The Project combines doctrinal research with empirical analysis in order to gain a more authentic and complete picture of constitutional reasoning in Latin America. Using quantitative methods in legal analysis assures a uniquely authentic insight into the subject matter through the added value of a careful and rigorous data analysis. Furthermore, building a homogenous empirical research design ensures the comparability of the different experiences, which is one of the key goals of the research.
The foundations of this mixed (qualitative and quantitative) methodology was borrowed from the research design of the volume on Comparative Constitutional Reasoning edited by Jakab-Dyevre-Itzkovich (CUP 2017). The redesign of this empirical research methodology is assisted by Carlos Meléndez and Sebastián Umpierrez from the University of Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile.
The foundations of this mixed (qualitative and quantitative) methodology was borrowed from the research design of the volume on Comparative Constitutional Reasoning (edited by Jakab-Dyevre-Itzkovich, CUP 2017). The qualitative and the quantitative pillars of the research rely on each other (Creswell 2014; Jakab-Dyevre-Itzkovich 2015).
The qualitative pillar consists of the doctrinal analysis that the authors of each country report will provide. Every country report will have a unified structure and will follow the same questionnaire to analyze the relevant context of their respective national systems. The questionnaire contains inquieres about the countries’ political, social and legal culture, about the constitutional review system, and about the design and composition of their high courts.
The quantitative pillar consists of the selection and analysis of the 40 landmark decisions of each supreme court or constitutional court. The analysis of the selected decisions is based on a matrix of around 50 different indicators about the different methods of argumentation and interpretation, as well as on the relevant key concepts and constitutional principles.