E-mailalert

Subscribe to our notification

Subscribe

Refine your search

Search result: 5 articles

x
The search results will be filtered on:
Category Artikel x
Artikel

Access_open The Role of Hierarchy, Example, and Language in Learning

A Confrontation between a Liberal and a ‘Critical’ Understanding of Legal Education

Journal Law and Method, 2013
Keywords skeptical legal education, academic learning, Critique, Knowledge, CLS, liberalism, power
Authors Bart van Klink
AbstractAuthor's information

    In The Voice of Liberal Learning, Michael Oakeshott characterizes learning as a strictly non-instrumental activity. In schools and universities, knowledge is acquired for its own sake. Obviously, this liberal understanding of education differs fundamentally from a ‘critical’ notion of education as advocated by Duncan Kennedy and other members of the CLS movement. From a ‘critical’ perspective, Oakeshott’s conception may be seen as yet another attempt – typical for liberalism and conservatism alike – to depoliticize the process of knowledge production and reproduction and to conceal (and thereby to strengthen and legitimize) its effects on the distribution of power, wealth, status and so forth in society. In this paper, the author will confront both views with each other, especially within the context of legal education. The general purpose is to develop a notion of skeptical legal education, which is to a large extent based on Oakeshott’s understanding of liberal learning but which relativizes its insistence on the non-instrumentality of learning and reinforces its critical potential.


Bart van Klink
Bart van Klink is professor of Legal Methodology at VU University Amsterdam and head of the Department of Legal Theory and Legal History at VU University Amsterdam.
Artikel

Access_open Exciting Times for Legal Scholarship

Journal Law and Method, 2012
Keywords legal methodology, law as an academic discipline, ‘law and …’-movements, legal theory, innovative and multiform legal scholarship
Authors Jan Vranken
AbstractAuthor's information

    Until recently, legal-dogmatic research stood at the undisputed pinnacle of legal scientific research. The last few years saw increasing criticism, both nationally and internationally, levelled at this type of research or at its dominant role. Some see this as a crisis in legal scholarship, but a closer look reveals a great need for facts, common sense, and nuance. Critics usually base their calls for innovation on a one-dimensional and flawed image of legal-dogmatic research. In this article, the author subsequently addresses the various critical opinions themselves and provide an overview of the innovations that are proposed. He concludes that there are a lot of efforts to innovate legal scholarship, and that the field is more multiform than ever, which is a wonderful and unprecedented state of affairs. This multiformity should be cherished and given plenty of room to develop and grow, because most innovative movements are still fledgling and need time, sometimes a lot of time, to increase in quality. It would be a shame to nip them in the bud now, merely because they are still finding their way. In turn, none of these innovative movements have cause to disqualify legal-dogmatic research, as sometimes happens (implicitly), by first creating a straw-man version of the field and then dismissing it as uninteresting or worse. That only polarises the discussion and gains us nothing. Progress can only be achieved through cooperation, with an open mind towards different types of legal research and a willingness to accept a critical approach towards their development. In the end, the only criterion that matters is quality. All types of research are principally subject to the same quality standards. The author provides some clarification regarding these standards as well.


Jan Vranken
Jan Vranken is hoogleraar Methodologie van het privaatrecht aan de Universiteit van Tilburg.
Artikel

Access_open Zelfrealisatie in onderzoek en methode

Journal Law and Method, 2012
Keywords juridisch promotieonderzoek, probleemstelling, toetsingscriteria, aard van de rechtswetenschap
Authors Lisanne Groen
AbstractAuthor's information

    A detailed description is offered of the debate concerning the question how – within the framework of a normative research question – relevant and operational test criteria can be formulated.


Lisanne Groen
Lisanne Groen is UD staats- en bestuursrecht aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam. Zij is tevens redactielid van Recht en Methode.
Artikel

Access_open Hoe rechters denken

Journal Law and Method, 2012
Keywords rechterlijke oordeelsvorming, opleiding, socialisatie, omgevingsinvloed
Authors Maarten van Wel
AbstractAuthor's information

    In this paper the author attempts to answer the intriguing question how judges think by providing a description of the context of judicial decision-making from the insider’s perspective of a judge trainee. This paper demonstrates that in judicial training socialization plays an important formative role. Looking at a standard model for judging civil cases the author stresses that judicial decisions are essentially arbitrary in the true sense of the word and can only be understood from within the legal system. What makes judicial decisions special is not the argumentative method, but their status. One way the judicial power of decision is restricted is by the membership of judges of a professional group with a shared culture and tradition. The author is under the impression that the influence of this context of judicial decision-making on judging is underexposed in legal studies. This paper tries to give the initial impetus to a further exploration.


Maarten van Wel
Mr. Maarten van Wel is rechterlijk ambtenaar in opleiding en is werkzaam als advocaat in de buitenstage bij Höcker Advocaten te Amsterdam.
Artikel

Access_open Praktijkgericht juridisch onderzoek

Journal Law and Method, 2011
Keywords juridisch onderzoek, empirisch onderzoek, praktijkgericht onderzoek, onderzoeksvraag, onderzoeksmodel
Authors Geertje van Schaaijk
AbstractAuthor's information

    In dit artikel wordt de stelling verdedigd dat in een praktijkgericht juridisch onderzoek zowel juridische als empirische onderzoeksmethoden nodig zijn. De centrale onderzoeksvraag in een praktijkgericht juridisch onderzoek dient immers gerelateerd te zijn aan het recht en aan de praktijk, zodat het antwoord op de centrale vraag praktisch bruikbaar is. Vragen van het type ‘mag dat?’ of ‘werkt dit?’ kunnen die relaties met recht en praktijk goed over het voetlicht brengen en sturing geven aan de richting van het onderzoek. In het beredeneerde antwoord op de onderzoeksvraag komt de integratie van methoden en technieken uit de juridische en sociaalwetenschappelijke discipline tot uitdrukking. Het onderzoeksmodel dat in dit artikel wordt uitgebeeld en toegelicht, maakt deze integratie duidelijk en biedt een basis voor een methodologie van praktijkgericht juridisch onderzoek.


Geertje van Schaaijk
Mr. dr. Geertje van Schaaijk doceert juridische vakken, rechtssociologie en methoden en technieken van onderzoek aan de Juridische Hogeschool Avans-Fontys.
Interface Showing Amount
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.