Luova, luovempi, oikeustiede?
Nyckelord:
luovuus, oikeustiede, yleinen oikeustiede, tiede, tutkimusmetodi, oikeustieteen itseymmärrysAbstract
Creative, more creative, jurisprudence?
The article examines the opportunities for and limits of creativity in jurisprudence. Creative thinking can be utilised in several ways: Research usually begins with the identification of a new research problem. The solution to the problem
is seldom found mechanically. On the contrary, it is a result of a lot of thinking. When doing creative research, it is important to differentiate between two components of scientific research: The context of discovery and the context of
justification. On one hand, knowledge can be gained through a strictly defined scientific method. This is the case in many empirical disciplines, including several sectors of empirical legal studies. In this situation, following a certain method
justifies the knowledge discovered by the study. On the other hand, knowledge can also be discovered by insight and serendipity. To justify this kind of knowledge, the researcher should give reasons. The context of justification plays a
central role in normative legal studies, as legal dogmatics is not a mathematical formula but rather a way to interpret and systematise the judicial system. It is solely on the basis of the arguments offered by the researcher that the scientific
community can assess the accuracy and validity of the research results. The authors emphasise that creativity can be utilised also elsewhere than in the context of discovery – a researcher can justify new knowledge in an original manner.
Moreover, a researcher can even develop new scientific methods if they also justify them.
