Сравнение на методи
Прегледайте избраните методи един до друг; редовете с разлики са откроени.
| Критично доктринално правно изследване× | Анализ на правно съдържание× | |
|---|---|---|
| Област | Полеви методи | Полеви методи |
| Семейство | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Година на възникване≠ | 1970s–1980s (Critical Legal Studies movement; applied to doctrinal method from 1980s onward) | 1940s–1970s (applied systematically to legal texts) |
| Създател≠ | Synthesized from Traditional Doctrinal Legal Research and Critical Legal Studies (Roberto Unger, Duncan Kennedy, and others) | Interdisciplinary; foundational content analysis by Harold Lasswell (1940s); applied to legal texts by empirical legal scholars from the 1970s onward |
| Тип≠ | Qualitative legal research approach | Systematic qualitative-quantitative text analysis |
| Основополагащ източник≠ | Hutchinson, T. (2013). Doctrinal Research: Researching the Law. In D. Watkins & M. Burton (Eds.), Research Methods in Law. Routledge. link ↗ | Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. ISBN: 978-0761915454 |
| Други названия | critical legal doctrinal analysis, critical black-letter research, critical legal doctrine, CLS-informed doctrinal research | LCA, legal text analysis, jurimetric content analysis, statutory content analysis |
| Свързани | 6 | 6 |
| Резюме≠ | Critical doctrinal legal research combines traditional black-letter legal analysis — systematically mapping the rules, principles, and doctrines found in statutes and case law — with the evaluative lens of critical legal theory. Rather than treating legal doctrine as a neutral or self-contained system, it interrogates the ideological assumptions, power relations, and social consequences embedded in legal rules, asking not only what the law says but whose interests it serves and what alternatives it forecloses. | Legal content analysis applies the systematic procedures of content analysis to legal texts — statutes, regulations, judicial opinions, treaties, and legal commentaries — in order to identify patterns, themes, and trends across a corpus of legal material. It bridges qualitative legal scholarship and quantitative social-science methods, enabling researchers to draw reproducible, evidence-based conclusions about how law is written, applied, or has changed over time. |
| ScholarGateНабор от данни ↗ |
|
|