法学研究如何学术——学术史方法的重申

当下中国法学研究学术性不强的原因主要在于法学研究者自身,因此需要将视线转向学术本身。基于学术史方法是学术最基本方法的判断,可以发现中国法学研究学术性不强的原因在于学术史方法的缺失,这使得中国法学研究中的学术性与非学术性混淆不清;法学难以确立自己学科的独立地位;法学研究中引证混乱并难以发挥学术评价功能;法学研究中学术传统西化倾向严重。而当代中国法学研究学术性完善之路在于:实用标准与学术标准的适度分离,确立学术的独立性与学术评价的独立标准;增强对学术重要性的认识;加强学术史意识,强化学术规范;自觉推动法学学术传统的中国化。学术性、学术史方法并不是我们对法学研究的更高要求,而只是提醒我们在法学研究中首先要回到学术研究的基本方法然后再谈其他方法。

How to Make the Jurisprudence Study Academic --Reiteration of Methodology of Academic History

Since currently the low academic level of jurisprudence study lies in the researchers of juris- prudence, the focus should be converted to the academic study itself. Considering the methodology of academ- ic history is the fundamental method, the low academic level of jurisprudence study in China is caused by the lack of methodology of academic history study, which has resulted in that the academic jurisprudence studies cannot be distinguished from non - academic ones ; jurisprudence fails to be established as an independent dis- cipline; the chaotic citation in jurisprudence study cannot function as academic evaluation; and the academic tradition to focus on studies of western countries has become a pervasive inclination. Therefore, the academic level of jurisprudence study in China is suggested to be improved by the following measures, such as to proper- ly separate practical standards from academic standards; to establish academic independence and independent standards of academic evaluation; to better understand the significance of academic feature; to enhance con- ception of academic history; to improve academic norms and to promote academic traditions of jurisprudence with China＇ s own characteristics. It should be reiterated that the academic feature and methodology of aca- demic history are not higher requirements for jurisprudence study, rather, they function as a reminders that the jurisprudence study should start with basic research methods before exploring other measures.