In recent years, measuring the Rule of Law (MRL) through Qualitative Research Methods (QRM), which is symbolized by the Judicial Transparency Index (JTI) research, burgeons and thrives, heralding the age of empirical studies in law. JTI assimilates the principles of assessment, the assessment criteria, and the quantitative techniques, all of which are employed by modern social scientists, and introduces them to the research in judicial transparency. JTI scientifically measures the implementation and effectiveness of judicial transparency through a meticulous index system and assessment methods, indicates objects' merits and demerits in the field of judicial transparency, and pressurizes courts externally into reforms. Accordingly, JTI enhances judicial credibility and checks abuses by judicial power. The current studies on JTI, however, face several problems, such as the disproportionality between JTI's subjective and objective indicators, the limitations of assessment methods and techniques, and the criticisms on the extent of JTI's effectiveness. The experimental study of JTI in Wuxing District epitomizes the difficulties to grasp the underlying rules behinds judicial data, and to acquire valuable information. Intolerable observational errors due to incomprehensive sampling, the limitations of access to judicial data, and the insufficiency of data consolidation haunt the study.The advent of the Age of Big Data ushers in momentous changes to JTI studies, besides other QRM ones. The natures of Big Data, including massive storage capacity, high-speed processing, multiple-resolution analysis, and high-accuracy, contribute to the explanation of the intrinsic correlations between the operations of judicial activities and other related social phenomena, to precisely deduce what kinds of rules the judicial operations follow, and to accommodate decision analysis and future directive plans. The JTI research in the Age of Big Data should cope with the structural transformations, which are related to the patterns of thinking, the compositions of the society, and the methodology employed by scholars. On the one hand, public demands on judicial issues deserve concrete responses, which entails a dynamic equilibrium between judicial transparency and judicial justice. On the other hand, the social mechanisms of judicial transparency should be properly elucidated for the purpose of optimizing judicial operations and decisions. Moreover, scholars should keep their optimism discreetly and prudently, and never covet anything out of JTI's hands from it.