Empirical Legal Studies

Helpful, Practical Stata Tips

While I take no side (or sides) in the proverbial "Stata v. SPSS v. R" wars (I use all three), I want to note Stata's recent venture into the Blog universe. Though it's far too early to see if the Stata blog will succeed, it's an interesting development nonetheless. A recent post provides a helpful step-by-step guide to one of the more common (yet error-prone) data tasks: merging data sets. The explanation is helpful and includes all too common pitfalls.

Summer Workshops

For those still looking for something worthwhile to do this summer I recommend the following (click on links for detailed information):

Workshops on Research Design for Causal Inference

Northwestern University will be hosting two workshops this summer on Research Design for Causal Inference, sponsored by Northwestern University, University of Southern California, the Society for Empirical Legal Studies, and The Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and Economic Growth at Northwestern Law.

Causal Inference: Bayesian Methods Workshop
July 11-13, 2011

Causal Inference: Frequentist Methods Workshop
August 15-19, 2011

Online Symposium Over at Concurring Opinions Blog

Today is the first day of a planned two-day online symposium over at Concurring Opinions on the recent paper, What Difference Representation. Kudos to Dave Hoffman (Temple) for organizing the event (Dave's description of the symposium is here) that has already generated substantial commentary.

Errors About Type I & II Errors

This helpful mnemonic (from the Social Science Statistics Blog) may spare some from confusing Type I and Type II errors.

Another Quant "Boot Camp" for Law Profs

George Mason University School of Law's Law and Economics Center is hosting a Workshop on Empirical and Experimental Methods for Law Professors on May 23-26, 2011, in Arlington, VA. Interestingly, this is the second entrant into a growing market for programs specifically addressing law professors and empirical legal scholarship. (We've previously noted similar programs jointly sponsored by Wash U/Northwestern.) A more detailed description of the GMU Workshop, as well as contact information, follow.

"The Workshop on Empirical and Experimental Methods for Law Professors is designed to teach law professors the conceptual and practical skills required to (1) understand and evaluate others’ empirical studies, and (2) design and implement their own empirical studies.  Participants are not expected to have background in statistical knowledge or empirical skills prior to enrollment.  Instructors have been selected in part to demonstrate the development of empirical studies in a wide-range of legal and institutional settings including: antitrust, business law, bankruptcy, class actions, contracts, criminal law and sentencing, federalism, finance, intellectual property, and securities regulation.  Class sessions will provide participants opportunities to learn through faculty lectures, drawing upon data and examples for cutting edge empirical legal studies, and participating in experiments.   There will be numerous opportunities for participants to discuss their own works-in-progress or project ideas with the instructors.

The Workshop will begin on Monday May 23, at 8:30 a.m. and conclude on Thursday May 26, at 12 pm.  Classes on May 23, 24 and 25 will run from 8:30 am to 5pm, and include lectures, group sessions, and opportunities for participants to present their own empirical projects or “works in progress.”

Tuition for the Workshop on Empirical and Experimental Methods is $850 for the first professor from a law school and $500 for additional registrants from the same school.

Those interested in the Workshop should contact Jeff Smith directly at:

jsmithQ@gmu.edu  t:703.993.8181

More on Instrumental Variables

As the use of instrumental variables has become almost common in many literatures, especially economics and, increasingly, political science, it would assist many to get a better feel for the work they can perform (when used correctly and prudently). In this spirit, a recent paper in the American Journal of Political Science, Instrumental Variables Estimation in Political Science: A Readers' Guide, by Allison Sovey (Yale) and Donald Greeen (Yale), provides one helpful (and generally accessible) discussion. More specifically, the paper discusses "two noteworthy applications of instrumental variables regression, calling attention to the statistical assumptions that each invokes. The concluding section proposes reporting standards and provides a checklist for readers to consider as they evaluate applications of this method."

A "Cultural" Explanation of Differences Between Quant and Non-Quant Methods

A student recently brought this paper to my attention. The abstract follows.

"The quantitative and qualitative research traditions can be thought of as distinct cultures marked by different values, beliefs, and norms. In this essay, we adopt this metaphor toward the end of contrasting these research traditions across 10 areas: (1) approaches to explanation, (2) conceptions of causation, (3) multivariate explanations, (4) equifinality, (5) scope and causal generalization, (6) case selection, (7) weighting observations, (8) substantively important cases, (9) lack of fit, and (10) concepts and measurement. We suggest that an appreciation of the alternative assumptions and goals of the traditions can help scholars avoid misunderstandings and contribute to more productive ‘‘cross-cultural’’ communication in political science."

More on ELS & "Technical Fetishization"

A while back I linked to Brian Leiter's curious thoughts about ELS and the production of "too much" (and "too much" mediocre) empirical legal scholarship. Somewhat predictably, the post triggered commentary (as Brian's post was likely designed to do). To keep ELS Blog readers current, I want to update on even more recent commentary from Dave Hoffman (here) and Josh Wright (here).

Measuring Judicial Ideology Conversation

Nice discussion (the first of a promised series of posts on the topic) over at Concurring Opinions prompted by Corey Yung (John Marshall) here.

UPDATE: Part 2.

UPDATE #2: Part 3.

UPDATE #3: Part 4.

A Practice Worth Replicating

The good folks over at the Social Science Statistics Blog posted a recent presentation from the Applied Statistics workshop at Harvard. In it, Prof. Cassandra Wolos Pattanayak discusses propensity score matching at the CDC (approx. time: 75 minutes).