Comparer des méthodes
Examinez les méthodes sélectionnées côte à côte ; les lignes qui diffèrent sont mises en évidence.
| Recherche juridique doctrinale comparative× | Analyse de contenu juridique× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domaine | Méthodes de terrain | Méthodes de terrain |
| Famille | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Année d'origine≠ | 19th century origins; modern systematic form 1960s–1998 | 1940s–1970s (applied systematically to legal texts) |
| Auteur d'origine≠ | Rooted in classical comparative law (Anselm von Feuerbach, early 19th c.); systematised by Zweigert & Kötz (1998) | Interdisciplinary; foundational content analysis by Harold Lasswell (1940s); applied to legal texts by empirical legal scholars from the 1970s onward |
| Type≠ | Qualitative legal research design | Systematic qualitative-quantitative text analysis |
| Source fondatrice≠ | Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (1998). An Introduction to Comparative Law (3rd ed., T. Weir, Trans.). Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0198268598 | Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. ISBN: 978-0761915454 |
| Alias | comparative-doctrinal method, cross-jurisdictional doctrinal analysis, comparative black-letter law research, CDLR | LCA, legal text analysis, jurimetric content analysis, statutory content analysis |
| Apparentées | 6 | 6 |
| Résumé≠ | Comparative doctrinal legal research systematically identifies, expounds, and compares the legal rules, principles, and doctrines governing the same problem across two or more jurisdictions. It combines the internal rigour of doctrinal analysis — mapping the authoritative sources of a single legal system — with the external perspective of comparative law, asking whether different legal systems solve the same social problem in similar or divergent ways and why. | 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. |
| ScholarGateJeu de données ↗ |
|
|