CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Legal Education and Practice InnovationsLegal Studies and PoliciesComparative and International Law Studies

The impact of “empirical facts” on legal scholarship and legal research training

Open access
Burns, Kylie, Hutchinson, Terry·2009·The Law Teacher
DOI 10.1080/03069400903004236
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Lawyers have traditionally viewed law as a closed system, and doctrinal research has been the research methodology used most widely in the profession. This reflects traditional concepts of legal reasoning. There is a wealth of reliable and valid social science data available to lawyers and judges. Judges in fact often refer to general facts about the world, society, institutions and human behaviour (“empirical facts”). Legal education needs to prepare our students for this broader legal context. This paper examines how “empirical facts” are used in Australian and other common law courts. Specifically, the paper argues that there is a need for enhanced training in non-doctrinal research methodologies across the law school curriculum. This should encompass a broad introduction to social science methods, with more attention being paid to a cross-section of methodologies such as content analysis, comparative law and surveys that are best applied to law.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03069400903004236

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Law is a system that represents theories, doctrines, principles, rules, guidelines and exceptions at different levels of contextual abstraction.

    “Law is a system of representing inherent theories, doctrines, principles, rules, guidelines and exceptions at different contextual abstraction [18].”

    From Legal Research- Descriptive Analysis on Doctrinal Methodology (2019) · cites this paper as [18]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. US Law and Society Association <http://www.lawandsociety.org/> at 30 September 2008; Journal of Empirical Legal Studies <http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/society.asp?ref=1740-1453> at 30 September 2008. 59 ELS Blog <http://www.elsblog.org/> at 30 September 2008.
  2. E. Chambliss, "When do Thoughts persuade? Some thoughts on the Market for 'Empirical Legal Studies'" <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1263369> at 30 September 2008. 61 Supra n. 47.
  3. W. M. Sullivan, A. Colby, J. W. Wegner, L. Bond & L. S. Shulman, Educating Lawyers (2007) 76, 194-7; Australian Law Reform Commission, Managing Justice: A Review of the Federal Civil Justice System, Report No 89 (1999), [2.. 106 Consultative Committee of State and Territory Law Admitting Authorities (the 'Priestley Committee'). 107
  4. G. Nash, "How Best to Refresh Our Legal Knowledge" in Commonwealth Law Conference Proceedings and Papers (Hong Kong, 1983);
  5. J. Smillie, 'Results of a Survey of Otago Law Graduates 1971-1981 (1983) 5(3) Otago Law Review 442, 450;
  6. J. Peden, "Professional Legal Education and Skills Training for Australian Lawyers" (1972) 46 Australian Law Journal 157, 167. 114

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Burns, K., & Hutchinson, T.
Affiliations
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author
Hutchinson, Terry
ORCID
Burns, Kylie
Venue
The Law Teacher
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2009-07-02
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
153-178
ISSN
  • 0306-9400 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-0353
DOI
10.1080/03069400903004236
OpenAlex
W2154643250
Cited by
26
References
14
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
20.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Law Teacher (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
  • Faculty of Law
Funders
  • University of Tasmania
  • Durham University
  • University of New South Wales
  • Monash University
  • University of Melbourne
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal Education and Practice Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal Studies and Policies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Comparative and International Law Studies
Keywords
empirical facts, legal research methodology, legal education, legal reasoning, law school curriculum, content analysis, comparative law, common law courts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review