See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/382074239

Chapter 4 The why and how to of conducting a socio-legal empirical research

project

Chapter · August 2019

CITATIONS READS

7 135

1 author:

Lisa Webley
University of Birmingham
155 PUBLICATIONS 564 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lisa Webley on 08 July 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Pre-proof version Copyright of the author
In Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Methods (eds) Naomi Creutzfeld; Marc
Mason and Kirsten McConnachie (Routledge, 2019)
Chapter 4
The why and how to of conducting a socio-legal empirical research
project
Lisa Webley, University of Birmingham

I. Introduction

This chapter sets out to explain why one may wish to interrogate a research question
via socio-legal means, and to provide a structured way to go about such a project. It
aims to be a starting guide to those less clear about socio-legal empirical projects
rather than to be a comprehensive account of how to complete socio-legal research.
It is the template that I use for research design and is just one perspective that those
new to socio-legal research may wish to consider; there are a whole array of creative
and individual approaches that one could chose to follow, many of which are set out
in subsequent chapters. I have approached writing this chapter in this way as I am
regularly contacted by nascent doctoral researchers and those new to this type of
research who are keen to pursue socio-legal empirical methods but are unsure how
and where to begin. I am also, less frequently, asked for advice by doctoral supervisors
who are finding it a challenge to explain to their supervisees how to conduct this type
of research. Much of what I say is, thus, a broad brush encounter with the stages of a
socio-legal research project and not a prescription of how it must be done. Projects
are as diverse in approach and method as they are in substance. This is just one way
of conceiving of a project.

This chapter will begin by considering, very briefly, what is socio-legal research. It will
then delineate how you may set, or help others to set, an effective research question
to provide a solid foundation for the study. Next it will turn to the role that the academic
literature may play in assisting you to define your question yet further. It will examine
whether you may wish to make use of a hypothesis or hypotheses to guide your
method selection and the ways in which you test your findings. It will consider, in a
nutshell, what are data, what we mean by research design, data collection and data
analysis, and how to consider the ethical implications of your project. It will
subsequently turn to conclusions about the key markers of academic quality:
originality, significance and rigour, and how these can be harnessed further to improve
the quality of your research.

II. Why Socio-Legal?

This whole book has been dedicated to a range of understandings about socio-legal
research and its methods and techniques. I shall leave others to discuss these in a
nuanced and detailed way (see further Cowan and Wincott, 2015; Feenan, 2013). It
is worth considering at this stage, though, whether socio-legal research is the right
kind of approach for your research project before embarking on how to accomplish the
project.

Socio-legal research is the examination of how law, legal phenomena and/or

phenomena affected by law and the legal system occur in the world, interact with each
other and impact upon those who are touched by them. The ‘socio’ is about the societal
context or impact of law and legal phenomena, rather than law in books. The ‘legal’ is

1
Pre-proof version Copyright of the author
In Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Methods (eds) Naomi Creutzfeld; Marc
Mason and Kirsten McConnachie (Routledge, 2019)
more broadly defined than the text of the law (for theory of law see Hart, 1961 chapter
V, for theory of social world see Durkheim, 1958 1-13). Some who undertake this type
of research come at is as sociologists, criminologists, social policy scholars and other
forms of social scientist. Others are lawyers or humanities scholars. All seek to
understand things in a particular environment or environments, some in theoretical
terms and others in the field making use of empirical research methods. You will find
examples of these varying approaches in this edited collection.

I was drawn to socio-legal research at the point when I realised that knowing what the
law is, while very useful when advising a client, did not assist me to know how the law
operates outside the court system, how it affects people who experience it or to know
the extent to which the law works as it was intended. I became aware that there was
a fascinating world around the text of the law, which included how people use law and
why, how they act as lawyers, how individuals experience law and justice. That got me
hooked on socio-legal research. I still teach doctrinal law – the text of law and how it
is interpreted by the courts (Twining and Miers, 2010) – and that gets me part way
along the journey to knowing what law is. I combine doctrinal research with socio-legal
research when I want to know whether the law is in need of reform (Chynoweth, 2008
ch. 3; Hutchinson, 2002 ch. 5). I start with socio-legal research when I want to examine
whether lawyers or other legal actors need different types of legal education and
training, or whether the legal system is operating for the benefit of all rather than those
who have the financial means to instruct solicitors and barristers to act on their behalf
in negotiations, mediation and/or litigation etc.. In short, if your research question is
one in which you need to draw conclusions beyond what the law is, then socio-legal
research may be an effective means to allow you to do so.

III An Approach to the Staging of Socio-legal Research Projects: The How

The Question

The starting point for many socio-legal projects is a research question. Not all projects
begin with one, but if your project is likely to be empirically driven then it helps to start
with a clear idea of what you are seeking to do in the project and a question can help
to frame this. Sometimes the process begins by setting out the objectives of the study,
other people begin with the question and set the objectives from there. Research
questions are funny things, in that in the humanities, some social sciences and in law
they often first appear as a statement and not a question. That is, perhaps, because
statements are often set as undergraduate and postgraduate assessments by faculty
keen to engage students in a means by which they may critically discuss a proposition.
And statements have their place. Experience has taught me, however, that a well-
defined research question, ending in a question mark, is an important tool to help me
to gain clarity about the aim of the project, and to allow a focused literature review
phase. Most statements can easily be converted into a proper question by the
additional of a phrase such as “To what extent does/is/can..”. There are other ways to
phrase questions, of course. I have found that the addition of a question mark appears
to help my brain to focus in on how something I am reading may help me to answer
the starting research question, whereas a statement without a question mark appears
to encourage my brain to seek to find a creative link between the statement and the
thing that I am reading. The former, thus allows me to zero in on evidence that assists
me to an answer, the latter provides a means by which to broaden out the scope of
2
Pre-proof version Copyright of the author
In Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Methods (eds) Naomi Creutzfeld; Marc
Mason and Kirsten McConnachie (Routledge, 2019)
my enquiry. Empirical socio-legal research questions benefit from a narrow, crisp
focus and so I encourage my doctoral students to deploy a proper question phrased
in a single sentence at this stage of their project. Other types of socio-legal research,
such as theoretical research, may benefit from the use of a statement instead.

The Literature

Academics often tell their postgraduate students that they should undertake a
literature review, and we rarely explain what one is. Yet, students from undergraduate
level onwards regularly engage in reviews of the academic literature and so are better
placed than they believe when undertaking this phase. Firstly, what is the literature for
the purposes of s socio-legal project? The literature is all the academic work that has
been published on the topic(s) directly relevant to your research question (see Bell
and Walters, 2014 ch. 5). Thus, the more focused the question, and the better defined
are the key terms in the question, the easier it is to complete this phase of the research
project. Time spent on refining the starting question is time well spent, as a broad
research question will require an extensive literature review; a more targeted question
will usually allow for a more focused and effective one.

The nuts and bolts of undertaking the literature review are well known to many, even
if they are rarely set out systematically (for guidance on scholarly reading, research
and feedback see the Law and Society Review blog 2017). I find it helpful to use my
research question as the means by which to develop a battery of keywords that I can
put into Google Scholar as the starting point from my literature search. I consider
synonyms based on what words I think that academics may have used in projects
similar to mine. Much of my research is into lawyers and their practice, and so I would
use keywords that would likely capture articles and books written by other academics
who have undertaken relevant studies, using words such as: lawyer, attorney, solicitor,
barrister, legal professional etc. I may add in jurisdictional key words: England and
Wales, UK, Australia etc, and I may use Boolean operators such as ‘AND’ and ‘NOT’
as well as strategic use of “ “ to enclose phrases, in order to ensure that certain words
occur together in the search algorithm rather than simply occur in the same document.
I use Google Scholar so as to minimise the presence of less authoritative sources in
my search results. And I ensure that I am logged in to my institutional university
account in another window, as Google Scholar will then direct me through to my
university’s electronic law library for sources that are behind pay walls but are
accessible in full text format as a result of my university’s subscription to that journal
or publisher. I have found this to be the quickest way for me to search for relevant
academic literature. I then follow the Google Scholar search up with additional
searches via my university subscription databases and the library catalogue, but
increasingly I find that these do not throw up new sources as Google Scholar becomes
increasingly comprehensive.

The next phase of my literature review is to sort through the search results and
download those that appear relevant. I do what we all do at this stage, I skim the first
few lines of the search return for each source and see which look on point. I organise
the sources I have downloaded into three folders (or in my case piles, as I often find it
easier to print out key sources rather than read them on screen; I hope one day to be
better at on screen reading). In the first pile or folder I place those sources that seem
to me to be absolutely on point to answer the question, those that may assist in
3
Pre-proof version Copyright of the author
In Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Methods (eds) Naomi Creutzfeld; Marc
Mason and Kirsten McConnachie (Routledge, 2019)
answering an element of the question go into pile or folder two, and those that now
seem to be irrelevant are in pile or folder three. I focus my attention on pile one sources
for the note-taking phase of the literature review.

I make my notes in one running document on the computer, in which I have typed the
research question in the header (so I keep it within my eye-line so as to ensure I retain
focus) and I make my notes in source by source in sequence. I put the
footnotes/references in as I go along (albeit not beautifully done) so that at the next
stage I do not lose the page references as well as the citations for the material that I
am noting down. I make sparse notes, having skimmed through the article at speed
(usually the first read through is simply the introduction, first few paragraphs and the
conclusions, the second read is the whole article at speed). My intention is to extract
the findings (conclusions) that the academic author has set out that are directly
relevant to answering my question. I am not making notes to understand that
academic’s study, or to learn more about the topic; my notes are simply a means by
which to pull out evidence of what others have found that may assist me to answer my
research question. I indicate not just what the academic has found, but also how what
they have found helps me to answer my question, and so there is some early stage
analysis in my notes even at this stage. My notes are often only half a page worth of
material per source, but each sentence will end with a footnote including a page
reference to the exact point in the article or book where that finding was located. I
repeat this approach for every source in pile one, save the document as version one,
open it and save it again as version two and then I review it.

I have one main aim when I review my pile one source notes, which is to work out the
repeating issues/themes/topics that other academics have discussed and concluded
upon in the literature and which I have identified as important to my question. So, for
example, if my research question were to be “To what extent are there identifiable
factors that contribute to inequality within the legal profession, and how may these be
overcome?” I would find the literature replete with inequality findings associated with
gender, ethnicity and race, parenthood, socio-economic group or class, university
attended, disability, sexual orientation, age. As I work my way through my notes twice
(the first time I would not spot the repeating themes for the early sources), I would jot
down the repeating themes in the margin next to each source. Once done, I would
then put each of those themes into the second version of my document as sub-
headings. And I would rearrange all the material in the second version so that all the
material on gender was cut and pasted under the gender sub-heading, on race under
ethnicity and race sub- heading etc. This is why it is so important to have the
footnotes/reference in place at this stage, as the document goes from being organised
by source to being organised by theme. I now have the makings of a thematic literature
review, with all the evidence on gender, or race in one place. This gives me an
evidence base from which I may properly develop my analysis.

I then weigh that evidence under each sub-heading, look back at the question and ask
myself how it helps me to answer the question – how does gender impact on inequality
in the legal profession and how this may be overcome – and I add that sentence of
analysis at the top of my paragraph. Following this I rewrite all the evidence that comes
after it (the material from my notes under the sub-heading) as the justification and
evidence for my analysis so as to demonstrate how I got to my analysis. I then look
back at my question again and ask myself how my analysis assists me in answering
4
Pre-proof version Copyright of the author
In Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Methods (eds) Naomi Creutzfeld; Marc
Mason and Kirsten McConnachie (Routledge, 2019)
the question (the answer to the “I have concluded this, so what, who cares?”) and add
that sentence of conclusion or critical analysis to the end of the paragraph. I repeat
that for each of the sub-headings. Once I have finished this I think about the order of
my paragraphs so that the flow works as well as it can, I redraft the review again, make
links between paragraphs, and may amend sub-headings, group paragraphs under
new ones or remove the headings altogether. I now have a functional literature review.

Finally, I work through the material in pile or folder two swiftly, and add in anything that
is relevant to my literature review. I may need to nuance some of the conclusions that
I have reached to date, or I may be able to add in additional evidence in support of
those findings. I do a quick check, too, that nothing in pile three is now relevant. And I
may go back to and do an additional Google Scholar search now that I am clearer on
my themes too. Once I am of the view that this stage of my literature review is
complete, I read through it and redraft it in the light of my developing understanding.
Importantly, I then consider which parts of my original research question have been
satisfactorily answered by other academics through the studies that I have reviewed,
and which parts remain unanswered. I redraft my research question on the basis of
those elements not satisfactorily answered so far, and the new question becomes the
one that I use to plan the empirical stage of my project. This is the foundation for my
study, and it also provides me with my claim of originality, one of the hallmarks of
quality discussed in section III below.

A Theoretical Framework?

Some scholars choose to answer their research question through a particular

theoretical framework. A theoretical framework is an ideological or practical lens that
holds certain things to be foundational as an explanation for how the world works
(Anfara and Mertz, 2014). There are different ‘levels’ of theoretical lens, such as meta
theories including postmodernism, critical realism, positivism influenced by different
approaches to ontology and epistemology (Sousa, 2010). At the next level down are
theoretical lenses that seek to categorise or explain how particular aspects of the world
work, for example, Bourdieu’s human capital theory considers that there are a series
of different markers of merit against which individuals are measured, known as
different forms of capital. Each form of capital is defined and they are placed in a
hierarchy of importance. Were I to be answering a question through the lens of
Bourdieu’s theory I may need to undertake a literature review on Bourdieu’s work so
that I am able with dexterity to set out the key components of the theory; I may devote
a whole section on chapter to this when I write up my study. Once I am clear on the
components of the theory, their definitions and the way in which I shall use the theory
so as to construct my study design and analyse my data, I would then move on to plan
my study as set out below.

A theoretical framework is a means by which to view the whole project; it underpins all
the decisions that are made and how the data is analysed. But it is possible, instead,
to use a theory at purely the data analysis stage so as to seek to explain findings that
arise from the analysis of the data, as a way to set out why the findings are the way
they are, rather than to underpin the whole project. Suffice to say that at this stage in
a project it is important to know whether you wish to answer your research question
through the lens of Marx, Foucault, Bourdieu, structural theories, political economy or
something else. If so, you may need to spend time getting to grips with the theory, and
5
Pre-proof version Copyright of the author
In Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Methods (eds) Naomi Creutzfeld; Marc
Mason and Kirsten McConnachie (Routledge, 2019)
the elements that will inform and structure your study and your approach to data
analysis. If not you may instead move on to the next stage and consider theory at the
data analysis stage. It is important to recognise, though, that most of us are always
viewing the world through a theoretical lens, even if we are unclear what are
ideological stance is. Our views are coloured by our understandings of the world, those
views may be hidden from our sight. And so some supervisors and scholars argue that
we all need to recognise our ideological framework, even if it is our own approach to
the world rather than a framework defined by others and thus we should interrogate
our meta-theory of the world regardless of whether we engage with individual theories.
If not, we may become pray to ideological confirmation bias that skews our project
findings as we progress through our study.

A Hypothesis?

During the literature review I sometimes get a sense of what I think the answer to my
question is likely to be; that may be one answer or it may be a range of possible
answers. This is perfectly legitimate and in the natural sciences it would be normal to
design an experiment to interrogate a likely answer, known as a hypothesis.
Hypotheses are used to a limited extent in the social sciences, and even less
frequently in the humanities. In a socio-legal context we may need to be cautious about
rejecting the use of a hypothesis out of hand, particularly for those of us who are
trained as lawyers (Denzin, 2017). Without care, it is possible for us to design our
study and analyse our data so that it becomes an act of advocacy for a particular
answer, rather than a study with findings that emerge from the data. This is known as
confirmation bias, and although entirely normal for the human brain, is problematic
when undertaking scholarly work. And so where I have a likely answer in mind, I
harness the use of a hypothesis to minimise the chances that I shall unconsciously
confirm my biases. I set out the likely answer as a hypothesis and then design my
study to seek to falsify or undermine it, not to seek to prove it right. This should,
hopefully, counteract my bias which is operating in the opposite direction (a desire to
confirm what I think to be true). In the end, it is not important to the success of my
project whether I disprove my hypothesis or hypotheses in whole or in part or whether
I am unable to disprove it (and thus the answer may be correct). The answer is
whatever it is, and the project is successful by virtue of it being undertaken in a rigorous
way rather than on the basis of a particular outcome.

The Data

My next stage is to work through the types of data, the ‘stuff’ that I shall collect and
analyse so as to be able to answer my question. There are lots of different ways of
seeking to work out the data sources that may be relevant to the question. My
preferred method is to split my post-literature review research question into its logically
connected sub-questions and set out all the different types of people or ‘stuff’ that may
allow me to answer each one. For my kinds of research question, the people may be,
for example, lawyers in practice, judges, clients, legal academics and students, and
sometimes members of the public. They may be cases and statutes or a range of other
types of document (law firm annual reports, arbitral awards, curricula and training
materials etc). They may extend to in person observation of sites of legal engagement,
whether in court, in lawyers’ offices or in law school clinics or classrooms. The range
of sources is as broad as I am able to conceive of. I list them all, then consider which
6
Pre-proof version Copyright of the author
In Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Methods (eds) Naomi Creutzfeld; Marc
Mason and Kirsten McConnachie (Routledge, 2019)
parts of my questions those sources would assist with, how accessible they are and
the practicalities associated with that given my project schedule. I also consider the
extent to which I really want to use those sources, delete those that are either too
challenging or are impractical and review which ones are left. Next I need to consider
whether those that are left will allow me fully to answer my question and what caveats
would I need to place on my findings were I to use some or all of these sources. I note
all of this thinking down for the methods section or chapter of my project. I also
consider whether I need to amend my research question in the light of the decisions I
have taken on data sources.

Data Collection and Analysis

My next step is to consider how I shall collect the data I have identified as important
to my research questions. Will I collect it via archival or database research (Platt,1981;
Scott, 1990), through a search of lawyers’ offices or NGO websites, through interviews
(face to face, telephone, skype), questionnaires (online, on paper, self-administered
by respondents or administered by me or others (Oppenheim,1992), or observations
in sites where decisions are being taken and/or roles being performed (Becker and
Geer, 1970)? How shall I systematically record those data? Will I use a field note-
book, will I record interviews, will the questionnaires self-code online or do I need to
take paper copies and enter the data into a database? How will I pilot my approaches
to data collection? Do I need to use a case study method (Yin, 2013, 1994; Webley
2016; Gerring, 2004), a comparative method (Cotterrell, 2012; Örücü, 2006; Siems
2014; Peters and Schwenke, 2000) or something else? These considerations are
dealt with elsewhere in this collection and so I shall not address them here. You may
wish to refer to the other relevant chapters in this regard.

There are also decisions to be made about data analysis too, and each type of data
may need a different form of analysis (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Miles and Huberman,
1994; Gibbs, 2007). There are traditions about the different ways in which one may
analyse qualitative (narrative) and quantitative (numbers, statistical) data, although
there is a good deal of overlap between some of these too (Epstien and Martin, 2010;
Webley 2010). Data analysis may refer to particular methods of extracting meaning
from the data: grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Glaser and Strauss, 1967;
Glaser 1992), discourse (Taylor, 2001), thematic or content analysis (Bauer, 2000),
descriptive and inferential statistics (Wilkinson, 2000; Desrosières, 1996; Cohen
Holliday, 1996). Further, you may be overlaying a theoretical framework when
analysing the data and if so this will need to be factored in too. There are other things
to consider – do you wish to make use of computer assisted data analysis? This is
usually a must in the context of statistical analysis of large data sets (SPSS, XL etc),
but it may be less clear cut when it comes to some forms of qualitative analysis. Some
of us will use NVivo others will use different software systems. And some may prefer
to rely on more traditional pen and paper type methods. Your decision will, in part, be
linked to the size of your data sets and access to the software and any training you
may need to be confident in its use. When I undertake quantitative analysis I would
normally turn to SPSS as my software of choice; when undertaking qualitative analysis
I will sometimes use NVivo and sometimes instead work without reference to computer
assistance.

Research Ethics
7
Pre-proof version Copyright of the author
In Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Methods (eds) Naomi Creutzfeld; Marc
Mason and Kirsten McConnachie (Routledge, 2019)
So far we have considered a series of decisions about the focus of the study, the
underpinning research question and sub-questions, the appropriate sources of data to
assist with answering them and how to collect those data and analyse them. We have
not, however, considered the ethical implications that may arise from the study and
these will need to be thought through before ethical approval can be granted.
Sometimes researchers can feel straight-jacketed by the formalised nature of research
ethics process, as if it is a hurdle that must be overcome in order to allow the study to
proceed (Boon, 2005). But, if the process of ethical reflection can effectively be
harnessed it can lead to a much higher quality, critically reflective and sophisticated
research study that is clear on its impact on the academic community and wider
society. I have found it worth spending time on this stage of the process to improve
my study design.

The research ethics process is established, in part, to ensure that no-one is

inappropriately harmed as the result of a research study. Harm is broadly defined to
include psychological well-being as well as physical and other material harm; unethical
harm is harm that we should have taken steps to mitigate or prevent either by changing
our research protocol or by making a judgement about whether it is appropriate to
conduct the research at all given the effects that our study may have on others. To
assess the ethical impact of a project we are usually asked to set out the study aims,
the research question and sub-questions, any hypotheses data sources, collection and
analysis methods along with any decisions we have taken in selecting those things.
We are also usually asked to think through what we consider to be foreseeable risks
as regards process and outcome: who could be affected and how. I usually refer back
to the Socio-Legal Studies Association Statement of Ethical Practice, but there are
others that may be relevant to your disciplinary tradition and learned societies (e.g.
see Ferdinand, 2007). Often there are detailed questions about certain types of data
and their storage linked to legal requirements about data protection and data privacy
too. By working through the research ethics process we are forced to consider not just
those who may be involved in the project but also those who may be touched by our
findings; we reflect on the significance of our study and on its impact, on the rigour of
our research design. These form part of the quality criteria for judging our research,
set out below in section III. Consequently, a robust approach to the research ethics
process is a means by which we can test our study quality at the outset, and also
generate the material we need for our research methods chapter too.

Findings: Facts and Inferences

Once I have collected my data and analysed it, I have a set of tentative findings that
are particular to the data that I have collected – the people that I talked to, the cases
that I read, those situations that I observed, the questionnaires that I have analysed.
Assuming I have undertaken the data analysis systematically and in conformity to the
meta-theory and the data analysis method that I am following, then I should have a
robust set of specific findings. However, most of us in the socio-legal tradition will want
to extend our findings beyond the individual situations that we have studied and this
is where things can get a bit more challenging. We are, in effect, drawing inferences
from particular situations and reading those in to situations that we have not ourselves
studied (King, Keohane, Verba, 1996). We are going from individual contexts to more
general ones. And that needs to be done with a degree of caution and humility so that
inferences are not illogical and/or extended beyond our data’s ability to evidence them
8
Pre-proof version Copyright of the author
In Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Methods (eds) Naomi Creutzfeld; Marc
Mason and Kirsten McConnachie (Routledge, 2019)
(for particular concerns in the context of lawyers doing this see Epstein and King,
2002). It is easier to attain generalizable findings when one has undertaken robust
quantitative (statistical) data collection and analysis, because one of the features of
this type of research is generalisability. In order to make these universal claims I would
need to be sufficiently certain that my data-set was either a population data set
(contain everyone from the population I had studied) or a representative sample of
those within the population. It would be inappropriate to make such claims for most
qualitative or small scale quantitative research (Webley, 2010); I need to write up my
findings with care and indicate when I am drawing an inference – making a claim rather
than stating what I consider to be an evidenced fact. This does not undermine the
quality of my findings, far from it. It allows those reading my work to know when I am
stating facts, when I am draw inferences and when I am using theory to speculate on
the likely explanation for why those facts or inferences being as they are. This assists
with my claim to analytical rigour, the final criterion against which much academic work
is judged.

III. Issues of Wider Relevance

As indicated earlier in the chapter, the quality of academic work is often judged
according to three main criteria: its originality, its significance and its rigour. They are
the criteria used to assess doctoral theses and to assess academic working in the UK
Research Excellence Framework process and similar exercises in other countries. I
shall briefly examine each of these in the context of socio-legal empirical projects and
indicate how they can be used to critique one’s own draft research paper or thesis to
increase its perceived quality and persuasiveness.

Originality, at first glance, appears to require sophisticated new ways of looking at the
world. In fact, it is simply a way of judging what new insight has been produced through
a study that was not previously known to the academic community. I need to know
what is known already, to know what I have added to the sum of academic knowledge
and the literature review process is the way that I can both know this and demonstrate
it. By the time that I have completed my literature review, I should know what has
already been concluded on my question by the academic community and identified a
lacuna that my study will fill by answering my post-literature review question. The
originality may be substantive – the nature of the question I have asked- or context
specific – the jurisdictional, temporal or specific case study context in which the
question has been asked and answered. Sometimes my study may be
methodologically original, answering a question similar to that answered by a previous
academic but using a different type of data, a different data collection method or a
different means by which to analyse those data. Literature review and methods
chapters provide us with the fora to prove originality claims. I have found that my claim
is most persuasive when made upfront in my introduction so as to highlight the
importance of my study by setting out what I have found, how it fills a gap in knowledge
or to confirm or refute earlier findings via different means or in a different context. I
provide my justification in the literature and methods chapters or sections.

The significance of a study is a product of the critical analysis within it. It is, in essence,
the explanation of how what we have found matters to the academic community. In
what ways do our findings advance academic understanding and, why is that important
and/or helpful? In some instances the significance of the findings may extend beyond
9
Pre-proof version Copyright of the author
In Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Methods (eds) Naomi Creutzfeld; Marc
Mason and Kirsten McConnachie (Routledge, 2019)
the academic realm and, if so, that may lead on to a discussion of recommendations
that flow from the findings. I tend to add these claims in my introduction immediately
after my claim of originality, during the redrafting process following completion of my
conclusions. Some people prefer to leave their claims to the conclusions chapter.

I have discussed the term ‘rigour’ as encompassing two different markers of quality:
process rigour and analytical rigour. Process rigour addresses the research design
decisions that we have made in designing our study as well as how well we have
executed those decisions when conducting our study (Webley, 2010; 2016). The
research ethics process helps with claims to process rigour, not least as independent
academics will have considered the decisions I have made and will have raised any
concerns about quality as well as ethics at any early stage. In addition, I have found it
worthwhile to keep a running note of all the decisions that I have taken in the conduct
of my study, what has worked, what has not and what amendments I have needed to
make and why, so that I have all those details to hand for my methods chapter. I also
consider carefully the limitations of my study, both the caveats as regards how I carried
out the research and those relating to the inferences I have drawn too. Analytical rigour
comes to the fore when I am seeking to reach conclusions from my data. I have found
it helpful to ask myself what is proven by the data (to a legal standard), what is
suggested by the data such that I may draw a reliable inference, and what I am seeking
to explain by developing a theory or hypothesis which is speculative and which I or
others may later wish to test through a subsequent study. I have developed those
questions for myself so as to guide my self-critique of my findings, having in the past
at times overreached in my conclusions. Others have different ways of checking the
reliability of their findings.

IV Conclusion

I have set out one structured way to approach a socio-legal research project, via a
series of stages. Of course this oversimplifies the idiosyncratic and serendipitous
nature of research and suggests a linearity to project planning and execution that is
rarely seen in nature. Research questions are in a constant state of flux for most of
us, much of the time. Projects can be brilliantly planned and then confounding factors
force us to retrace our steps backwards and make different decisions about data and
methods. The analytical stages of studies are far more mercurial than suggested too;
sometimes one brief moment of insight fundamentally changes how one ‘reads’ the
data and that sets us off on a new and more interesting train of thought. A chance
conversation with a colleague has, on more than one occasion, led me to see that my
study results are more wide ranging than I had anticipated. Sharing findings at a work-
in-progress stage can be really beneficial; a knowledgeable outsider’s views may
unlock connections between data. Self-critique and peer review are excellent means
by which to improve the quality of a study at the planning, execution and write-up
stages and I am grateful for the time that others take to help me to reflect on my work.
I hope that you are similarly supported by others too.

Further Reading

10
Pre-proof version Copyright of the author
In Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Methods (eds) Naomi Creutzfeld; Marc
Mason and Kirsten McConnachie (Routledge, 2019)
A. Bryman Social Research Methods 5th Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2015)
P. Cane and H. Kritzer The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research (Oxford,
Oxford University Press, 2010)
T. May Social Research Issues, Methods and Process 4th Edition (Buckingham: Open
University Publishing, 2011)
K.F. Punch Introduction to Social Research Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches
3rd Edition (London: Sage Publishing, 2013)
D. De Vaus Research Design in Social Research (Sage Publishing, 2001)

References for the Bibliography

V. A. Anfara, Jr., and N. T. Mertz (eds) Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative

Research 2nd ed. (Sage Publishing, 2014)
M.W. Bauer ‘Chapter 8 – Classical Content Analysis: A Review” in M.W Bauer, G.
Gaskell and N.C. Allum (eds) Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound A
Practical Handbook (London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2000)
H. Becker and B. Geer ‘Participant Observation and Interviewing A Comparison in
W.J. Filstead (ed.) Qualitative Methodology Firsthand Involvement with the Social
World (Chicago, Markham Publishing: 1970) at 133-142.
J. Bell and S. Waters ‘Chapter 5 Reviewing the Literature’ Doing Your Research
Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers in Education and Social Science 6th edn
(Buckingham, Open U.P. 2014)
A. Boon ‘Chapter 15 The Formalisation of Research Ethics’ in R. Banakar and M.
Travers (eds.) Theory and Method in Socio-legal Research (Oxford: Hart Publishing,
2005) 301-326.
P. Chynoweth ‘Chapter 3 Legal Research’ in A. Knight and L. Ruddock (eds.)
Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell,
2008)
L. Cohen and M. Holliday Practical Statistics for Students (London: Paul Chapman,
1996)
R. Cotterrell ‘Comparative Sociology of Law’ in D. S. Clarke (ed.) Comparative Law
and Society, Research Handbooks in Comparative Law (Edward Elgar, 2012)
D. Cowan and D. Wincott (eds) Exploring the Legal Exploring the Legal in Socio-Legal
Studies (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015)
N.K. Denzin (2017) Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook (Routledge ebook, 2017)
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781351489072
N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research 2nd ed.
(Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publishing, 2000).
A. Desrosières ‘Statistical Traditions: an Obstacle to International Comparisons?’ in
L. Hantrais and S. Mangen, Cross-National Research Methods in the Social
Sciences (London: Pinter, 1996) 17-38.

11
Pre-proof version Copyright of the author
In Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Methods (eds) Naomi Creutzfeld; Marc
Mason and Kirsten McConnachie (Routledge, 2019)
E. Durkheim The Rules of the Sociological Method (New York: Free Press, 1958)
L. Epstien and A. D. Martin ‘Chapter 37 Quantitative Approaches to Empirical Legal
Research’ in P. Cane and H. Kritzer The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal
Research (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010) 902-925.
L. Epstien and G. King ‘The Rules of Inference’ (2002) University of Chicago Law
Review Vol. 69 No. 1 1-133
D. Feenan Exploring the ‘Socio’ in Socio-Legal Studies (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013)
J. Ferdinand et al. ‘A Different Kind of Ethic’ (2007) 8 (4) Ethnography 519-543.
J.Gerring ‘What is a Case Study and What is it Good For?’ (2004) The American
Political Science Review Vol. 98 No. 2 341-354.
B.G. Glaser Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs. Forcing (Mill Valley,
California: Sociology Press, 1992).
B. Glaser and A. Strauss The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research (Chicago: Aldine, 1967).
G.R. Gibbs Analyzing Qualitative Data (London, Thousand Oaks Ca, Delhi, Singapore,
Sage Publications Ltd, 2007).
H.L.A. Hart The Concept of Law (Oxford University Press,1961) chapter V
T. Hutchinson ‘Chapter 5 Social Science Methodologies for Lawyers’ Researching and
Writing in Law (Lawbook Co., 2002).
G. King, R. Keohane and S. Verba Designing Social Enquiry (Princeton University
Press, 1996)
Law and Society Review A Brief Guide to Reading, Writing, and Giving Feedback in
Socio-Legal Studies 18th October 2017
http://lawandsocietyreview.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-brief-guide-to-reading-writing-
and.html
M. Miles and A. Huberman Qualitative Data Analysis 2nd edition (Thousand Oaks, Ca:
Sage Publications, 1994)
N. Oppenheim ‘Chapter 8 – Question Wording’ in Questionnaire Design, Interviewing
and Attitude Measurement (London, New York: Continuum, 1992)
Esin Örücü, ‘Methodological Aspects of Comparative Law’, (2006) 8 European
Journal of Law Reform 29-42.
A. Peters and H. Schwenke, ‘Comparative Law Beyond Post-modernism’, (2000) 49
International and Comparative Law Quarterly 800-34.
J. Platt. ‘Evidence and Proof in Documentary Research: Some Specific Problems of
Documentary Research’ (1981) Vol. 29 No. 1 Sociological Review 31
J. Scott A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research (Cambridge:
Polity Press, 1990)
M. Siems, Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press, 2014
Socio-Legal Studies Association Statement of Ethical Practice
https://www.slsa.ac.uk/images/slsadownloads/ethicalstatement/slsa%20ethics%20st
atement%20_final_%5B1%5D.pdf

12
Pre-proof version Copyright of the author
In Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Methods (eds) Naomi Creutzfeld; Marc
Mason and Kirsten McConnachie (Routledge, 2019)
F.J. Sousa ‘Chapter 9 Metatheories in Research: Positivism, Postmodernism and
Critical Realism’ in A.G. Woodside (ed) Organizational Culture, Business-to-
Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks series: Advances in Business
Marketing and Purchasing, Volume 16 (Emerald Books, 2010) 455–503
A Strauss and J. Corbin Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures
for Developing Grounded Theory 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1998)
S. Taylor ‘Locating and Conducting Discourse Analytic Research’ in M. Wetherell, S.
Taylor, and S.J. Yates (eds), Discourse as data: a guide for analysis (London: Sage.
2001)
W.Twining and David Miers How to Do Things with Rules: A Primer of Interpretation,
Fifth Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)
L. Webley ‘Chapter 38 Qualitative Approaches to Empirical Legal Research’ in P.
Cane and H. Kritzer (eds) Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Studies (Oxford,
OUP: 2010) 926-950
L. Webley ‘Stumbling Blocks in Empirical Legal Research: Case Study Research’
(2016) Law and Method doi:10.5553/REM/.000020
D. Wilkinson ‘Analysing Data’ in D. Wilkinson (ed), The Researcher’s Toolkit, The
Complete Guide to Practitioner Research (London: Routledge Falmer, 2000) 77-97.
R. Yin Case Study Research Design and Methods 5th Edition (Thousand Oaks, Sage
Publications, 2013).
R. K. Yin Case Study Research Design and Methods 2nd Edition (Thousand Oaks,
London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1994)

13

View publication stats