Methoden vergelijken
Bekijk de geselecteerde methoden naast elkaar; rijen die verschillen zijn gemarkeerd.
| Vergelijkende rechtsanalyse× | Juridische inhoudsanalyse× | |
|---|---|---|
| Vakgebied | Veldmethoden | Veldmethoden |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Jaar van ontstaan≠ | Late 19th century; formalised 1900 | 1940s–1970s (applied systematically to legal texts) |
| Grondlegger≠ | Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (early conceptualisation); Raymond Saleilles and Édouard Lambert (modern discipline, 1900 Paris Congress) | Interdisciplinary; foundational content analysis by Harold Lasswell (1940s); applied to legal texts by empirical legal scholars from the 1970s onward |
| Type≠ | Qualitative legal research method | Systematic qualitative-quantitative text analysis |
| Oorspronkelijke bron≠ | 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 |
| Aliassen | comparative law, legal comparison, comparative jurisprudence, CLA | LCA, legal text analysis, jurimetric content analysis, statutory content analysis |
| Verwant | 6 | 6 |
| Samenvatting≠ | Comparative legal analysis is a structured research method that examines how two or more legal systems — whether national, regional, or supranational — address a common legal problem. By placing rules, doctrines, and judicial decisions side by side, researchers identify convergences, divergences, and the underlying societal, historical, and political forces that shape legal solutions. The method is foundational to law reform, harmonisation efforts, treaty drafting, and academic legal scholarship. | 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. |
| ScholarGateGegevensset ↗ |
|
|