The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 72 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research
Open accessAbstract
The practitioner lawyer of the past had little need to reflect on process. The doctrinal research methodology developed intuitively within the common law — a research method at the core of practice. There was no need to justify or classify it within a broader research framework. Modern academic lawyers are facing a different situation. At a time when competition for limited research funds is becoming more intense, and in which interdisciplinary work is highly valued and non-lawyers are involved in the assessment of grant applications, lawyer-applicants who engage in doctrinal research need to be able to explain their methodology more clearly. Doctrinal scholars need to be more open and articulate about their methods. These methods may be different in different contexts. This paper examines the doctrinal method used in legal research and its place in recent research dialogue. Some commentators are of the view that the doctrinal method is simply scholarship rather than a separate research methodology. Richard Posner even suggests that law is ‘not a field with a distinct methodology, but an amalgam of applied logic, rhetoric, economics and familiarity with a specialized vocabulary and a particular body of texts, practices, and institutions ...’.1 Therefore, academic lawyers are beginning to realise that the doctrinal research methodology needs clarification for those outside the legal profession and that a discussion about the standing and place of doctrinal research compared to other methodologies is required.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
66 Sources not found · 60 Own interpretation · 9 Own result · 5 No basis given · 2 Not checked yet
In the paper
“Research published in the United Kingdom in 2004 demonstrates that relatively few projects by UK law school academics in 'core law' research areas were being externally funded.41”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > C Competitive Research Funding for Legal Research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [41]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fifty-six per cent (n=34) of these legal theses are of a research nature that is unlikely to require ethics clearance.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > E Are HDR Students in Law Articulating Their Methodologies in Their Theses?
plainn = 34- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In Australia, as the following graphs demonstrate, an increasing number of ARC Discovery and Linkage Grants Projects, stipulating Law as their primary area, were submitted in the years 2001-2005.44”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > C Competitive Research Funding for Legal Research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [44]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These statistics demonstrate a discrepancy between the numbers enrolled in higher degrees each year and the annual number of completions.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > D Examining the Extent of HDR Activity in Australian Law Faculties
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The success rates were higher for the Linkage scheme 45 than for the Discovery projects.46”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > C Competitive Research Funding for Legal Research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [45]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [46]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The total enrolments increased from 795 in 2004 to 982 in 2008.54”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > D Examining the Extent of HDR Activity in Australian Law Faculties
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [54]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Where the thesis represents traditional legal research, significantly less, and sometimes no attention is given to explaining the methods used in conducting the research.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > E Are HDR Students in Law Articulating Their Methodologies in Their Theses?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analysis demonstrates that the doctrinal methodology is rarely discussed, even when a 'methodologies' chapter is included in the thesis.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > E Are HDR Students in Law Articulating Their Methodologies in Their Theses?
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The authors' classification of theses as having a doctrinal component or as traditional legal research is reliable even when students did not label them so.
In the paper
“A survey of postgraduate research in Australian law schools undertaken ten years ago demonstrated that only 20 per cent of all doctoral research projects could be described as purely 'doctrinal'.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > E Are HDR Students in Law Articulating Their Methodologies in Their Theses?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Manderson and Mohr, above n 5, 164
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Australian universities have experienced major growth in Higher Degree by Research (HDR) completion rates for Law in the last two decades.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > D Examining the Extent of HDR Activity in Australian Law Faculties
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 102
- It may state two separate claims as one. 50
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is also important to note that in 2009, while the success rate of applications was lower (24 per cent) than, for example, in 2002 (34 per cent), the dollar amount of funding for the year ($8 292 722) was considerably higher than in any of the earlier years.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > C Competitive Research Funding for Legal Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Non-doctrinal methodologies are treated more expansively, with extensive descriptions and lengthy chapters.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > E Are HDR Students in Law Articulating Their Methodologies in Their Theses?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Methodologies' chapters in the theses examined appear more frequently and are more prominent when the thesis involves a survey or interviews.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > E Are HDR Students in Law Articulating Their Methodologies in Their Theses?
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The following table demonstrates the number of applications indicating Law as the primary research area for the years 2002 through to 2009.47 The number of applications increased overall but the success rates dropped correspondingly.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > C Competitive Research Funding for Legal Research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [47]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The number of completions is increasing at a slower rate with 85 in 2004 and 95 in 2008.55”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > D Examining the Extent of HDR Activity in Australian Law Faculties
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [55]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An examination of the database demonstrates that only 16 of the 60 theses include a methodologies chapter (26.6 per cent), 21 discuss methodologies as part of another chapter, and one deals with the methodology in an appendix.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > E Are HDR Students in Law Articulating Their Methodologies in Their Theses?
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Over this time 139 of a possible 485 projects were funded, with a total funding amount of $36 703 437.47”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > C Competitive Research Funding for Legal Research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [47]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Success rates in the 'hard sciences' (Engineering and Technology, Biological Sciences, Physical Sciences, Chemical Sciences) were generally higher.48”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > C Competitive Research Funding for Legal Research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [48]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The annual figure for 2008 had risen to 79 (together with an additional 16 Masters by Research completions).52”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > D Examining the Extent of HDR Activity in Australian Law Faculties
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [52]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A more recent examination of HDR theses submitted to the Australasian Digital Thesis Program website in the five year period 2004-9, reveals that most of the legal theses had a doctrinal component, even though only a few students overtly identified the study they were conducting as being to any extent 'doctrinal'.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > E Are HDR Students in Law Articulating Their Methodologies in Their Theses?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The authors' classification of theses as having a doctrinal component or as traditional legal research is reliable even when students did not label them so.
In the paper
“Statistics show an increase from a PhD completion rate for Law and Legal Studies in Australia of six students in 1988 to 42 in 1998 (with approximately 20 Masters completions for both years of the study).51”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > D Examining the Extent of HDR Activity in Australian Law Faculties
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [51]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Citation rates will continue to be relevant criteria for determining research quality in other discipline areas, so this is a matter of concern to legal researchers.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Attempts To Measure Research Quality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Indeed, an attempt has been made to provide a ranking, proposing the Modern Law Review as the pre-eminent journal and six others competing in a second rank”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > II THE CURRENT RESEARCH LANDSCAPE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kevin Campbell, Alan Goodacre and Gavin Little, 'Ranking of United Kingdom Law Journals: An Analysis of the Research Assessment Exercise 2001 Submissions and Results' (2006) 33 Journal of Law and Society 335, 363
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Kevin Campbell et al, 'Journal Publishing, Journal Reputation, and the United Kingdom's Research Assessment Exercise' (1999) 26(4) Journal of Law and Society 470
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A strongly bibliometric approach which may be appropriate in scientific fields of endeavour is not entirely meaningful to lawyers.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Attempts To Measure Research Quality
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: There are no effective citation metrics for law.
In the paper
“This period of relative largesse was curtailed by the global economic crisis and in 2009 the government identified cuts of a total of £398 million in the Annual Grant for higher education.15”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > A Research Acknowledged through Government Policy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [15]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In 2005 the UK government announced that the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) would replace the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) with the Research Excellence Framework (REF) -a more bibliometricsoriented method of assessment, also designed to test economic and social impact.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Attempts To Measure Research Quality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [31]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This endeavour is administered by four panels, each of which is divided into sub-panels.The Law sub-panel is linked into Panel C which places it firmly in the company of the social sciences disciplines as opposed to the humanities.33”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Attempts To Measure Research Quality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [33]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The government promised $5.2 billion in outlays during the next five to six years including 'improved resourcing of the indirect costs of research'.21”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > A Research Acknowledged through Government Policy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A number of recommendations for change came out of this Report.Principally there was a recommendation for increased funding for research and development.27”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > A Research Acknowledged through Government Policy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [27]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In 2008, the Bradley Review underlined the urgent need for increased funding for Australia's universities.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > A Research Acknowledged through Government Policy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It comments that 'inadequate funding for research training and research careers remains the fundamental obstacle to building Australia's full research capacity'.26”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > A Research Acknowledged through Government Policy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [26]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“the Commonwealth Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr, suddenly announced at the end of May 2011 that journal rankings were no longer to be a key indicator of research quality for the current ERA process.11”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > II THE CURRENT RESEARCH LANDSCAPE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [11]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The movement towards transnational law is being encouraged by the increasing amounts of legal data (case law, legislation, journal articles, law reform reports, parliamentary material, and policy documents) available via the internet, a phenomenon which is, in turn, leading to major changes in doctrinal method.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > II THE CURRENT RESEARCH LANDSCAPE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, academic lawyers are beginning to realise that the doctrinal research methodology needs clarification for those outside the legal profession and that a discussion about the standing and place of doctrinal research compared to other”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The UK consultation process finished in December 2009 and the first REF exercise is to take place in 2014.31”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Attempts To Measure Research Quality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [31]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Authoring student texts or disseminating research knowledge to the broader community generally receives less 'kudos'.10”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > II THE CURRENT RESEARCH LANDSCAPE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [10] 10. Diana Hacker, Research and Documentation Online <http://www.dianahacker.com/ resdoc/history.html>. 109 See above n 39 and accompanying text.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This method of research was the dominant influence in 19 th and 20 th century views of law and legal scholarship and it tends to dominate legal research design.5”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > I INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [5] 5. Ibid. These figures include Masters by Research: 2004 (85), 2005 (94), 2006 (81), 2007 (94) and 2008 (95).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A change in government in the UK exacerbated the situation, with a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition taking a policy decision to reduce the deficit over a relatively short period.16”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > A Research Acknowledged through Government Policy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [16]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the UK, universities are faced with the withdrawal of government grants to cover teaching; they are now replaced by student fees of up to £9000 8 and intake controls linked to entry qualifications.9”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > II THE CURRENT RESEARCH LANDSCAPE
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] 8. Daniel Edgar, The Indigenous Right of Self Determination and 'The State' in the Northern Territory of Australia (PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne, 2008), ii <http://dtl.unimelb.edu.au/R/LTYLPHMJVEF4K3B7AQ7SDRPCCG84EENJ76JL8YI2G44 HV6VKTA-01299?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=117935&pds_handle=GUEST>.
- Not matchedcites [9] 9. H E B Tijssen's thesis noted that 'of the 90 dissertations he investigated … more than 50 per cent had a clearly formulated research question' to explain and justify choices in the work: Jan B M Vranken, 'Methodology of Legal Doctrinal Research: A Comment on Westerman' in Van Hoecke, above n 77, 118, citing H E B Tijssen, De juridische dissertatie onder de loep. De verantwoording van methodologische keuzes in juridische dissertaties (Legal Dissertations through a Magnifying Glass. Justification of Methodological Choices in Legal Dissertations) (Boom Juridische Uitgevers, 2009). 103 Maggie W
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative is administered by the Australian Research Council (ARC) and was developed by that body, in conjunction with the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, to assess research quality using a combination of metrics and expert review by committees comprising experienced, internationally-recognised experts.36”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Attempts To Measure Research Quality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [36]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Finally there is the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Review of the National Innovation System which resulted in the Cutler Report: Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the 21st Century.28”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > A Research Acknowledged through Government Policy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [28]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The Report notes that '[w]e depend so much on universities … that if their performance slips, the whole innovation system suffers.… Therefore … [they] must be able to demonstrate genuine and consistent excellence'.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > A Research Acknowledged through Government Policy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Operate within the intuitive and arcane doctrinal paradigm and you are being vague according to funding providers, operate outside it and you are not being a lawyer according to the profession.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > I INTRODUCTION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The doctrinal method is the foundation of the common law and the central method of legal research.
In the paper
“The REF will be undertaken by the four UK higher education funding bodies.32”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Attempts To Measure Research Quality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [32]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This in turn resulted in articles on important jurisdiction-specific legal issues becoming less publishable, and academics directing their research to areas and topics that are more likely to be of interest to international audiences.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > II THE CURRENT RESEARCH LANDSCAPE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Their study noted that funded projects tended to be 'undertaken by economists, social policy specialists, and those in inter-disciplinary research units that could, but typically do not, involve legal researchers'.43”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > C Competitive Research Funding for Legal Research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [43]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Each field is rated on a scale ranging from 1 to 5. 37”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Attempts To Measure Research Quality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [37]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These reports recognise the importance of the higher education sector and also the importance to the economy of measuring and encouraging the work being done there.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 30
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“December 2008 saw the publication of the Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee Report into Research Training which again pointed to the need for government nurturing of the higher education research sector.23”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > A Research Acknowledged through Government Policy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [23]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“There has also been a shift towards a national legal profession in Australia which is accompanied by a trend towards young lawyers practising outside the jurisdiction in which they were trained.12”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > II THE CURRENT RESEARCH LANDSCAPE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [12]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In this Report the Labor government acknowledged that 'public research capacity is critical' even though '[t]he pay-off may be indirect and a long time coming'.29”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > A Research Acknowledged through Government Policy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [29]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In the UK, an incoming Labour government in 1997 increased funding for all aspects of higher education.This increase was administered through the funding councils 14 and included improvements in core research funding as well as initiatives to improve teaching and learning.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > A Research Acknowledged through Government Policy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [14]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“but law as an academic discipline did not truly exist in the common law world prior to the late 1800s.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > III DEFINING LEGAL RESEARCH TERMINOLOGY
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites David Weisbrot, Australian Lawyers (Longman Cheshire, 1990) ch 5
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Before analysing the law, the researcher must first locate it.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the degree of complexity evidenced in a judge's decision demonstrates another level of doctrinal work.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > Different forms of legal research necessitate variations in the method.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It seeks to achieve more than simply a description of the law.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The application of such techniques, along with a description of, for example, the use of deductive logic, inductive reasoning and analogy where appropriate, would constitute the second part of the methodology.93”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [93]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The doctrinal methodology is not always predicated on a specific legal 'problem' or directed to locating one answer or conclusion.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > Different forms of legal research necessitate variations in the method.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The HDR thesis constitutes a separate genre.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > Different forms of legal research necessitate variations in the method.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The 2009 CALD (Council of Australian Law Deans) Standards refer to the necessity for students to be able to achieve research methodology skills akin to the 'doctrinal', including:”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 68
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites CALD (Council of Australian Law Deans) Standards
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It is the location and analysis of the primary documents of the law in order to establish the nature and parameters of the law.”
- Also stated in: § B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process · plain
“Doctrinal research is centred on the reading and analysis of the primary sources of legal doctrine.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [105]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Also stated in: § B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Doctrinal method is normally a two-part process, because it involves first locating the sources of the law and then interpreting and analysing the text.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Academic researchers choose both the topic and the breadth and depth of investigation.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > Different forms of legal research necessitate variations in the method.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The theoretical stance of the judge towards the judicial role, and the approach the judge brings to the reasoning in the case arguably also affects the formulation of the decision.78”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > Different forms of legal research necessitate variations in the method.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [78]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The 1982 landmark study on the state of legal research and scholarship in Canada, the Arthurs Report, included a fourth category covering non-doctrinal methodologies:”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > Schools: A Discipline Assessment for the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Consultative Group on Research and Education in Law, Law and Learning: Report to the Social Sciences and the Humanities Research Council of Canada
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Where the source of the rule is case law rather than legislation, 'the lawyer will have to examine several cases to find a major premise which underlies them all'.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [96]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In that sense there is a positive statement of the law.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 'screening criteria' for legal primary materials are necessarily more rule bound and intricate.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In addition, these two examples demonstrate an increased trend towards postgraduate legal scholars formulating clear research questions to explain and justify choices made in the work.87”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > Different forms of legal research necessitate variations in the method.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [87]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It includes that intricate step of 'reading, analysing and linking' the new information to the known body of law.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [106]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All the reports agreed that doctrinal legal research was the most accepted methodology in the discipline of law.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 68
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The treatment of law in a legal encyclopaedia such as Halsbury's Laws of Australia, 82 or a standard treatise such as Cheshire and Fifoot, 83 or a practitioner journal such as The Proctor published by the Queensland Law Society, differs markedly from the more broad-ranging discussions taking place in refereed journal articles published in the most prestigious law journals.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > Different forms of legal research necessitate variations in the method.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is at the next step where the law or rule is interpreted and analysed within a specific context that the outcome becomes 'contingent' or conditional on the expertise, views and methods of the individual researcher.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most commentators in this area agree that '[s]ome element of doctrinal analysis will be found in all but the most radical forms of legal research'.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 68
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One point that must be made is that doctrinal research is more than simply a literature review.”
- Also stated in: § B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process · plain
“But the doctrinal research methodology is much more than 'scholarship'.”
- Also stated in: § IV CONCLUSION · plain
“It is more than simply scholarship or an elaborate literature review of primary materials.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Also stated in: § B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, if we take legislation as an example, the laws are passed by parliament and the words are written down.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Legal reasoning is often deductive because the general rules are 'given', for example through legislation.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [94]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In the first step, it could be said that the researcher is attempting to determine an 'objective reality', that is, a statement of the law encapsulated in legislation or an entrenched common law principle.88”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [88]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The doctrinal method is similar to that being used by the practitioner or the judge, except that the academic researcher (or HDR student) is not constrained by the imperative to find a concrete answer for a client.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > Different forms of legal research necessitate variations in the method.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although doctoral candidates are publicly funded for three years full time, many students would not complete within this timeframe for various reasons.56”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > D Examining the Extent of HDR Activity in Australian Law Faculties
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [56]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, while this may hold true for some categories of reform-oriented doctrinal writing, there are many different genres within academic doctrinal work.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > Different forms of legal research necessitate variations in the method.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Up until then lawyers received all their training as clerks articled to practising lawyers.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > III DEFINING LEGAL RESEARCH TERMINOLOGY
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites David Weisbrot, Australian Lawyers (Longman Cheshire, 1990) ch 5
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Susan Bartie, in examining the scholarship about legal scholarship (what Bartie terms 'legal meta-scholarship'), concluded that 'a great deal of English legal scholarship builds upon the tenets of the core rather than discards them', and that in this regard the 'attitudes towards the core in England and Australia seem almost identical'.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 68
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Susan Bartie
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The core doctrinal methodology used by the practitioner is also used by the judge.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > Different forms of legal research necessitate variations in the method.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Doctrinal research also requires a trained expert in legal doctrine to read and analyse the law -the primary sources: the legislation and case law.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Legal research does seem to include facets of research methodologies used in other disciplinary domains, including hermeneutic, argumentative, empirical, explanatory, axiomatic, logical and normative techniques.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > C How Can We Categorise the Doctrinal Method vis-à-vis Other Research Methods?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [107]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Every research project, no matter what methodology is being used, needs a literature review as a precursor to further study -a nexus to that which has been done before.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [100]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“an overtly doctrinal research plan or methodology is feasible, and it would provide a rigour and discipline often missing in doctrinal research.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this respect, doctrinal research requires a literature review, that is, '[a] critical analysis of the existing research literature, theoretical and empirical', related to the research topic.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [103]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The process and the output of the doctrinal research is different among the various research and writing genres, though facets of the underlying research methodology is similar.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > Different forms of legal research necessitate variations in the method.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Academic lawyers now work in broader interdisciplinary settings than before, where doctrinal research processes are little known and methodology explanations are expected differently.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These numbers obviously differ from those in social science disciplines which rely largely on empirical method demonstrating that law is still essentially a 'scholarly' endeavour.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > E Are HDR Students in Law Articulating Their Methodologies in Their Theses?
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The sample of 60 law theses from the ADT database is sufficiently representative of Australian law HDR theses to support conclusions about lawyers' methodology reporting.
- Rests on an assumption: The authors' classification of theses as having a doctrinal component or as traditional legal research is reliable even when students did not label them so.
In the paper
“The literature review thus informs us of 'what is known and not known' about the topic.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > B Doctrinal Method as a Two Part Process
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [104]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“1. Doctrinal research -'Research which provides a systematic exposition of the rules governing a particular legal category, analyses the relationship between rules, explains areas of difficulty and, perhaps, predicts future developments.'”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > III DEFINING LEGAL RESEARCH TERMINOLOGY
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Dennis Pearce, Enid Campbell and Don Harding ('Pearce Committee'), Australian Law Schools: A Discipline Assessment for the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Different forms of legal research necessitate variations in the method.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > Different forms of legal research necessitate variations in the method.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This type of basic stepped research methodology design can lead to scepticism about doctrinal research in the general academic community.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > IV CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many aspects of the law are contingent on context, and need to be interpreted and analysed for meaning.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in a modern interdisciplinary framework, where the research is being directed, read and more importantly 'judged' by those outside a narrow legally trained discipline, articulation of method is vital -especially if funding is tied to quality, and quality depends on methodological clarity.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > IV CONCLUSION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Funding for legal research is tied to quality, and quality depends on methodological clarity.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Content analysis identifies patterns in text and the themes in bodies of documents.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 4 Doctrinal Research Compared to Content Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, the historical researcher examines primary sources as evidence of fact.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 3 Doctrinal Research Compared to Historical Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“ERA categorises Law within the Humanities and Creative Arts cluster which use qualitative research methods, but more often Law is clustered with the Social Sciences.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > C How Can We Categorise the Doctrinal Method vis-à-vis Other Research Methods?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [108]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The UK REF categorises Law within the Social Sciences Panel and the RQF categorised it in a similar fashion.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > C How Can We Categorise the Doctrinal Method vis-à-vis Other Research Methods?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [109]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Qualitative content analysis, like doctrinal analysis, emphasizes the role of the investigator in the construction of the meaning of texts.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 4 Doctrinal Research Compared to Content Analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to this view, the internal aspect of law can be approached in a systematic fashion and the stages documented sufficiently to create a separate doctrinal methodology.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Arguments are based on legal norms or standards, and a distinction is made between these standards and the facts of any situation.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The description 'content analysis' was originally used in connection with quantitative research, but there is a qualitative approach to this methodology that is more frequently used by lawyers.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 4 Doctrinal Research Compared to Content Analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This short examination highlights the need for an increased analysis and description by researchers of the doctrinal methodology they are using.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > IV CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Historical research is an example of a methodology that is in some way aligned to doctrinal research.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 3 Doctrinal Research Compared to Historical Research
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The conclusion from this study is that the doctrinal research methodology is a discrete method.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > IV CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the past, the under-description of the doctrinal method has not been problematic because the research has been directed 'inwards' to the legal community.”
- Also stated in: § IV CONCLUSION · plain
“The targeted audience has been within the legal paradigm and culture and therefore cognisant of legal norms.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > IV CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § IV CONCLUSION · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it is not sufficiently delineated for the current research environment.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > IV CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“ERA evaluates research within 8 discipline clusters.”
- Also stated in: § IV CONCLUSION · plain
“The 2009 trial evaluated the Humanities and Creative Arts (HCA) cluster which contains Law and Legal Studies along with Built Environment and Design, Studies in Creative Arts and Writing, Language Communication and Culture, History and Archaeology, and Philosophy and Religious Studies.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > IV CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [39]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § IV CONCLUSION · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is, therefore, distinguished from most doctrinal analysis.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 4 Doctrinal Research Compared to Content Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As with any social science research, the doctrinal methodology is undertaken according to accepted discipline standards and rules.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks · plain
“It requires an ability to achieve a high level of analysis and critique.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course the steps used to research the law are rarely as simple as the list above might suggest.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > IV CONCLUSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The outcome varies according to the expertise of the individual scholar and cannot be replicated exactly by another researcher.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks · boosted
“When a researcher undertakes doctrinal work, the outcome is totally dependent on the voice and experience of the individual.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks · boosted
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Critical legal scholars use the technique to identify meaning behind the words of judicial and legislative text.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Doctrinal Research Compared to Content Analysis · plain
“It is a way of deconstructing text rather than reading and synthesising meaning from the text.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 4 Doctrinal Research Compared to Content Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4 Doctrinal Research Compared to Content Analysis · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore the analytical, legal reasoning aspect of the process is necessarily a qualitative one.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The research involved in locating the sources of the law can be easily replicated by other researchers.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Like the quantitative methodologies, doctrinal research is underpinned by positivism and a view of the world where the law is objective, neutral and fixed.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Synthesising the law and, where necessary, applying the law to the facts and context is a highly subjective process.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Doctrinal research focuses on legal principle generated by the courts and the legislature.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [128]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Doctrinal method certainly distinguishes itself from 'empirical' or evidence-based methods.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > C How Can We Categorise the Doctrinal Method vis-à-vis Other Research Methods?
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Content analysis includes the process of reading judgments, legislation and policy documents as text rather than reading for the substance of the 'law' and legal reasoning.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Doctrinal Research Compared to Content Analysis · plain
“It is the process of quantifying the use of words and then examining the language, and not simply what is being said or the meaning of the words in the first instance.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 4 Doctrinal Research Compared to Content Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4 Doctrinal Research Compared to Content Analysis · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The doctrinal researcher is generally not much interested in the transcripts of cases, that is, the dialogue between the barristers and the witnesses.”
- Also stated in: § 3 Doctrinal Research Compared to Historical Research · plain
“The doctrinal researcher is examining the finding of legal principle.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 3 Doctrinal Research Compared to Historical Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 3 Doctrinal Research Compared to Historical Research · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Doctrinal research requires a specific language, extensive knowledge and a specific set of skills involving precise judgment, detailed description, depth of thought and accuracy.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In binary coupling, where the more important term is placed first, academic lawyers privilege the term 'doctrinal' in comparison to 'non-doctrinal'.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > C How Can We Categorise the Doctrinal Method vis-à-vis Other Research Methods?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The legal researcher examines primary sources in order to draw logical conclusions about what the law is in those instances where it is not immediately self-evident from those sources.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 3 Doctrinal Research Compared to Historical Research
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“This internal approach includes the 'analysis of legal rules and principles taking the perspective of an insider in the system'.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks · plain
“This encapsulates the pure doctrinal legal method.”
§ DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WHAT WE DO: DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH > 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [122]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 1 Comparing Internal and External Research Frameworks · plain
The paper relies on this without support.
The doctrinal method is the foundation of the common law and the central method of legal research.
“The doctrinal method lies at the basis of the common law and is the core legal research method.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are no effective citation metrics for law.
“Of course, this is because there are no effective metric measures of citation for law.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Competition for limited research funding is intensifying, interdisciplinary work is highly valued, and non-lawyers assess grant applications.
“At a time when competition for limited research funds is becoming more intense, and in which interdisciplinary work is highly valued and non-lawyers are involved in the assessment of grant applications”
The paper relies on this without support.
The university research landscape has changed markedly over twenty years, with more emphasis on group, interdisciplinary and empirical research than on the older model of a lone legal researcher.
“The research landscape in universities has changed significantly in the last twenty years.There is more emphasis on group, interdisciplinary and empirical research rather than there was under the older paradigm, particularly common in law faculties, of an individual legal researcher working alone.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Academic lawyers now work in broader interdisciplinary settings than before, where doctrinal research processes are little known and methodology explanations are expected differently.
“However, academic lawyers are now participating in broader interdisciplinary environments than they previously did, where there is little knowledge of doctrinal research processes and where there are different expectations in relation to explanations of research methodologies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The sample of 60 law theses from the ADT database is sufficiently representative of Australian law HDR theses to support conclusions about lawyers' methodology reporting.
“The examination of the database took place in October 2010 and covered a reading of 60 theses available digitally.62”
The paper relies on this without support.
The authors' classification of theses as having a doctrinal component or as traditional legal research is reliable even when students did not label them so.
“A more recent examination of HDR theses submitted to the Australasian Digital Thesis Program website in the five year period 2004-9, reveals that most of the legal theses had a doctrinal component, even though only a few students overtly identified the study they were conducting as being to any extent 'doctrinal'.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The doctrinal method is often implicit and tacit, so many legal scholars consider it unnecessary to verbalise the process.
“Unfortunately the doctrinal method is often so implicit and so tacit that many working within the legal paradigm consider that it is unnecessary to verbalise the process.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Funding for legal research is tied to quality, and quality depends on methodological clarity.
“especially if funding is tied to quality, and quality depends on methodological clarity.”
Citations
Cites
Why Must Legal Ideas Be Interpreted Sociologically?
Cotterrell, R. B. M. (1998) · Journal of Law and Society · doi:10.1111/1467-6478.00086 · Cited by 234
The decline of juridical reason : doctrine and theory in the legal order
Simmonds, N. E. (1984) · Manchester University Press eBooks · Cited by 31
The lingering core of legal scholarship
Bartie, S. (2010) · Legal Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1748-121x.2010.00169.x · Cited by 28
Why Must Legal Ideas be Interpreted Sociologically?
Cotterrell, R. B. M. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781351217989-4 · Cited by 13
Abstraction and the Rule of Law
LUCY, W. N. R. (2009) · Oxford Journal of Legal Studies · doi:10.1093/ojls/gqp010 · Cited by 12
The SLS Centenary Lecture: Punching our weight? Legal scholarship and public understanding
Twining, W. L. (2009) · Legal Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1748-121x.2009.00145.x · Cited by 3
(2009) · Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [4]4. The annual figures are 2004 (795), 2005 (849), 2006 (870), 2007 (917) and 2008 (982).
- [5]5. Ibid. These figures include Masters by Research: 2004 (85), 2005 (94), 2006 (81), 2007 (94) and 2008 (95).
- [7]7. Jian Fu, Corporate Disclosure by Listed Companies in the People's Republic of China and Australia: Seeking an Appropriate Pathway for the Regulation of the Chinese Securities Market (PhD Thesis, University of New South Wales, 2005), iii <http://www. unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=UNSWORKS&docId= unsworks_894>.
- [9]9. H E B Tijssen's thesis noted that 'of the 90 dissertations he investigated … more than 50 per cent had a clearly formulated research question' to explain and justify choices in the work: Jan B M Vranken, 'Methodology of Legal Doctrinal Research: A Comment on Westerman' in Van Hoecke, above n 77, 118, citing H E B Tijssen, De juridische dissertatie onder de loep. De verantwoording van methodologische keuzes in juridische dissertaties (Legal Dissertations through a Magnifying Glass. Justification of Methodological Choices in Legal Dissertations) (Boom Juridische Uitgevers, 2009). 103 Maggie Walter (ed), Social Research Methods (Oxford University Press, 2 nd ed, 2010) 485. 104 Ibid. 105 Hutchinson, Researching and Writing in Law, above n 66, 37. 106 Ibid 38. 107 Van Hoecke, above n 77, 4-11. 108
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 530
Beyond Compliance: odpověď autorů
Petrov, J., Šipulová, K., Kosař, D., et al. (2021) · Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi · doi:10.5817/cpvp2021-2-12
The taxation of gap cover policies for individual taxpayers in South Africa: a critical analysis
Gerber, P., & Greeff, C. (2021) · South African Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.1080/10291954.2021.1935674
Brady, M., Tranter, K. M., & Bennett, B. (2021) · QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology)
Climate Justice For Small Island Developing States
Musaliar, R. A. (2019) · مجلة كلية القانون الكويتية العالمية · doi:10.54032/2203-007-026-015
The Responsibility of IOs for Human Rights Violations
Johansen, S. Ø. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108862608.002
Johansen, S. Ø. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108862608.008
Johansen, S. Ø. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108862608.007
Johansen, S. Ø. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108862608.001
Sustainable forest governance in Bangladesh: Examining the role of the Forest Act
Aktar, N. (2022) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.228684
Nawangsari, E. C. (2022) · Jurnal sosial dan sains · doi:10.36418/sosains.v2i3.367
Major court and tribunal decisions in Australia in 2021
Golding, G. (2022) · Journal of Industrial Relations · doi:10.1177/00221856221094890
“Nevertheless, in selecting those decisions for review, care has been taken to ensure a robust doctrinal legal discussion of an array those which have been most influential (Hutchinson and Duncan, 2012).”
BackgroundChe, L. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-13-5838-8_1
Murphy, B. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-33-6381-6_1
Pragmatism as the philosophical or jurisprudential foundation for mixed methods legal research?Preprint
Tanifon, S. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3926961
Johansen, S. Ø. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108862608.009
Pieper, I. J. (2022) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.231386
Lin, S. (2022) · China-EU law series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-06178-3_1
Dube, F. (2022) · Southern African Public Law · doi:10.25159/2522-6800/10125
Marzouk, A. (2022) · Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit · doi:10.5553/tcc/221195072022012003003
Naef, T. (2022) · European yearbook of international economic law · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19893-9_1
Wook, I. (2023) · Kanun: Jurnal Undang-undang Malaysia · doi:10.37052/kanun.35(1)no6
Mind Matters: Protecting The Mental Health and Workplace Wellbeing of Employees
Idris, S. H., Zur, R., Nair, R., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences · doi:10.6007/ijarbss/v13-i1/15017
Perspective of Land Banking Regulation in Indonesia and Its Issues
Sumanto, L. (2023) · Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities research · doi:10.2991/978-2-494069-49-7_168
Rositawati, D. (2022) · The Indonesian Journal of Socio-Legal Studies · doi:10.54828/ijsls.2022v2n1.5
Gender Equality in Italian Non-Listed Banks: A Step Forward, but There Is Still a Long Way to Go
Bellocchio, S. (2023) · SIDREA series in accounting and business administration · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-21932-0_22
PREVENTIVE MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF FRAUD IN LETTERS OF CREDIT TRANSACTIONS IN MALAYSIA
Rafique, R. B., & Venugopal, V. (2021) · UUM Journal of Legal Studies · doi:10.32890/uumjls.12.1.2021.7882
Wessels, J. (2023) · Zeitschrift für Flüchtlingsforschung · doi:10.5771/2509-9485-2023-1-136
Collusion in Technical Development: A Perspective on EC’s Emission Cleaning Judgement
Majhi, B., & Goel, S. (2023) · Competition Commission of India Journal on Competition Law and Policy · doi:10.54425/ccijoclp.v3.71
The programmatic approach in environmental law
Braaksma, L. S. (2023) · doi:10.33612/diss.615117804
ECONOMIC STRAIN ADAPTATION POLICY TO SOLVE CRIMES DURING THE PANDEMIC IN INDONESIA
Soleh, M. F. (2022) · Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum · doi:10.24815/kanun.v24i3.28555
The Core Capital Approach to Board: A Lesson from People’s Credit Banks in Indonesia
Rissy, Y. Y. W. (2023) · CSR, sustainability, ethics & governance · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-24647-0_15
Nawangsari, E. C. (2022) · Jurnal sosial dan sains · doi:10.59188/jurnalsosains.v2i3.367
THE FUNCTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN ACADEMIC CONTEXT: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW LITERACY
Sembiring, T. B., Miharja, M., Maruf, I. R., et al. (2022) · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES SOCIAL SCIENCES AND BUSINESS (INJOSS) · doi:10.54443/injoss.v1i3.34
“Effective legal learning requires various basic academic knowledge as supporters because the legal system is a set of standard rules for all aspects of state and community life (Hutchinson & Duncan, 2012).”
BackgroundON HISTORICAL AND HISTORICAL-LEGAL RESEARCH: FORMS, CHALLENGES AND METHODOLOGIES
Majeed, N., Hilal, A., & Ilyas, R. (2023) · Pakistan Journal of Social Research · doi:10.52567/pjsr.v5i02.1134
“Quoting Richard Posner, Hutchinson, & Duncan (2012) believe that law does not have an independent methodology; instead, it is a mixture of various traditions, philosophies and subjects.”
BackgroundHAMAD, A. O. K. H. A. M. A. (2023) · Russian Law Journal · doi:10.52783/rlj.v11i6s.1524
REGULATING ONLINE NEWS PORTALS IN THE ERA OF IR 4.0 – SHOULD MALAYSIA CONSIDER SELF-REGULATION?
Nawang, N. I. (2023) · Russian Law Journal · doi:10.52783/rlj.v11i4s.861
(2023) · Philosophy Economics and Law Review · doi:10.31733/2786-491x-2023-1-266-284
ANALISIS JEDA WAKTU TERJADINYA SERANGAN ATAU ANCAMAN TERHADAP PEMBELAAN TERPAKSA
Serbabagus, S. S., & Mubarak, A. W. (2022) · MIMBAR YUSTITIA · doi:10.52166/mimbar.v6i2.3430
The datafied polity: Voter privacy in the age of data-driven political campaigning
Cohen, T. (2023) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.242466
Mustika, U. D. (2022) · Jurnal Magister Hukum Perspektif · doi:10.37303/magister.v10i2.39
Legal Practitioner, K. H. C., & Nazim, M. (2023) · Scandic Journal Of Advanced Research And Reviews · doi:10.55966/sjarr.2023.4.2.0066
Dube, B., Gumbo, T., Chirisa, I. E., & Chigwenya, A. (2023) · International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM) · doi:10.46254/na8.20230435
Guo, B. Q. (2023) · Contemporary Chinese Civil and Commercial Law · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-6476-5_1
Contractual issues on claim for loss and expense in the Malaysian construction industry
Razak, N. A. A., Ismail, Z., & Brahim, J. (2023) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/5.0167652
Ngcobo, N. W. (2023) · DUT Open Scholar (Durban University of Technology) · doi:10.51415/10321/5039
Ashley, L. (2023) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.244455
Double Punishment: Evaluating the operation of Double Jeopardy in Ghana’s Criminal CourtSystemPreprint
Brako-Powers, A. K. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4617851
Bima, M. R. (2023) · Journal of Law and Sustainable Development · doi:10.55908/sdgs.v11i12.1825
“(Hutchinson and Duncan 2012).”
Mutual Trust and Confidence and Good Faith
Golding, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867827.003.0005
Golding, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867827.001.0001
Golding, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867827.002.0010
Golding, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867827.002.0004
Golding, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867827.003.0004
Golding, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867827.002.0008
Golding, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867827.002.0009
The Significance of Implying a Term by Law
Golding, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867827.003.0003
Golding, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867827.003.0007
Golding, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867827.003.0001
Golding, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867827.003.0008
Golding, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867827.003.0002
Employment as a Class of Contract
Golding, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867827.003.0006
Golding, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867827.003.0009
Golding, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867827.002.0005
Scrutinizing the Malaysian Competitive Law From the Perspective of the Decided Cases
Salleh, H. M., & Ishak, K. (2023) · Advances in public policy and administration (APPA) book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-0390-0.ch008
Universiti Teknologi, M. A. R. A., Razak, N. A. A., Ismail, Z., et al. (2023) · Journal of Technology Management and Business · doi:10.30880/jtmb.2023.10.02.002
Interaction between Fringe Benefits Values and VAT
van Heerden, M., & Viviers, H. A. (2024) · Springer proceedings in business and economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46177-4_38
GREECE MILITARIZATION IN AEGEAN ISLAND: AN INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVE
Gunawan, Y., Febrila, A., Novendra, C. S., et al. (2023) · Diponegoro Law Review · doi:10.14710/dilrev.8.2.2023.159-174
On the issue of classification of legal research
Osipov, M. Y. (2024) · Право и политика · doi:10.7256/2454-0706.2024.3.70277
Alternative criminal sanctions for international crimes in transitional contexts
Mayans-Hermida, B. E. (2024) · doi:10.5463/thesis.651
Syed, R. F. (2024) · Work · doi:10.3233/wor-230287
“…legal research technique emphasizes the interpretation and analysis of legal rules derived from primary sources such as statutes, conventions, regulations, and cases, prioritizing a descriptive and comprehensive evaluation of the letter of the law rather than its practical application [25, 26].”
Deductibility of input tax on share issue costs in the context of the broad taxation principles
Beukes, W., & van der Merwe, A. (2024) · South African Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.1080/10291954.2024.2340437
“A doctrinal research methodology, as described by Hutchinson and Duncan (2012, p. 101), was followed.”
Asas Praesumptio Iustae Causa dalam Hukum Acara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara
Efendi, A., & Sudarsono (2024) · Refleksi Hukum Jurnal Ilmu Hukum · doi:10.24246/jrh.2023.v8.i1.p39-56
Balavar, E. (2024) · Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH) · doi:10.47405/mjssh.v9i4.2622
Parsons, S., & Titus, A. (2024) · World Tax Journal · doi:10.59403/29w4s8e
Legal Basis for Information Security Risk Management
Patel, M. (2024) · Uzbek journal of law and digital policy. · doi:10.59022/ujldp.214
“According to Hutchinson and Duncan (2012), doctrinal methodology examines the corpus of primary legal sources like legislation, case law, regulations and official guidance to provide a systematic exposition of the law in a particular field.”
BackgroundPearce, S., Sanderson, J., Fleischman, D., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics · doi:10.1080/19406940.2024.2404213
“Importantly, the doctrinal method is a well-established and often the inferred (i.e. no specific method section is provided) approach to research within the Law discipline (see Hutchinson and Duncan 2012).”
Wilks, R. (2024) · Disability & Society · doi:10.1080/09687599.2024.2412267
“While at its most fundamental level this article examines the law and legal concepts (Hutchinson and Duncan 2012), that is, the traditional black-letter law approach, modern scholars, most notably Cotterrell (1998), argue that true legal scholarship entails a sociological understanding of law.”
Phan, T. H., & Lâm, V. K. (2024) · Can Tho University Journal of Science · doi:10.22144/ctujos.2024.442
Methodology and Specific Research Questions
Klakla, J. B. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72459-6_4
The FIDA Proposal: Striking a Balance between Data Protection and Financial InnovationPreprint
Dobrovinsky, A. (2024) · Social Science Research Network · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4985963
Михайлов, Н. Г., Mikhailova, E. I., & Derevleva, E. B. (2024) · doi:10.34660/inf.2024.64.91.166
Андреева, М. В., Pavlov, I. S., & Protopopov, A. V. (2024) · doi:10.34660/inf.2024.56.84.173
LINGUOCULTUROLOGICAL VALUE OF METAPHOR
Ilyin, D. N. (2024) · doi:10.34660/inf.2024.17.50.169
LEGAL SOCIAL STATE: DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE
Sednev, W. V., Voitov, A. V., & Ryzhkova, E. Y. (2024) · doi:10.34660/inf.2024.99.24.156
PROTECTION OF TAXPAYERS’ RIGHTS DURING TAX CONTROL ACTIVITIES
Rodionova, A. A. (2024) · doi:10.34660/inf.2024.78.47.160
Moskvicheva, E. L., Muller, E. V., & Павленко, А. А. (2024) · doi:10.34660/inf.2024.19.23.181
ANALISIS STANDAR PENERBANGAN DI INDONESIA BERDASARKAN HUKUM UDARA INTERNASIONAL
Kusumadewi, P. M., Roisah, ., Prabandari, A. P., et al. (2024) · MASALAH-MASALAH HUKUM · doi:10.14710/mmh.52.3.2023.263-273
“Menurut Hutchinson & Duncan (2012) doktrinal/doktrin yang dimaksud mencakup konsep dan prinsip hukum dari segala jenis kasus, undang-undang, dan aturan.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N.
- Affiliations
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- City, University of London (GB)
- ORCID
- Duncan, Nigel
- Venue
- Deakin Law Review
- Publisher
- Deakin University
- Published
- 2012-10-01
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 83
- ISSN
- 1321-3660 (ISSN-L)
- 1835-9264
- OpenAlex
- W1865021432
- Cited by
- 767
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 283 · 2025: 102 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 78 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 87.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Deakin Law Review (publishedVersion)
- QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- City Research Online (City University London) (submittedVersion)
- The Deakin Law Review (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Department for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland
- Scottish Funding Council
- Higher Education Funding Council for Wales
- Times Higher Education
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Studies and Policies
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Education and Practice Innovations
- Social Sciences › Law › Comparative and International Law Studies
- Keywords
- legal research methodology, research funding, interdisciplinary research, Richard Posner
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-01, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-01 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
