Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
K. Linos, Melissa Carlson (2017)
Qualitative Methods for Law Review WritingUniversity of Chicago Law Review, 84
Gerald Wetlaufer (1990)
Rhetoric and Its Denial in Legal DiscourseVirginia Law Review, 76
L. Epstein, Gary King (2002)
The Rules of InferenceUniversity of Chicago Law Review, 69
P. Bourdieu, Richard Terdman (1987)
The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical FieldHastings Law Journal, 38
L. Webley (2010)
Qualitative Approaches to Empirical Legal Research
Routledge Handbook of International Law and the Humanities
M. Singer (1983)
Judicial decisions and judicial opinions: Relations between law, justice, and moralityCriminal Justice Ethics, 2
Thu Jan, Supreme Court, R. Cover, W. Stevens, Boris Bittker, Rob Burt, H. Dalton, Mirjam Damaska, Perry Dane, Jack Getman, Paul Gewirtz, M. Graetz, H. Hansmann, J. Mashaw, P. Schuck, A. Soifer (2013)
FOREWORD: NOMOS AND NARRATIVE
V. Munro (2020)
Feminist Judgments Projects at the IntersectionFeminist Legal Studies
E. Neacsu (2000)
CLS STANDS FOR CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES, IF ANYONE REMEMBERSJournal of law and policy, 8
The Hastings Law Journal, 38
K. Kennedy (2019)
Promoting the qualitative research approach in the discipline of forensic and legal medicine: Why more qualitative work should be promoted and how that can be achieved.Journal of forensic and legal medicine, 62
Nicholas Scurich (2018)
Styles of Argumentation in Judicial Opinions (Legitimating Judicial Decisions)Annual Review of Law and Social Science
Natalia Hanley, B. Fileborn, Wendy Larcombe, N. Henry, A. Powell (2016)
Improving the law reform process: Opportunities for empirical qualitative research?Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49
John Leubsdorf (2001)
The Structure of Judicial Opinions
Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, 2
J. Austin (1975)
How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955
Peter Cane, H. Kritzer (2010)
The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research
N. Creutzfeldt, Marc Mason, K. McCONNACHIE (2019)
Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Theory and Methods
Narelle Bedford, P. Billings (2021)
Judgement: Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451
M. Kirby (1990)
On the Writing of JudgmentsAustralian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 22
(2018)
Narrative and Metaphor in the Law
A. Sharpe (2017)
Queering JudgmentThe Journal of Criminal Law, 81
R. Cover (1986)
Violence and the WordOn Violence
This article develops a methodological framework to support qualitative analyses of legal texts. Scholars across the social sciences and humanities use qualitative methods to study legal phenomena but often overlook formal legal texts as productive sites for analysis. Moreover, when qualitative researchers do analyze legal texts, they rarely discuss the methodological underpinnings that support their approach. A thorough consideration of the methodological underpinnings of qualitative approaches to legal analysis is therefore warranted.Design/methodology/approachBy bringing critical legal theory into conversation with qualitative methodology, this article outlines a set of key principles to inform qualitative approaches to reading the law.FindingsTo construct this methodological framework, this article first distinguishes between qualitative approaches to textual analysis and the doctrinal approaches undertaken in legal practice and formal legal scholarship. It then considers how this qualitative approach might be applied to one particular genre of legal text: namely, judicial opinions, otherwise known as reasons for judgment. In doing so, it argues that robust qualitative analyses of legal texts must consider the unique characteristics of those texts, such as their distinct form, voice, rhetorical structure, and performative capabilities.Originality/valueThe methodological framework outlined here should encourage qualitative researchers to approach legal texts more readily and challenge the hegemony of doctrinal approaches to legal interpretation in social science research.
Qualitative Research Journal – Emerald Publishing
Published: Jan 4, 2023
Keywords: Qualitative data analysis; Methodological theory; Socio-legal research methods; Legal judgments; Judicial opinions
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.