Comparar métodos
Examine os métodos selecionados lado a lado; as linhas que diferem ficam destacadas.
| Pesquisa Jurídica Doutrinária Crítica× | Análise de Jurisprudência× | |
|---|---|---|
| Área | Métodos de campo | Métodos de campo |
| Família | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Ano de origem≠ | 1970s–1980s (Critical Legal Studies movement; applied to doctrinal method from 1980s onward) | Medieval English common law; academic formalisation 19th–20th century |
| Autor original≠ | Synthesized from Traditional Doctrinal Legal Research and Critical Legal Studies (Roberto Unger, Duncan Kennedy, and others) | Common law tradition (England); systematised in Anglo-American jurisprudence |
| Tipo≠ | Qualitative legal research approach | Qualitative legal research method |
| Fonte seminal≠ | Hutchinson, T. (2013). Doctrinal Research: Researching the Law. In D. Watkins & M. Burton (Eds.), Research Methods in Law. Routledge. link ↗ | Hutchinson, T. (2010). Researching and Writing in Law (3rd ed.). Thomson Reuters. ISBN: 9780455227689 |
| Outros nomes | critical legal doctrinal analysis, critical black-letter research, critical legal doctrine, CLS-informed doctrinal research | judicial decision analysis, legal case analysis, jurisprudential analysis, case-based legal research |
| Relacionados | 6 | 6 |
| Resumo≠ | 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. | Case law analysis is a systematic method for examining judicial decisions to identify binding legal rules, evolving doctrines, and interpretive trends. Rooted in the common law tradition of stare decisis, it requires the researcher to locate the ratio decidendi — the binding reasoning — of each decision, distinguish it from obiter dicta, and trace how that reasoning has been applied, distinguished, or overruled across subsequent cases. The method is fundamental to legal scholarship, litigation strategy, and law reform research. |
| ScholarGateConjunto de dados ↗ |
|
|