Over the years I've sat on a number of search committees in political science departments and other departments in the college. This year I'm serving, for the first time, on the entry level appointments committee in the Law School. One conversation that oftentimes comes up in our discussions is whether a paper is "interesting" or not.
What do people in legal academia view as "interesting" work. I, personally, have standards I use to judge whether a paper is of theoretical or substantive importance as relates to the social scientific literature. And, editors always ask me to assess the research design, data, and methods of any piece I'm refereeing. But I'm having a hard time figuring out what makes a piece, whether empirical, theoretical, doctrinal, or something else "interesting" to the law review audience. Thoughts?