Stumbling Blocks in Empirical Legal Research: Case Study Research

This article examines the main assumptions and theoretical underpinnings of case study method in legal studies. It considers the importance of research design, including the crucial roles of the academic literature review, the research question and the use of rival theories to develop hypotheses and the practice of identifying the observable implications of those hypotheses. It considers the selection of data sources and modes of analysis to allow for valid analytical inferences to be drawn in respect of them. In doing so it considers, in brief, the importance of case study selection and variations such as single or multi case approaches. Finally it provides thoughts about the strengths and weaknesses associated with undertaking socio-legal and comparative legal research via a case study method, addressing frequent stumbling blocks encountered by legal researchers, as well as ways to militate them. It is written with those new to the method in mind.

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

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

Ten Questions for Future Regulation of Big Data: A Comparative and Empirical Legal Study

Much has been written about Big Data from a technical, economical, juridical and ethical perspective. Still, very little empirical and comparative data is available on how Big Data is approached and regulated in Europe and beyond. This contribution makes a first effort to fill that gap by presenting the reactions to a survey on Big Data from the Data Protection Authorities of fourteen European countries and a comparative legal research of eleven countries. This contribution presents those results, addressing 10 challenges for the regulation of Big Data.

Comparative communication research : Australian and New Zealand communication research in an international context

This paper raises the question of whether comparative national models of communications research can be developed, along the lines of Hallin and Mancini’s (2004) analysis of comparative media policy, or the work of Perraton and Clift (2004) on comparative national capitalisms. Taking consideration of communications research in Australia and New Zealand as its starting point, the paper will consider what are relevant variables in shaping an “intellectual milieu” for communications research in these countries, as compared to those of Europe, North America and Asia. Some possibly relevant variables include: • Type of media system (e.g. how significant is public service media?); • Political culture (e.g. are there significant left-of-centre political parties?); • Dominant intellectual traditions; • Level and types of research funding; • Overall structure of higher education system, and where communications sits within it. In considering whether such an exercise can or should be undertaken, we can also evaluate, as Hallin and Mancini do, the significance of potentially homogenizing forces. These would include globalization, new media technologies, and the rise of a global “audit culture”. The paper will raise these issues as questions that emerge as we consider, as Curran and Park (2000) and Thussu (2009) have proposed, what a “de-Westernized” media and communications research paradigm may look like.

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.

Academic legal research and academic research capacity enhancement working topic : "purposes and objectives of law schools beyond educating students (research, capacity building,community service and outreach)"

One of the main objectives of law schools beyond educating students is to produce viable legal research. The comments in this paper are basically confined to the Australian context, and to examine this topic effectively, it is necessary to briefly review the current tertiary research agenda in Australia. This paper argues that there is a need for recognition and support for an expanded legal research framework along with additional research training for legal academics. There also needs to be more effective methods of measuring and recognising quality in legal research. This method needs to be one that can engender respect in an interdisciplinary context.

How to sequence and annotate insect mitochondrial genomes for systematic and comparative genomics research

Over the past decade the mitochondrial (mt) genome has become the most widely used genomic resource available for systematic entomology. While the availability of other types of ‘–omics’ data – in particular transcriptomes – is increasing rapidly, mt genomes are still vastly cheaper to sequence and are far less demanding of high quality templates. Furthermore, almost all other ‘–omics’ approaches also sequence the mt genome, and so it can form a bridge between legacy and contemporary datasets. Mitochondrial genomes have now been sequenced for all insect orders, and in many instances representatives of each major lineage within orders (suborders, series or superfamilies depending on the group). They have also been applied to systematic questions at all taxonomic scales from resolving interordinal relationships (e.g. Cameron et al., 2009; Wan et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2012), through many intraordinal (e.g. Dowton et al., 2009; Timmermans et al., 2010; Zhao et al. 2013a) and family-level studies (e.g. Nelson et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2013b) to population/biogeographic studies (e.g. Ma et al., 2012). Methodological issues around the use of mt genomes in insect phylogenetic analyses and the empirical results found to date have recently been reviewed by Cameron (2014), yet the technical aspects of sequencing and annotating mt genomes were not covered. Most papers which generate new mt genome report their methods in a simplified form which can be difficult to replicate without specific knowledge of the field. Published studies utilize a sufficiently wide range of approaches, usually without justification for the one chosen, that confusion about commonly used jargon such as ‘long PCR’ and ‘primer walking’ could be a serious barrier to entry. Furthermore, sequenced mt genomes have been annotated (gene locations defined) to wildly varying standards and improving data quality through consistent annotation procedures will benefit all downstream users of these datasets. The aims of this review are therefore to: 1. Describe in detail the various sequencing methods used on insect mt genomes; 2. Explore the strengths/weakness of different approaches; 3. Outline the procedures and software used for insect mt genome annotation, and; 4. Highlight quality control steps used for new annotations, and to improve the re-annotation of previously sequenced mt genomes used in systematic or comparative research.

Valé Bunny Watson? Law librarians, law libraries, and legal research in the post-internet era

Katharine Hepburn’s entertaining portrayal of reference librarian Bunny Watson in Desk Set (1957) moves her character from apprehension about new technology to an understanding that it is simply another tool. This article outlines the impact of technology on academic legal research. It examines the nature of legal research and the doctrinal method, the importance of law libraries (and librarians) in legal research, and the roles and implications of the Internet and web search engines on legal research methods and education.

Two Birds, One Stone: Combining Student Assessment and Socio-Legal Research

We describe here a method of assessment for students. A number of short-comings of traditional assessment methods, especially essays and examinations, are discussed and an alternative assessment method, the student project, is suggested. The method aims not just to overcome the short-comings of more traditional methods, but also to provide over-worked and under-resourced academics with viable primary data for socio-legal research work. Limitations to the method are discussed, with proposals for minimising the impact of these limitations. The whole �student project� approach is also discussed with reference to the Quality Assurance Agency benchmark standards for law degrees, standards which are expected of all institutions in the UK.

An official American thoracic society research statement: Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine

Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR). Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleepmedicinewas convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a reviewbyAmerican Thoracic Society committees and assemblies. Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others). Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER. Copyright © 2013 by the American Thoracic Society.