With the trend of interdisciplinary studies on law, it's necessary to advocate one named practical paradigm of legal study. It consists of research strategies, study methods, and analytical frameworks. Though practical paradigm of legal study doesn't distinguish the essential attributes between theoretical level and practical level in legal study, why we emphasize the significance of the practical dimension is that legal practice is never a purely academic issue, which innately bears practicalness. The issue-oriented research strategies should emphasize ″issue as a center″, focusing on ″china issues″, and paying attention to ″theoretical ideal″. ″Issues″ in this context should include extensively those problems existing in social practice and theory discussion for a long time, to which the latest theories of this subject lack sufficient explanatory power, and which could have such energy to run through the whole study and to generate theoretical increase. The character of ″china issues″ is to make scholars comprehend the relationship of law and society in China, discerning the current situation and regular pattern of China judicature, and pursuing the wisdom and knowledge increase for China jurisprudence in the end. In order to employ the extended case method as the main way of analyzing legal practice, it's vital to integrate its meanings in legal anthropology with those in legal sociology. The case could display legal practice intuitively, vividly and truthfully, and outline the deep structure of law operation directly. In the perspective of practical paradigm of legal study, legal practice isn″t the sole object, and it isn″t the fate for theory to be deduced, refined or amended, which has methodological significance in the study of legal practice. Under such circumstance, an issue is not only the departure point for legal study, but also the basis for deepening research. ″Theoretical ideal″ is not only scholars″ academic sentiment and aspiration, but it also has a methodological significance, through which we could integrate analyses into descriptions in order to ″go beyond the case″. Achieving the co-existence of microscopic analytical perspective and macroscopic one, it's important to use those analysis frameworks synthetically, such as ″event-relationship-process″, ″actor-structure″, and ″state/legal practice/society″. ″Event-relationship-process″ could be useful to revealing the micro-structure of dominant and theorizing it, and could overcome the bug in causality analysis to some extent, avoiding a certain determinism or finalism. ″Actor-structure″ aims to show how structure limits, dominates and motivates action, and how actor makes use of structure, influence and reshape structure. As to ″state/legal practice/society″, it is ″legal practice″ as life fact that links the government and the society (people). With this analysis framework, we can have a penetrating insight into the interactive process between the government and the society, the government and the masses, and inside the populace around the legal practice. We can even induce a cognitive system with middle range theoretical meanings from this interactive process. China School of Rule of Law Practice takes ″practice″ as a symbol all the time, and the manifestation of ″practical study″ from this school could be epitomized as ″some project-based and participatory practical study″. Though practical paradigm of legal study inclines towards qualitative research, and China School of Rule of Law Practice quantitative research, they could form a lot of synergy in studying legal practice, in that they are highly harmonious and complementary in terms of method advocacy and value pursuits.