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.

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.

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.

Availability of legal research materials in Illinois State Library, Supreme Court Library, and Legislative Reference Bureau /

At head of title: Legal research materials.

The John P. Cook building in March, 1930; In the background, frame of the Legal Research Library.

York and Sawyer, architects. Given to the university by William W. Cook, the four buildings comprising the Law Quadrangle with their construction dates are: the Lawyers Club, 1924; the John P. Cook Dormitory, 1930; the Legal Research Building, 1931, and Hutchins Hall, 1933. The Legal Research Building includes the original library.

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. On verso: Xmas card of Arthur Lyon Cross.

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.