'How to Do Empirical Legal Studies without Numbers?' by Sida Liu and Sitao Li in 53 Hong Kong Law Journal comments
This article addresses this methodological question at a crossroads of empirical legal studies in China. It does not aim to provide a normative defence for the value of qualitative methods. Instead, we demonstrate how a ‘scientific turn’ in the 2010s has made empirical legal research in China almost exclusively about quantitative research and then illustrate how qualitative methods can also benefit from the rise of digital technology. We draw on three recent studies as examples to compare and contrast the methodological challenges and opportunities for doing empirical legal studies without numbers: (1) Ke Li’s book Marriage Unbound as an example of ethnography in combination with archival research; (2) Sitao Li’s article ‘Face-Work in Chinese Routine Criminal Trials’ as an example of trial video observation; and, (3) Di Wang and Sida Liu’s article ‘Performing “Artivism”’ as an example of online ethnography. The discussion shows that, despite the rising popularity of ‘big data’ computational analysis in recent years, quantitative methods are not necessarily more technologically advanced than qualitative ones. Technology-assisted interviews and ethnography can open up many new possibilities in data collection and data analysis, sometimes resulting in more exciting and innovative research.
