方法对比
并排查看您选择的方法；存在差异的行会高亮显示。
| 批判性法律教义研究× | 教义法学研究× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域 | 田野方法 | 田野方法 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 1970s–1980s (Critical Legal Studies movement; applied to doctrinal method from 1980s onward) | 19th century (systematised ~1860s–1880s in common law jurisdictions) |
| 提出者≠ | Synthesized from Traditional Doctrinal Legal Research and Critical Legal Studies (Roberto Unger, Duncan Kennedy, and others) | Common law tradition; systematised by jurists such as A.V. Dicey and John Austin |
| 类型≠ | Qualitative legal research approach | Legal-analytical research method |
| 开创性文献≠ | Hutchinson, T. (2013). Doctrinal Research: Researching the Law. In D. Watkins & M. Burton (Eds.), Research Methods in Law. Routledge. link ↗ | Hutchinson, T. (2013). Researching and Writing in Law (3rd ed.). Thomson Reuters. ISBN: 9780455229829 |
| 别名 | critical legal doctrinal analysis, critical black-letter research, critical legal doctrine, CLS-informed doctrinal research | black-letter law research, legal doctrine analysis, analytical jurisprudence, traditional legal scholarship |
| 相关 | 6 | 6 |
| 摘要≠ | 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. | 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. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|