis · scientific knowledge · selection bias · legal scholarship