This document provides an introduction to legal research methodology. It begins by distinguishing between research methods and research methodology, with the latter referring to determining the appropriate tools or methods for a given research question. The document then classifies different types of legal research such as descriptive, exploratory, and hypothesis testing research. It notes that each research question implies different appropriate methods. The document discusses legal research paradigms, noting that paradigms determine what topics are suitable to study and what methodologies are acceptable. It identifies doctrinal legal research as the accepted paradigm for lawyers. Doctrinal research involves the analysis of legal rules and texts to formulate legal doctrines. Finally, the document argues that legal research has both herm

1. Introduction to
Legal Research
Methodology
Preeti Kana Sikder
Assistant Professor
Department of Law & Justice
Jahangirnagar University

2. Pre-class Poll
What is the difference between research method and research
methodology?
1: Research methods are the tools of researching while
methodologies are the science of determining the use of such
tools.
2: Research methodologies are tools of researching while
methods are the descriptive way of choosing which
methodology to use for researching.
3: Research methodologies are somewhat similar to research
methods.

3. Classifications of Legal
Research
Under the heading of ‘legal doctrine’ or, if one prefers,
‘legal science’, many types of research may be carried
out: descriptive, exploratory, explanatory, wording and/or
testing hypotheses and/or theories, or just supporting
legal practice (and, in that sense, it becomes normative)

4. Each of those types of research will involve
its own methods and each research
question will imply the use of the
appropriate method(s) for that kind of
research.
Maybe this variety of possible approaches and methods
explains the confusion in the terminology used.

5. Research
Paradigms
 Paradigms are shared world views, which
determine what topics are ‘suitable’ to study, what
methodologies are acceptable and what criteria
may be used to judge success.
 All scientific research, including legal research,
starts from assumptions. Most of these
assumptions are paradigmatic.
 This means that they are the generally recognised
assumptions (‘truths’) of legal scholarship within
that legal system, or the common assumptions of
all the compared legal systems in comparative
research. They constitute the paradigmatic
framework, which tends not to be debated as such
within the discipline itself.

6. The problems
in identifying
methodologies
of legal
research
 It has previously been suggested that one of the
main difficulties facing legal scholars is the lack
of a legal research paradigm.
 Without a paradigm, Peter Ziegler warns that all
factors may seem equally relevant. All research,
including every exploration of case law or
legislation, may be equally random and equally
valid.

7. The problem of
identifying
methodologies
 Thus, it could be argued that legal research has been
plagued by a lack of cohesion in terms of the projects
undertaken and the development of research depth.
 Individuals have taken up the bandwagon on certain
issues, developed the ideas within a pragmatic,
practice-driven agenda, but have then been diverted
away from their topic, often because of a lack of
resources, a lack of team management skills, and the
need for multi-disciplinary methodologies and
knowledge.
 The accepted paradigm for lawyers has been doctrinal
research.

8. The challenge to elucidate the
underlying paradigm is confronting as
(unfortunately) the doctrinal legal
research paradigm has been under-
theorised.
It is based on assumptions which are so strong that they
have not been properly questioned or examined.

9. What is Doctrinal
Legal Research?

10. These are systematic formulations of the law in
particular contexts. They clarify ambiguities within
rules, place them in a logical and coherent
structure and describe their relationship to other
rules. The methods of doctrinal research are
characterised by the study of legal texts
and, for this reason, it is often described
colloquiallyas‘black-letterlaw’.
Doctrinal
Legal
Research

11. Doctrinal research is
concerned with the
formulation of legal
‘doctrines’ through the
analysis of legal rules.
Deciding on which rules to apply in a particular situation
is made easier by the existence of legal doctrines (e.g.,
the doctrine of consideration within the law of contract)

12. The way
forward
 A research paradigm shift has occurred, driven
by the communications technology revolution,
economic globalisation and corresponding
changes within tertiary education, the legal
profession and the legal education sector.
 These changes have prompted self-questioning
within the legal academy about the nature of
legal education, the nature of legal research and
the methodologies involved.
 There is currently a need for an evolving
paradigm which includes a more
outward-looking focus encompassing
interdisciplinary methodologies.

13. Within the context of the current debate on
the scientific status of legal scholarship, the
question arises as to what kind of discipline
legal doctrine is (or should be) and which
kind of scientific methodology is most
appropriatefor what kindof legal research.
The questions have revolved around two issues: ‘what is the nature
and meaning of “legal research”?’ and ‘how is research training best
achieved?’.
In turn, these two very simple issues have prompted other questions
such as ‘what methodologies are most effective in achieving the
aims of legal research?’
The Way
Forward

14. The questions which emerge
are ‘has legal research ever
had an accepted
paradigm?’
if so, ‘are contextual changes spurring a change in the
paradigm?’

15. The Way
Forward
 When published legal research is reviewed, there are
definitely signs of change and it seems clear that the
law is beginning to escape from the confines of old
doctrinal paradigms, but at varying rates throughout the
sector.
 It is not one holistic methodology, but rather a range of
methodologies — many of which have been borrowed
from the social sciences — which are being combined to
provide a more complete answer to
research questions.
 There are signs that, on the whole, legal research is
becoming more complex and sophisticated in its
approach to investigating answers to issues that
confront citizens today.

16. Legal research and
scholarship therefore must
not only be viewed through
the prism of history, but also
of its modern context.
However, this conclusion then raises the question as to how
this changed context is affecting skills training in legal
research.

17. The Way
Forward
 Today’s lawyers are moving into a new research
world in which it is necessary to know, use and
be able to critique the results of a whole variety
of methodologies in addition to the known
doctrinal methodology.
 These other methodologies include qualitative
and quantitative methods taken from the social
sciences, and also comparative research, case
studies, benchmarking and content analysis, all
of which are particularly suited to legal
research.

18. The new
legal
research
environment
new methodologies borrowed from the
social sciences;
interdisciplinary perspectives blending
law and medicine and the ‘hard’ sciences;
team approaches to research;
doctoral and post-doctoral academic
perspectives alongside the dominant
practical and professional perspectives;

19. The new legal
research
environment
 a firm acknowledgement of the importance of
underlying theory in explaining law, including
both social theory and the philosophy of the
law;
 an acknowledgement of individual differences
in the intellectual framework for research
including functional and theoretical
perspectives on law;
 a sensitive and methodologically sound
approach to comparative law and research; and
 an acceptance of the substantial impact of
international law on national agendas.

20. TAXONOMY OF LEGAL RESEARCH STYLES

21. What kind of discipline
is Legal Doctrine?

22. Law as a Hermeneutic
Discipline

23. What is
meant by
hermeneutic?
The science or art of
construction and
interpretation

24. Legal scholars are often
interpreting texts and
arguing about a choice
among diverging
interpretations.
Interpreting texts has been the core business of
legal doctrine since it started in the roman
empire.

25. Hermeneutic
Discipline
In a hermeneutic discipline, texts and
documents are the main research object
and their interpretation, according to
standard methods, is the main activity of
the researcher.
this is clearly the case with legal doctrine.

26. Argumentative Discipline
From the middle-ages until the seventeenth century legal
doctrine has developed as an argumentative discipline,
which determined what kind of arguments were
acceptable in which cases, with whole catalogues of
arguments.

27. Argumentative
Discipline
The argumentative view has the
advantage of putting things into a
broader perspective.
It is the argumentation to support some
legal interpretation or solution that is
emphasised, rather than the
interpretation as such.
It allows us to take a step back from the
interpreted text or any other document.

28. Nature of
Argumentative
Discipline
A concrete legal question can be
answered, or a case solved, on the basis
of generally accepted, or at least
acceptable, views.
Argumentation theory has always been at
the core of jurisprudential writings.
That is why the conception of legal
scholarship as an argumentative
discipline often acts as an implicit
background.

29. How is Hermeneutic
approach different from
Argumentative Approach?
Discuss in groups for 5 minutes and
prepare three examples of hermeneutic
approach to legal research and
argumentative approach to legal research.

30. Hermeneutic
+
Argumentative

31.  Actually, interpretation and argumentation
cannot be separated from each other, both in
legal doctrine and in legal practice.
 Each text interpretation needs arguments when
diverging interpretations could reasonably be
sustained, and a legal argumentation will
almost always be based on interpreted texts.
 So, legal doctrine and legal practice are both
hermeneutic and argumentative.

32. Each text interpretation needs
arguments when diverging
interpretations could reasonably
be sustained, and a legal
argumentation will almost always
be based on interpreted texts.
Hermeneutic
+
Argumentative

33. Interpretation and argumentation
appear to be roughly two sides of the
same activity, in which interpretation
is the goal and argumentation the
means for sustaining that
interpretation.

34. Thank You