Mark Hall and Ronald Wright of Wake Forest have written Systematic Content Analysis of Judicial Opinions. Mark and Ron are actively requesting feedback on the project; specifically they would like to learn about (1) other examples of work using content analysis that were inevitably missed in the review; and 2) any additional helpful techniques or practice pointers to include in the paper.
The Abstract:
Despite the interdisciplinary bent of legal scholars, the academy has yet to identify an empirical methodology that is uniquely its own. We propose that one standard social science technique - content analysis - could form the basis for an empirical methodology that is uniquely legal. It holds the potential for bringing social science rigor to our empirical understanding of caselaw, and therefore for creating what is distinctively a legal form of empiricism. To explore this potential, we collected all 122 examples we could find that use content analysis to study judicial opinions, and coded them for pertinent features.
Legal
scholars began to code and count cases decades ago, but use of this
method did not accelerate until about 15 years ago. Most applications
are home-grown, with no effort to draw on established social science
techniques. To provide methodological guidance, we survey the questions
that legal scholars have tried to answer through content analysis, and
use that experience to generalize about the strengths and weaknesses of
the technique compared with conventional interpretive legal methods.
The
epistemological roots of content analysis lie in legal realism. Any
question that a lawyer might ask about what courts say or do can be
studied more objectively using one of the four distinct components of
content analysis: 1) replicable selection of cases; 2) objective coding
of cases; 3) counting case contents for descriptive purposes; or 4)
statistical analysis of case coding. Each of these components
contributes something of unique epistemological value to legal
research, yet at each of these four stages, some legal scholars have
objected to the technique. The most effective response is to recognize
that content analysis does not occupy the same epistemological ground
as conventional legal scholarship. Instead, each method renders
different kinds of insights that complement each other, so that,
together, the two approaches to understanding caselaw are more powerful
that either alone.
Content analysis is best used when each
decision should receive equal weight, that is, when it is appropriate
to regard the content of opinions as generic data. Scholars have found
that it is especially useful in studies that question or debunk
conventional legal wisdom. Content analysis also holds promise in the
study of the connections between judicial opinions and other parts of
the social, political, or economic landscape. The strongest application
is when the subject of study is simply the behavior of judges in
writing opinions or deciding cases. Then, content analysis combines the
analytical skills of the lawyer with the power of science that comes
from articulated and replicable methods. However, analyzing the
cause-and-effect relationship between the outcome of cases and the
legally relevant factors presented by judges to justify their decisions
raises a serious circularity problem. Therefore, content analysis is
not an especially good tool for helping lawyers to predict the outcome
of cases based on real-world facts.
This article also
provides guidance on the best practices for using this research method.
We identify techniques that meet standards of social science rigor and
account for the practical needs of legal researchers. These techniques
include methods for case sampling, coder training, reliability testing,
and statistical analysis. It is not necessary to practice this method
profitably only at its highest level. Instead, we show that valuable
uses can be made even by those who are largely innumerate.
How can a second year French student perform fairly in tests about the studies of juridic (judicial)methodology of English law .
Can you send tips
Thank you
J. Philip
Posted by: Josseline Philip | 08 March 2008 at 01:50 PM