1 00:00:00,765 --> 00:00:02,915 You have a dissertation topic and a 2 00:00:02,925 --> 00:00:05,920 promising question. Now ask a different question: 3 00:00:06,385 --> 00:00:08,800 what evidence could actually answer it? 4 00:00:09,145 --> 00:00:10,755 A method is not a label added 5 00:00:10,765 --> 00:00:11,980 at the end of the proposal. 6 00:00:12,265 --> 00:00:14,575 It explains how you will investigate the 7 00:00:14,585 --> 00:00:16,720 question and why that approach fits. 8 00:00:17,345 --> 00:00:20,235 This lesson introduces two broad approaches and 9 00:00:20,245 --> 00:00:23,760 a literature-review map using original fictional examples. 10 00:00:24,185 --> 00:00:26,275 It is not a universal UK dissertation 11 00:00:26,285 --> 00:00:29,855 template. Your programme handbook, supervisor's guidance and 12 00:00:29,865 --> 00:00:31,940 research-ethics process come first. 13 00:00:32,905 --> 00:00:36,115 Doctrinal research often analyses legal rules, principles 14 00:00:36,125 --> 00:00:39,095 and their relationships through authorities such as 15 00:00:39,105 --> 00:00:42,055 cases and legislation. It may ask how 16 00:00:42,065 --> 00:00:44,375 a legal test should be understood, where 17 00:00:44,385 --> 00:00:46,935 decisions are inconsistent, or how a statutory 18 00:00:46,945 --> 00:00:49,435 scheme fits together. It is more than 19 00:00:49,445 --> 00:00:52,375 collecting quotations. You must explain how the 20 00:00:52,385 --> 00:00:55,040 sources relate and justify your interpretation. 21 00:00:55,545 --> 00:00:58,255 The details vary by jurisdiction and research 22 00:00:58,265 --> 00:01:01,655 question. Theory, history and other approaches can 23 00:01:01,665 --> 00:01:03,815 also matter, so these two labels are 24 00:01:03,825 --> 00:01:06,140 not an exhaustive map of legal scholarship. 25 00:01:07,085 --> 00:01:09,775 Socio-legal research explores law in its social 26 00:01:09,785 --> 00:01:11,855 context and can draw on methods from 27 00:01:11,865 --> 00:01:15,335 other disciplines. Some projects use interviews, observation 28 00:01:15,345 --> 00:01:18,695 or quantitative data; others use theoretical or 29 00:01:18,705 --> 00:01:21,475 documentary approaches. It does not simply mean 30 00:01:21,485 --> 00:01:23,340 asking a few people for opinions. 31 00:01:23,705 --> 00:01:25,595 A question about how a procedure is 32 00:01:25,605 --> 00:01:29,035 experienced needs an appropriate design, evidence and 33 00:01:29,045 --> 00:01:31,655 analysis. If you plan to involve people 34 00:01:31,665 --> 00:01:35,095 or identifiable data, discuss the ethics, permission 35 00:01:35,105 --> 00:01:38,595 and data-handling requirements before recruiting or collecting 36 00:01:38,605 --> 00:01:40,995 anything. Do not assume that a small 37 00:01:41,005 --> 00:01:42,400 student project is exempt. 38 00:01:43,245 --> 00:01:45,420 Compare two original practice questions. 39 00:01:45,825 --> 00:01:48,435 First: how should an invented appeals policy 40 00:01:48,445 --> 00:01:50,600 be interpreted when its clauses conflict? 41 00:01:51,125 --> 00:01:53,515 That question points towards close analysis of 42 00:01:53,525 --> 00:01:56,420 the policy text and relevant interpretive arguments. 43 00:01:57,165 --> 00:01:59,255 Second: how do users of that invented 44 00:01:59,265 --> 00:02:01,740 procedure experience receiving reasons? 45 00:02:02,425 --> 00:02:05,415 That question asks about experience, which the 46 00:02:05,425 --> 00:02:07,660 policy text alone cannot establish. 47 00:02:08,165 --> 00:02:10,635 Neither example is a real legal problem 48 00:02:10,645 --> 00:02:13,020 or a research project to start immediately. 49 00:02:13,405 --> 00:02:14,995 The contrast helps you see why the 50 00:02:15,005 --> 00:02:17,555 question must control the evidence, rather than 51 00:02:17,565 --> 00:02:19,840 choosing interviews because they sound interesting. 52 00:02:20,665 --> 00:02:23,075 A literature review should show what relevant 53 00:02:23,085 --> 00:02:25,100 scholarship contributes to your question. 54 00:02:25,665 --> 00:02:28,320 Create a table with four columns: proposition, 55 00:02:28,705 --> 00:02:31,140 support, disagreement, and gap. 56 00:02:31,825 --> 00:02:34,795 Group sources around propositions rather than one 57 00:02:34,805 --> 00:02:38,035 paragraph per author. In our fictional procedure 58 00:02:38,045 --> 00:02:40,575 topic, one group might concern why giving 59 00:02:40,585 --> 00:02:43,655 reasons matters, another the limits of review, 60 00:02:43,665 --> 00:02:46,560 and another whether users understand the process. 61 00:02:46,985 --> 00:02:49,635 Within each group, compare methods and evidence 62 00:02:49,645 --> 00:02:50,740 as well as conclusions. 63 00:02:51,405 --> 00:02:52,780 The table is a planning aid. 64 00:02:52,905 --> 00:02:54,735 It does not replace a coherent written 65 00:02:54,745 --> 00:02:57,460 discussion or your course's required structure. 66 00:02:57,925 --> 00:02:59,655 A gap is not established by the 67 00:02:59,665 --> 00:03:01,980 sentence nobody has researched this. 68 00:03:02,325 --> 00:03:05,115 Keep a search log: databases searched, terms 69 00:03:05,125 --> 00:03:08,835 used, date, inclusion choices and material you 70 00:03:08,845 --> 00:03:11,175 could not access. Then state what your 71 00:03:11,185 --> 00:03:14,095 search supports. Perhaps studies address a different 72 00:03:14,105 --> 00:03:16,575 jurisdiction, rely on an earlier version of 73 00:03:16,585 --> 00:03:19,020 the law, or leave one assumption unexplained. 74 00:03:19,525 --> 00:03:21,940 Those are specific observations to investigate. 75 00:03:22,425 --> 00:03:23,860 Your search may be incomplete. 76 00:03:24,345 --> 00:03:26,740 Discuss the proposed contribution with your supervisor 77 00:03:26,985 --> 00:03:29,215 rather than turning limited access into a 78 00:03:29,225 --> 00:03:31,100 claim that no scholarship exists. 79 00:03:32,165 --> 00:03:34,355 Before adding a method, check whether the 80 00:03:34,365 --> 00:03:36,275 evidence can be accessed and whether you 81 00:03:36,285 --> 00:03:37,875 have the time and training to analyse 82 00:03:37,885 --> 00:03:41,340 it. If interviews are necessary, consider recruitment, 83 00:03:41,645 --> 00:03:45,035 ethics review, consent, storage and analysis requirements 84 00:03:45,045 --> 00:03:47,615 with your programme. If a doctrinal project 85 00:03:47,625 --> 00:03:50,140 has become too broad, narrow the issue, 86 00:03:50,345 --> 00:03:52,600 jurisdiction, period or source set. 87 00:03:52,905 --> 00:03:55,295 A smaller question you can investigate carefully 88 00:03:55,305 --> 00:03:57,315 can be more defensible than a sweeping 89 00:03:57,325 --> 00:03:59,340 question your evidence cannot answer. 90 00:03:59,625 --> 00:04:01,475 There is no guaranteed mark attached to 91 00:04:01,485 --> 00:04:02,075 either approach. 92 00:04:02,085 --> 00:04:05,535 A proposal asks how users experience an 93 00:04:05,545 --> 00:04:08,315 appeals process, but plans only to summarise 94 00:04:08,325 --> 00:04:10,855 the written policy. What is the mismatch, 95 00:04:10,865 --> 00:04:13,335 and what two options could the researcher 96 00:04:13,345 --> 00:04:14,720 discuss with a supervisor? 97 00:04:15,525 --> 00:04:17,060 Pause and explain before the answer. 98 00:04:22,285 --> 00:04:24,295 A written policy can show the stated 99 00:04:24,305 --> 00:04:27,215 procedure, but not establish how users experience 100 00:04:27,225 --> 00:04:29,935 it. One option is to narrow the 101 00:04:29,945 --> 00:04:32,540 question to the policy's design or interpretation. 102 00:04:33,045 --> 00:04:35,355 Another is to develop an appropriate approach 103 00:04:35,365 --> 00:04:39,075 to experience, subject to feasibility, training, ethics 104 00:04:39,085 --> 00:04:42,635 and programme approval. Combining approaches may sometimes 105 00:04:42,645 --> 00:04:45,275 fit, but adding methods without a reason 106 00:04:45,285 --> 00:04:47,840 can create more work without better evidence. 107 00:04:48,265 --> 00:04:51,175 The key is an explicit, defensible relationship 108 00:04:51,185 --> 00:04:53,720 between question, evidence and analysis. 109 00:04:54,605 --> 00:04:56,975 For your next supervision meeting, prepare one 110 00:04:56,985 --> 00:05:00,300 page with your question, proposed contribution, evidence, 111 00:05:00,625 --> 00:05:03,575 method, main limitation and two decisions you 112 00:05:03,585 --> 00:05:05,795 need help making. Keep the literature map 113 00:05:05,805 --> 00:05:07,300 and search log behind it. 114 00:05:07,625 --> 00:05:09,575 That gives the discussion a concrete focus 115 00:05:09,585 --> 00:05:11,255 and helps you record what to do 116 00:05:11,265 --> 00:05:14,395 next. Use the exercise and linked institutional 117 00:05:14,405 --> 00:05:17,235 examples in Durmah's learning library, checking your 118 00:05:17,245 --> 00:05:19,775 own current handbook. The research and final 119 00:05:19,785 --> 00:05:21,020 writing remain yours.