Legal research methodology is the backbone of any advanced legal study, especially at the doctoral level. Indeed, a robust methodology underpins the credibility of research findings. Yet many PhD candidates and legal scholars inadvertently fall into similar traps when designing and conducting their research.
This article examines common mistakes in legal research methodology and explains how to avoid them. It focuses on both doctrinal (traditional “black-letter” law analysis) and socio-legal (empirical or interdisciplinary) approaches. It also highlights typical pitfalls associated with each. By understanding these issues and addressing them proactively, researchers can significantly strengthen the quality and integrity of their legal research.
Understanding doctrinal and socio-legal methods
Legal research generally follows one of two broad methodologies: doctrinal or socio-legal. Doctrinal research (also known as black-letter law research) involves an in-depth analysis of legal rules, statutes and case law from an internal legal perspective. It is library-based and focuses on interpreting authoritative texts to answer a legal question. Researchers using the doctrinal approach aim to identify, interpret and systematise legal doctrines by scrutinising legislation and judicial decisions. This method often seeks to resolve ambiguities or outline the current state of the law (Hutchinson and Duncan, 2012).
In contrast, socio-legal research examines law in its social context by applying tools from the social sciences. A socio-legal (or empirical) methodology might include qualitative interviews, surveys or quantitative data analysis to explore how laws actually operate and affect society. It moves beyond doctrines to consider the real-world impact and effectiveness of legal rules (Banakar and Travers, 2005). Socio-legal studies bridge the gap between “law in books” and “law in action”. This approach provides insights into how legal norms function in practice.
Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and choosing between them depends on the research question. However, problems arise when researchers misunderstand these methods or apply them inappropriately.
For instance, a student might pursue a purely doctrinal project on a topic that actually requires empirical evidence about social behaviour. Conversely, another researcher might attempt empirical work without appreciating crucial legal doctrinal nuances.
It is crucial to select the methodology that aligns with the question being asked. Moreover, one must articulate and justify this choice. As Hutchinson and Duncan (2012) observe, modern legal scholars need to clearly explain their research methodology – especially in an interdisciplinary era where others (including non-lawyers) scrutinise research design. Therefore, a solid understanding of both doctrinal and socio-legal methods is essential from the outset.
Lack of a clear research question and scope
One of the most common mistakes in legal research is failing to define a clear, focused research question. A poorly defined question (or a thesis topic that is too broad or too narrow) will undermine the entire methodology. You must pinpoint the exact legal problem or hypothesis you aim to address. Otherwise, it becomes nearly impossible to design an effective research strategy. An unclear question leads to confusion about which sources or data to consult, and it often results in an unfocused, descriptive piece of work.
On the other hand, choosing a topic that is overly broad can make your research shallow and unmanageable. For example, writing about something as expansive as “the entire constitution” will inevitably lack focus. Conversely, an overly narrow question might leave you with insufficient material to analyse or lead only to trivial outcomes. Therefore, defining the research problem in precise and manageable terms is a fundamental first step (Van Hoecke, 2011).
To avoid this pitfall, invest time in refining your research question early on. Seek feedback from your supervisor or peers to ensure the question is neither too vague nor too ambitious. A useful strategy is to break down a broad topic into sub-questions and identify a specific aspect of the law to examine.
For example, you might focus on one particular provision or a single line of cases. Ensure the scope is appropriate – not so broad that you cannot delve deeply, and not so narrow that it lacks significance. A clear, well-scoped question provides a roadmap for your methodology. It dictates whether you need a doctrinal analysis of legal texts, an empirical study of how law operates, or a combination of approaches. Clarity at this stage sets the foundation for all the methodological decisions that follow.
Misalignment between methodology and research question
Even with a clear question, researchers sometimes choose an inappropriate methodology for that question. Misalignment between the research question and the chosen method is a critical error that can invalidate results.
For example, if your question is fundamentally about how a law affects a particular community in practice. A purely doctrinal approach may be insufficient – it might miss the social reality that needs to be observed or measured. Conversely, if your question is about interpreting a constitutional provision’s meaning, a socio-legal method (like conducting public surveys) would be unnecessary and beside the point.
The key is that the method should fit the inquiry. Mark Van Hoecke (2011) emphasises that legal researchers must select methods suited to the nature of their research problem – a one-size-fits-all approach does not work in legal scholarship.
This misalignment often happens due to comfort zones or misconceptions. Some researchers stick to the familiar doctrinal path even when the project calls for empirical evidence, perhaps because they lack training in social science methods. Others might be eager to use empirical techniques even when their question could be answered through library-based analysis of existing law. In both cases, the methodology chosen does not actually answer the question posed.
To avoid this mistake, carefully match your methodology to your research objectives. Ask yourself what kind of information is needed to resolve your legal problem. Consider what kind of information is needed to answer your question. Is it found in statutes, cases and legal literature (which suggests a doctrinal study)? Or does it require gathering new data from people, institutions or archives (which points to a socio-legal or historical study)?
In many PhD projects, a mixed-method approach can be beneficial. For instance, you might start with doctrinal analysis to establish the legal framework, and then use interviews or case studies to evaluate how that law operates in reality. If you adopt mixed methods, ensure each part is appropriate and that you have (or acquire) the competence to execute it properly. Above all, be ready to justify why your chosen approach is the best way to answer your specific question. A well-justified methodology not only strengthens your thesis but also reassures examiners that you have been deliberate and rigorous in your research design.
Inadequate engagement with existing literature
Another frequent pitfall is neglecting the existing body of literature and theoretical framework related to your topic. A comprehensive literature review is not just a formality – it directly informs your methodological choices. By surveying prior scholarship, you learn what approaches others have taken, what pitfalls they encountered, and how your work can build on (or diverge from) theirs.
Ignoring key academic sources (such as seminal books or major journal articles in your field) is a serious mistake. It can leave your methodology on shaky ground (Parise, 2010). If you are unaware of previous studies, you might end up repeating methods that have already failed. You could also overlook important variables or miss best practices that would otherwise guide your approach.
For example, imagine researching the effectiveness of anti-discrimination laws without reading empirical studies that interviewed affected groups. The risk is that your research will lack depth and originality. To avoid this, conduct a thorough literature review early in the project and treat it as part of your methodological planning. Identify what data sources or analytical frameworks earlier researchers used. Are there debates about methodology in this area of law? Perhaps some scholars advocate a doctrinal approach while others call for empirical evidence – knowing this helps you position your own method thoughtfully.
Engaging with the literature also means acknowledging the theoretical underpinnings of your research. If your study involves concepts from political theory, sociology or economics (as often happens in socio-legal work), you should familiarise yourself with those disciplines. This ensures that your methodology aligns with sound theoretical assumptions.
Confusing doctrinal analysis with mere description
When employing a doctrinal methodology, a common mistake is to become overly descriptive rather than analytical. Doctrinal research is not simply a compilation of statutes and cases; its value lies in critical analysis – interpreting, harmonising and evaluating the law. Yet many law students – and even some PhD candidates – fall into the trap of just describing what the law says, case by case or section by section. They offer no critical insight in such instances. This happens when researchers treat doctrinal work as if it requires no methodology beyond summarising sources. The result is a thesis that reads like a legal textbook rather than a piece of original scholarship. Examiners will quickly flag this issue. A PhD should do more than paraphrase legislation or judgments – it needs to question and analyse them.
The doctrinal method demands rigour in reasoning. You must identify tensions, ambiguities or inconsistencies in the law, and then articulate arguments for how they can be resolved or why they matter. A related mistake is failing to situate the doctrine in context. Pure black-letter analysis can sometimes ignore the social, historical or policy context that gives meaning to legal rules.
While doctrinal research doesn’t require gathering new data, it does benefit from acknowledging context – for example, recognising the historical development or underlying purpose of a legal principle. If you ignore all context, you might miss the purpose or real-life impact of a rule, leading to analysis that is technically accurate but practically sterile. To avoid these doctrinal pitfalls, consciously adopt a critical and structured approach. Outline the legal issue, explain the current law, then probe its adequacy or coherence. Compare authorities, weigh arguments and perhaps propose how the law could be improved. Ensure that each section of your doctrinal analysis contributes to answering your research question, rather than just cataloguing information.
Remember that a strong doctrinal methodology involves not just finding “what the law is”, but also analysing its nuances and evaluating its sufficiency. Keeping your analysis active and argumentative (rather than merely descriptive) will result in a far more compelling and academically sound piece of work.
Pitfalls in socio-legal (empirical) research
For those undertaking socio-legal research, a different set of mistakes often occurs. Empirical legal research can be immensely rewarding (revealing how law truly operates in society), but it also comes with methodological challenges that law graduates may not be fully trained for. One major pitfall is flawed data collection or analysis methods. For instance, a researcher might use an unrepresentative survey sample, ask leading or vague interview questions, or draw general conclusions from anecdotal evidence.
Legal researchers sometimes underestimate the complexity of social science techniques. Lee Epstein and Gary King (2002) famously critiqued the empirical work of many legal scholars. They noted that serious problems of inference and methodology abound when lawyers attempt empirical research without adhering to rigorous social science standards. Common errors include statistical mistakes, biases in selecting respondents or cases, and a lack of proper controls or comparative baselines. If the empirical component of your research is methodologically weak, it can undermine the credibility of your findings.
Another critical area is ethical oversight. Empirical legal research often involves human participants (for example, interviews with stakeholders, surveys of public opinion, or observations of courtroom behaviour). Failing to obtain necessary ethical approvals or informed consent – or not designing the study to protect participants’ confidentiality and well-being – is a grave mistake. Universities will not accept research that violates ethical standards. It also reflects poorly on your professionalism. Always follow institutional ethics guidelines and best practices in research. This includes being transparent with participants, avoiding any form of coercion, and remaining sensitive to any cultural or personal issues that may arise.
To avoid socio-legal research pitfalls, it is crucial to educate yourself (or collaborate with experts) on empirical methods. Invest time in learning about research design – whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. If you plan to run a survey or perform statistical analysis, ensure you understand sampling techniques and have sufficient data to support your claims. If you are conducting interviews or focus groups, rehearse your interview protocol and consider doing a pilot study to refine your questions.
It is also wise to involve an interdisciplinary element: for instance, consult a sociologist or statistician for advice on your methodology. Remember that empirical research in law is inherently interdisciplinary, bridging law and other fields. By acknowledging what you don’t know and seeking appropriate guidance or training, you can significantly improve the quality and validity of your socio-legal research. Thorough planning, adherence to methodological rigour and strict ethical standards will help you avoid the common errors that can beset empirical legal studies.
Relying on weak or outdated sources
No matter which methodology you adopt, the quality of your sources is paramount. A frequent mistake in legal research is relying on sources that are outdated, unofficial or not authoritative. In doctrinal work, this might mean citing old cases that have been overturned or relying on superseded legislation. It can also involve leaning too heavily on secondary sources (like blogs or Wikipedia) instead of primary legal authorities.
In socio-legal research, it might involve using data from questionable origins or statistics that are no longer current. Using weak sources can seriously damage your research’s credibility. For example, suppose you base an argument on a case that was later reversed on appeal. Or perhaps you rely on a dataset that has since been updated. In such scenarios, your conclusions may be invalid. Similarly, failing to verify the hierarchy of legal sources is a mistake.
Primary sources of law (such as statutes and binding court decisions) should not be neglected in favour of convenient secondary commentary. Legal research experts emphasise that failing to verify and update your authorities can lead to incorrect results. It also undermines the trustworthiness of your work (University of Baltimore Law Library, n.d.).
To avoid this, always check the currency and authority of your sources. When doing doctrinal research, use legal databases or citators to ensure that cases are still “good law” (not overturned or superseded) and that you have the most recent versions of statutes and regulations. Update your research periodically, since the law can change even during a multi-year PhD. Give priority to peer-reviewed journals, reputable books and official reports over unvetted internet material or casual commentary. When you do rely on secondary sources, ensure they are written by recognised experts.
In empirical research, scrutinise where your data comes from: is it from a government publication or a respected research institute, or just a random website? If you gather your own data, be transparent about its limitations. Additionally, not referencing seminal works is a mistake to avoid. Omitting foundational literature is another serious error. If you ignore the classic books or landmark articles that everyone in the field knows, it signals that your literature review was not sufficiently rigorous (Parise, 2010).
Lack of methodological justification and reflection
Even when a researcher has chosen an appropriate method and gathered good sources, they often fail to explain why and how they did what they did. A PhD thesis (or any serious research project) should contain a clear methodology section where you justify your research design. Not providing a rationale for your methodology is a missed opportunity – and a common mistake.
Examiners want to see that you did not just stumble into your approach by accident. You need to convince them that your choices were deliberate and appropriate. This includes explaining why alternative methods were not used.
For instance, if you conduct a doctrinal analysis, you should briefly state why an empirical study was not necessary or was beyond your scope. If you do interviews, explain why that qualitative insight was needed and why a purely quantitative study would not have yielded the same depth of understanding. Such reflection demonstrates that you understand the strengths and limitations of your approach.
Another aspect of justification is discussing limitations. No method is perfect, and acknowledging the limits of your research is not a weakness – indeed, it shows critical self-awareness. Perhaps your doctrinal analysis is confined to one jurisdiction, or to a pre-Brexit version of EU law. Maybe your survey had a modest sample size, or your interview participants were all from a single region.
Being upfront about these constraints – and how they might affect the generalisability of your findings – will enhance your credibility. It proves that you are not making claims beyond what your method can support. Moreover, reflecting on methodology can lead to a better research design. If you recognise a limitation early, you might take steps to mitigate it. For example, you could supplement a doctrinal analysis with a case study or triangulate data from multiple sources to improve reliability.
Wrapping up: refining your legal research methodology
Legal research at the doctoral level is a demanding endeavour, and mistakes in methodology can be costly. However, by being aware of these common pitfalls, you can take proactive steps to avoid them. Always begin with a well-defined question, and choose a methodology that truly fits that question – not just the approach you find most comfortable.
Engage deeply with existing literature to ground your choices, and be willing to learn new methods or collaborate across disciplines when your project calls for it. Pay attention to the details of execution: whether it is ensuring your legal sources are authoritative and up to date, or that your empirical data collection is rigorous and ethical. Just as importantly, be reflective and explicit about your methodology. A strong legal researcher not only produces interesting results, but can also explain how those results were reached through a sound process.
If you are unsure about any aspect of your methodology, seek guidance. Universities often provide resources such as methodology workshops and writing clinics, and your supervisors can help you navigate these decisions. Additionally, getting an external perspective can be invaluable. Some researchers turn to expert feedback services for doctoral candidates, which offer tailored advice on research design and methods.
For example, PhDHelp.com provides support and mentorship specifically for PhD scholars. This service allows you to obtain detailed feedback on your methodology and overall thesis structure.
Taking advantage of such doctoral-level support can help you refine your approach and catch mistakes early. This way, problems are addressed before they become ingrained in your work. Ultimately, meticulous methodological planning and continuous self-review are the surest ways to avoid common errors. By doing so, you will not only prevent pitfalls but also produce legal research that is robust, credible and impactful.
References and further reading:
- Banakar, R. and Travers, M. (2005). Theory and Method in Socio-Legal Research. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
- Epstein, L. and King, G. (2002). ‘The Rules of Inference’. University of Chicago Law Review, 69(1), 1–133.
- Hutchinson, T. and Duncan, N. (2012). ‘Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research’. Deakin Law Review, 17(1), pp. 83–119.
- Parise, A. (2010). ‘The 13 Steps of Successful Academic Legal Research’. International Journal of Legal Information, 38(1), pp. 1–20.
- PhDHelp (2025). Doctoral Research Support Services. [Online]. Available at: https://www.phdhelp.com.
- Van Hoecke, M. (2011). Methodologies of Legal Research: Which Kind of Method for What Kind of Discipline? Oxford: Hart Publishing.
