In order to further crime victims’ compensation, the Dutch legislator relatively recently extended the admissibility criterion. Since 2010, the key lies in the assessment of whether such a claim presents an undue burden for the criminal proceedings (S. 51f DCCP). In order to learn whether this legal change has been effective, an evaluative research was carried out containing both legal theoretical and empirical research (quantitative and qualitative). This called for an accurate research design in which classic legal research methods need to be combined with methods applied in social sciences. To counter this methodological challenge, we opted for a mix of research-design methods, using triangulation as the key to enable us to analyze the ‘law in action’. Our approach turned out to be fruitful, although not without methodological hazards. The paper contains a report on our ‘methodological journey’, providing an account of the difficulties that we encountered during the execution of our mixed research methods. The aim of the paper is only modest: we want to report on ‘the lessons learned’, endorsing the fact that triangulation is an appropriate approach for an interdisciplinary assessment of Dutch legal practice.

中文翻译：

---

被害人作为被害方参加刑事诉讼的权利：当前荷兰法律实践的多维和跨学科评估

为了增加犯罪受害者的赔偿，荷兰立法者最近相对扩展了可接纳性标准。自2010年以来，关键在于评估此类索偿是否对刑事诉讼造成不当负担（S. 51f DCCP）。为了了解此法律变更是否有效，进行了包括法律理论和实证研究（定量和定性）的评估研究。这就需要一种准确的研究设计，其中经典的法律研究方法需要与社会科学中应用的方法相结合。为了应对这种方法上的挑战，我们选择了多种研究设计方法，以三角剖分为关键，使我们能够分析“行动规律”。事实证明，尽管并非没有方法论上的危害，我们的方法还是富有成果的。该文件包含有关我们的“方法论历程”的报告，说明了我们在执行混合研究方法期间遇到的困难。本文的目的仅是适度的：我们要报告“经验教训”，赞同三角剖分法是对荷兰法律实践进行跨学科评估的适当方法这一事实。