On Law, Politics, and Judicialization

By Martin Shapiro; Alec Stone Sweet | Go to book overview
Save to active project

4 Testing, Comparison, Prediction

To sustain a viable social science of law and courts, we need to generate testable propositions, develop appropriate research designs to test those hypotheses, and engage comparative materials. 1 In this chapter, we discuss and use three strategies for building theory through testing and comparing, each of which follows from the construction of an a priori, deductive model of various aspects of adjudication.

The first strategy, adopted by Stone Sweet in 'The European Court and Integration', employs econometric and other modes of statistical analysis as well as qualitative 'process tracing' to evaluate specific causal propositions about how European integration and the construction of the legal system have proceeded. This research design, quite rare in the social sciences, constitutes a mixed means of testing: the analyst (1) derives hypotheses deductively from materials developed in prior comparative research, (2) collects data to operationalize the theorized variables, (3) tests the hypotheses through analysing the data quantitatively, and (4) cross-checks these results and explores other theorized relationships or dynamics, qualitatively. As discussed briefly below, good fortune and collaboration made such research possible.

The other two strategies are associated with the comparative method and the crucial case study. Both designs are particularly useful for building a social science of law and courts, since the experimental and statistical methods are often unfeasible. As adopted in Shapiro's book Courts (1981a), the 'crucial case method' (see Eckstein 1975) involves searching the literature of comparative law to identify that historical situation most likely to falsify a given proposition, that is, one where Shapiro's theory would predict an outcome quite contrary to that described in the existing, authoritative literature.


Notes for this page

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this page

Cited page

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited page

Bookmark this page
On Law, Politics, and Judicialization


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this book

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen
/ 417

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?