Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorChin, Jason M
dc.contributor.authorDeHaven, Alexander C
dc.contributor.authorHeycke, Tobias
dc.contributor.authorHolcombe, Alexander O
dc.contributor.authorMellor, David T
dc.contributor.authorPickett, Justin T
dc.contributor.authorSteltenpohl, Crystal N
dc.contributor.authorVazire, Simine
dc.contributor.authorZeiler, Kathryn
dc.date2021-07-28
dc.date.accessioned2021-08-18T17:13:02Z
dc.date.available2021-08-18T17:13:02Z
dc.date.issued2021-7-28
dc.identifier10.5204/lthj.1875en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.5204/lthj.1875
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12419/681
dc.description.abstractFields closely related to empirical legal research (ELR) are enhancing their methods to improve the credibility of their findings. This includes making data, analysis codes and other materials openly available on digital repositories and preregistering studies. There are numerous benefits to these practices, such as research being easier to find and access through digital research methods. However, ELR appears to be lagging cognate fields. This may be partly due to a lack of field-specific meta-research and guidance. We sought to fill that gap by first evaluating credibility indicators in ELR, including a review of guidelines for legal journals. This review finds considerable room for improvement in how law journals regulate ELR. The remainder of the article provides practical guidance for the field. We start with general recommendations for empirical legal researchers and then turn to recommendations aimed at three commonly used empirical legal methods: content analyses of judicial decisions, surveys and qualitative studies. We end with suggestions for journals and law schools.
dc.publisherQueensland University of Technology
dc.relationhttps://lthj.qut.edu.au/article/view/1875en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
dc.subjectempirical legal researchen_US
dc.subjectopen scienceen_US
dc.subjectopen accessen_US
dc.subjectreproducibilityen_US
dc.subjectmeta-researchen_US
dc.titleImproving the Credibility of Empirical Legal Research: Practical Suggestions for Researchers, Journals and Law Schoolsen_US
dc.source.journaltitleLaw, Technology and Humans
dc.source.volume3
dc.source.issue1
dc.description.versionVoRen_US
refterms.dateFOA2021-08-18T17:13:03Z
html.description.abstractFields closely related to empirical legal research (ELR) are enhancing their methods to improve the credibility of their findings. This includes making data, analysis codes and other materials openly available on digital repositories and preregistering studies. There are numerous benefits to these practices, such as research being easier to find and access through digital research methods. However, ELR appears to be lagging cognate fields. This may be partly due to a lack of field-specific meta-research and guidance. We sought to fill that gap by first evaluating credibility indicators in ELR, including a review of guidelines for legal journals. This review finds considerable room for improvement in how law journals regulate ELR. The remainder of the article provides practical guidance for the field. We start with general recommendations for empirical legal researchers and then turn to recommendations aimed at three commonly used empirical legal methods: content analyses of judicial decisions, surveys and qualitative studies. We end with suggestions for journals and law schools.en_US
dc.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
dc.identifier.eissn2652-4074


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
1875-Article Text-7791-1-10-20 ...
Size:
607.7Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Version of Record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0