Methodological accountability in systematic case law analysis: Empirical insights from the Netherlands

As systematic case law analysis becomes more extensive and intricate as an approach to doing legal research, the need to justify the methods and techniques used for data collection, selection, and analysis grows correspondingly. Without such methodological accountability, the reliability and reproducibility of this type of legal (empirical) research are compromised, undermining their contribution to legal scholarship and practice. This article investigates the methodological accountability in systematic case law analysis. We conducted an empirical study to evaluate how researchers in the Netherlands account for their processes of collecting, selecting, and analyzing legal decisions and opinions of dispute resolution bodies. Our meta-analysis of systematic case law analysis encompasses 105 academic studies that utilize systematic case law analysis, providing an overview of the current state-of-the-art in the Netherlands. Based on the findings of our case study, we offer best practice guidelines for ensuring methodological accountability in systematic case law analysis.