“Critical Empricism” and American Critical Legal Studies: Paradox, Program, or Pandora's Box?

Trubek, David M.; Esser, John P.

doi:10.1017/s2071832200016771

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The unravelling of the empirical impact of policies and programmes on women and men, as individuals, part of groups, and institutions can stimulate an ongoing reflexive process and lead them to ask "whether one is ready to accept responsibility for this impact." 315 In my research, I sensed a desire among the interviewed gender experts to introduce a reflexive, partial, experimental, participatory turn in IA through gender analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

5. Present and Future of Gender in Impact Assessment: a Standpoint-a Paradigm Shift?

Sauer¹

2018

Edition Politik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is said that "theories are to serve a purpose of change, or none." 1 Accordingly, the overall paradigm of my study is feminist: I propose that an implementation of gender equality tools for policy IA will eventually contribute to better equality policy and programming outcomes. Mainstreaming GIA/GBA practices in public policy and programme analysis is indispensable both to fulfilling constitutional and international commitments to legal equality as well as to exercising democratic stewardship. In the first part of this last chapter, I synthesise my empirical findings, providing comparative conclusions from the Canadian and European approaches to gender analysis. In the second part, I then contextualize these empirical results in relation to feminist, post-positivist, standpoint and critical governance theories. In the third and concluding part, I present a vision for the future of IA and the role of gender analysis could play in it. 2 5.1 gendeR eQuaLity goveRnance thRough iMpact assessMent: coMpaRative concLusions This section provides a comparative overview of the implementation and practice of gender analysis tools in the Canadian and European environments. It identifies the factors that hinder enhanced tool implementation and practice and those that drive change by providing institutional learning opportunities. The following table is a reminder of the genealogy of each tool.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

5. Present and Future of Gender in Impact Assessment: a Standpoint-a Paradigm Shift?

Sauer¹

2018

Edition Politik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

International Law and its Methodology: Introducing a NewLeiden Journal of International LawSeries

Venzke¹

2015

Leiden Journal of International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questions about methodology are questions of disciplinary identity. It is thus not surprising that they provoke such heated debates. The state of methodological debates is indicative of the condition of a discipline. If those debates advance to the centre of attention within any specific field of scholarly practice, it typically indicates a moment of crisis or – less dramatically – a push for change. In other times of relative stability, questions of methodology tend to stay on the margins of the field. Scholarly practice goes about its routine business along well-established lines. It uses the tools of a discipline without further ado.

show abstract

New Legal Realism, Empiricism, and Scientism: The Relative Objectivity of Law and Social Science

Lang¹

2015

Leiden Journal of International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I suggest that one of the central characteristics of New Legal Realism is the productive tension between empiricist and pragmatist theories of knowledge which lies at its core. On one side, new realist work in its empiricist posture seeks to use empirical knowledge of the world as the basis on which to design, interpret, apply, and criticize the law. On the other, in its pragmatist moments, it explicitly draws attention to the social and political contingency of any claims to empirical knowledge of the world, including its own. As a consequence, it is distinctive of much scholarship in the New Legal Realist vein that it continually enacts creative syntheses of different philosophies of truth in an attempt to be, in Shaffer's words, ‘positivist . . . interpretivist, and legal realist all at once’. The first part of this article draws on existing historical accounts of legal realism briefly to trace the problematic and ambiguous place of scientism in the legal realist tradition. Then, in the second and more important part of the article, I argue that the ambivalence of the legal realists’ vision has left us, in certain contexts, with a complicated form of mixed legal-scientific governance which has proved remarkably and surprisingly resilient in the face of late twentieth century critiques of scientific objectivity. This may be one of the most enduring legacies of the ‘old’ legal realists for those today who work in the New Legal Realist vein.

show abstract

“Critical Empricism” and American Critical Legal Studies: Paradox, Program, or Pandora's Box?

Cited by 4 publications

References 10 publications

5. Present and Future of Gender in Impact Assessment: a Standpoint-a Paradigm Shift?

5. Present and Future of Gender in Impact Assessment: a Standpoint-a Paradigm Shift?

International Law and its Methodology: Introducing a NewLeiden Journal of International LawSeries

New Legal Realism, Empiricism, and Scientism: The Relative Objectivity of Law and Social Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About