To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Edited by
Daniel Naurin, University of Oslo,Urška Šadl, European University Institute, Florence,Jan Zglinski, London School of Economics and Political Science
EU legal scholarship has contributed to the construction of the EU legal order as we know it. The references to academic works in Advocate Generals’ opinions are a testament to the co-operation between academia and EU institutions. The focus of EU law scholars on the EU Court of Justice has driven a type of EU law scholarship which is chiefly doctrinal. Yet, under the influence of US legal scholarship, empirical methods have started colonising EU legal research. Empirical approaches have enriched EU doctrinal work and unveiled under-explored aspects of the EU’s functioning. Thus started the ‘competition’ between the doctrinal and the empirical within EU law scholarship. To solve the methodological impasse, co-operation between methods would seem the most sensible approach in view of higher epistemological gains. However, this chapter demonstrates that methodological synergy may not solve the challenge of identifying the most comprehensive and accurate research method to study EU law so easily. It does so by offering critical reflections on the epistemological limits of empirical doctrinal methods, and a novel perspective on the empirical underpinnings of EU legal doctrinal scholarship. Ultimately, the chapter invites EU law scholars to adopt methodological modesty, as the boundaries between methods may not be as clear-cut as one would think, especially in EU law research.
This chapter is structured in four parts. First, the chapter reviews current approaches to the integration challenge and makes the case for a pragmatist approach. Second, it uses pragmatism to differentiate qualitative and quantitative research purposes and show how these purposes can be integrated to produce a more granular conceptualization of the synergies within simultaneous, sequential, and recursive designs. Third, it considers the question of creativity in mixed methods designs as a consequence of adopting a pragmatist standpoint. The chapter ends with a set of implications for mixed methods research and a call for new and creative methodologies in this area.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.