An interpretation of current progress towards an industry model for Queensland's surveying and mapping industry

A strongly progressive surveying and mapping industry depends on a shared understanding of the industry as it exists, some shared vision or imagination of what the industry might become, and some shared action plan capable of bringing about a realisation of that vision. The emphasis on sharing implies a need for consensus reached through widespread discussion and mutual understanding. Unless this occurs, concerted action is unlikely. A more likely outcome is that industry representatives will negate each other's efforts in their separate bids for progress. The process of bringing about consensual viewpoints is essentially one of establishing an industry identity. Establishing the industry's identity and purpose is a prerequisite for rational development of the industry's education and training, its promotion and marketing, and operational research that can deal .with industry potential and efficiency. This paper interprets evolutionary developments occurring within Queensland's surveying and mapping industry within a framework that sets out logical requirements for a viable industry.

Defining and describing what we do : doctrinal legal research

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.