Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Works in Progress Workshops

I have been a bit quiet on the blog these past few days because I have been busy attending some amazing events. I already told you all about Widener's Constitutional Environmental Rights Workshop that I found inspiring for kick starting some long-planned work on the Public Trust Doctrine, but I also want to take a moment to praise a new Junior Environmental Law Scholar Works-in-Progress Workshop.

Amanda Leiter of American University's Washington College of Law organized an excellent weekend. Five of us submitted works in progress. We all read each other's work closely and a couple of others joined in to provide comments. We spent 60-90 minutes on each person, with indepth discussions. It was amazingly helpful. We ended on Saturday with a field trip to Kenilworth Park and Aquatic Gardens, a truly hidden jem on the Anacostia River. Events like this are remarkably productive and fun. So who out there wants to coordinate the first Land Use Works-in-Progress event? (please invite me)

Jessie Owley

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/land_use/2012/06/works-in-progress-workshops.html

Conferences, Environmental Law, Scholarship, Water, Wetlands | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0176155c55f3970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Works in Progress Workshops:

Comments

Yes, if our research was funded by outside parties, yes, it should be acknowledged. And we shouldn't self-plagiarize without acknwoeldgement enormous hunks of "new" published work from our previous work. And our most important statistical claims should be free of bonehead errors in arithmetic. And most of all, when corrected, we should acknowledge the mistakes, and not refer to them as "typos," as Professor Considine did, in an interview with Laura Ingraham.

Posted by: Jim Holstun | Jun 13, 2012 4:41:41 PM

Jim's comment actually refers to the previous post about the Fracking Report. I am not savvy enough to figure out how to move the comment though.

I think Jim's points are great and I completely agree with his statements and those who have criticized the report. I will admit a few things here (1) I only acknowledge my current funding sources when I write an article and (2) I am not scandalized by the authors using the same text that appeared in other reports they had written.

As to (1), how would I go about changing that and should I? Should we have an uberlong first footnote acknowledging all funding we have received and all previous employers?

Posted by: Jessie Owley | Jun 16, 2012 7:23:17 PM