in doctrinal analysis Interdisciplinary legal scholarship also may involve the desire to get"outside" of law to learn more about law with a hope that these complementary disciplines will assist in solving the social roblems with which law deals. These other disciplines may attract some scholars because they are useful in achieving desired political objectives. In addition, the internal approach reflected in doctrinal analysis may seem pedestrian whereas academics would like to be known as innovators. intellectual leaders and profound thinkers. Dissatisfaction with legal education and a desire to make it more like other graduate education may also have been a factor. 5 Some intellectual imperialism may be present. This increase in interdisciplinary activities reflects the continuing influence of legal realism and its skepticism toward traditional legal doctrine and analysis. Marc Galanter and Mark Edwards have called these developments an aspect of the displacement and disintegration of the prevailing legalist creed, and its replacement with n arena of competing programs. Richard Posner has characterized these developments as evidence of "the decline oflaw as an autonomous discipline "7 Edward White viewed this change in legal scholarship not just as one in subject matter, but the adoption of "a research design approximately that of the arts and Some scholars have voiced skepticism toward interdisciplinary legal studies. G. Edward White elieves that the notion of interdisciplinarity may be neither meaningful nor intelligible In identifying "th governing assumptions of law and scholarship, he said that"interdisciplinary scholarship 'allegedly reinvigorated the research design of the legal academy by bringing in fresh, extraprofessional perspectives but in the process. the intelligibility of a disciplinary perspective, indeed the concept of an academic Scholarship 191, 193(1991) 15. See Richard A. Posner, The Decline of la n Autonomous Discipline: 1962-1987, 100 Harv. L. Rev. 761, 778-79 (1987); George L. Priest, Social Science: Theory and Legal Education: The Law School As University, 33 J. Legal Educ 437(1983) 16. See galanter Edwards, supra note 3, at 376 17. See Posner, supra note 15 18. See White, Reflections on the "Republican Revival"supra note 1, at 13Scholarship 191, 193 (1991). 15. See Richard A. Posner, The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline: 1962-1987, 100 Harv. L. Rev. 761, 778-79 (1987); George L. Priest, Social Science: Theory and Legal Education: The Law School As University, 33 J. Legal Educ. 437 (1983) 16. See Galanter & Edwards, supra note 3, at 376. 17. See Posner, supra note 15. 18. See White, Reflections on the “Republican Revival” supra note 1, at 13. 4 in doctrinal analysis Interdisciplinary legal scholarship also may involve the desire to get “outside” of law to learn more about law with a hope that these complementary disciplines will assist in solving the social problems withwhichlawdeals. These other disciplines may attract some scholars because theyare useful in achieving desired political objectives. In addition, the internal approach reflected in doctrinal analysis may seem pedestrian whereas academics would like to be known as innovators, intellectual leaders, and profound thinkers. Dissatisfaction with legal education and a desire to make it more like other graduate education may also have been a factor.15 Some intellectual imperialism may be present.This increase in interdisciplinary activities reflects the continuing influence of legal realism and its skepticism toward traditional legal doctrine and analysis. Marc Galanter and Mark Edwards have called these developments an aspect of “the displacement and disintegration of the prevailing legalist creed, and itsreplacement with an arena of competing programs.”16 Richard Posner has characterized these developments as evidence of “the decline oflawas an autonomous discipline.”17 Edward White viewed this change in legal scholarship not just as one insubject matter, but the adoption of “a research design approximately that of the arts and sciences.”18 Some scholars have voiced skepticism toward interdisciplinary legal studies. G. Edward White believes that the notion of interdisciplinarity may be neither meaningful nor intelligible. In identifying “the governing assumptions of ‘law and’ scholarship,” he said that “‘interdisciplinary scholarship’ allegedly reinvigorated the research design of the legal academy bybringing infresh, extraprofessionalperspectives . . . but in the process . . . the intelligibility of a disciplinary perspective, indeed the concept of an academic