Paul Edelman (Law & Mathematics, Vanderbilt) writes:
I almost entered the fray after your dialogue with Sam Bagenstos on toolkits but your latest post in response to Frank Cross on interdisciplinarity has finally gotten me to write something. Your emphasis on teaching methods to prospective legal academics is, I think, exactly backwards. The first thing that any successful researcher in any field needs to learn is how to ask interesting questions. Once one has an interesting question, then the search for the appropriate method to answer the question begins. The methods that one needs are, frankly, not that hard to pick-up if one has a good question to study. We are not talking string theory here. A smart person can learn what they need to advance the ball. I know; I’ve done it.
The problem with the focus on method is that it mistakes what the goal of research is. Methods are meant to be used. Focusing on methods leads to a lot of people running around with hammers looking for nails. And when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Now you might argue, instead, that focusing on methods leads to a craftsman with many tools at the ready, but my experience, across many disciplines, is that people are comfortable with only a few tools, and only learn to use others if they are forced. If one focuses on questions, then one can learn to use the appropriate tool and have the necessary incentive to use it even if it isn’t one’s first choice.In a similar vein, the advice I’d give to any new researcher in any field is to find a set of interesting problems and figure out how to answer them. Find the tools that are appropriate, and apply them. And if you have to, invent your own tools.