Qualitative Methods for Law Review Writing

Qualitative Methods for Law Review Writing

Typical law review articles not only clarify what the law is, but also examine the history of the current rules, assess the status quo, and present reform proposals. To make theoretical arguments more plausible, legal scholars frequently use examples: they draw on cases, statutes, political debates,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The University of Chicago Law Review. - The University of Chicago Law School. - 84(2017), 1, Seite 213-238
1. Verfasser: Linos, Katerina (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Carlson, Melissa
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2017
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:The University of Chicago Law Review
Schlagworte:Mathematics Philosophy Law Political science Behavioral sciences Economics
LEADER 01000caa a22002652 4500
001 JST100025897
003 DE-627
005 20240624083449.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 170725s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)JST100025897 
035 |a (JST)44211831 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Linos, Katerina  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Qualitative Methods for Law Review Writing 
264 1 |c 2017 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Typical law review articles not only clarify what the law is, but also examine the history of the current rules, assess the status quo, and present reform proposals. To make theoretical arguments more plausible, legal scholars frequently use examples: they draw on cases, statutes, political debates, and other sources. But legal scholars often pick their examples unsystematically and explore them armed with only the tools for doctrinal analysis. Unsystematically chosen examples can help develop plausible theories, but they rarely suffice to convince readers that these theories are true, especially when plausible alternative explanations exist. This project presents methodological insights from multiple social science disciplines and from history that could strengthen legal scholarship by improving research design, case selection, and case analysis. We describe qualitative techniques rarely found in law review writing, such as process tracing, theoretically informed sampling, and most similar case design, among others. We provide examples of best practice and illustrate how each technique can be adapted for legal sources and arguments. 
540 |a © 2017 The University of Chicago 
650 4 |a Mathematics  |x Applied mathematics  |x Statistics  |x Applied statistics  |x Descriptive statistics  |x Statistical sampling  |x Sampling methods  |x Random sampling 
650 4 |a Philosophy  |x Epistemology  |x Empiricism  |x Empirical evidence 
650 4 |a Law  |x Judicial system  |x Legal proceedings  |x Trial court proceedings  |x Legal evidence 
650 4 |a Law  |x Legal rights  |x Civil rights 
650 4 |a Political science  |x Political sociology  |x Comparative politics 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Psychology  |x Social psychology  |x Social attitudes  |x Social discrimination  |x Employment discrimination 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Psychology  |x Cognitive psychology  |x Cognitive processes  |x Decision making  |x Path dependence 
650 4 |a Economics  |x Economic disciplines  |x Labor economics  |x Employment  |x Occupations  |x Legal professionals  |x Attorneys 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Psychology  |x Social psychology  |x Social attitudes  |x Social discrimination 
650 4 |a Law  |x Administrative law  |x Economic regulation  |x Commercial regulation  |x Consumer protection regulation  |x Lemon laws  |x Symposium: Developing Best Practices for Legal Analysis 
655 4 |a research-article 
700 1 |a Carlson, Melissa  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t The University of Chicago Law Review  |d The University of Chicago Law School  |g 84(2017), 1, Seite 213-238  |w (DE-627)341344222  |w (DE-600)2067131-3  |x 1939859X  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:84  |g year:2017  |g number:1  |g pages:213-238 
856 4 0 |u https://www.jstor.org/stable/44211831  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_JST 
912 |a GBV_ILN_11 
912 |a GBV_ILN_20 
912 |a GBV_ILN_22 
912 |a GBV_ILN_23 
912 |a GBV_ILN_24 
912 |a GBV_ILN_31 
912 |a GBV_ILN_39 
912 |a GBV_ILN_40 
912 |a GBV_ILN_60 
912 |a GBV_ILN_62 
912 |a GBV_ILN_63 
912 |a GBV_ILN_65 
912 |a GBV_ILN_69 
912 |a GBV_ILN_70 
912 |a GBV_ILN_73 
912 |a GBV_ILN_90 
912 |a GBV_ILN_95 
912 |a GBV_ILN_100 
912 |a GBV_ILN_101 
912 |a GBV_ILN_110 
912 |a GBV_ILN_120 
912 |a GBV_ILN_151 
912 |a GBV_ILN_152 
912 |a GBV_ILN_161 
912 |a GBV_ILN_206 
912 |a GBV_ILN_213 
912 |a GBV_ILN_230 
912 |a GBV_ILN_285 
912 |a GBV_ILN_293 
912 |a GBV_ILN_370 
912 |a GBV_ILN_374 
912 |a GBV_ILN_602 
912 |a GBV_ILN_702 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2001 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2003 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2005 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2006 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2007 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2008 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2009 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2010 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2011 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2014 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2015 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2018 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2020 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2021 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2026 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2027 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2034 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2044 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2050 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2055 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2056 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2057 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2061 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2107 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2108 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2111 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2129 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2190 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2935 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2949 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2950 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4012 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4035 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4037 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4046 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4112 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4125 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4126 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4242 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4249 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4251 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4305 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4306 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4307 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4313 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4322 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4323 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4324 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4325 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4326 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4335 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4338 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4346 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4367 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4393 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4700 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4753 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 84  |j 2017  |e 1  |h 213-238