From Oxymoron to Intersection: An Epidemiology of Legal Research
Open accessAbstract
The foregoing articles about research in and around law reflect a broad conception of what it is to be a legal scholar. The views and experiences of the authors gathered here are probably no more radical or heterodox than those to be found in any of the earlier editions of this journal or the many others devoted to themes of law, society, culture and contemporary legal theory. Having brought these people together to reflect on what it is that they think and do when researching in law, we have raised 'the legal research question'.1 In these closing remarks we would like to reflect on the practical implications of the epistemologies which emerge from the views of these authors.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Doctrinal legal research has been the leading and most impactful method in legal scholarship.
“The doctrinal legal research has been the dominant and most influential research methods in law.”
From Doctrinal Research in Law: Meaning, Scope and Methodology (2023) · cites this paper as Manderson and Mohr, 2002
In “I Diagnosis: The disjunction of law and research” (page not supplied), the authors say doctrinal scholarship has had a “tenacious hold on legal minds,” supporting its influence. But “II Prognosis: The intersection of law and research” reports that only 20% of surveyed doctoral projects in Australian law schools were doctrinal, so the paper does not support calling it the dominant method in research being done there. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Alcoff L and E Potter eds 1993 Feminist Epistemologies Routledge London Aristotle 1976 Ethics Trans J A K Thomson Penguin Harmondsworth Davies M 2002 Asking the Law Question 2nd edn Sydney Law Book Company
- Derrida J 1992 Acts of Literature Routledge New York
- Dworkin R 1986 Law's Empire Belknap Press Harvard
- Eco U 1995 The Search for the Perfect Language Blackwells Oxford
- Enright C 1988 Legal Research and Interpretation College of Law Sydney --1995 Studying Law Federation Press Sydney
- Fish S 1987 'Dennis Martinez and the Uses of Theory' Yale Law Journal 96: 1773
- --1989 Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies Duke University Press Durham NC
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Doctrinal Research in Law: Meaning, Scope and Methodology
Majeed, N., Hilal, A., & Khan, A. N. (2023) · Bulletin of Business and Economics (BBE) · doi:10.61506/01.00167 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“The doctrinal research has been and is the most dominant legal research methodology in the past and present (Manderson and Mohr, 2002).”
Background
- Authors
- Manderson, D., & Mohr, R.
- Affiliations
- Australian National University (AU)
- University of Wollongong (AU)
- Venue
- Law Text Culture
- Publisher
- University of Wollongong Library
- Published
- 2002-01-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 10
- ISSN
- 1322-9060 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2115128927
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- dx.doi.org
- Locations
- Law/text/culture (publishedVersion)
- Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
- bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- Law/text/culture
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Studies and Policies
- Social Sciences › Law › Law in Society and Culture
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Education and Practice Innovations
- Keywords
- legal research, legal scholarship, epistemology of law, legal theory, interdisciplinary research, law and society, legal culture, legal methodology
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
