The back of the Legal Research Library

York and Sawyer, architects. The Wiliam W. Cook Legal Research Building was completed in 1931, the thirdof the four buildings William W. Cook gave to form the Law Quadrangle, 1924-1933. In 1955, the original six level stackroom was increased to ten levels. The underground addition designed by Gunnar Birkerts Associates was completed in 1981.

Legal Research Library

York and Sawyer, architects. The Wiliam W. Cook Legal Research Building was completed in 1931, the third of the four buildings William W. Cook gave to form the Law Quadrangle, 1924-1933. In 1955, the original six level stackroom was increased to ten levels. The underground addition designed by Gunnar Birkerts Associates was completed in 1981.

Legal Research Library

York and Sawyer, architects. The Wiliam W. Cook Legal Research Building was completed in 1931, the third of the four buildings William W. Cook gave to form the Law Quadrangle, 1924-1933. In 1955, the original six level stackroom was increased to ten levels. The underground addition designed by Gunnar Birkerts Associates was completed in 1981. Image from 1935 UM calendar.

Legal Research Library

York and Sawyer, architects. The Wiliam W. Cook Legal Research Building was completed in 1931, the third of the four buildings William W. Cook gave to form the Law Quadrangle, 1924-1933. In 1955, the original six level stackroom was increased to ten levels. The underground addition designed by Gunnar Birkerts Associates was completed in 1981.

Fundamentals of legal research /

Includes bibliographical references and index.

A model for the integration of legal research into Australian undergraduate law curricula

The marginalisation of the teaching and learning of legal research in the Australian law school curriculum is, in the author's experience, a condition common to many law schools. This is reflected in the reluctance of some law teachers to include legal research skills in the substantive law teaching schedule — often the result of unwillingness on the part of law school administrators to provide the resources necessary to ensure that such integration does not place a disproportionately heavy burden of assessment on those who are tempted. However, this may only be one of many reasons for the marginalisation of legal research in the law school experience. Rather than analyse the reasons for this marginalisation, this article deals with what needs to be done to rectify the situation, and to ensure that the teaching of legal research can be integrated into the law school curriculum in a meaningful way. This requires the use of teaching and learning theory which focuses on student-centred learning. This article outlines a model of legal research. It incorporates five transparent stages which are: analysis, contextualisation, bibliographic skills, interpretation and assessment and application.

A discussion of ethnographic research methods and their relevance for the translation process

In recent years, technologically advanced methodologies such as Translog have gained a lot of ground in translation process research. However, in this paper it will be argued that quantitative research methods can be supplemented by ethnographic qualitative ones so as to enhance our understanding of what underlies the translation process. Although translation studies scholars have sometimes applied an ethnographic approach to the study of translation, this paper offers a different perspective and considers the potential of ethnographic research methods for tapping cognitive and behavioural aspects of the translation process. A number of ethnographic principles are discussed and it is argued that process researchers aiming to understand translators’ perspectives and intentions, how these shape their behaviours, as well as how translators reflect on the situations they face and how they see themselves, would undoubtedly benefit from adopting an ethnographic framework for their studies on translation processes.

New business histories! Plurality in business history research methods

We agree with de Jong et al.'s argument that business historians should make their methods more explicit and welcome a more general debate about the most appropriate methods for business historical research. But rather than advocating one ‘new business history’, we argue that contemporary debates about methodology in business history need greater appreciation for the diversity of approaches that have developed in the last decade. And while the hypothesis-testing framework prevalent in the mainstream social sciences favoured by de Jong et al. should have its place among these methodologies, we identify a number of additional streams of research that can legitimately claim to have contributed novel methodological insights by broadening the range of interpretative and qualitative approaches to business history. Thus, we reject privileging a single method, whatever it may be, and argue instead in favour of recognising the plurality of methods being developed and used by business historians – both within their own field and as a basis for interactions with others.