“实证法学”的概念术语回顾与回归--基于文献的实证法学研究整合路径

Review and Return of the Term of“Empirical Legal Scholarship”:A Literature-based Uniform Approach to Empirical Legal Studies in China

伴随着实证研究概念和范畴的思想大讨论,法学界在过去几十年涌现出大量相关的方法或学科术语。虽然各种术语本来根植于实证研究,但由于每种术语未对既有术语作细致的文献回顾和概念分析,而呈现出术语间前后矛盾、自我否定、相互攻击、相互整合的泛化和分化现象。从方法和学科层面来看,要实现实证研究的发展和繁盛,就必然需要在开放和团结的学术平台下统一学术理念,“实证法学”应该是整合研究队伍的最妥当路径。将当代实证法学研究的源头定位在二十世纪八十年代,了解钱学森和吴世宦所引领的法学研究方法大讨论对实证法学的影响,可以澄清有关起源问题的误解。实证法学的传统术语在早期都包含定量和定性,近十年才因个人理解或方法偏爱引发术语之争。新兴术语虽然在定量或定性、样本大小、理念内涵、技术方法上有所差异,但都是基于实证研究发展起来的,其术语之争也源于割裂文献所致的自创概念。回归实证研究的本质,停止术语和概念之争,只要正确和恰当地定义实证法学,便可以实现整合实证法学研究的目标。

With a wide and insightful discussion of the definitions and scope of empirical legal studies,the last decades have been witnessing a bunch of methodological and disciplinary terms in legal scholarship.Although various terms stem from empirical studies,they appear to be a vacuous and separative phenomena with transparent inconsistence,self-deny,mutual attack and integration,due to the lack of literature review and conceptual analysis on previous terms.Nevertheless,unifying the terms like empirical legal scholarship on the methodological and disciplinary perspectives should be the essential solidarity for empiricists to maintain such a conceptual platform,and the best way to achieve the progressive and proliferative empirical studies.Understanding the modern empirical legal studies in China which started in the 1980s is invaluable to clarify the misunderstood origin,when Qian Xuesen and Wu Shihuan lead the methodological spotlight in legal scholarship and then paved the way of promotion of empirical legal scholarship.The traditional terms in earlier discussion of empirical legal scholarship included quantitative and qualitative,but the dispute of terms arose in the recent decade due to individual compression and methodological interests.The new terms developed on the basis of empirical legal studies,though differences display in qualitative and quantitative approach,big and small data,conceptual indulgence,and technical approach,but the dispute of terms still originated from self-made terms as a result of the ignorance of previous literatures.Returning to the nature of empirical studies and ceasing the dispute of terms may achieve the marvelous aims of uniform approach on condition that the empirical legal scholarship is defined correctly and appropriately.