ABSTRACT
The collection of essays in this book attests to the array of research methodologies that are used to research the law. This chapter examines the doctrinal methodology which many lawyers consider best typifies a distinctly legal approach to research. Legal research skills have been identified as a core skill for lawyers,3 and within the profession, such skills are regarded as synonymous with the doctrinal research method. Good legal research skills are a necessary step in attaining the ability to ‘think like a lawyer’ and achieving valid legal reasoning outcomes.4 For lawyers, therefore, the doctrinal method is an intuitive aspect of legal work.5 Yet, as this chapter demonstrates, the doctrinal methodology is not without its detractors. There have been serious criticisms of the method put forward by exponents of the various critical legal theories, as well as a perception in some academic circles that the doctrinal research method is nothing more than mere ‘scholarship’ and as a result less compelling or respected than the research methods used by those in the sciences and social sciences.6 Despite these attacks, and the incursions on the method posed by the growth in the use of non-doctrinal and interdisciplinary research work by lawyers, the argument put forward in this chapter is that the doctrinal method still necessarily forms the basis for most, if not all, legal research projects.7 Valid research is built on sound foundations, so before embarking on any theoretical critique of the law or empirical study about the law in operation, it is incumbent on the researcher to verify the authority and status of the legal doctrine being examined. The way to accomplish
this is by using a doctrinal legal research method. The first step prior to any empirical work is to check that the doctrine, properly interpreted, is being complied with, so the researcher can decide whether any perceived defects are a result of poor doctrine or lack of compliance with the doctrine.
