However, we can certainly understand how an argument for a judgment accepting a particular rule of law would be strengthened by including evidence on the likely effect on "actors in the real world. Textual analysis would not shed light on a topic. For example, if a researcher is interested in researching the impact of selecting a particular rule of law on the decision making of individuals and businesses. Pauline Kim, University of Washington School of Law, put it similarly:Įmpirical legal scholarship involves methods developed in the social sciences and is different from traditional legal research in that it "systematically explores facts about the operation of the law and legal institutions."Įmpirical research is important because "there are important questions in the law and about legal institutions that can’t be answered" through the traditional textual analysis methods of research. It is not a synonym for 'statistical' or 'factual', and its intellectual depth and significance are not determined by the empirical label. ".empirical research in law involves the study, through direct methods rather than secondary sources, of the institutions rules, procedures, and personnel of the law, with a view to understanding how they operate and what effects they have. Therefore, empirical evidence can be use both to accept or counter any scientific hypothesis or theory.While there has been some debate regarding the proper name for and definition of empirical research in law, for purposes of introduction, this guide accepts the explanation put forth by John Baldwin and Gwynn Davis in Chapter 39 of the Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies: No hypothesis or theory can be called scientific or accepted if it lacks empirical evidence in favor.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |