LAW 2284

Advanced Legal Research and Law Reform

2009-10

Professor Peter Vincent-Jones (Module Coordinator): p.vincent-jones@leeds.ac.uk; Dr Julie

Wallbank: j.a.wallbank@leeds.ac.uk.

Module aims
To develop students’ understanding of doctrinal and empirical approaches to the study of
law and legal phenomena;
To equip students with a basic understanding of empirical research methods;
To enable students critically to evaluate the use made by academic writers of such
methods and data;
To encourage understanding of the importance of empirical research in debates
concerning law reform;
To equip students with advanced research skills in using legal databases and the internet;
To help prepare students for their final-year dissertation.
Learning outcomes
On completion of the module you should have acquired:
An appreciation of the range of approaches to the study of law and legal phenomena;
A basic understanding of empirical research methods;
An understanding of the role played by empirical data in debates on law reform;
The ability to carry out scholarly research using legal databases and the internet; and
The ability to identify research areas, questions and methods appropriate to your final-
year dissertation.

Module rationale

In completing your first year of legal studies at Leeds you have acquired a range of
discipline-specific skills in learning how to ‘think’ like a lawyer, including finding,
understanding, and applying rules and principles in resolving legal problems. Year 1
was concerned mainly with the ‘black letter’ or doctrinal tradition of legal
scholarship, whose purpose is to analyse and expound the law on any particular
subject with reference to primary and secondary sources.
The aim of this Year 2 module is to develop further intellectual skills and expertise
in research and critical evaluation appropriate to the second year, and to help
prepare for the final year Dissertation. To this end we broaden the scope of legal
study to include empirical legal research (ELR) which focuses on how the law and
legal institutions operate in their wider social, economic and political context.
Unlike doctrinal research which involves the study of law ‘in the books’, ELR is
based on the observation of law ‘in society’. Empirical legal research is increasingly
regarded as vital to improving our understanding of how the law works ‘in the real
world’ (see Nuffield Inquiry on Empirical Legal Research, 2006). We explore how
empirical methods are used to generate new knowledge and understanding of law
in society in the subject areas with which you are already familiar: English Legal
System, Tort, Contract, and Constitutional and Administrative Law.
Two types of empirical research in these fields may be distinguished. On the one
hand, quantitative research (literally relating to ‘quantity’) generates ‘hard’ and
‘objective’ data expressed in the form of numbers, percentages, or numerical
1
 values, which may be manipulated in various ways through statistical analysis. On
the other hand, qualitative research (literally relating to ‘quality’) produces ‘soft’ data
in the form of words or pictures, whose meaning is more ‘subjective’ and dependent
on interpretation.
While quantitative research typically involves the use of methods such as surveys
and questionnaires, qualitative research is associated with methods such as
interviews and participant observation. However, the quantitative/qualitative
dichotomy should not be exaggerated. Much socio-legal research is likely to involve
a combination of types of empirical research. And the same empirical method (for
example the postal questionnaire) may be used to generate both quantitative and
qualitative data.
Doctrinal research and empirical legal research should be regarded as
complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Many of the journal articles to which
you will be referred in this module combine doctrinal and empirical socio-legal
analysis. Both approaches may be critical of existing law and be accompanied by
arguments for legal reform/revision – whether by means of legislation or judicial
development through the appellate courts.
A further common feature of legal and socio-legal research, whether doctrinal or
empirical, is that its conduct is increasingly governed by codes of ethics designed to
protect a range of individual and societal interests in the research process.

Module delivery
This module is delivered through five one-hour lectures, one library workshop, and four
seminars (1.5 hours each).

Lectures
All lectures are on Mondays in Conference Auditorium 2.
Wk 1 L1 – Introduction: Doctrinal Research and Empirical Legal Research (ELR)
Wk 2 L2 – Empirical Legal Research and Ethics
Wk 3 L3 – Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Legal Research
Wk 4 L4 – Research Issues in Real Life (guest lecture by Sarah Blandy)
Wk 5 L5 – Conclusions and Assessment

Workshops and seminars

Wks 1-2 Workshop – Advanced Library Skills (Martin Gill, Library) p. 3
Wks 3-4 Seminar 1 – Doctrinal Research and ELR, Research Ethics p. 4
Wks 5-6 Seminar 2 – Understanding ELR – Judicial/Admin Discretion p. 8
Wks 7-8 Seminar 3 – Understanding ELR – Negligence p. 13
Wks 9-10 Seminar 4 – Understanding ELR – Contract p. 18

Assessment
The assignment question will be distributed and explained in the final lecture. For the
assignment, you will be required to evaluate a journal article based on empirical legal
research. You will practice the evaluation skills you will need for this assignment both in
preparing for seminars, and in the seminars themselves (see Exercises 1-5).

2
Reading and seminar preparation
Reading for each seminar is indicated in this handout. Six key articles/extracts (R1 – R6) on
doctrinal/empirical legal research and empirical research methods are provided in the
reading pack, which you may collect from the Student Common Room. These
articles/extracts are essential for seminar 1, and a core resource you should use to guide
your preparation for other seminars and the assignment.

Other essential reading is easily available electronically via the Library web pages, or
through Blackboard.

Included in this handout are questions for each seminar, which will form the basis of
seminar discussion and which you should use in order to inform your reading and
preparation.

Library Workshop

The workshops will be led by Martin Gill

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/library/people/mrg.htm

Workshops will be held in various ISS clusters –

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/iss/clusters/cluster_location.html

A record of attendance will be taken at the workshops (attendance is compulsory).

Workshops take place at the following times and venues. Your personal timetable contains
information on the group to which you have been allocated. It is essential that you attend
at this time.

Friday 2nd October (week 1)

10.00 – 11.30 Social Studies Cluster (9.02)
11.30 – 1.00 Social Studies Cluster (9.02)
2.00 – 3.30 Richard Hughes Cluster (1.40)

Friday 9th October (week 2)

10.00 – 11.30 Social Studies Cluster (9.02)
11.30 – 1.00 Social Studies Cluster (9.02)
2.00 – 3.30 Richard Hughes Cluster (1.40)

3
Seminar 1 Doctrinal Research and Empirical Legal Research (ELR),
and Research Ethics

Reading
On the relationship between doctrinal and empirical legal research/methods:

McConville, M., and Hong Chui, W., ‘Introduction and Overview’, in Research Methods for
Law, (eds. McCoville and Chui) (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007) pp. 1-15.
(*R1)
Dobinson, I., and Johns, F., ‘Doctrinal Legal Research’ and ‘Non-Doctrinal Research’, in
McConville, M., and Hong Chui, W. (eds.), Research Methods for Law (Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 2007) pp. 22-45. (*R2)
Nuffield Inquiry on Empirical Legal Research, Law in the Real World: Improving Our
Understanding of How Law Works (Nuffield 2006), Report Summary:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/socio-legal/empirical/docs/inquiry_summary.pdf

On research ethics in legal and socio-legal research:

Socio-Legal Studies Association (SLSA), Statement of Principles of Ethical Research

Practice, January 2009. (*R3)
Hoyle, C., ‘Ethical and Methodological Issues in Researching Domestic Violence’, in R. King
and E. Wincup (eds.), Doing Research on Crime and Justice (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000). (*R4)

Seminar questions
1. What is doctrinal legal research? What range of skills is practiced in this type of
research? What ‘steps’ are involved in carrying out this type of research?

2. What is ‘empirical’ legal research? Distinguish empirical legal research from the
‘inter-disciplinary’ approach to the study of law.

3. Why does empirical research on law matter? What bodies in society are interested in
such research?

4. Explain the distinction commonly drawn between ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’

empirical research. What criticisms does Trochim make of this distinction?

5. Explain how the SLSA Statement of Principles of Ethical Research Practice

distinguishes between obligations ‘to the academic and wider communities’, ‘to colleagues’,
‘to subjects and participants’? What is the nature of these ‘obligations’?

6. Read the piece by Carolyn Hoyle, ‘Being a Nosy Bloody Cow’

(a) What was she trying to find out (what were her research questions)?
(b) What empirical research methods did she use, resulting in what type of data
(quantitative or qualitative)?
(c) With reference to the SLSA Statement of Principles of Ethical Research Practice, do
you consider that this research was conducted ethically?

4
Seminar 2 Understanding Empirical Research on Judicial and
Administrative Discretion

In addition to core reading, for this seminar you need to locate via Library electronic
resources, download and read closely the article by Halliday, S., ‘The Influence of Judicial
Review on Bureaucratic Decision Making’ (2000) Public Law (Spring) 110-122.

Reading
On empirical research methods:

Bryman, A., Social Research Methods (OUP, 2004), Ch 2: ‘Criteria in social research’, pp 28-
29 (*R5); Ch 3 ‘The Main Preoccupations of Quantitative Researchers’, pp 76-79 (*R6); Ch
13 ‘Qualitative Research’, pp 272-276 (*R7).
Bryman, A., ‘On Triangulation’, at:
http://www.referenceworld.com/sage/socialscience/triangulation.pdf

Article for evaluation:

Halliday, S., ‘The Influence of Judicial Review on Bureaucratic Decision Making’ (2000) Public
Law (Spring) 110-122.

Seminar questions

1. What according to Fink are the ‘five requirements’ for carrying out empirical legal
research?

2. Explain what you understand by the term ‘triangulation’.

3. Explain what you understand by the following key research methods concepts:
(a) Reliability
(b) Replication
(c) Validity (distinguish between internal, external, and ecological validity).
(d) Generalizability
(e) Causality

4. Why does Bryman suggest that it is necessary to ‘adapt’ criteria of reliability and
validity in relation to qualitative research? What alternative criteria (under ‘trustworthiness’)
does he suggest should be used evaluating qualitative research? What is ‘respondent
validation’?

5. Navigate to the University Library ‘e-journals’ page

http://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/200114/how_do_i_find/32/e-journals
Read the article by Halliday (above).
Using the following pro-forma checklist, evaluate this article with reference to the research
methods concepts indicated in the left-hand column.
Clues are provided in the right-hand column as to how you might go about your evaluation,
and where in the article you might find answers.

5
Checklist for evaluating empirical legal research – Exercise 1
Halliday, S., ‘The Influence of Judicial Review on Bureaucratic Decision Making’ (2000) Public
Law (Spring) 110-122.
Approach
Is the research doctrinal, empirical, or a combination of these
approaches?
Research questions
What aspect of law, or what ‘problem,’ does the research
address?
What are the main research questions (what are the
researchers trying to find out)?
What ‘gap’ in our knowledge does the research seek to fill?
Type of empirical research
Is the research qualitative, quantitative, or a combination of these
types?
(nb. triangulation)
Research methods
What empirical methods, or techniques, are the researchers using
to address their research questions?
(nb. triangulation)
Findings
What empirical data are produced by the methods used?
How do researchers analyze raw data – what concepts or
analytical methods do they employ to understand data?
Reliability/dependability
Can the data produced by the research methods be ‘relied’ on
(quantitative research); are they ‘dependable’ (qualitative
research)?
Is the research replicable? Have the researchers spelt out their
procedures so that the results are capable of replication?
Does the research have ‘ecological validity’?
External validity/transferability
Assuming the data to be reliable/dependable, are the results of
the research ‘externally valid’ (quantitative research) or
‘transferable’ to other contexts (qualitative research)?
How representative is the sample (that segment or part of the
phenomenon that the researchers are trying to study)?
Internal validity/credibility
Where research data are claimed to show a causal relationship
between ‘x’ & ‘y’, does the claim hold water; does ‘x’ really
‘cause’ or explain ‘y’ (quantitative research)?
Are the results of the research feasible, or likely to be
acceptable to/believed by others (qualitative research)? nb
‘respondent validation’.
Ethics
What ethical issues were at stake in this research?
Did the researchers conform to any ethical code, eg. SLSA
Statement of Principles of Ethical Research Practice in
conducting the research?
What ethical obligations should they have observed?
Argument of article and conclusions
How convinced are you by the authors’ overall argument and
conclusions based on the empirical research?
What does the research contribute to the understanding of law
in this field? How successful is it in filling ‘gaps’ in
knowledge?
What are implications of research for legal reform, either
explicitly addressed by author, or implicit?
See whole article – in particular e.g. end p.114, footnote
21; fn.30.
- Requires close reading of introduction – opening four
paragraphs.
- Nb. not always posed explicitly as ‘questions’.
- See opening paragraph.
- What qualitative research data are presented in the
article, in what form?
- What reference does author make to numbers, statistics,
percentages, proportions etc.? See end p.120.
See: p.111, first full paragraph; fn.9.
See: pp. 114-117 nb. What does author mean by saying JR
acted as ‘double edged sword’? What does he mean by
‘legal conscientiousness’? How are these points illustrated
by findings?
How much are we told about how the researcher gathered
the data?
How should the research have been conducted in order to
meet this criterion?
- Are results of research on administrative discretion
exercised by local authorities (on homelessness)
transferable to other types of administrative decision-
making? nb. see end of p.113.
- Is the sample representative of local authorities as a
whole? See top p.112. Does this matter?
- What inferences does the author draw from the data? See
beginning of section headed ‘The limited focus of judicial
review’ p.117; final sentence before section ‘Self-scrutiny
by administrative agencies’ p.120.
- Any evidence of respondent validation in this research?
What are the relevant principles in SLSA ethics code? See
esp. principles 5-8.
In what different senses does the author protect anonymity
in the article? (nb. local authorities, and people).
Was the research carried out as part of a team? See fn.4.
Why is this question of relevance to ethics?
- See author’s Conclusion, p.122.
- See research questions above - how ambitious were the
research questions?
- How does this research contribute to a ‘field’ of similar
research? See references to research by other authors
addressing similar questions, throughout.
- Why would reform of the law of JR not solve the
‘problem’ identified in this article? What other reform is
necessary to address this problem?