Сравнение методов
Просматривайте выбранные методы рядом; строки с различиями подсвечены.
| Доктринальное правовое исследование× | Анализ юридического контента× | |
|---|---|---|
| Область | Полевые методы | Полевые методы |
| Семейство | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Год появления≠ | 19th century (systematised ~1860s–1880s in common law jurisdictions) | 1940s–1970s (applied systematically to legal texts) |
| Автор метода≠ | Common law tradition; systematised by jurists such as A.V. Dicey and John Austin | Interdisciplinary; foundational content analysis by Harold Lasswell (1940s); applied to legal texts by empirical legal scholars from the 1970s onward |
| Тип≠ | Legal-analytical research method | Systematic qualitative-quantitative text analysis |
| Основополагающий источник≠ | Hutchinson, T. (2013). Researching and Writing in Law (3rd ed.). Thomson Reuters. ISBN: 9780455229829 | Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. ISBN: 978-0761915454 |
| Другие названия | black-letter law research, legal doctrine analysis, analytical jurisprudence, traditional legal scholarship | LCA, legal text analysis, jurimetric content analysis, statutory content analysis |
| Связанные | 6 | 6 |
| Сводка≠ | 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. | 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. |
| ScholarGateНабор данных ↗ |
|
|