The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 37 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research
Open accessAbstract
The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research This article considers how empirical legal studies (ELS) and doctrinal legal research (DLR) interact. Rather than seeing them as competitors that are methodologically independent and static, it suggests that they are interdependent activities, which may each be changed by interaction with the other, and that this change brings both opportunities and threats. For ELS, the article argues that DLR should properly be understood as part of its theoretical framework, yet in practice little attention is given to doctrine in empirical work. Paying more attention to DLR and legal frames generally would help ELS meet the common criticism that it is under-theorised and excessively policy oriented. On the other hand, an embrace of legal thinking, particularly of critical legal thinking, might lead to loss of status for ELS in policy circles and mainstream social science. For DLR, ELS offers a chance for it to escape the threat of insular sterility and irrelevance and to participate in a founded commentary on the world. The risk, however, is that in tailoring legal analysis to what can be empirically researched legal scholars become less analytically ambitious and more safe, and their traditionally important role as a source of socially relevant critique is weakened. Inevitably, in offering different ways of moving to normative conclusions about the law, ELS and DLR pose challenges to each other, and meeting those challenges will require sometimes uncomfortable self-reflection.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
71 Own interpretation · 34 Sources not found · 3 No basis given · 2 No full text of the sources · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“yet in practice little attention is given to doctrine in empirical work”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“mutual citation, for example, being exceptional and mostly symbolic”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
In the paper
“ELS does not mandate a new kind of research but rather brings together and consolidates empirical research relevant to law that previously took place primarily in faculties of social science”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [27] 27. And indeed what is meant by 'is': this article does not address the many varieties of positivism.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It is located primarily in law schools considered to be among the elite in the US”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [26] 26. Dagan, Kreitner & Kritcheli-Katz, above n. 57, at 300.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Rather than interdependence they move in relative indifference to and ignorance of each other.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [67]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“At any rate, the critique of the quality of ELS publications was itself attacked for methodological weakness”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [53]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without the doctrine, the empirical research is incompletely theorised.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“An idealised relationship between DLR and ELS thus seems to be one of theory and observation, not unlike that which might be found in other sciences.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [63]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which may each be changed by interaction with the other”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > Abstract
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“DLR and ELS are two techniques that can make only persuasive statements about the world if they work together.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [66]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“the perception of ELS as under-theoretical is put forward by authors drawing on their experience rather than being the conclusion of research that would meet ELS's own methodological demands.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [54]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In many situations knowing what is actually prohibited and what is allowed is a complex matter that is the subject of the doctrinal lawyer's expertise.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For inasmuch as ELS studies how the law comes into being, and which effects it has, it matters what the law actually is.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [61]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather than seeing them as competitors that are methodologically independent and static, it suggests that they are interdependent activities”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > Abstract
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is limited in that it concerned only ELS that was published in legal journals.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The empirical turn in legal studies is often said to be born partly out of a frustration with the limits of doctrine and with formalism.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [23] 23. F.H. Easterbrook, 'Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse', University of Chicago Legal Forum 207, at 207 (1996).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, rules exist alongside other rules, and are embedded in social structures and norms, so that their actual effects cannot be conclusively known merely from studying them in isolation.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There is an implicit naïve positivism.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [80]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Those who self-identify, and are perceived as falling within the ELS movement, largely manage to avoid engaging with the complexity of law, or legal thinking.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [74]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This is particularly so if the research is selfconsciously 'critical', aiming to reveal false consciousness rather than facts.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [86]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is certainly inadequate as a theoretical paradigm for studying how law actually works.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“One risk is that where empirical research focuses on concrete variables such as outcomes or word patterns, it risks missing the importance of judicial decisions, since this often lies less in the immediate outcome of the case and more in the doctrine that is laid down, whose consequences may appear over years, and in other fields.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [75]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“ELS is, in fact, most focused on aspects of the legal system that do not require detailed engagement with doctrine, such as criminology, victimology and more institutional issues such as the working of courts and the behaviour of judges.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [68]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“There is a growing body of scholarship that genuinely tries to integrate the legal and empirical in its explanations of legal processes, and to theorise their relationship.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [70]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Even where empirical research is done on substantive legal questions, it tends to focus on easily measurable variables, such as case outcomes or language patterns in judicial decisions.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [69]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In implicit recognition of this distance from the practice-oriented search for measurability, those doing it tend to self-identify under the NLR flag, rather than ELS.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [73]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 78
- It may state two separate claims as one. 33
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“DLR is not a science, except perhaps in the most abstract hermeneutic sense, but rather an adjunct to a professional activity.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [28] 28. M. Siems, 'The Taxonomy of Interdisciplinary Legal Research: Finding the Way Out of the Desert', 7 Journal of Commonwealth Law and Legal Education 5 (2009); Towfigh, above n. 4; van Gestel and Micklitz, above n. 1. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Advanced Interdisciplinary Research: Types 2 and 3” (page unavailable), the paper says that merely describing the law is not science in its defined sense of constructing models and testing hypotheses. It does not say that doctrinal legal research is an adjunct to professional activity or discuss an exception for abstract hermeneutics. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Policymakers have more use for concrete data, even if imperfect or incomplete, than for a nuanced new theory that embraces complexity and inconclusiveness.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The more ELS succeeds in not just penetrating legal institutions, but also converting their members, the more it may find itself becoming alienated from its source”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ELS traditionally does not follow a reflective or reflexive path: it quits when it is ahead, when it has a usable result, rather than going on to see how that result could in turn be undermined or turned around.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Those, on the other hand, who do write such articles will tend to be drawn from the ranks of more theoretically inclined social scientists outside the law school, or non-empirical lawyers”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There has been a trend for some years for American law schools to expand the amount of empirical research done within their walls, and this trend is spreading to Europe.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] 1. Van Gestel and Micklitz, above n. 1.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inevitably, in offering different ways of moving to normative conclusions about the law, ELS and DLR pose challenges to each other, and meeting those challenges will require sometimes uncomfortable self-reflection.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > Abstract
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As ELS expands, it may find that the environment of the law school changes it -that it absorbs more qualitative methods and is more and more subject to the theoretical frames found in legal thinking rather than those drawn purely from social and human sciences.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 1 Introduction
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, ELS asks where law and the practices of legal systems come from -which actors and institutions and social factors cause laws and practices to come into being -and what effects they have.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the claim that DLR itself is tragically limited in what it can say about the world is beyond any doubt”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the American scholarship there has been a long-running call for a 'critical empiricism' and also a disappointment that this has not arisen and that ELS continues to follow the path of 'scientism'.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [49]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For the lawyer, empirical research is necessary for them to achieve their normative ambitions.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Dagan, Kreitner & Kricheli-Katz, above n.57
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Without this knowledge, the empiricist has no idea whether what they are measuring has anything to do with the law, and so, as an honest empiricist, they do not know what to measure.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [62]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Higher norms or principles may constrain lower ones, so that apparently strict rules turn out to be flexible or contingent.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As will be discussed, any such defining feature appears to be primarily aspirational rather than actual.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Procedure, for example, may interact with substance so that an apparent prohibition can be dissolved away by procedural or evidential games.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not only is this research more likely to have been done by lawyers -who were not originally trained in empirical methods but presumably 'picked them up' somewhere -but it will also be less likely to have faced review by peers with the relevant method background”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and that this change brings both opportunities and threats”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > Abstract
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The contrast is with LS, which is typically more qualitative, self-reflective, methodologically diverse and critical.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] 20. J. Goldsmith and A. Vermeule, 'Empirical Methodology and Legal Scholarship', 69 University of Chicago Law Review 153 (2002). See also discussion in Chambliss, above n. 1. source
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The idea that the world can be studied 'objectively' and that the object of this study can be distinguished from the person studying it, is rejected, in favour of the view that the objects of study, being social phenomena, are themselves constructed”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [46]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“To be taken seriously as commentary on the world -rather than just as an aid to practitionerslegal scholarship needs empirics.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Dagan, Kreitner & Kritcheli-Katz, above n.57
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At its most blunt, the critique might be that ELS seeks to measure, not to understand, although it must be emphasised that this is not inherent in the nature of ELS as a movement or practice but merely a common perception of how it has tended to be performed to date.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, an embrace of legal thinking, particularly of critical legal thinking, might lead to loss of status for ELS in policy circles and mainstream social science.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > Abstract
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For those law schools, what they have to gain is threefold: academic status, educational advantage and policy influence.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 1 Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“ELS is often understood as an attempt to change this -to bring mainstream social science methods into law schools and to legitimate the empirical approach to law among lawyers.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [12] 12. Ibid.; T.J. Miles and C.R. Sunstein, 'The New Legal Realism', 75 University of Chicago Law Review 831 (2008);
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If law schools successfully become major players in the (largely quantitative) social science world, they may find that doing so changes their own character and diminishes their autonomy, as they become subject to the methodological disciplines of a wider field.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 1 Introduction
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most obvious and immediate axes of competition are between empirical legal studies (ELS) and traditional doctrinal legal research (DLR) and between law faculties and faculties of social science.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 1 Introduction
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Those who do ELS will, it may be expected, tend to reject most of the foregoing criticisms, but precisely because they are primarily empirical researchers they will tend not to write articles theorising or critically analysing the role and nature of ELS”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On another level of abstraction, one can see both of these activities as part of a common endeavour to decide what the law should be.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For DLR, ELS offers a chance for it to escape the threat of insular sterility and irrelevance and to participate in a founded commentary on the world.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > Abstract
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The risk, however, is that in tailoring legal analysis to what can be empirically researched legal scholars become less analytically ambitious and more safe, and their traditionally important role as a source of socially relevant critique is weakened.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > Abstract
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is clear that merely bringing empiricists into law schools and faculties does not necessarily result in fully rounded legal research.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The lawyer reveals the incentives in the law and suggests likely consequences.The social scientist brings additional psychological and social theory to provide a more developed model of consequences: and then tests it.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [64]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the most important motive for investing in ELS is probably the chance to extend policy influence.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 1 Introduction
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Paying more attention to DLR and legal frames generally would help ELS meet the common criticism that it is undertheorised and excessively policy oriented.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > Abstract
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The specific contribution of ELS is to offer the kind of hard-nosed and digestible prescriptions that LS is less concerned with.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 1 Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Until recently, this research, and the work of more traditional doctrinal lawyers, has existed largely in a state of comfortable mutual indifference -mutual citation, for example, being exceptional and mostly symbolic.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The traditional doctrinal lawyer is initially concerned with the question 'what is the law?' and on the basis of an answer to that may go on to consider whether the law is coherent and which values it expresses.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Doctrinal research, it may be said, reveals the structures of incentives in the law, in their full complexity, with their gaps and nuances and the way that these may be used.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whether or not they are factually true, the criticisms of ELS are coherent and suggest that there is a need to think about what kind of empirical research is both enhanced by being in a law facultyrather than being in its more natural methodological home, a faculty of social science -and in turn enhances the other research which that faculty hosts.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whether and to what extent weaker parties benefit from paternalistic contract law or employees benefit from labour rights or society is harmed by profit primacy are empirical questions.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, transplants are never merely additive, always transformative.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“ELS is generally considered to have a largely quantitative methodological orientation, and to be primarily policy oriented”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] 19. R.L. Revesz, 'A Defense of Empirical Legal Scholarship', 69 University of Chicago Law Review 169 (2002); source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Practical advice needs causality, not just correlation, providing a temptation to insulate the subject of research from the complexities of reality through convenient assumptions and premises.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 2.2
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Without the empirical research, the lawyer is condemned to speculation (as is the legal philosopher: see Galligan 65 ).”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.1 An Idealised Relationship
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Galligan
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Understanding of the law could be greatly enhanced if empirical and doctrinal methods could be brought together -if research questions could be jointly formulated and results jointly assessed.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 4 Conclusion
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The label of ELS may become unattractive to those doing quantitative science, who may prefer to be identified by their training as sociologists, psychologists or even economists.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both DLR and ELS are searching for their place in the academic world.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 4 Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet law is not a description of the world.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The obvious answer, legal sophistication, part of its original raison d'etre, has not yet been realised to any great extent.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 4 Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In 'testing' laws, empirically, researchers engage in what has been called, by LS scholars primarily, 'gap studies': what is the gap between law in the books and law in action?”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [78]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Claims can, in the political and the personal spheres, and indeed in the legal, be judged in other ways than by social science methods.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ELS is primarily something that law schools and faculties like to proclaim an interest in, rather than an identity for researchers.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If legal scholarship were to become safe, as scholars focused their interpretation on matters suitable for empirical research, the societal loss would be enormous.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 4 Conclusion
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the involvement of legal theory inevitably gives the research a complex conceptual basis and does not facilitate the delivery of punchy answers to immediate policy questions.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This work tends to be less quantitative and more qualitative than mainstream ELS and more focused on empirical validation and investigation of legal-theoretical concepts than on serving policy as it is understood by policymakers.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To reach sophisticated and definitive conclusions on how laws work often takes too long -politics sometimes has to act now.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Almost all individuals, including empirical social scientists, take normative standpoints on issues where they are not familiar with the empirical evidence or where that evidence is absent or incomplete.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the lawyer whose normative claims are too grandiose or complex (essentially, politically, indeterminable) for easy quantitative testing, the qualitative may offer relief.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“There is a natural synergy between the low-n (less quantitatively oriented) social scientist and the theoretically minded legal scholar.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [85]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It would be as if natural scientists decided to abandon the development of theory in order to apply what they already had: a short-term rush of useful results would mask longerterm stagnation of ideas.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 4 Conclusion
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without that, it offers little sustenance to lawyers and has little identity of its own.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 4 Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Qualitative methods may allow lawyers to reach out more effectively to colleagues in the humanities and some social scientists, and even to the public, but they may undermine the status of ELS in the worlds where it currently moves, the methodologically strict quantitative branches of social science.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For lawyers, the risk is watering down of their primary role as makers of arguments -or developers of ideas if one prefers.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 4 Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It may be, of course, that in a time of polarisation, where universities and governments are quite often at odds, this is precisely what (some) government funders want.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 4 Conclusion
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Doctrinal lawyers are frustrated with the limits of their knowledge and skills and seek to engage with empirics in order to broaden their descriptive and normative scope.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 4 Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An alternative response to the challenges of measurement is to use qualitative methods.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“ELS is still primarily conventional social science and has not yet shown what it is that defines it as a discipline -Suchman describes it as an 'I' in search of a 'me'.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 4 Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [90]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet an alternative answer is that empirics is slow, difficult and unreliable, particularly in the social sciences.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In legal scholarship 'one cannot take the meaning of empirical for granted'.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [87]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fortunately, there are other forms of knowledge about society -the lived experience that is the basis of political views, or the common sense that lawyers and judges have traditionally used.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“If law is to become part of science, this rhetorical, inspirational and speculative function risks being subordinated to the slower and more incremental search for measurable 'truth'.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [84]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One difficulty with this instrumental understanding is that the aims within law are often far more complex and even contradictory than is first apparent.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The risk for traditional ELS is that in law schools it is put under pressure to become more methodologically embracing and to accept empirical methods more sympathetic to what lawyers want to do.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Reducing cases to their non-doctrinal aspects, or reading laws without doctrinal context, gives a static and potentially misleading picture of what laws and judges are actually doing.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [76]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather, law needs to be understood in a much broader sense, as an intervention, an expression and a tool, which may be used in different ways in different circumstances and which may restructure incentives and cause actors to behave differently, and perhaps even reform ways of thinking and being.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The risk of oversimplification of the law, discussed in the preceding paragraphs, is a symptom of a more structural problem with this way of thinking about law: it problematises the gap as such, as if the 'wish' of law should 'be' the reality of behaviour.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [79]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A law is a political compromise whose symbolic, disruptive, second-order and indirect effects may be as essential to its nature as its apparent direct purpose.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet legal scholarship has traditionally had more of a political function than a scientific one: it develops ideas about law and power that even if not proven, or provable, resonate in public debate and cause change.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ELS may become a flag abandoned by its first carriers and then borne aloft by a new tribe.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The kind of legal scholarship that deploys untested and untestable social and political 'theories' and nevertheless reaches normative conclusions may be marginalised.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For these reasons, it is not the kind of research that is being pushed within law schools as part of the ELS wave.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“An excessive focus on 'the gap' will lead researchers to ignore the many other aspects of law and the complexity and diversity of its effects, and this in turn may tempt them into simplistic prescriptions, assessing the desirability of a law purely on its first-order consequences, as if the possibilities created, the messages sent, the ideas inspired and the interactions with other rules were mere”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.2 The Relationship in Practice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [81]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ELS is largely associated with the quantitative.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, there is likely to be pressure to produce 'testable' doctrinal research.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DLR may become simpler and more transparent, more modular and digestible.”
§ The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research > 3.3 The Potential Gains and Losses
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
ELS and DLR are distinct and identifiable categories of legal research.
“The most obvious and immediate axes of competition are between empirical legal studies (ELS) and traditional doctrinal legal research (DLR)”
The paper relies on this without support.
Competition for dominance is a meaningful frame for understanding the relationship between ELS and DLR.
“whether a simple competition for dominance will play out”
The paper relies on this without support.
Social science empirical methods are valid and can be imported into legal research.
“to bring mainstream social science methods into law schools”
The paper relies on this without support.
The quality of empirical research can be assessed by the methodological standards of social science.
“meaning that it is methodologically weak”
The paper relies on this without support.
Legal thinking and critical legal thinking are distinct from social science thinking.
“an embrace of legal thinking, particularly of critical legal thinking”
The paper relies on this without support.
The future of ELS and DLR can be predicted from their principled relationship.
“One small step towards forming an expectation about this -a predictive theory perhaps -is to think about the principled relationship between ELS and DLR.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Complex systems sometimes produce unexpected results.
“it is a truism that complex systems sometimes lead to unexpected results.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The capacity to disobey and a diversity of responses to rules are part of the humanity that law aims to protect.
“the capacity to disobey, and a diversity of responses to rules, are part of the humanity that law aims to protect.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Legal interpretation is not a science but a skill that provides influential and valuable conceptual input into academia, politics and society.
“Legal interpretation is not a science, but a skill that provides influential and valuable conceptual input into academia, politics and society.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Besides, it does not rule out that socio-legal studies also cover much non-legal science that is relevant to the study or research being carried out.”
From Socio-Legal Research: Integration of Normative and Empirical Juridical Research in Legal Research (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
Citations
Cites
The Critical Legal Studies Movement
Unger, R. M. (1983) · Harvard Law Review · doi:10.2307/1341032 · Cited by 809
The German Free Law Movement as the Source of American Legal Realism
Herget, J. E., & Wallace, S. (1987) · Virginia Law Review · doi:10.2307/1073069 · Cited by 140
Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Theory and Methods
Creutzfeldt, N., Mason, M., & McConnachie, K. (2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780429952814 · Cited by 102
The Law and Economics Movement
Parisi, F. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-306-47828-4_130 · Cited by 48
(2009) · doi:10.1080/14760400903195090 · Cited by 38
Research Handbook on Critical Legal Theory
Perrone, N., & Schneiderman, D. (2019) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781786438898 · Cited by 36
(2002) · doi:10.2307/1600351 · Cited by 28
A Defense of Empirical Legal Scholarship
Revesz, R. L. (2002) · The University of Chicago Law Review · doi:10.2307/1600352 · Cited by 23
McDougal-Lasswell Policy Science: Death and Transfiguration
Doren, J. V., & Roederer, C. J. (2012) · Richmond journal of global law and business · Cited by 5
Empirical Legal Research: Fad, Feud or Fellowship?
Mascini, P., & van Rossum, W. (2018) · Erasmus Law Review · doi:10.5553/elr.000106 · Cited by 4
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- [12]12. Ibid.; T.J. Miles and C.R. Sunstein, 'The New Legal Realism', 75 University of Chicago Law Review 831 (2008);
- [13]13. M.C. Suchman and E. Mertz, 'Toward a New Legal Empiricism: Empirical Legal Studies and 33. L. Epstein and G. King, 'The Rules of Inference', 69 University of Chica- go Law Review 114 (2002);
- [14]14. M.J. Madison, 'The Idea of the Law Review: Scholarship, Prestige and Open Access', 10 Lewis and Clark Law Review 901 (2006);
- [16]16. M.L. Daub- er, 'The Big Muddy', 57 Stanford Law Review 1899 (2005);
- [17]17. F.B. Cross, 'Political Science and the New Legal Realism: A Case of Unfortunate Interdisciplinary Ignorance', 92 Northwestern University Law Review 251 (1997).
- [18]18. Eisenberg (2011), above n. 13; F. Cross et al., 'Above the Rules: A Response to Epstein and King', 69 University of Chicago Law Review 135 (2002);
- [24]24. P. Schlag, 'Spam Jurisprudence, Air Law, and the Rank Anxiety of Noth- ing Happening (a Report on the State of the Art)', 97 Georgetown Law Journal 803 (2009);
- [33]33. Towfigh, above n. 4; E.H. Tiller and F. B. Cross, 'What Is Legal Doc- trine', 100 Northwestern University Law Review 517 (2006);
- [38]38. See the special edition of Law and Social Inquiry on this: SYMPOSIUM: New Legal Realism's Second Decade: Toward a Theoretical Foundation for Legal Empiricism, 43(2) Law and Social Inquiry 292-584 (2018).
- [43]43. T.M. Hagle, 'Two Worlds, Neither Perfect: A Comment on the Tension between Legal and Empirical Studies', 63 Buffalo Law Review 379 (2015); Tiller and Cross, ibid.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Socio-Legal Research: Integration of Normative and Empirical Juridical Research in Legal Research
Noor, A. (2023) · Jurnal Ilmiah Dunia Hukum · doi:10.56444/jidh.v7i2.3154 · Cited by 28
Nur, A. I., Al-Fatih, S., & Intania, C. C. (2024) · LAW REFORM · doi:10.14710/lr.v20i1.63684 · Cited by 10
Data-driven futures of international refugee law
Byrne, W. H., Gammeltoft‐Hansen, T., Piccolo, S. A., Møller, N. H., Slaats, T., & Katsikouli, P. (2023) · Journal of Refugee Studies · doi:10.1093/jrs/feac069 · Cited by 8
Approaches and Methodologies in Comparative Legal Studies: An Abstract Framework as Methodology
Majeed, N. (2022) · PAKISTAN LANGUAGES AND HUMANITIES REVIEW · doi:10.47205/plhr.2022(6-iii)41 · Cited by 5
Nur, A. I. (2022) · Human Rights in the Global South (HRGS) · doi:10.56784/hrgs.v1i2.15 · Cited by 5
“Furthermore, the article seeks to build a theoretical framework and analyze the consequences of legal implementation (Davies, 2020).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Davies, G.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Davies, Gareth
- ORCID
- Davies, Gareth
- Venue
- Erasmus Law Review
- Publisher
- Koninklijke Boom uitgevers
- Published
- 2020-09
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 3-12
- ISSN
- 2210-2671 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3032914661
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 9.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Erasmus Law Review (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Studies and Policies
- Social Sciences › Law › Comparative and International Law Studies
- Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
- Keywords
- empirical legal research, legal theory, critical legal thinking, legal scholarship
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-01, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-01 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
