By 7 Mistakes in Legal Research Methodology – And How to Avoid Them
Law research methodology is a type of scientific approach to legal and is the backbone of any solid legal argument. It identifies a legal problem, collects and analyses authoritative sources, and logically draws conclusions.
This isn’t just aimlessly looking for information, but requires a sound design for investigation and a clear plan to gather “how” and “why” and derive meaning from them.
However, many researchers and professionals make mistakes that can undermine the quality and reliability of their work. A minute mistake like missing a key precedent or misinterpreting key statutes, can weaken the case and lead to financial loss.
Hence, lawyers and experts use smarter, more effective strategies and frameworks to avoid legal research errors and ensure accuracy.
7 Common Law Research Methodology Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
Let’s break down the common law research methodology mistakes one by one:
1. Lack of a Clear Research Question
There are a lot of mistakes made in legal research methodology. A common one is failing to define a clear research question. A researcher often lacks a well-defined focus. This creates a problem in looking for relevant sources and analysing legal issues.
Without it, there’s a risk of collecting irrelevant information. And with this focus, studies often become too vague or unanswerable.
How to Avoid
- Create a research question before you begin your writing.
- Make sure to break down complex or broad topics into smaller parts.
- A question must be researchable and must have access to legal resources.
2. Relying on Outdated or Unverified Sources
Legal principles constantly change. The change happens through:
- Legislative amendments
- New court rulings
- Administrative updates
Don’t use unverified or outdated sources. It can lead to various risks. For example, submission of bad legal or professional misconduct sanctions.
How to Avoid
- Utilise legal and up-to-date legal sources
- Make sure to verify the currency of statutes.
- Check the official government sites for updated legislation reports.
- Make sure to cross-check information for correctness.
Still struggling to find relevant sources? Don’t worry, and get law research proposal help from professionals to progress from this step.
3. Ignoring Primary Sources of Law
Overdependence on secondary sources is a common practice among researchers/lawyers. These include:
- Journals
- Articles
- Commentaries
- Summaries
However, neglecting primary databases like judicial decisions or treaties results in inconsistency.
How to Avoid
- Always refer to primary legal material to understand the law’s exact wording.
- You must use primary sources to get authoritative legal information.
- It’s best to use secondary sources for contextual understanding. But always make sure to cross-reference with the primary information.
4. Inconsistent Referencing and Poor Citations
|
Do You Know? The University of Mississippi found that almost 47% of students submit legal documents that have incorrect titles, dates, or author names. |
Referencing is very important in legal papers.
So it can result in plagiarism if anyone fails to cite the sources properly. Hence, it weakens the credibility of your research.
How to Avoid
- Make sure to understand the citation style given by your institute.
- Use footnotes to maintain bibliography and citations.
5. Over-reliance on Search Engines (like Google)
|
Do You Know? 17% of the surveyed individuals in the US turn to search engines as their primary source for information regarding legal problems. |
Search engines are not your best friend when it comes to legal research.
Their basic function is to provide general information to users. Hence they are not designed to offer authoritative legal data.
Hence, people who rely on these and extract information often end up with inconsistencies or an incomplete research paper.
How to Avoid
- Ditch search engines for legal data collection.
- Use legal directories like LexisNexis and others
- Utilise peer-reviewed sources.
6. Overlooking Jurisdictional Differences
Laws change. Every jurisdiction has its own laws.
So you cannot apply legal principles anywhere. First you need to understand the differences.
This will save you from disastrous results.
How to Avoid
- Always identify the jurisdiction relevant to the research question.
- Make sure to contrast the legal frameworks of different jurisdictions.
- The laws and cases you reference in the research paper must apply to that specific jurisdiction.
7. Inadequate Case Law Analysis
Inadequate case law analysis refers to a situation where legal arguments, judicial decisions, or agency actions are rendered invalid.
Some researchers cite sources without analysing the ratio decidendi or distinguishing obiter dicta. This often results in a reversible error or a finding of ineffective counsel.
How to Avoid
- Read full judgments, not just case summaries or headnotes.
- Understand the key legal principle established by the case.
- Make sure to compare similar cases to strengthen arguments.
Final Words
This brings us to the end of this amazing guide. Legal research papers are not easy and give a real tough time to researchers and students.
But you can efficiently work on your paper once you are familiar with the common mistakes and their fixes.
So go through this guide, and you will find the 7 common mistakes made in law methodology, which are:
- An improper research question.
- Use of unverified sources.
- Ignoring primary legal sources
- Poor referencing and poor citations
- Use of search engines
- Weak understanding of jurisdictional differences
- Inadequate case law analysis
FAQs
What are the common mistakes in legal research?
People make mistakes in legal research. Some of them are:
- Weak research question
- Getting information from outdated sources
- Inefficient search techniques
- Ignoring counter-arguments
- Ignoring procedural law
What are the types of legal research methodology?
Law research methodologies are structured approaches. They investigate legal issues that are primarily divided into two methods. First is doctrinal (theoretical/library-based) and the second is non-doctrinal/empirical (field/data-based) methods.