Naar een succesformule voor empirisch-juridisch onderzoek

Abstract

is senior onderzoeker bij het Nederlands Studiecentrum Criminaliteit en Rechtshandhaving (NSCR) te Amsterdam. Prof. dr. F.L. Leeuw is directeur van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-en Documentatiecentrum van het ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie en daarnaast hoogleraar Recht, òpenbaar bestuur en sociaal-wetenschappelijk onderzoek aan de Universiteit Maastricht. Mr. drs. M.P.C. Scheepmaker is hoofdredacteur van Justitiële verkenningen.

Progress in Legal Methodology – A Methodological Assessment of Six PhD Theses

“…Snel, 2016). In recent years, more concrete instructional texts have been published, which converge on a number of guidelines and criteria for legal methodology (Curry-Sumner et al, 2010;Kestemont, 2018;Van Dijck, Snel & Van Golen, 2018;Vols, 2021).…”

“…When reviewing these publications and developments, certain criteria appear both as part of the instructional texts and earlier assessments of dissertations. The emphasis on specific criteria differs: for instance, from an emphasis on research questions (Curry-Sumner, 2010) and on research aims (Kestemont, 2018), to a stress on the interaction between literature review and research question (Van Dijck, Snel & Van Golen, 2018). To assess legal dissertations from a methodological point of view, we have constructed a framework consisting of the following standards: research aims, research question, theoretical framework, normative framework, methodological choices and demarcation, and social and academic relevance.…”

“…The breakdown of methodological standards into these categories resembles earlier work, but also differs. The theoretical framework, for instance, is sometimes used as an umbrella category, which includes a normative framework in case of a normative research aim (Kestemont, 2018;Van Dijck et al, 2018). Others only use a conceptual framework and normative framework as separate categories (Herweijer, 2003, p. 28) or include a normative framework as part of the methods of research (Tijssen, 2006, p. 108).…”

The Methodology of Dutch Private Law from the Nineteenth Century Onwards

“…1980) writes: "In order to perform empirical legal research, a researcher requires a certain expertise as regards the methods and methodology of empirical research." 39 Recently, there has been some more concrete discussion of this topic. 40 In his new textbook, "Privaatrecht in context" (2018), Tilburg professor Marc Loth (b.…”

A New Leaf: Is It Time to De-objectify Plants in Private Law?

“…Yet, there appears to be no noteworthy consideration of that fact in private law. Academic legal scholarship appears to be incomplete on this issue; 30 to our knowledge there is no academic literature that considers the de-objectification of plants in private law from a policy-based approachlet alone any realization of such policy. We believe that, compared with the rights-based approach, which can in some ways be more consequential but also more controversial, the de-objectification of plants in civil codes presents a more accessible opportunity that is both meaningful as well as politically and legislatively feasible.…”