Scholars like to say that they offer a "rich" understanding of something (which makes sense because they worked and thought hard on it). But is it ever the case that scholars conceive their work as "non-rich", "light" or similar?
To be fair, I think lots of authors would concede that they give “drive-by” (or thin) accounts of X as a spring board to get to some other point they want to make. But yeah, they never lead with that, it’s always “Part I *sketches* an account of X…” or something or another, lol.
Link to Josh's Chadha piece should be fixed!
Scholars like to say that they offer a "rich" understanding of something (which makes sense because they worked and thought hard on it). But is it ever the case that scholars conceive their work as "non-rich", "light" or similar?
Hah. How about Akhil Reed Amar, Double Jeopardy Made Simple? (Yale L. J. 1997) https://openyls.law.yale.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/c047ed55-5442-4267-a23d-eb5251427910/content
Good example. He gets extra points for putting the roadmap in a footnote!
To be fair, I think lots of authors would concede that they give “drive-by” (or thin) accounts of X as a spring board to get to some other point they want to make. But yeah, they never lead with that, it’s always “Part I *sketches* an account of X…” or something or another, lol.