If you are trying to justify why you have chosen comparative law research methods, another obstacle is to justify the selection of cases. Case selection and sampling in comparative research methods are closely related to the concepts of “comparability” and “construction equivalence” discussed above. As a researcher, you need to take a thorough contextual approach. This includes taking into account the historical and socio-economic context of the subjects studied in order to provide a better understanding and avoid unnecessary prejudices. Essentially, selection is limited to the question of “why” and understanding the purpose of comparative research methods. For example, you can use benchmarking if a doctrine comes from a particular jurisdiction and is well integrated to inform its application in another jurisdiction where the doctrine is still new. So, before you point out that you are conducting a comparative analysis study between Nigeria and the United States on the fight against terrorism, you must justify why you chose the United States over Kenya. For orientation, see Erbele, Eser, Fombad. Epstein and Martin, Cane and Kritzer. You have explained why you chose comparative law research to answer your research question and also your selection of cases, the next hurdle is to explain how you will use the design of comparative law research. How will you compare these two cases? Hoecke postulates six methods for comparative research: “the functional method, the structural method, the analytical method, the method of law in context, the historical method and the common core method”.

To understand these methods and how to apply them, read Michaels, Karst, Monateri, Leckey, Eberle and Frohlich. Conclusion Since this article focuses on comparative legal research, it is important to understand what constitutes it before deciding to apply it. Hoecke notes that “researchers are easily lost when conducting research in comparative law. The main reason for this is that there is no agreement on the type of methodology to be followed, not even on the methods that could be followed. According to Paris, the lack of a definition of what comparative law is or the method of comparative law has exacerbated the situation. Despite these concerns, comparative legal research is based on comparative research methods, which are the study of more than two or more units at the macro level, to explain the differences and similarities between the units of analysis. The term “comparative” implies that a researcher is trying to compare one topic to another. At the heart of comparative research methods, some authors argue that there should be some degree of similarity called “comparability” or “construction equivalence.” Esser and Vliegenthart state: “A key question in concluding comparative empirical research is to ensure equivalence, that is, the ability to validly collect data that is truly comparable across different contexts and to avoid bias in measurements, instruments and samples.” However, in real-world scenarios, “comparability” may not reflect similarities. The explanation of equivalence is also undermined by the sole reason that the meaning of any concept is contextual. Örücü argued that the concept of comparability, which states that the things to be compared must be comparable, is not entirely feasible.

What a researcher needs to show is why he believes that the two units of analysis should be compared by examining both similarities and diversity, and taking into account the social context. Understanding the purpose and purpose of the comparative study is therefore crucial. This brings us to the next question, why comparative law research? Why comparative law research? Fombad argued that legal research on any legal system, legal tradition or subject is explicitly or implicitly comparative, as none is autonomous or autonomous. Research in comparative law and comparative law continue to develop and receive great attention in legal work. Africa as a region is no exception. In Africa, it is very common to come across research papers or theses at the bachelor`s, master`s and doctoral levels, where the authors claim to conduct a comparative study. In most cases, comparative law research will involve countries beyond African borders or doctrines that have evolved and are more established in other jurisdictions. But does the research result reflect comparative law research or should authors consider when choosing a comparative research method? In short, when does a researcher come to the conclusion that a comparative study is really relevant to his or her research project? When I applied during my own research presentation that my study was a comparative study between the European Union (EU) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), I realized that this was more than I had envisioned, although I used the term “benchmarking” several times. The questions that followed left me stunned and I could not answer them clearly and with certainty. The questions asked were: How was my study a true comparative study? Why a comparative study?; Why did I choose the EU and not the US or any other regional regime in Africa? What was the “construction equivalence”?; What should I compare? and why this comparison?; how should I compare the two?; and what data collection method should I use during the benchmarking? Finally, what was my research question and how should I use both cases to give an answer? Was comparative research needed? Would I answer my research question and goals without a comparative study? The essence of these questions borders on the understanding of comparative research methods. It is also designed to allow a researcher to answer questions of why, where, what, when and how when choosing a research method and design. As I was struggling to answer these questions, I decided to delve deeper into the comparative research method by taking courses on the research method and reviewing the available literature on comparative research methods, and I hope this article will help anyone who wants to do comparative legal research.

Choosing a research method and design Since this blog post is limited to the border of words, we cannot discuss everything related to comparative research methods in law. However, before using a comparative law research method, you need to understand what it entails, why you use it, justify the selection and sampling of cases. Finally, be clear about how you will perform the benchmarking. Since its rise in the early twentieth century, comparative law research has occupied an influential place in legal research on national legal systems. Comparative law methodology is used to better understand foreign legal systems, to find solutions to the problems of a particular legal system or to promote the unification of law between national legal systems. Its methods consist of a comparison of different legal systems or legal traditions (external comparison) or areas of law within national legal systems (internal comparison). With the spread of regulatory systems at the international level (e.g. within the framework of the United Nations or the WTO), comparative law research has expanded to international law. However, no consensus was reached on how best to apply comparative law methods to the global context.