Comparar métodos
Revisa los métodos seleccionados uno junto a otro; las filas que difieren aparecen resaltadas.
| Análisis crítico de la jurisprudencia× | Análisis del Discurso× | |
|---|---|---|
| Campo≠ | Métodos de campo | Investigación cualitativa |
| Familia | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Año de origen≠ | Late 1970s–1980s (CLS conference 1977; Unger 1983) | 1989 (Fairclough); 1987 (Potter & Wetherell) |
| Autor original≠ | Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement; key figures include Duncan Kennedy, Roberto Unger, Mark Tushnet | Norman Fairclough; Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell |
| Tipo≠ | Qualitative legal research approach | Method |
| Fuente seminal≠ | Unger, R. M. (1983). The Critical Legal Studies Movement. Harvard Law Review, 96(3), 561–675. link ↗ | Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman. link ↗ |
| Alias≠ | critical legal analysis, CLS case analysis, critical judicial analysis, critical legal reading | DA, Critical Discourse Analysis, Discursive Analysis |
| Relacionados≠ | 6 | 2 |
| Resumen≠ | Critical case law analysis applies the theoretical tools of Critical Legal Studies (CLS) to the examination of judicial decisions. Rather than accepting legal reasoning at face value, this approach interrogates how courts construct legal arguments, whose interests those arguments serve, and how ideological commitments are concealed beneath the appearance of neutral doctrinal logic. It exposes the political and social dimensions embedded in judicial language and outcomes. | Discourse analysis is a qualitative research methodology that examines how language, communication, and power shape meaning, identity, and social reality. Developed across linguistics, sociology, and psychology (particularly by Norman Fairclough and Jonathan Potter), discourse analysis goes beyond content to analyze language use as a social practice that constitutes and reflects power relations, ideologies, and social structures. |
| ScholarGateConjunto de datos ↗ |
|
|