Abstract
This article aims to address some of the criticisms that have been made of human rights research, especially of human rights research conducted by legal scholars. It argues that a conscious and critical approach to the limitations of the 'ivory tower' of legal scholarship on rights is becoming increasingly necessary in a research context marked by the convergence of multiple disciplines, the ever-growing contestation of human rights, and the complexity of the international regime for the protection of human rights. This article outlines three strategies that could be useful for legal scholars to escape from the ivory tower and make a significant contribution to multidisciplinary human rights studies.
Highlights
This article aims to address some of the criticisms that have been made of human rights research, especially of human rights research conducted by legal scholars
This paper has reviewed some of the most common criticisms of the research conducted by human rights legal scholars in relation to some of its methodological deficits
These deficits are based on poor, self-referential research results that are detached from the reality of human rights in people's lives, and lacking in terms of critical capacity
Summary
Compared to research related to other social phenomena or produced by other scientific communities, the research conducted by human rights scholars has been often described as 'sloppy', which has the double meaning of careless and bungling, and sentimental and emotional. Legal scholars who engage in legal research in human rights do not receive training on (legal?) research methods, but they do not feel the need for such training or to discuss the research method while they are among legal scholars It is generally the interaction outside their scientific community that leads them to consider the methodological issue. After examining a range of legal research papers on human rights published in some prestigious international journals, Brems concluded that explaining the method used was not the norm in these publications She explained what had counted as a “methodological description” in her review; she admitted that a single phrase along the lines of 'the research question will be addressed through the analysis of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights' was sufficient Often this legal research in human rights is conducted without any methodological indication, and the lack of guidelines on what it is and should be considered as method, methodology and methodological discussion in legal research
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
