Abstract
Fields closely related to empirical legal research are enhancing their methods to improve the credibility of their findings. This includes making data, analysis code, and other materials openly available, and preregistering studies. Empirical legal research appears to be lagging behind other fields. This may be due, in part, to a lack of meta-research and guidance on empirical legal studies. The authors seek to fill that gap by evaluating some indicators of credibility in empirical legal research, including a review of guidelines at legal journals. They then provide both general recommendations for researchers, and more specific recommendations aimed at three commonly used empirical legal methods: case law analysis, surveys, and qualitative studies. They end with suggestions for policies and incentive systems that may be implemented by journals and law schools.
Highlights
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
As an open access journal, articles are free to use with proper attribution
Claims are more likely to be credible—or found wanting—when they can be reviewed, critiqued, extended, and reproduced by others’.15. These advantages are even greater in applied fields like empirical legal research (ELR), where claims may seem more facially persuasive because they have the weight of systematically collected data
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 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.
