siuiiificanr and r\ pical was that new paradigms inspired Iw the “ad- \ance” in social sciences and humanities were developed, d'heoretical consciousness of \'oung scholars strengthened to the le\el that a “methodological rehellion” - as it has been characterised - broke out. Main- Noting students of law denied totalK^ the “scientific status” of traditional legal dogmatics and wanted the replace it b\' studies that utilized the methods of sociologN', politology, psychology, historical sciences etc. lben though rhetoric was in main’ cases far fromthe realitN’ of research, mam’ things also changed, 'fhis was the case both in legal policy and legal science. .\fter these N ears legal dogmatic paradigm- still dominant but cn identK’ not nn ithout modifications - is not the only paradigmatic model in legal science. lysj'ieciallN’ nn ithin legal history and legal theorN' (and philosophy) but also to some extent in legal sociology and later nn itbin hiNv and economics such studies in Nyhich no reference to traditional goals of legal dogmatic has been given have been published. In these cases the aims and methodology of research comes from outside legal science. I loNveNer, the fact that laNV and justice are among the objects of these studies keep these disciplines Nvithin the “tamiK’ of legal sciences.” Secondb’ the institutional position of the general jurisprudential studies (legal theorN, legal historN’, sociology of huN, Uinn and economics) strengthened; neNv chairs in these subiects Nvere founded to the hnv faculties and also to some extent to other faculties. 'I'hirdh’ the curriculum of legal studies Nvas c]uite radicalK' reneNved during the lyyo’s. 'fhis reform NNas largeK a response to the neNV challenges the neNvborn Nvelfare state raised to the legal profession. It Nvas heaN iK' underlined Iw reformers, that Uinn N ers needed also knoNN ledge about the methodologN and results gained in social and behaN ioural scienCCS. OtherNNise - according to this line of thought - Uinn N ers could not comjiete Nvith social scientist and humanists in the labour market. 24 See lUKKA KEKKONEN 1998, p. 100-126. See also jaakko husa, Oikeustieteen suuresta tieteellisyyskeskustelusta; julkisoikeuden näkökulma. Oikeus 1992/4, p. 367-378.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=