The added value of methodology
In a new article, four PhD candidates call for methodology to be explicitly stated in tax studies and practice. ‘Our hope is that explicit methodology will become more prevalent and even standard in the future.’
Three PhD candidates from Leiden University co-authored the article that was published in Weekblad Fiscaal Recht (WFR): Josephine van der Have, Tim van Brederode and Matthijs Appelman. The fourth author, Romano Graves, is a PhD candidate at Radboud University and the University of Curaçao.
In their article, the researchers call for ‘explicit justification of methodological choices’ in tax journal articles, such as the WFR. At present, there is still no general checklist of methodological aspects that legal research should comply with. Articles also regularly lack justification of the choices made in definitions and selected sources. ‘The term methodology seems to act as a deterrent, because it sounds a bit stuffy and it’s unclear what exactly it encompasses,’ says Van der Have. ‘Fortunately, it’s slowly gaining traction in legal science.’ Back in 2010, the Dean of Leiden Law School at that time, Carel Stolker, signalled that legal professionals often fail to explicitly state or fully explain the research methodology used. This led to the establishment of the course Methoden en Technieken, which has since become part of the bachelor's degree in Law.
Importance methodology
Van Brederode recognises the importance of justifying methodological choices: ‘Our approach considers an accessible way to explicitly and systematically explain how research was carried out and substantiating why research was conducted in a certain way.’ The PhD candidates says this has great added value for the reader, author and the scientific content of publications.
‘The advantage for the author is that they see their choices explicitly in front of them and can reflect on them,’ says Appelman. 'The advantage for the reader is that the author's train of thought is made transparent, giving a better understanding of their choices. It also allows the reader to be critical with better reason.' Van Brederode adds: ‘Setting out research choices clearly not only offers transparency, it also acts as a mirror that can help avoid (unconsciously) shifting towards a foregone conclusion.’
Change takes time
The PhD candidates’ goal is to make justifying methodological choices the norm among fellow researchers and practitioners. ‘We intend to revisit our call in a few years’ time with an analysis,' says Van der Have. ‘It would be great if the conclusion then is that a new call is no longer necessary because it’s already become the norm.’
Publishing in a renowned tax journal like the WFR will certainly help to achieve this goal: ‘A publication has a legitimising effect. By making methodology central to our article, we hope that both academics and practitioners will endorse the call,' says Van Brederode. The PhD candidates realise that change takes time: ‘This kind of culture change isn’t going to happen overnight,’ says Appelman. 'By leading by example, we hope that using explicit methodology will become more common and will even become the standard in the future. In that respect, many hands make light work.'