Interdisciplinary studÂies are curÂrently the rage in legal acadÂeÂmia. An increasÂing numÂber of law schools are toutÂing their interÂdisÂciÂpliÂnary proÂgrams, which include offerÂing courses from other acaÂdÂeÂmic disÂciÂplines (ecoÂnomÂics, staÂtisÂtics, anthroÂpolÂogy, etc.) in the law school curÂricuÂlum, creÂatÂing law and social sciÂence instiÂtutes of varÂiÂous sorts within the law school, offerÂing joint JD/​PhD proÂgrams, and hirÂing JD/​ PhD faculty.
It seems like an irreÂsistible moveÂment with the potenÂtial to transÂform legal acadÂeÂmia. But based upon the hisÂtorÂiÂcal eviÂdence and the nature of legal pracÂtice, I’m skeptical.
Personally, IÂ find interÂdisÂciÂpliÂnary approaches obviÂous and inevitable, and hardly revÂoÂluÂtionÂary. Transformative? Perhaps. But then again, the law has always been (and conÂtinÂues to be) interÂdisÂciÂpliÂnary (the facts of every case involve other disÂciÂplines, after all), so what is so drasÂtic about allowÂing law stuÂdents to explore that as stuÂdents?





