Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Research Question, Theories and Methods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
User-friendly Legal Science

  • 545 Accesses

Abstract

Scientific research is theory based. There are various kinds of discipline-specific requirements relating to the choice of theories, research questions and methods. In User-friendly Legal Science, the choice of the research question, the theoretical framework and the methods must reflect the discipline’s particular characteristics. There are fundamental differences between User-friendly Legal Science and other areas of legal science in this respect. These differences reflect the unique point of view of User-friendly Legal Science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Strydom H (2014), p. 149.

  2. 2.

    For a review of ethical standards, see Glerup C, Horst M (2014). For the minimum requirements, see, for example, Torstendahl R (2005), p. 214.

  3. 3.

    National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1992) 2 Scientific Principles and Research Practices, pp. 36–39.

  4. 4.

    See, for example, Mæhle S (2015); Sandgren C (2005); Graver HP (2008); Berglund L, Ney A (2015), pp. 127–128 and 152.

  5. 5.

    Quine WV (1975), pp. 75–76: “The channels by which, having learned observation sentences, we acquire theoretical language, are the very same channels by which observation lends evidence to scientific theory … We see, then, a strategy for investigating the relation of evidential support, between observation and scientific theory.”

  6. 6.

    Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967), p. 3. See also ibid.

  7. 7.

    For socio-legal research, see Banakar R, Travers M (2005b), p. 2.

  8. 8.

    Kaplan A (1964) § 1 p 4. For historiography, see Torstendahl R (2005), pp. 214–215.

  9. 9.

    Bourdieu P (1975), p. 21.

  10. 10.

    For the drawbacks of interdisciplinary research in this respect, see Banakar R, Travers M (2005b), p. 6.

  11. 11.

    Bryman A (2007), p. 16.

  12. 12.

    Ibid.

  13. 13.

    See, for example, Wesel U (1974), p. 353 on the illusions of legal positivism.

  14. 14.

    For economics, see Friedman M (1953), p. 6: “Agreement about the economic consequences of the legislation might not produce complete agreement about its desirability, for differences might still remain about its political or social consequences; but, given agreement on objectives, it would certainly go a long way toward producing consensus.” For legal history, see Duss V (2012), p. 988: “Zunächst ist ein Konsens dahingehend zu konstatieren, dass sich eine Kritik der Methode ohne Kritik am Textinhalt als Unmöglichkeit darstellt. Die Frage danach, welche Funktion der Text erfülle, welcher Textgattung er angehöre, welchen Adressaten er im Auge habe, seien zwingend mitbestimmend für die Methodenwahl - eine Tatsache zu nennende Eigenheit von Texten, die sich nur schwerlich bis gar nicht von der Hand weisen lässt, wenn man die Performanz und die Funktion von Text im Auge behält.” For practice research, see Saurama E, Julkunen I (2012), p. 67: “In other words, practice research is value-laden.”

  15. 15.

    Saurama E, Julkunen I (2012), p. 70: “The Mertonian norms of science say that a researcher needs to seclude him or herself from the subject matter and neutralize her own influence on the field of study. We have identified this problem realizing that a researcher needs to be able to perform different kinds of mental transformations during the research. When gathering the research material, discussing, perceiving and interviewing, he or she might well identify him or herself with the work group and users, but the analysis of the material, must be based upon tried research methods.”

  16. 16.

    See, for example, Graver HP (2008), pp. 164–166; Berglund L, Ney A (2015), p. 152.

  17. 17.

    See, for example, Patel R, Davidson B (2012), p. 15.

  18. 18.

    See Gilbert N (2008), section 3.5 pp. 57–58.

  19. 19.

    Bryman A (2007), p. 6.

  20. 20.

    Berglund L, Ney A (2015), p. 152 on historical research.

  21. 21.

    Strydom H (2014), p. 150: “The purposes of research have been described differently by different authors … The terms research designs, strategies, purposes, objectives, goals or aims are … used interchangeably by various authors.”

  22. 22.

    Strydom H (2014), p. 151 on the basis of a literature review: “More than one purpose can be delineated for the same study, but one will normally dominate a particular study …”.

  23. 23.

    Fouché CB, De Vos AS (2011), pp. 94–99.

  24. 24.

    Babbie E (2016), p. 90. See also Strydom H (2014).

  25. 25.

    Tracy SJ (2010), pp. 839: “… high quality qualitative methodological research is marked by (a) worthy topic, (b) rich rigor, (c) sincerity, (d) credibility, (e) resonance, (f) significant contribution, (g) ethics, and (h) meaningful coherence.”

  26. 26.

    Ibid, pp. 840–841.

  27. 27.

    Davis MS (1971); Bartunek JM, Rynes SL, Ireland RD (2006), p. 11.

  28. 28.

    Sandberg J, Alvesson M (2011), pp. 28–29.

  29. 29.

    Alvesson M, Sandberg J (2011), p. 249.

  30. 30.

    Ibid, p. 247.

  31. 31.

    See Davis MS (1971); Davis MS (1986); Alvesson M, Sandberg J (2011), p. 247.

  32. 32.

    Alvesson M, Sandberg J (2011), p. 254. For the methodological principles for identifying, articulating, and challenging assumptions, see p. 256.

  33. 33.

    Ibid, p. 254.

  34. 34.

    Ibid, pp. 254–255.

  35. 35.

    See ibid, pp. 254 and 256.

  36. 36.

    For management accounting, see Kasanen E, Lukka K, Siitonen A (1993), p. 246.

  37. 37.

    Peirce CS (1931–1935), 1.54.

  38. 38.

    See, for example, Mäntysaari P (2012), pp. 69–74.

  39. 39.

    See Berglund L, Ney A (2015), p. 121 on historical research.

  40. 40.

    Ibid, p. 119.

  41. 41.

    See, for example, Fallon RH Jr. (1999), p. 562: “… I have argued that the selection of a constitutional theory should be based largely on instrumental grounds. Among theories satisfying a fit requirement, the best will be that which most optimally promotes mixed, weighted interests in the rule of law, political democracy, and appropriately specified substantive rights.”

  42. 42.

    Mæhle SS (2015), p. 157.

  43. 43.

    Mäntysaari P (2013); Mäntysaari (2015); Mäntysaari P (2016b).

  44. 44.

    See Mäntysaari P (2010a); Mäntysaari P (2012).

  45. 45.

    For method theories, see Lukka K, Vinnari E (2014); Kaplan A (1964), § 1 p. 4.

  46. 46.

    See, for example, Olsen L (2004), pp. 130–131.

  47. 47.

    For interpretive management accounting research, see Elharidy AM, Nicholson B, Scapens RW (2008), p. 142: “… IMAR is eclectic, as it draws on various research methods, theoretical frameworks and perspectives to provide better understandings or explanations of the substantive research phenomena. To achieve understanding, interpretive researchers study diversity …” For legal history, see Duss V (2012), p. 989: “Weiter wurde die Frage nach dem theoriegeleiteten Arbeiten erneut diskutiert, also der Übernahme fachfremder (?) theoretischer Konzepte. Es scheint mittlerweile als Geschmacksache empfunden zu werden, ob und welche Theorien (Luhmann, Derrida, Bourdieu, Foucault u. a.) man den anverwandten Disziplinen entleiht, solange man über Theorieapplikation, Umfang des sowie Gründe für den Eklektizismus Rechenschaft ablegt.”

  48. 48.

    See Whaples R, Morris AP, Moorhouse JC (1998); Fleischer H (2001).

  49. 49.

    See, for example, Duss V (2012), p. 989.

  50. 50.

    See already Augustine of Hippo, De doctrina christiana, Third Book, XXX.

  51. 51.

    See also Ross A (1958), p. 20: “The social phenomena which are the subject of sociology of law do not acquire their specific legal character until they are placed in relation to the norms of the law in force.”

  52. 52.

    See Mäntysaari P (2010b).

  53. 53.

    Bryman A (2008), p. 160: “‘Methods’ might be instruments of data collection like questionnaires, interviews or observation; they might refer to the tools used for analysing data, which might be statistical techniques or extracting themes from unstructured data; or the term might refer to aspects of the research process like sampling.”

  54. 54.

    Mæhle SS (2015), p. 127 on the legal research process generally.

  55. 55.

    Bryman A (2008), p. 160: “It is concerned with uncovering the practices and assumptions of those who use methods of different kinds.” Mæhle SS (2015), p. 127: “Sett i dette perspektivet er forskningsmetodikk det teoretiske grunnlaget og de refleksjonene som ligger til grunn for valg av metode(r) som trengs for å gjennomføre forskningsarbeidet.”

  56. 56.

    In linear and positivist research, however, it is assumed that one can both choose the method and scuritinise it ex ante.

  57. 57.

    Torstendahl R (2005), p. 215.

  58. 58.

    See also Kaplan A (1964), § 4 p. 28.

  59. 59.

    Feyerabend PK (1975).

  60. 60.

    Berglund L, Ney A (2015), p. 163.

  61. 61.

    Weber M (1922).

  62. 62.

    Popper K (2005), number 85.

  63. 63.

    There is a similar distinction even in natural sciences. Ross A (1958), pp. 319–320.

  64. 64.

    Weber M (1904), p. 148: “… denn wir sind der Meinung, daß es niemals Aufgabe einer Erfahrungswissenschaft sein kann, bindende Normen und Ideale zu ermitteln, um daraus für die Praxis Rezepte ableiten zu können.”

  65. 65.

    Ross A (1958), p. 20: “The social phenomena which are the subject of sociology of law do not acquire their specific legal character until they are placed in relation to the norms of the law in force.”

  66. 66.

    Moorhead R (2010).

  67. 67.

    La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW(1998). See also Djankov S, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A (2008); Djankov S, Glaeser E, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A (2003).

  68. 68.

    See, for example, Banakar R (2006), p. 76 on a study in legal sociology: “Why is he focusing on the discourses of legal theory, if his intention is to examine the ‘standpoint of legal actors’ and legal processes through which political values are transformed into legal concepts.”

  69. 69.

    Berglund L, Ney A (2015), p. 129.

  70. 70.

    Giddens A (1979), p. 230; Giddens A (1988), p. 416. See also Subrt J (2012), pp. 403–404.

  71. 71.

    von Ranke L (1885), p. VII: “Man hat der Historie das Amt, die Vergangenheit zu richten, die Mitwelt zum Nutzen zukünftiger Jahre zu belehren, beigemessen: so hoher Ämter unterbindet sich gegenwärtiger Versuch nicht: er will blos zeigen, wie es eigentlich gewesen.”

  72. 72.

    Goldthorpe JH (1991), p. 212.

  73. 73.

    Posner RA (2002), p. 1314.

  74. 74.

    See even Mäntysaari P (2013).

  75. 75.

    Zweigert K, Kötz H (1996), § 3 II: “Grundsätzlich ist bei der Durchforschung ausländischer Rechte jegliche Beschränkung zu meiden. Das gilt namentlich für die Frage, was alles als ‘Rechtsquelle’ heranzuziehen ist. Rechtsquelle im Sinne rechtsvergleichender Forschung ist alles, was das Rechtsleben der herangezogenen Ordnung gestaltet oder mitgestaltet.”

  76. 76.

    For source pluralism generally, see Ehrlich E (1912/1967); Teubner G (1997); Myrdal J (2007).

  77. 77.

    Compare Dagan H (2011), p. xviii: “For legal realists, the profound and inescapable reason for doctrinal indeterminacy is the availability of multiple and potentially applicable doctrinal sources.” For legal history, see Berman HJ (1983), p. 8: “… the law includes not only legal institutions, legal commands, legal decisions, and the like, but also what legal scholes … say about those legal institutions, commands, and decisions. The law contains within itself a legal science, a meta-law, by which it can be both analyzed and evaluated.”

  78. 78.

    Cases are relevant regardless of connections to a certain legal family and the civil law or common law traditions. See, for example, Guével D (2012), p. 34, Introduction, III, 2, no 47: “Comme toutes les autres branches du droit francais, conformément à notre tradition romaniste, le droit commercial et des affaires a pour source principale les textes. C’est une source officielle et le support privilégié d’un droit, non pas fait de “cases” à l’anglo-saxonne, mais de règles de principe, éventuellement assorties de temperaments et d’exceptions. Les textes sont traditionellement classes hiérarchiquement.”

  79. 79.

    You can find an example in Mäntysaari P (2005), section 2.3 and Mäntysaari P (2010a), section 8.2.

  80. 80.

    Husa J (2009), p. 477.

  81. 81.

    See, for example, Bryman A (2011); Lundahl U, Skärvad PH (1999).

  82. 82.

    Berglund L, Ney A (2015), p. 159: “När vi tolkar skriftliga källor ägnar vi oss oftast åt någon form av kvalitativ metod. Här handlar det om att uttolka textens mening eller djupare innebörd.”

  83. 83.

    See also Sandgren C (2005), pp. 316–317.

  84. 84.

    See, for example, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1998) in which the authors focused on particular issues according to their own preferences.

  85. 85.

    Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007), Pratt MG (2009).

  86. 86.

    Generally, see Scapens RW (1990); Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M (1992).

  87. 87.

    Kaplan A (1964), § 2 p. 14.

  88. 88.

    Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967), p. 26.

  89. 89.

    According to Glaser and Strauss, concepts should be analytic and sensitizing. Ibid, pp. 38–39.

  90. 90.

    Ibid, p. 5: “[G]rounded theory is derived from data and then illustrated by characteristic examples of data.” Ibid, p. 23: “In discovering theory, one generates conceptual categories or their properties from evidence; then the evidence from which the category emerged is used to illustrate the concept.”

  91. 91.

    See already Augustine of Hippo, De doctrina christiana, Third Book, XXV.

  92. 92.

    Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967), p. 5 on “exampling”.

  93. 93.

    Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007), p. 26.

  94. 94.

    Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M (1992), pp. 119–120.

  95. 95.

    Ibid, p. 120.

  96. 96.

    Kaplan A (1964), § 38 p. 332.

  97. 97.

    Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M (1992), p. 120.

  98. 98.

    Kaplan A (1964), § 41 p. 351; Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M (1992), p. 120.

  99. 99.

    Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M (1992), p. 120.

  100. 100.

    Ibid, p. 120.

  101. 101.

    Ibid, p. 121.

  102. 102.

    Ibid.

  103. 103.

    Ibid.

  104. 104.

    Ibid.

  105. 105.

    See, for example, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1998) in which the authors gave particular facts a numerical value according to their own preferences.

  106. 106.

    Bryant JM (1994), pp. 13–14: “[A]ll works of historiography are woven from two distinguishable strands: what might be called reportage on the one hand, and interpretation on the other. Reportage consists of information that pertains to basic questions of what, where, when, who, how many, etc. … Interpretation involves establishing the meaning and the significance of these historical ‘facts’, i.e., the materials that constitute reportage … Historical sociologists … thus encounter primary materials in the reportage of historians …” See also Subrt J (2012), p. 405.

  107. 107.

    Weber M (1922).

  108. 108.

    Kelsen H (1934).

  109. 109.

    Compare White JB (2002), p. 1398: “Truth has a place in the law, a crucially important place, but it is hard to see and explain what this is.”

  110. 110.

    Wittgenstein L (1922), 1.13: “Die Tatsachen im logischen Raum sind die Welt.” 2.1: “Wir machen uns Bilder der Tatsachen.” 2.14: “Das Bild besteht darin, dass sich seine Elemente in bestimmter Art und Weise zu einander verhalten.” 2.12: “Das Bild ist ein Modell der Wirklichkeit.” 2.21: “Das Bild stimmt mit der Wirklichkeit überein oder nicht; es ist richtig oder unrichtig, wahr oder falsch.” 2.06: “Das Bestehen und Nichtbestehen von Sachverhalten ist die Wirklichkeit. (Das Bestehen von Sachverhalten nennen wir auch eine positive, das Nichtbestehen eine negative Tatsache.)” 2.063: “Die gesamte Wirklichkeit ist die Welt.”

  111. 111.

    Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967), p. 32 (theory as process); Peirce CS (1931–1935), 3.432.

  112. 112.

    Fleck L (1979) Chapter 2, Section 1. Originally published in 1935.

  113. 113.

    Kuhn TS (1962).

  114. 114.

    Johansson LG (2015), p. 103.

  115. 115.

    See Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M (1992), pp. 8–9.

  116. 116.

    See Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967), p. 16.

  117. 117.

    Yin RK (2014), Chapter 2; Dubois A, Gadde LE (2014), p. 1281.

  118. 118.

    For the linear model, see Piekkari R, Plakoyiannaki E, Welch C (2010), p. 110.

  119. 119.

    Yin defines “construct validity” as “establishing correct operational measures for the concepts being studied”. Yin RK (2014), Chapter 2.

  120. 120.

    Yin defines “internal validity” as something limited to explanatory or causal studies. It means “establishing a causal relationship”. Ibid, Chapter 2.

  121. 121.

    Yin defines “reliability” as “demonstrating that the operations of a study - such as the data collection procedures - can be repeated, with the same results”. Ibid, Chapter 2.

  122. 122.

    See Miles MB (1979); Dubois A, Gadde LE (2014), pp. 1281–1282.

  123. 123.

    See Dubois A, Gadde LE (2014), p. 1282.

  124. 124.

    See ibid, p. 1282 on qualitative case research: “These conditions result in uncertainty about how to conduct ‘good’ case research and how to convince reviewers, editors, and the broader audience of readers of the real value of qualitative research and single case studies. There are certain problems in persuading advocates of the positivist school about the benefits of a research process in which frameworks evolve during the course of the study … Therefore, in order to convince the scientific community, qualitative researchers have to fight ‘an uphill battle to persuade their readers’ …”.

  125. 125.

    Ibid, p. 1282 on qualitative case research.

  126. 126.

    Wittgenstein L (1922), Vorwort.

  127. 127.

    Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967), pp. 228–233.

  128. 128.

    See also Tracy SJ (2010), p. 839 on the characteristics of “high quality qualitative methodological research”.

  129. 129.

    See European Commission (2010, 2013). See also European Science Foundation, ALLEA (2011), Section 1.2.

  130. 130.

    European Science Foundation, ALLEA (2011), Section 1.3.

  131. 131.

    According to Tracy SJ (2010), p. 848, “meaningful coherence” means that qualitative studies should “(a) achieve their stated purpose; (b) accomplish what they espouse to be about; (c) use methods and representations practices that partner well with espoused theories and paradigms; and (d) attentively interconnect literature reviewed with research foci, methods, and findings”.

  132. 132.

    Torstendahl R (2005); Berglund L, Ney A (2015), pp. 150–151.

  133. 133.

    See Dubois A, Gadde LE (2014), p. 1282.

  134. 134.

    For thought processes, see James Joyce’s Ulysses.

  135. 135.

    See Bourdieu P (1992), Part II, I.

  136. 136.

    A Bourdieu is a Bourdieu.

  137. 137.

    Peirce CS (1931–1935), 3.432.

  138. 138.

    See also Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967), pp. 224–225.

  139. 139.

    A couple of examples: Saint Augustine (Augustine of Hippo) referred to Virgil several times in his major work De civitate Dei. Saint Thomas Aquinas referred to Augustine (Saint Augustine), Damascene (Saint John Damascene), Philosopher (Aristoteles), and Apostle (Paul) when discussing the existence of God in his work Summa Theologica. Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) referred to prior theory in his biography of Jesus of Nazareth. This was regardless of the dogma of papal infallibility.

  140. 140.

    Yin RK (2014), Chapter 2.

  141. 141.

    See, for example, Kasanen E, Lukka K, Siitonen A (1993), p. 258: “The main condition of validity of constructions is clearly that they work (i.e., solve the problems in question).”

  142. 142.

    See, for example, Berglund L, Ney A (2015), pp. 121–126.

  143. 143.

    Dubois A, Gadde LE (2014), p. 1282, citing Ruddin LP (2006).

  144. 144.

    Torstendahl R (2005); Berglund L, Ney A (2015), pp. 150–151.

  145. 145.

    Yin RK (2014), Chapter 2, defining “construct validity” as “establishing correct operational measures for the concepts being studied”, “internal validity” as “establishing a causal relationship”, and “external validity” as “establishing the domain to which a study’s findings can be generalized”.

  146. 146.

    See, for example, Torstendahl R (2005); Berglund L, Ney A (2015), p. 149; Johansson LG (2015) section 4.5.

  147. 147.

    Berglund L, Ney A (2015), p. 149.

  148. 148.

    Ibid, pp. 151–152.

  149. 149.

    See, for example, ibid, p. 151.

  150. 150.

    Merton RK (1968); Boudon R (1991).

  151. 151.

    For management accounting, see Lukka K, Kasanen E (1995), p. 72: “These generalized conclusions may be of several types: − conceptual frameworks, which offer us the possibility to discuss the subject area in general; − descriptive models, attempting to show ‘how things are’ in the problem field, covering more objects than the studied ones; − explanatory models, which attempt to capture the significant general relationships in the subject area; − prescriptive models, offering solutions to practical problems and guidance for further decision making in other similar, or corresponding, organizations.”

  152. 152.

    MacIntyre A (2007), p. 121 (generally): “They will be prefaced not by universal quantifiers but by some such phrase as ‘characteristically and for the most part…’ But just these … turned out to be the characteristics of the generalizations which actual empirical social scientists claim with good reason to have discovered.” Lukka K, Kasanen E (1995), p. 73 (management accounting).

  153. 153.

    Weber M (1904), II.

  154. 154.

    Peirce CS (1931−1935), 3.432.

  155. 155.

    Durkheim É (1894), Chapter III.

  156. 156.

    Lukka K, Kasanen E (1995), p. 82.

  157. 157.

    Ibid, p. 76.

  158. 158.

    Popper K (2005), numbers 36, 38 and 43.

  159. 159.

    Yates SJ (2004), p. 15: “Theories in social sciences can vary between abstract general approaches (such as functionalism) and fairly low-level theories to explain specific phenomena (such as voting behaviour, delinquency, aggressiveness). By and large, the theories that are most likely to receive empirical attention are those which are at a fairly low level of generality.”

  160. 160.

    Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967), p. 242.

References

  • Alvesson M, Sandberg J (2011) Generating research questions through problematization. Acad Manag Rev 36(2):247–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Augustine of Hippo (426–427) De doctrina christiana

    Google Scholar 

  • Babbie E (2016) The practice of social research, 14th edn. Cengage Learning, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Banakar R (2006) How can sociology and jurisprudence learn from each other? A reply to Mauro Zamboni. Retfærd 29(2):75–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Banakar R, Travers M (2005b) Law, sociology and method. In: Banakar R, Travers M (eds) Theory and method in socio-legal research. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland Oregon, pp 1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartunek JM, Rynes SL, Ireland RD (2006) What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter? Acad Manag J 49(1):9–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berglund L, Ney A (2015) Historikerns hantverk: Om historieskrivning, teori och metod. Studentlitteratur, Lund

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman HJ (1983) Law and revolution: the formation of the Western legal tradition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudon R (1991) What middle-range theories are. Contemp Sociol (Am Sociol Assoc) 20(4):519–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu P (1975) The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Soc Sci Inf 14(6):19–47. doi:10.1177/053901847501400602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu P (1992) Les règles de l'art: genèse et structure du champ littéraire. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant JM (1994) Evidence and explanation in history and sociology: critical reflections on goldthorpe’s critique of historical sociology. Br J Sociol 45(1):3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman A (2007) The research question in social research: what is its role? Int J Soc Res Methodol 10:5–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman A (2008) Of methods and methodology. Qual Res Organ Manage Int J 3(2):159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman A (2011) Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder. Liber, Malmö

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagan H (2011) Property: values and institutions. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MS (1971) That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philos Soc Sci 1(4):309–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MS (1986) That’s classic! The phenomenology and rhetoric of successful social theories. Philos Soc Sci 16(3):285–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djankov S, Glaeser E, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A (2003) The new comparative economics. J Comp Econ 31:595–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djankov S, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A (2008) The law and economics of self-dealing. J Financ Econ 88:430–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois A, Gadde LE (2014) “Systematic combining”–A decade later. J Bus Res 67:1277–1284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim É (1894) Les régles de la méthode sociologique. Revue philosophique

    Google Scholar 

  • Duss V (2012) Chronik. Arbeitskreis “Augen der Rechtsgeschichte”. Fünftes Symposium zur Methode der Rechtsgeschichte. Einsiedeln 20.–22. Januar 2011. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Germanistische Abteilung 129(1):986–990. doi:10.7767/zrgga.2012.129.1.986

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich E (1912/1967) Das lebende Recht der Völker der Bukowina. Reprinted In: Rehbinder M (ed) Eugen Ehrlich, Recht und Leben, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 43–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manag J 50(1):25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elharidy AM, Nicholson B, Scapens RW (2008) Using grounded theory in interpretive management accounting research. Qual Res Acc Manage 5(2):139–155. doi:10.1108/11766090810888935

  • European Commission (2010) European textbook on ethics in research. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi:10.2777/17442

  • European Commission (2013) Ethics for researchers: facilitating research excellence in FP7. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi:10.2777/7491

  • European Science Foundation, ALLEA (2011) The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallon RH Jr (1999) How to choose a constitutional theory. Calif Law Rev 87(3):535–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend PK (1975) Against method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. Humanities Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck L (1979) Genesis and development of a scientific fact. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Originally published in German as Fleck L (1935) Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Schwabe, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer H (2001) Grundfragen der ökonomischen Theorie im Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrecht. Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht 30(1):1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fouché CB, De Vos AS (2011) Formal formulations. In: De Vos AS, Strydom H, Fouché CB, Delport CSL (eds) Research at grass roots: for the social sciences and human service professions. Van Schaik Publishers, Pretoria, pp 89–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M (1953) The methodology of positive economics. In: Friedman M (ed) Essays in positive economics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 3–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1979) Central problems in social theory. Macmillan, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Oxford, and University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1988) Die Konstitution der Gesellschaft: Grundzüge einer Theorie der Strukturierung. Campus-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main [German translation of Giddens A (1984)]

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert N (ed) (2008) Researching social life, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Glerup C, Horst M (2014) Mapping ‘social responsibility’ in science. J Responsible Innov 1(1):31–50. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldthorpe JH (1991) The uses of history in sociology: reflections on some recent tendencies. Br J Sociol 42:211–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graver HP (2008) Vanlig juridisk metode? Om rettsdogmatikken som juridisk sjanger. Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap 121(2):149–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Guével D (2012) Droit de commerce et des affaires, 4e edn. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Husa J (2009) Theorie der Rechtsvergleichung als Rechtsphilosophie. Rechtstheorie 40:473–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson LG (2015) Introduktion till vetenskapsteorin. Tredje upplagan, andra tryckningen. Bokförlaget Thales, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan A (1964) The conduct of inquiry: methodology for behavioral science. Chandler Publishing Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasanen E, Lukka K, Siitonen A (1993) The constructive approach in management accounting research. J Manag Account Res 5:243–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1934) Reine Rechtslehre: Einleitung in die rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik, 1. Aufl. Deuticke, Leipzig Wien. Jestaedt M (ed) (2008) Studienausgabe. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1998) Law and finance. J Polit Econ 106(6):1113–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukka K, Kasanen E (1995) The problem of generalizability: anecdotes and evidence in accounting research. Acc Audit Account J 8(5):71–90 doi:10.1108/09513579510147733

  • Lukka K, Vinnari E (2014) Domain theory and method theory in management accounting research. Account Audit Account J 27(8):1308–1338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundahl U, Skärvad PH (1999) Utredningsmetodik för samhällsvetare och ekonomer. Studentlitteratur, Lund

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre A (2007) After virtue. A study in moral theory, 3rd edn. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana

    Google Scholar 

  • Mæhle SS (2015) Rettsvitenskapelig forskningsmetodikk – i lys av grunnleggende forskningsverdier. Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap 128(2):125–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäntysaari P (2005) Comparative corporate governance: shareholders as a rule-maker. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäntysaari P (2010a) The law of corporate finance: general principles and EU law. Volume I: cash flow, risk, agency, information. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mäntysaari P (2010b) The law of corporate finance: general principles and EU law. Volume II: contracts in general. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mäntysaari P (2012) Organising the firm: theories of commercial law, corporate governance and corporate law. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mäntysaari P (2013) Was sollte man tun? Ein Plädoyer für anwenderfreundliche Rechtswissenschaft. Rechtstheorie 44(2):189–207. doi:10.3790/rth.44.2.189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäntysaari P (2015) EU electricity trade law: the legal tools of electricity producers in the internal electricity market. Springer International Publishing, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16513-4

  • Mäntysaari P (2016) Oikeudenaloista tieteenaloihin. Lakimies 114(2):297–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK (1968) Social theory and social structure. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB (1979) Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: the problem of analysis. Adm Sci Q 24(4):590–601. doi:10.2307/2392365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorhead R (2010) Lawyer specialization – managing the professional paradox. Law Policy 32(2):226–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myrdal J (2007) Källpluralismen och dess inkluderande metodpaket. Historisk tidskrift 127(3):495–504

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1992) Responsible science: ensuring the integrity of the research process, vol I. The National Academies Press, Washington. doi:10.17226/1864

  • Olsen L (2004) Rättsvetenskapliga perspektiv. Svensk Juristtidning 89(2):105–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel R, Davidson B (2012) Forskningsmetodikens grunder: Att planera, genomföra och rapportera en undersökning. Fjärde upplagan, Studentlitteratur, Lund

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce CS (1931–1935) The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols I–VI. In: Hartshorne C, Weiss P (eds) Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Piekkari R, Plakoyiannaki E, Welch C (2010) ‘Good’ case research in industrial marketing: insights from research practice. Ind Mark Manag 39:109–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper K (2005) Logik der Forschung. 11. Auflage. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner RA (2002) Legal scholarship today. Harv Law Rev 115(5):1314–1326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt MG (2009) For the lack of a boilerplate: tips on writing up (and rewriting) qualitative research. Acad Manag J 52(5):856–862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quine WV (1975) The nature of natural knowledge. In: Guttenplan S (ed) Mind and language. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 67–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross A (1958) On law and justice. Stevens & Sons, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruddin LP (2006) You can generalize stupid! social scientists, Bent Flyvbjerg and case study methodology. Qual Inq 12(4):797–812. doi:10.1177/1077800406288622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M (1992) Research method and methodology in finance and accounting. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg J, Alvesson M (2011) Ways of constructing research questions: gap-spotting or problematization? Organization 18:23–44. doi:10.1177/1350508410372151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandgren C (2005) Om teoribildning och rättsvetenskap. Juridisk Tidskrift 16(2):297–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Saurama E, Julkunen I (2012) Approaching practice research in theory and practice. Soc Work Soc Sci Rev 15(2):57–75. doi:10.1921/095352211X636502

    Google Scholar 

  • Scapens RW (1990) Researching management accounting practice: the role of case study methods. Br Account Rev 22(3):259–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strydom H (2014) An evaluation of the purposes of research in social work. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 49(2):149–164. doi:10.15270/49-2-58

  • Subrt J (2012) History and sociology: what is historical sociology? In: Erasga D (ed) Sociological landscape-theories, realities and trends. Intechopen. Chapter 12, pp 403–416. doi:10.5772/38816

  • Teubner G (1997) Global Bukowina: legal pluralism in the world-society. In: Teubner G (ed) (1997) Global law without a state. Aldershot, Dartmouth, pp 3–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Torstendahl R (2005) Källkritik, metod och vetenskap. Historisk tidskrift 125(2):209–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy SJ (2010) Qualitative quality: eight “Big Tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qual Inq 16(1):837–851. doi:10.1177/1077800410383121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Ranke L (1885) Sämtliche Werke. Bd. 33/34. Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1904) Die “Objektivität” sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 19(1):22–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1922) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft – Grundriß der verstehenden Soziologie. J.C.B Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Wesel U (1974) Zur Methode der Rechtsgeschichte. Kritische Justiz 7(4):337–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whaples R, Morris AP, Moorhouse JC (1998) What should lawyers know about economics? J Leg Educ 48:120–124

    Google Scholar 

  • White JB (2002) Legal knowledge. Harv Law Rev 115(5):1396–1431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein L (1922) Tractatus Logico-philosophicus: Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung. Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates SJ (2004) Doing social science research. SAGE Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2014) Case study research: design and methods, 5th edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweigert K, Kötz H (1996) Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts, 3. neubearbeitete Auflage. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting and Commercial Law, Hanken School of Economics, Vaasa, Finland

    Petri Mäntysaari

Authors
  1. Petri Mäntysaari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mäntysaari, P. (2017). The Research Question, Theories and Methods. In: User-friendly Legal Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53492-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53492-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-53491-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-53492-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation