手法を比較

	評価に焦点を当てた法的コンテンツ分析	ドクトリン法学研究
分野	フィールド調査法	フィールド調査法
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	Late 20th century; evaluation-focused applications emerged prominently from the 1990s onward	19th century (systematised ~1860s–1880s in common law jurisdictions)
提唱者	Builds on Klaus Krippendorff's content analysis framework and legal scholarship traditions	Common law tradition; systematised by jurists such as A.V. Dicey and John Austin
種類	Systematic qualitative/quantitative legal document analysis	Legal-analytical research method
原典	Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. ISBN: 978-0761915454	Hutchinson, T. (2013). Researching and Writing in Law (3rd ed.). Thomson Reuters. ISBN: 9780455229829
別名	legal text evaluation, evaluative legal content analysis, assessment-oriented legal content analysis, legal document evaluation research	black-letter law research, legal doctrine analysis, analytical jurisprudence, traditional legal scholarship
関連	5	6
概要	Evaluation-focused legal content analysis is a systematic method for examining legal texts — statutes, regulations, court decisions, contracts, or policy documents — with an explicit evaluative purpose: to assess whether and how well legal instruments achieve specified goals, standards, or values. It combines the structured coding procedures of content analysis with normative legal evaluation criteria, enabling researchers and practitioners to make evidence-based assessments of legal effectiveness, compliance, or quality.	Doctrinal legal research is the foundational methodology of legal scholarship. It systematically identifies, reads, and analyses authoritative legal sources — statutes, case law, constitutional texts, and regulations — to describe, explain, and critique the content and internal logic of legal doctrine. By working within the accepted hierarchy of legal sources, it answers the question 'What is the law?' with analytical rigour and interpretive precision, producing descriptions of settled doctrine and arguments for how ambiguities should be resolved.