Abstract
Fields closely related to empirical legal research (ELR) are enhancing their methods to improve the credibility of their findings. This includes making data, analysis codes and other materials openly available on digital repositories and preregistering studies. There are numerous benefits to these practices, such as research being easier to find and access through digital research methods. However, ELR appears to be lagging cognate fields. This may be partly due to a lack of field-specific meta-research and guidance. We sought to fill that gap by first evaluating credibility indicators in ELR, including a review of guidelines for legal journals. This review finds considerable room for improvement in how law journals regulate ELR. The remainder of the article provides practical guidance for the field. We start with general recommendations for empirical legal researchers and then turn to recommendations aimed at three commonly used empirical legal methods: content analyses of judicial decisions, surveys and qualitative studies. We end with suggestions for journals and law schools.
Highlights
Fields closely related to empirical legal research (ELR) are enhancing their methods to improve the credibility of their findings
We start with general recommendations for empirical legal researchers and turn to recommendations aimed at three commonly used empirical legal methods: content analyses of judicial decisions, surveys and qualitative studies
The key problem in our view is the unmet need for a subfield of the law devoted to empirical methods, and the concomitant total absence of articles devoted exclusively to solving methodological problems unique to legal scholarship
Summary
The key problem in our view is the unmet need for a subfield of the law devoted to empirical methods, and the concomitant total absence of articles devoted exclusively to solving methodological problems unique to legal scholarship. We found that some law journals are encouraging or require credible practices This finding leads to Part III, which discusses three common ELR methodologies (content analyses of judicial decisions, surveys, and qualitative methods). This part further evaluates how new reforms and technologies from the credibility revolution can be applied and adapted to improve the way empirical legal researchers use these methods. Part V provides some final reflections on the path forward
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
