This chapter seeks to achieve two main objectives. First, it revisits some of the broad theoretical principles first raised in Chapter 1 and discusses how these might influence the decisions made by stylisticians planning their research projects. Second, the chapter reviews the main methodological decisions which need to be made in planning stylistics projects, irrespective of the specific theoretical approach being used. The chapter aims to provide both the experienced and novice researcher in this field with a means by which to locate their own work in the context of stylistics as a whole. In so doing, the chapter considers both qualitative and quantitative approaches to text analysis. Concerning the latter, the chapter will outline particularly the advances made in recent years in what has come to be called corpus stylistics. Following a discussion of the theoretical and methodological aspects of research in stylistics, the chapter draws some general conclusions about the nature of stylistic research and how to navigate the field as a researcher.

Quantitative research has grown to be part of the standard methodological portfolio for comparative lawyers. Large-sample quantitative studies search for correlations between legal institutions and socioeconomic outcomes, while indicators have become important tools of governance. Such initiatives, however, have been criticised for unduly simplifying complex legal realities, possibly betraying an ideological bias, and then hiding it under a cloak of quantitative data. This chapter argues that much of this critique misses the point. While it is important to be sceptical of indicators’ ability to describe reality, quantitative methodologies are part of a wider turn towards a flexible form of global governance, in which the accurate description of reality is not essential. Instead, they reflect a version of reality created for a specific purpose, which participants acting in a given regulatory space agree is not ‘real’. This lack of reality, though, is irrelevant: what matters is that the specific version of reality created by the indicator serves its institutional purpose. We must recognise it as a particular form of quantitative knowledge that, regardless of its accuracy, is constantly used instrumentally, and may open new spaces for politics, contestation, and resistance that are overlooked by the more traditional, accuracy-focused critique.