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。
| 纵向比较法分析× | 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≠ | Late 20th century (comparative law foundational texts 1960s–1998; longitudinal integration from 1990s onward) | 19th century (systematised ~1860s–1880s in common law jurisdictions) |
| 提出者≠ | Konrad Zweigert and Hein Kotz (comparative law foundation); longitudinal dimension integrated in socio-legal and legal history scholarship | Common law tradition; systematised by jurists such as A.V. Dicey and John Austin |
| 类型≠ | Qualitative-interpretive legal research design | Legal-analytical research method |
| 开创性文献≠ | Zweigert, K., & Kotz, H. (1998). An Introduction to Comparative Law (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0198268598 | Hutchinson, T. (2013). Researching and Writing in Law (3rd ed.). Thomson Reuters. ISBN: 9780455229829 |
| 别名 | LCLA, diachronic comparative law, longitudinal legal comparison, dynamic comparative legal research | black-letter law research, legal doctrine analysis, analytical jurisprudence, traditional legal scholarship |
| 相关≠ | 5 | 6 |
| 摘要≠ | Longitudinal comparative legal analysis examines how legal rules, doctrines, or institutions develop and diverge across two or more legal systems over an extended period. By combining the spatial dimension of comparative law with the temporal dimension of longitudinal research, it captures not just differences between jurisdictions at a single point but the trajectories of legal change — convergence, divergence, transplantation, and resistance — over years or decades. | 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 ↗ |
|
|