DOI: https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.151.217244

Systematization of the results of a comparative historical and legal research

Денис Анатолійович Шигаль

Abstract


Systematization and interpretation of the obtained results is a logical conclusion of the comparative historical and legal analysis. In spite of the fact that the researcher already has a certain understanding of the specific character of the  objects being compared at the stage of choosing the topic of the comparative research work, he can finally formulate his conclusions only after a large-scale comparison of them. The necessity of the systematization of the comparative historical and legal research results is conditioned by several factors. First of all, this is the number of the objects being compared and also the variety of the information that is being read by the researcher during this process and becomes open to generalization. The systematization puts in order and coherence a large flow of information about the objects being compared, and its purpose is to bring a great number of the objects being examined or the knowledge of them to a certain number of groups and to arrange the latter in accordance with the requirements of subordination, and their hierarchy.

The systematization of the scientific knowledge results is of great importance for the comparative historical and legal research. In some scientific works the systematization is used to solve a wide variety of problems starting with the primary ordering of factual and empirical material and ending with various forms of the knowledge cataloguing. The systematic form of the scientific knowledge enables a comparative historian to survey a large aggregate of historical and legal phenomena, helps to orientate in the variety of signs of the historical and legal objects being compared, to reveal the order in them. The systematization allows you to simplify complexity, to see the elements behind the certain multitude it consists of. The methods of the systematization allow saving the efforts of the researcher, avoiding hard necessity for the individual direct studying of the whole variety of the objects under study, provide the possibility of generalized and indirect knowledge of them. Besides, the systematization of the comparative historical and legal research results is the base which the comparative historian formulates the conclusions on from his work, and also realizes final concentrated valuation of them.

The article examines the ways and forms of systematization of the results of a comparative historical and legal analysis. The main conclusions that can be obtained during the comparison of historical and legal objects are considered. The multidimensionality of the organization and presentation of information in the course of a comparative study is characterized. The article analyzes the meaning of typology at the stage of ordering the results of comparative work and its correlation with the classification. Conclusions about new ways of generalizing the data obtained in the process of carrying out the comparative historical and legal research are made.


Keywords


comparative historical and legal research; systematization of results; forms of organization and presentation of information; typology; classification

References


Bohushova, I.V. (2011). Metodolohichni zasady vyznachennia kryteriiv typolohii derzhav. Derzhava i pravo. Yurydychni i politychni nauky – State and Law. Legal and Political Sciences: Collection of Scientific Papers, issue 51, 105–109 [in Ukrainian].

Vovk, D.O. (2010). Relihiinyi kryterii u typolohizatsii pravovykh system svitu. Problemy zakonnosti – Problems of Legality, issue 112, 20–29 [in Ukrainian].

Luc', L.A. (2004). Metodologicheskie vozmozhnosti tipologizacii pravovyh sistem. Pravo i demokratija – Law and Democracy, issue 15, 38–49 [in Russian].

Nechuhrin, A.N., Sidorcov, V.N., Shutova, O.M. et al. (1996). Metodologija istorii. Minsk: NTOOO «TetraSistems» [in Russian].

Popov, P.V. (Ed.). (1972). Metodologicheskie osnovy nauchnogo poznanija. Moscow: Vysshaja shkola [in Russian].

Podkorytov, G.A. (1988). O prirode nauchnogo metoda. Leningrad: izd-vo Leningrad. un-ta [in Russian].

Popesku, S. (1978). Celi i metody sravnenija v prave. Sravnitel'noe pravovedenie (sb. statej) – Comparative Jurisprudence (Collection of Articles). Moscow: izd-vo «Progress», 203–210 [in Russian].

Tille, A.A. (1975). Socialisticheskoe sravnitel'noe pravovedenie. Moscow: Jurid. lit. [in Russian].

Andreenkov, V.G., Tolstova, Ju.N. (Ed.). (1982). Tipologija i klassifikacija v sociologicheskih issledovanijah. Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].

Tihomirov, Ju.A. (1996). Kurs sravnitel'nogo pravovedenija. Moscow: izd-vo «Norma» [in Russian].

Bitter, J., Janssen, D., Vossen, R., Hees, F. (2018). Review on Combined Methods for Sustainability Assessment and Development of Criteria-Set for a Systematization and Comparison Framework. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, vol. 9, 8, 226–235. doi: 10.18178/ijesd.2018.9.8.1106.

Likhtarova, O. (2019). Systematization of Methodical Approaches to the Analysis of Economic Entity Sustainable Development. SHS Web of Conferences, vol. 71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20197104014.

Lomonosov, A., Lomonosova, O., Nadtochii, I. (2019). The Systematization and Classification of Socio-Economic Problems in Higher Education. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, vol. 5, 4, 137–147. doi: https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2019-5-4-137-147.

Mithun, M. (2016). Typology, Documentation, Description, and Typology. Linguistic Typology, vol. 20. doi: 10.1515/lingty-2016-0019.

Thagard, P. (1984). Frames, Knowledge, and Inference. Synthese, vol. 61, 233–259.

Uryadova, T., Neshchadimova, T., Nesterenko, A., Bezdolnaya, T., Safiullaeva, R. (2017). Systematization of Methods and Ways of Personnel Analysis and Evaluation in an Educational Organization. Revista ESPACIOS, vol. 38, 20. URL: https://revistaespacios.com/a17v38n20/a17v38n20p37.pdf.


GOST Style Citations


  1. Богушова І. В. Методологічні засади визначення критеріїв типології держав. Держава і право. Юридичні і політичні науки: зб. наук. пр. 2011. Вип. 51. С. 105–109.
  2. Вовк Д. О. Релігійний критерій у типологізації правових систем світу. Проблеми законності. 2010. Вип. 112. С. 20–29.
  3. Луць Л. А. Методологические возможности типологизации правовых систем. Право и демократия, 2004. Вып. 15. С. 38–49.
  4. Методология истории : учеб пособие для студентов вузов / А. Н. Нечухрин, В. Н. Сидорцов, О. М. Шутова и др. Минск : НТООО «ТетраСистемс», 1996. 240 с.
  5. Методологические основы научного познания: учеб. пособие для студентов вузов / под ред. проф. П. В. Попова. Москва : Высшая школа, 1972. 272 с.
  6. Подкорытов Г. А. О природе научного метода. Ленинград : Изд-во Ленинград. ун-та, 1988. 224 с.
  7. Попеску С. Цели и методы сравнения в праве. Сравнительное правоведение (сб. статей). Москва : изд-во «Прогресс», 1978. С. 203–210.
  8. Тилле А. А. Социалистическое сравнительное правоведение. Москва : Юрид. лит., 1975. 208 с.
  9. Типология и классификация в социологических исследованиях : монография / отв. ред. В. Г. Андреенков и Ю. Н. Толстова. Москва : Наука, 1982. 296 с.
  10. Тихомиров Ю. А. Курс сравнительного правоведения. Москва : изд-во «Норма», 1996. 432 с.
  11. Bitter Jan, Janssen Daniela, Vossen René, Hees Frank. Review on Combined Methods for Sustainability Assessment and Development of Criteria-Set for a Systematization and Comparison Framework. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development. 2018. Vol. 9. No. 8. P. 226–235. DOI: 10.18178/ijesd.2018.9.8.1106.
  12. Likhtarova O. Systematization of Methodical Approaches to the Analysis of Economic Entity Sustainable Development. SHS Web of Conferences. 2019. Vol. 71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20197104014.
  13. Lomonosov A., Lomonosova O., Nadtochii I. The Systematization and Classification of Socio-Economic Problems in Higher Education. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies. 2019. Vol. 5. No. 4. P. 137–147. doi: https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2019-5-4-137-147.
  14. Mithun Marianne. Typology, Documentation, Description, and Typology. Linguistic Typology. 2016. Vol. 20. doi: 10.1515/lingty-2016-0019.
  15. Thagard Paul. Frames, Knowledge, and Inference. Synthese. 1984. Vol. 61. P. 233–259.
  16. Uryadova T., Neshchadimova T., Nesterenko A., Bezdolnaya T., Safiullaeva R. Systematization of Methods and Ways of Personnel Analysis and Evaluation in an Educational Organization. Revista ESPACIOS. 2017. Vol. 38. No. 20. URL: https://revistaespacios.com/a17v38n20/a17v38n20p37.pdf.


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM




Copyright (c) 2020 Денис Анатолійович Шигаль

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2224-9281