Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| Evaluarea programelor bazată pe documente× | Analiza jurisprudenței× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domeniu | Metode de teren | Metode de teren |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anul apariției≠ | 1960s–1970s (program evaluation field); document review as formal strategy codified in 1980s–1990s | Medieval English common law; academic formalisation 19th–20th century |
| Autorul original≠ | Daniel Stufflebeam; Peter Rossi and Howard Freeman (systematic program evaluation tradition) | Common law tradition (England); systematised in Anglo-American jurisprudence |
| Tip≠ | Evaluation research design | Qualitative legal research method |
| Sursa seminală≠ | Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation Theory, Models, and Applications. Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 978-0787908331 | Hutchinson, T. (2010). Researching and Writing in Law (3rd ed.). Thomson Reuters. ISBN: 9780455227689 |
| Denumiri alternative | documentary program evaluation, records-based evaluation, document review evaluation, archival program evaluation | judicial decision analysis, legal case analysis, jurisprudential analysis, case-based legal research |
| Înrudite | 6 | 6 |
| Rezumat≠ | Document-based program evaluation is a systematic approach to assessing a program's design, implementation, and outcomes using existing documentary evidence — such as policy statements, implementation reports, budgets, meeting minutes, and program artifacts — rather than primary data collection through interviews or observation. It is particularly suited to retrospective evaluations, accountability reviews, and contexts where direct fieldwork is impractical or infeasible. | 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. |
| ScholarGateSet de date ↗ |
|
|