LAW

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
QUALITATIVE AND DOCTRINAL METHODS IN
RESEARCH
 Role
Principal Investigator
Co-Principal Investigator
Paper Coordinator
Content Writer/Author
Content Reviewer
DESCRIPTION OF MODULE
Name
Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh
Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai
Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai
Dr Manish Singh
Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai
Affiliation
Vice Chancellor, National
Law University, Delhi
Registrar, National Law
University Delhi
Registrar, National Law
University Delhi
Dr RML National Law
University, Lucknow
Registrar, National Law
University Delhi

Items Description of Module

Subject Name Law
Paper Name Research Methodology
Module Name/Title Qualitative and Doctrinal Methods in Research
Module Id VIII

Learning Outcomes
The following module is a discussion on qualitative and doctrinal methods in
research. The objectives are as following:
 To understand the contemporary debate surrounding the qualitative and doctrinal
methods of research
 To understand the meaning and concept of qualitative research.
 To understand the meaning and concept of doctrinal method of research.
 To encapsulate the methods of conducting doctrinal and qualitative research
 To discuss the broad aims and objectives of qualitative and doctrinal method of
research.
 To comprehend the advantages and limitations of qualitative and doctrinal method of
research.
 To understand the distinguishing factors between qualitative and doctrinal method of
research.

The Roadmap
1. Contemporary Discussion on Qualitative and Doctrinal Methods of Conducting
Research.
2. What is Doctrinal Legal Research?
2.1 Doctrinal Method.
 3. What is Qualitative Research?
3.1 Common Elements in Every Qualitative Research.
4. The Distinguishing Factors.
5. Aims and Objectives of Qualitative and Doctrinal Method of Research.
5.1 Aims and Objectives of Doctrinal Method.
5.2 Aims and Objectives of Qualitative Method.
6. Basic Tools of Qualitative and Doctrinal Research.
6.1 Basic Tools of Qualitative Research.
6.1.1 Interviews.
6.1.2 Questionnaires.
6.1.3 Schedule.
6.1.4 Interview Guide.
6.1.5 Observation.
6.2 Basic Tools of Quantitative Research.
6.2.1 Primary Sources.
6.2.2 Secondary Sources.
7. Advantages and Limitations of Qualitative and Doctrinal Methods of Research.
7.1 Advantages of Doctrinal Method.
7.2 Limitations of Doctrinal Method.
7.3 Advantages of Qualitative Method.
7.4 Limitations of Qualitative Method.
8. Conclusion.

Suggested Readings.
Assessment / Evaluation.

1. Contemporary Discussion on Qualitative and Doctrinal Methods of Conducting

Research

A brief short introduction to qualitative or doctrinal research debate would be fit to

locate both of them and analyze them with respect to their positives and
shortcomings. Bryman had identified some eleven ways to integrate these two types
of researches. The logic of triangulation (i) means to check for examples of
qualitative against doctrinal research. The qualitative research outcome can support
doctrinal method. (2) and vice versa, (3) both are combined in to provide a more
general picture of the isuue under study (4) structural features are analyzed with
doctrinal methods and processual aspects with qualitative approaches (5) the
perspective of the researcher derives the quantitative approaches, while qualitative
research emphasizes the viewpoint of the subjective (6). According to Bryman, the
problem of generality (7) can be solved for qualitative research by adding doctrinal
findings, whereas qualitative findings (8) may facilitate the interpretation of
relationships between variables in data sets. The relationship between micro and
macro levels in a substantial area (9) can be clarified by combining the two
researches, which can be appropriate in different stages of the research process (10).
Finally, there are hybrid forms (11) that use qualitative research in quasi-experimental
designs.1

2. What is Doctrinal Legal Research?

It can be defined as research into legal doctrines through analysis of statutory

provisions and cases by the application of reasoning. The emphasis is upon analysis
of legal rules, principles or doctrines. As compared to non-doctrinal legal research
which aims at research on relationship of law with society, groups and people. It
involves an empirical inquiry into the operation of law, how the doctrine or principle
which has been adopted in real world settings. Thus, the doctrinal legal research
emphasize upon research in law focusing on the black letter of the law, the non-
doctrinal research focuses on research about law, here the researcher is interested in
knowing about the law in action. The former can be understood as armchair research
or basic or fundamental research, the latter is empirical research.
2.1 Doctrinal Method
It begins by taking up a proposition as a starting point or focus. He then locates the
law in statutes, judicial pronouncements, and discussions in commentaries, textbooks,
journals, and debates. Reads them in a holistic manner analyze them and write his

1 See Flick, Uwe, An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 2006, SAGE Pub. at p.33.
findings. For example, a research on proposition of prevention against double
jeopardy, under criminal law, would begin with locating the law in constitution, and
criminal law materials. On the basis of the analysis of the same he may advance the
set of formulations, or may also highlight the objective behind the proposition and
may propose what it ought to be.
3. What is Qualitative Research?

Developed as an alternative to quantitative research, qualitative Research has grown

from simply being not quantitative research. It has gained multiple dimensions now
which can be understood from the general understanding that this research focuses at
the real world (not in specialized research settings like a laboratory) in order to
understand, describe and explain social phenomenon’s from the inside in multiple
ways. It is done by analyzing experiences of individuals or groups, by analyzing
interactions and communications or by analyzing documents. However, the common
element is that it seeks to identify how people view the world, what they are doing or
what is happening to them in terms which are meaningful and offer rich insights.2
3.1 Common Elements in Every Qualitative Research
Every qualitative research is it methodological, theoretical or epistemological has
certain common elements which can be broadly identified as below:
1. Experiences, interactions and documents are analyzed in their natural context.
2. Concepts and hypotheses are developed and refined in the process of research.
3. It starters from the idea that theory and method should be appropriate to what is
studied. They can be adapted if they do not fit in.
4. Researchers themselves are also an important part of the research process, either due
to their own personal experiences, or research experiences.
5. It takes cases and contexts seriously
6. A major part is dependent on texts and documents, thus, issues of transcribing
complex social situations into texts is one of the major concern of qualitative
research.
7. Experiences, interactions and documents are analyzed in their natural context.
8. Concepts and hypotheses are developed and refined in the process of research.

2 See Flick, Uwe, An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 2006, SAGE Pub. at p.ix
 9. It starters from the idea that theory and method should be appropriate to what is
studied. They can be adapted if they do not fit in.
10. Researchers themselves are also an important part of the research process, either due
to their own personal experiences, or research experiences.
11. It takes cases and contexts seriously
12. A major part is dependent on texts and documents, thus, issues of transcribing
complex social situations into texts is one of the major concern of qualitative
research.
4. The Distinguishing Factors

The qualitative legal research is different from doctrinal legal research on many
grounds. Some of them are:
1. It lays down a different emphasis upon legal doctrines and concepts. While the
emphasis of doctrinal is purely basic and fundamental in exposing the law as it exists.
The latter looks it from the perspective of social reality.
2. Qualitative Research seeks to answer broader issues as clear from the aims and
objectives as would be discussed below. The doctrinal research has a focus on a
particular point of law.
3. It does not focuses exclusively on case reports and other traditional primary and
secondary legal documents for analysis. However, it is dependent on doctrinal
methods in the sense that without a thorough grasp on fundamentals the qualitative
researcher would not be able to chart his voyage in a meaningful manner.
4. It takes a different route for research which has in focus to analyze law in action as
distinguished from law in books.

5. Aims and Objectives of Qualitative and Doctrinal Methods of Research.

The qualitative and doctrinal methods have different aims and objectives while the
former is about finding and analyzing the legal concepts, and doctrines, like for
example, the principle of strict liability under law of torts. The latter is concerned
with law in action, that is, as to analyze the legal idealism from the lens of social
reality. Each has its own utility and uniqueness and are interdependent on each other.
5.1 Aims and objectives of Doctrinal Research
A doctrinal Research has following aims and objectives, namely:
1. To find the law in the legal statutes, subordinate legislations and judicial precedents.
2. Aims at consistency and certainty of laws.
3. To some extent look into the purpose and policy of law that exists.
4. Aims to study legal institutions like courts, police machinery, jails, tribunals etc.

5.2 Aims and Objectives of Qualitative Research

A qualitative research focuses on the social facets of the law. Its primary aim is to
determine through empirical data how law and legal institutions affect or mould
human attitudes and what is their impact on the society they create. The researcher
primarily looks into:
1. How far the law and legal institutions are serving the need of the society?
2. Are they suited in the social context in which they operate?
3. Determine the forces that shapes, reshapes and mould the law.
4. To analyze how far the law has been enforced and administered.
5. Causes for the factors responsible for the poor performance of the law.
6. To look into the factors which moulds the enforcement machinery attitudes and
behavior while interpreting and enforcing the law?
7. Are beneficiaries under the law using it or the law is merely symbolic.
8. Whether the targeted beneficiaries are benefitting out of the law?
9. If the law is failing to help people where does the problem lie?
10. Impact of law on behavior and attitudes of society, people and groups.
6. Basic Tools of Qualitative and Doctrinal Legal Research

Every research has its own specific tools and methods. Research instruments are the
tools in the hands of the researcher to conduct the research. Proper tools ensure a well
planned and systematic enquiry. The researcher shall aim at developing procedures
which are reliable and valid. By being reliable it is meant that there is a consistency of
a measure, while being valid means to which the measure achieves it aims. 3They can

3See Dianna Hinds, Research Instruments in The Researcher’s Toolkit, David Wilkinson (ed.)
Routledge, (2000) at p.42.
be classified into primary and secondary sources. Let us have a look into the tools for
these two types of researches.
6.1 Basic Tools of Qualitative Research

There are several ways of collecting data for qualitative research. The primary sources
are interview, questionnaire, schedule, interview guide and observation. It can be
collected from either posing selected respondents to a set of pre-determined questions
or sketchy questions. It involves a face-to-face conversation and this tool of data
collection is known as ‘interviewing’. The pre-determined questions can also be
mailed, sent by post, fax or other ways in order to gather responses from selected
respondents. This tool of data collection is known as data collection by way of
‘questionnaires’. The researcher can also collect data by the method of ‘observation’ a
systematic observation of a phenomenon, behavior of participants (respondents or
institutions). The secondary sources are the published or unpublished reports for
example crime records, reports of international organizations etc.
6.1.1 Interviews: It is a verbal technique of data collection. It may be structured or
unstructured,. It is structured when the researcher uses a set of pre-determined
questions and highly standardized technique of recording responses. It is
unstructured when there is flexibility in the approach to the questioning and much
lesser standardized way of recording the responses. The strength of this tool is
that it remains to be the most effective method of gaining information about
respondent’s perception and opinions. It also enables the researcher to
authenticate the information coming from the respondents by observing the body
language of the respondent. However, administering an interview is an art. One
needs to have the required skill set in order to conduct a meaningful interview.
Undoubtedly being most effective it has its limitations, like memory bias,
inability of the respondents to provide every information asked for and bias.4
6.1.2 Questionnaire: Herein a number of typed or printed predetermined questions are
used for collecting data. It is send to the respondents with a request to send it
back to the researcher after filling the responses. It may also be structured or

4Cannell and Kahn, The Collection of Data by Interviewing, in leon Festinger and Daniel Katz
(eds.) Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences (Amerind Publishing Co., New Delhi, 1953) at
330-331.
 unstructured. The questions may be open-ended, close-ended, mixed or pictorial.
This method can be very effective in circumstances where the respondents are
scattered in a vast area. It is quicker and cheaper as compared to interviews.
6.1.3 Schedule: schedule is more or less same as the questionnaires. But the major
differences are that schedule is referred to a form filled in by the interviewer
during his personal interview with the respondents. And questionnaire being
impersonal is rigid; the schedule is flexible because it gives the opportunity to the
researcher to clarify the questions, if they are not clear to the respondents.
6.1.4 Interview Guide: It contains only the topics or broad headings upon which the
respondents are asked to answer. Usually the questions are formulated on the spot
and the responses are thereby recorded.
6.1.5 Observation: It is a visual method of data collection. It is another scientific way
of data collection, when planned in a systematic manner and recorded
systematically, and is subject to check and control on validity and reliability.

6.2 Basic Tools of Doctrinal Research.

Statutory materials, subordinate legal materials and case laws constitute the
primary resource. While the secondary resources the researcher refers to are the
textbooks, legal articles, parliamentary debate, etc. for example, if someone has to
undertake a study on the Principles of Compulsory Licensing under the Law of
Patents, then the relevant provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, International
Instruments pertaining to compulsory licensing, law on compulsory licensing in
different jurisdictions, Finding of the Courts, and Intellectual Property Appellate
Board like in the Matter of Application for Compulsory License by Natco Corp.,
in C.L.A. 1 constitutes primary sources. While the commentaries on the provision
pertain to compulsory license in standard text books, commentaries, articles in law
journals, news reports, blogs etc would constitute secondary sources.
7. Advantages and Limitations of Qualitative and Doctrinal Methods of Research

7.1 Advantages of Doctrinal Method

Doctrinal method has following advantages:
1. It provides quick answers to the practical problems at hand by analyzing the legal
principles, concepts and doctrines. Thereby serving as a ready reference to people
 who didn’t have time at their disposal to undertake that research by themselves.
Because comparatively speaking a doctrinal research requires less time. So thereby it
ensures a constant stream of information on a regular basis.
2. It gives insights into the evolution and development of the law. For example,
consumer protection law.
3. It offers a logical explanation to the law and at the same time also highlights
inconsistencies and uncertainties in the law.
4. It reveals gaps ambiguities and inconsistencies in the law. Thus informs has to law
can be more purposive and effective. It lay down a roadmap to develop the law by
avoiding the pitfalls.
5. It helps in incrimination of legal knowledge base.
6. Future direction of the law can be predicted on the basis of such studies.
7. It provides a sound basis of non-doctrinal research. Because in deficit of the required
preliminary knowledge the venture of non-doctrinal research would be directionless
and therefore futile.5

7.2 Limitations of Doctrinal Method

The doctrinal method suffers from following shortcomings:

1. It can be subjective and suffer from the vice of perception of the researcher about the
enquired subject matter. Therefore another person can reach upon an entirely
different dimension to the same question.
2. It is devoid of any support from social facts. Therefore his projection might be far off
the social reality. This is a serious concern as law can act as an instrument of social
transformation.
3. It neglects the factors that lie outside the strict brackets of law, which might have a
bearing upon the legal principle, theory or doctrine. For example, the recent
amendment in the criminal law regarding rape, wherein a huge public outcry was an
extra-legal factor that shaped the law.
4. The actual practice and attitudes of people who are the functionaries and those who
implement the law is also not taken into account. Example the attitude of judges,
lawyers, police, administrative authorities, courts, and tribunals etc.

5See S.K. Verma and Afzal Wani (eds.), Legal Research and Methodology (Indian Law Institute,
New Delhi 2nd Edition, 2001) at p. 656-657
Nevertheless, doctrinal legal research has its own unique advantages and
contributions, whose importance cannot be disregarded.
7.3 Advantages of Qualitative Research

The qualitative research has following merits:

1. It highlights the gaps between goals and social reality. It depicts a true picture of law
in action. It highlights the gaps in relation to practice of law enforcement agencies
and as well as in the use and under use of the law by the beneficiaries of the law. It
highlights the reasons behind failure of a law in real world. It may be inactiveness or
lack of willingness on the part of those entrusted with the task of enforcing the law,
or may be resistance on the part of intended beneficiaries for multifarious reasons,
like unawareness, fear of further victimization, huge costs in terms of time and
money. It thus exposes the weakness in the operation of law.
2. In the modern welfare state, law acts as a tool of social and economic transformation.
The qualitative research can bring forward the role and contribution of law in
bringing about desired changes. It also can highlight the gaps that have been left in
the law and social reality so that law can be reassessed in the light of new
information.
3. It serves as a significant resource in the form of a social feedback to policy framers,
legislators and judiciary so that they can better enforce, legislate and interpret the
law.
4. It shapes social legislations in tune with the social engineering doctrine of the modern
state.

7.4 Limitations of Qualitative Research

The qualitative research has following limitations:

1. It is extremely time consuming and also costly.
2. The researcher has to build upon the bedrock of doctrinal research. He must be
through with the doctrines and concepts; otherwise, his research endeavor would be
futile.
3. The primary tools of data collection, namely, interviews, questionnaires, and
observation requires a specialized skill set right from the stage of planning to the
execution.
 8. Conclusion

From the above analysis it can be understood that qualitative research arose primarily
as a critique of doctrinal research. It was felt that the research outcomes were
inadequate and incomplete in absence of an analysis done in real world settings.
Nevertheless, both research methods had their own merits and shortcomings. But it
can safely be concluded that both informs the law and policy and are interdependent
on each other.