Thanks for the pointers and the thoughts. This is one of the biggest questions for the legal professorial profession, so I think it is worth discussing at regular intervals.

Your first (pre-points) point is really essential, I think. Carving on your own terms has to be balanced against the fact that junior scholars are inevitably carving, at least in part, for the recognition and approval of those who will read and review their work. That’s a fact of life — and not a bad one.

It seems most of the points being made are addressed to strategies to help writers get recognized and appreciated and cited. I’m pretty much in agreement with your comments — esp. on 2 & 4. I think an article can ask big questions and wrestle with multiple ideas, while not providing a simple answer, and still be a good article. (Though maybe this is just me talking in my own self-interest!)

But one thing to bear in mind, I think, is that in the course of attempting to carve in terms that others will appreciate, it is important to remember that you can’t forget how to carve on your own terms.

Scholarship should be interesting to colleagues, but it also needs to be an intrinsically rewarding process — you’ve got to enjoy it enough that it becomes both your work and your chief hobby. Too much focus on how to do things the “right way” to please others can have downsides if it takes the joy out of research.

Ideally, scholarship should be both an art and a vocation. Eudaimonia, as it were.