This recent Law.com article that Doug Berman and Dan Solove comment on asks whether blogging is a form of scholarship. My question is: What is "scholarship"? Is something "scholarship" just because it appears in a law review article or other journal? What if the law review article is riddled with thinking errors and is poorly written? Is it still scholarly?
My view is what constitutes legal scholarship is pretty basic: Legal scholarship is any legal commentary that increases the legal and non-legal public's understanding of the law. Scholarship is something that moves our legal knowledge forward. If x-article or blog post helps us understand something we hadn't understood, then it's scholarly. Thus, scholarship would include the mundane task of crunching cases and putting cases within its proper doctrinal frame.
Anyhow, I'd love to hear those who disapprove of blogs to explain what separates Doug Berman's blog from his casebook or a sentencing treatise. If Orin Kerr writes a lengthy entry about the PATRIOT Act, is it not scholarly because he publishes it online? I've seen numerous blog posts that would make the cut in most legal encyclopedias. Indeed, I wrote a half-dozen or so encyclopedia entries that (because of word limits) were less nuanced and detailed than some of my blog posts. Do I get to say that I produced some scholarship because my words are found between the covers of a book, but that better work appearing here is chit-chat?