KENYATTA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW
LPL 314 : LEGAL RESEARCH AND WRITING – II
By : Dr. JohnPaul Kanya Musembi
RESEARCH
SYNOPTICAL OUTLINE:
a) Types of Research
b) Research Methods and Research Methodology
c) Sources of Information
d) Doctrinal and Non-Doctrinal Research

Types of Research

(i) Descriptive and Analytical Research,

(ii) Applied and Fundamental Research,
(iii) Quantitative and Qualitative Research, and
(iv) Conceptual and Empirical Research.

Descriptive vs. Analytical Research

Descriptive research, as its name suggests, describes the state of affairs as it

exists at present. It merely describes the phenomenon or situation under study
and its characteristics. It reports only what has happened or what is happening.
It therefore does not go into the causes of the phenomenon or situation. The
methods commonly used in descriptive research are survey methods of all
kinds, including comparative and co-relational methods, and fact-finding
enquiries of different kinds. Thus, descriptive research cannot be used for
creating causal relationship between variables. While in analytical research, the
researcher uses his facts or information already available and makes their
analysis to make a critical evaluation of the material.

Applied vs. Fundamental Research

Applied research or action research aims at finding a solution for an immediate

problem. Here the researcher sees his research in a practical context. While in
fundamental research or pure research or basic research, the researcher is
mainly concerned with generalization and with the formulation of a theory. He
undertakes research only to derive some increased knowledge in a field of his
inquiry. He is least bothered about its practical context or utility. Research
studies concerning human behavior carried on with a view to making
generalizations about human behavior fall in the category of fundamental or
pure research. But if the research (about human behavior) is carried out with a
view to solving a problem (related to human behavior), it falls in the domain of
applied or action research. The central aim of applied research is to discover a
solution for some pressing practical problem, while that of fundamental
research is to find additional information about a phenomenon and thereby to
add to the existing body of scientific knowledge. The ‘applied’ scientist is thus
works within a set of certain values and norms to which he feels committed. A
sociologist, for example, when works with a social problem to find solution
therefor and proposes, through a systematic inquiry, a solution or suggests some
measures to ameliorate the problem, his research takes the label of ‘applied’ or
‘action’ research. But when he undertakes a study just to find out the ‘what’,
‘how’ of the social problem, his inquiry takes the nomenclature of ‘pure’ or
‘fundamental’ research. However, the above-mentioned ‘distinguishing factor’
between the ‘applied’ and ‘fundamental’ research need not be conceived as a
‘line’ putting the two ‘across’ the ‘line’ forever or an ‘either-or’ dichotomy. In
fact, they are not mutually exclusive. There is a constant interplay between the
two, each contributing to the other in many ways.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research

Quantitative research is based on the measurement of quantity or amount. It is

applicable to a phenomenon that can be expressed in terms of quantity. It is
systematic scientific investigation of quantitative properties of a phenomenon
and their inter-relation. The objective of quantitative research is to develop and
employ mathematical models, theories and hypotheses pertaining to the
phenomenon under inquiry. The process of measurement, thus, is central to
quantitative research because it provides fundamental connection between
empirical observation and mathematical expression of quantitative relationship.
Qualitative research, on the other hand, is concerned with qualitative
phenomenon, i.e. phenomenon relating to or involving quality or kind. For
example, when a researcher is interested in investigating the reasons for, or
motives behind, certain human behavior, say why people think or do certain
things, or in investing their attitudes towards, or opinions about, a particular
subject or institution, say adultery or judiciary, his research becomes qualitative
research. Unlike quantitative research, qualitative research relies on reason
behind various aspects of behavior.

Conceptual vs. Empirical Research

Conceptual research is related to some abstract idea(s) or theory. It is generally

used by philosophers and thinkers to develop new concepts or to re-interpret the
existing ones. On the other hand, empirical research relies on experience or
observation alone, often without due regard for system or theory. It is data-
based research, coming up with conclusions that are capable of being verified
by observation or experiment. It is therefore also known as experimental
research.

In empirical research, it is necessary to get facts firsthand, at their source. In

such research, the researcher must first provide himself with a working
hypothesis or guess as to the probable results. He then works to gets enough
facts (i.e. data) to prove or disprove his hypothesis.

Research Methods and Research Methodology

The term ‘research methods’ refers to all those methods and techniques that are
used by a researcher in conducting his research. The term, thus, refers to the
methods, techniques or tools employed by a researcher for collecting and
processing of data, establishing the relationship between the data and unknown
facts, and evaluating the accuracy of the results obtained.
Sometimes, it is used to designate the concepts and procedures employed in the
analysis of data, howsoever collected, to arrive at conclusion. In other words,
‘research methods’ are the ‘tools and techniques’ in a ‘tool box’ that can be
used for collection of data (or for gathering evidence) and analysis thereof.

‘Research methods’ therefore, can be put into the following three groups:

1. The methods which are concerned with the collection of data [when the data
already available are not sufficient to arrive at the required solution].

2. The statistical techniques [which are used for establishing relationships

between the data and the unknowns].

3. The methods which are used to evaluate the accuracy of the results obtained.

The term ‘research methodology’, on the other hand, refers to a ‘way to

systematically solve’ the research problem. It may be understood as a ‘science
of studying how research is done scientifically’. It involves a study of various
steps and methods that a researcher needs generally to adopt in his investigation
of a research problem along with the logic behind them. It is a study of not only
of methods but also of explanation and justification for using certain research
methods and of the methods themselves.

It includes in it the philosophy and practice of the whole research process. In

other words, research methodology is a set of rules of procedures about the way
of conducting research. It includes in it not just a compilation of various
research methods but also the rules for their application (in a given situation)
and validity (for the research problem at hand).

A researcher, therefore, is required to know not only the research methods or

techniques but also the methodology, as he needs to decide as well as to
understand the relevancy and efficacy of the research methods in pursuing the
research problem at hand. He may be confronted with equally relevant and
efficacious alternative research methods and techniques at each stage of his
research study. He, therefore, has to consciously resort to the research methods
and techniques that are most appropriate to carry his investigation in a more
systematic manner. This becomes possible only when he is acquainted with the
underlying assumptions and utility of various research methods or techniques
available to him.

A study of research methodology equips him with this kind of knowledge and
skill. C R Kothari, bringing out the correlation between research methods and
research methodology, observed:

--- [R]esearch methodology has many dimensions and research

methods do constitute a part of the research methodology. The scope
of research methodology is wider than that of research methods. Thus,
when we talk of research methodology we not only talk of the
research methods but also consider the logic behind the methods we
use in the context of our research study and explain why we are using
a particular method or technique and why we are not using others so
that research results are capable of being evaluated either by the
researcher himself or by others. Why a research study has been
undertaken, how the research problem has been identified, in what
way and why the hypothesis has been formulated, what data have
been collected and what particular method has been adopted, why
particular technique of analyzing data has been used and a host of
similar other questions are usually answered when we talk of research
methodology concerning a research problem or study.
A study of research methodology has the following advantages:

1. It inculcates in a researcher the ability to formulate his research problem in

an intelligent manner.

2. It inculcates in him objectivity in perceiving his research problem and

seeking solutions therefore.

3. It equips him to carry out his research undertaking in an efficient manner and
in a better way.

4. It enables him to take rational decisions at every step of his research.

5. It enables him to design appropriate research technique(s) and to use it

(them) in an intelligent and efficient manner.

6.It enhances his ability to analyze and interpret data with reasonable
objectivity and confidence.

7. It enhances ability of the researcher and/or others to evaluate research

findings objectively and use the research results in a confident way.

8. It entails a good research.

9. It enables him to find a satisfactory way of acquiring new knowledge.

Importance of knowing ‘research methodology’ or ‘the way of doing research’

is well articulated by C R Kothari as follows: In fact, importance of knowing
the methodology of research or how research is done stems from the following
considerations:

(i) The knowledge of methodology provides good training specially to the

new research worker and enables him to do better research. It helps him
 to develop disciplined thinking or ‘bent of mind’ to observe the field
objectively.
(ii) Knowledge of how to do research will inculcate the ability to evaluate
and use research results with reasonable confidence.
(iii) When one knows how research is done, then one may have the
satisfaction of acquiring a new intellectual tool which can become a way
of looking at the world and of judging every day experience.
Accordingly, it enables us to make intelligent decisions concerning
problems facing us in practical life at different points of time. Thus, the
knowledge of research methodology provides tools to look at things
objectively.
(iv) The knowledge of methodology helps the consumer of research results to
evaluate them and enables him to take rational decisions.

IMPORTANCE (PURPOSE) OF LEGAL RESEARCH

Law, as mentioned earlier, does not operate in a vacuum. It operates in a

complex ‘social setting’. It reflects social attitudes and behavior. It also seeks to
mold and control social attitudes and behavior of people to ensure that they
flow the expected channel.

However, social values and attitudes, existing as well as expected, keep on

changing. It makes the law to be dynamic and cope with the changing social
ethos. Further, ongoing scientific and technological developments add to these
complexities by creating new complex human relationship that needs law to
regulate.

In such situations, legal research, inter alia, becomes necessary:

 (i) for ascertainment of law on a given topic or subject,
(ii) to highlight ambiguities and inbuilt weaknesses of law,
(iii) to critically examine legal provisions, principles or doctrines with a view
to see consistency, coherence and stability of law and its underlying
policy,
(iv) to undertake social audit of law with a view to highlighting its pre-
legislative ‘forces’ and post-legislative ‘impacts’, and
(v) to make suggestions for improvements in, and development of, law.

Legal research, to sum up, needs to be carried out for the following reasons:

1. To ascertain laws on a given topic or subject.

2. To identify ‘gaps’ and ‘ambiguities’ in law.

3. To critically examine consistency, coherence and stability of law and legal

propositions.

4. To undertake ‘social auditing of law’ [i.e. auditing pre-Legislative ‘forces’ and

post-Legislative ‘impacts’ of law].

5. To suggest reforms/developments in law by undertakings research intended:

i. To investigate ‘gap’ between the ‘legal ideals’ and ‘actual practice’.

ii. To understand ‘effectiveness’ or ‘impact’ of law in a given social set-up

at a given time.

iii. To find out as to whether law is serving the needs of the society and has a
social value.
 iv. To make suggestions for improvements in the law on concrete
formulations and proposals.

v. To predict future trends of law

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The various sources of information may be categorized into primary, secondary or

tertiary.

Primary sources

The sources that contain original information and observations are known as
primary sources of information. Such information can be collected directly from
the persons having such information or can be found in research papers published
in legal periodicals/ journals, reports, theses and conference papers. Legal
periodicals and journals are indispensable sources of information for a legal
researcher.

They contain wealth of the first hand and in-depth information on a particular
point. Reports, published by Governmental or non-governmental agencies, also
contain rich information on the subject of inquiry. Doctoral dissertations (theses
leading to Ph D Degree), which offer very systematic and in-depth analysis of the
subject-matter/aspect delved therein and the conclusions/opinions/suggestions
based on the analysis, constitute another primary source of information.

Similar is the case of conference papers. Primary sources in legal research,

therefore, are the Constitution, National Gazette, which publish
Acts/Proclamations passed by Parliament (and by State Legislature), Rules,
Regulations, Statutory Orders, and Directives of Administrative Agencies, and
case reports that publish judicial pronouncements of different higher courts. All
these sources contain rich original information/observations about the identified
research problem. They are indeed indispensable for any legal researcher.

Secondary sources

Secondary sources of information furnish the information derived from primary

sources. These sources organize the information in a systematic manner and in a
planned way. These secondary sources include textbooks, treatises, commentaries
on statutes, abstracts, bibliographies, dictionaries, encyclopedias, indexes, reviews,
and thesauri. Textbooks, legal treatises, and commentaries on statutes constitute
significant secondary sources of legal research.

Tertiary sources

Tertiary sources include directories, subject guides and Union lists. There are
numerous scientific directories that provide list of journals, scientists, universities.
They list their information quite like the telephone directory. These help the
researcher to tap appropriate journals and expert advice on the topic of research.

Union list is the list of all the journals that are available either in the given library
(union list for the library) or all the libraries in the country (national union list).
The union list for a particular library tells you the journals the library subscribes to,
the issues of these journals that are available and the missing volumes. Union lists
are invaluable in tracking down a journal. If a journal you need is not available in
your local library the national union list will help you locate a library in the
country that has a copy.
Major Stages in Legal Research

Invariably every research begins with a question or a problem of some sort. The
aim of research is to know ‘something more’ about ‘something’ or to discover
answers to meaningful questions through the application of scientific procedures.
Legal research is not an exception to this general precept of research.

However, undertaking and executing legal research, as a systematic inquiry, is a

complex process. It involves a three-stage process. Each one of them warrants
skill. The processes are research planning, research implementation, and presenting
of research findings.

A cumulative reading of these three-stage processes of legal research and of their

components leads to the following major processes that, like any other research,
involve in legal research. They may be presented in a flowchart as under:

Identification and Formulation of a Research Problem

Review of Literature

Formulation of a Hypothesis (where feasible)

Research Design

Collection of Data
 ↓

Analysis of Data

Interpretation of Data

Research Report

These stages are not mutually exclusive. They overlap continuously rather than
following the prescribed sequence strictly. The order sketched above is meant to
provide a procedural guideline for research.

Doctrinal and Non-Doctrinal Legal Research

As mentioned earlier, a scholar of law, interested in legal research, may adopt any
of the following courses in doing his research:

1. Write a historical essay showing the development in a field of law or a

particular doctrine.
2. Analyze a legal doctrine, rule, principle or concept to see whether it matches
with the thitherto judicial statements and to suggest new set of statements or
principles if the existing ones, in his opinion, do not match. While doing so,
he can highlight ambiguous in the doctrine or gaps prevalent therein and
state, with rationale and reasons, what are the correct propositions of law
that need to apply. For suggesting correct propositions, he may rely upon the
underlying policy of the doctrine, rule, principle or concept.
3. Write a kind of survey on the recent developments in law summarizing the
most important cases, analyzing how they have followed, or deviated from,
the past cases, and make a guess as to what the courts would do in future.
4. Write about ‘what I believe in’. This is usually a matter of deploring a
legislative or judicial trend.
5. Write about ‘relationship’ between the ‘law’ and the ‘world’ i.e. other
behavioral sciences.

Doctrinal legal research

Doctrinal legal research, as conceived in the legal research domain, is research

‘about’ what the prevailing state of legal doctrine, legal rule, or legal principle
is. A legal scholar undertaking doctrinal legal research, therefore, takes one or
more legal propositions, principles, rules or doctrines as a starting point and
focus of his study.

He ‘locates’ such a principle, rule or doctrine in statutory instrument(s), judicial

opinions thereon, discussions thereof in legal treatises, commentaries,
textbooks, encyclopedias, legal periodicals, and debates, if any, that took place
at the formative stage of such a rule, doctrine or proposition.

Thereafter, he ‘reads’ them in a holistic manner and makes an ‘analysis’ of the

material as well as of the rules, doctrines and formulates his ‘conclusions’ and
writes up his study. For example, a legal researcher interested in criminal law
might start with proposition dealing with right against incrimination. Research
then takes place in the law library, where he will ‘locate’ the proposition (along
with its different contours) and its discussions in treatises and textbooks on
criminal law, criminal procedure, and constitutional law, encyclopedia and
leading legal periodicals. He will also try to locate all relevant judicial
pronouncements of the higher judicial institutions delved into the right against
self incrimination.

He will then ‘read’ these materials and ‘analyze’ them by applying his power of
reasoning and will, premised on analytical perspective and the material used,
draw some conclusions about the proposition. He then will write up his study.

He may, in his study advance a set of formulations, supportive or otherwise,

with convincing ‘reasoning’ about the proposition-the right against self-
incrimination. He, in his research report, may offer an alternative
comprehensive paradigm of the doctrine. With a view to drawing parallels
between the doctrine or rule under inquiry, he may also find a comparable
doctrine or rule from other jurisdictions.

He may, depending upon ‘objectives’ of his research, also propose a new

formulation of the rule or doctrine, a model statute or a statutory provision. He
may also highlight the purpose and policy of law that exist and may propose
what it ought to be.

Doctrinal legal research, thus, involves:

(i) systematic analysis of statutory provisions and of legal principles

involved therein, or derived therefrom, and
(ii) logical and rational ordering of the legal propositions and principles. The
researcher gives emphasis on substantive law rules, doctrines, concepts
and judicial pronouncements. He organizes his study around legal
propositions and judicial pronouncements on the legal propositions of the
appellate courts, and other conventional legal materials, such as
parliamentary debates, revealing the legislative intent, policy and history
 of the rule or doctrine. Classic works of legal scholars on the law of torts
and administrative law do furnish outstanding examples of doctrinal legal
research.

Doctrinal legal research, in addition to analytical one, may be historical or

comparative. Historical legal research, unlike analytical one, deals with the
past. It throws light on the past to understand the present. It explores the
circumstances that led to the adoption of the existing law. It gives a clue to the
reasons why a particular provision of law or law was framed in the form in
which now it appears. It also often reveals that a particular existing
provision/law, fully justifiable at the time when it was introduced, is no longer
justifiable because the reasons/circumstances that justified the original inclusion
of that provision/law are no longer valid.

While comparative legal research, as evident from its title, involves

comparative study of comparable laws or legal institutions from different
jurisdictions. It exhibits the lessons that can be learnt from each other’s failures
and achievements.

Aims and Basic Tools of Doctrinal Legal Research

Aims

Doctrinal legal research, thus,

(i) aims to study case law and statutory law, with a view to find law,
(ii) aims at consistency and certainty of law,
(iii) (To some extent) looks into the purpose and policy of law that exists, and
 (iv) aims to study legal institutions.

Therefore, doctrinal legal research should not be undermined merely because it

revolves around statutes and judicial decisions. It immensely contributes to the
continuity, consistency and certainty of law. It also initiates further
development of legal principles and doctrines.

Doctrinal legal research mandates the legal researcher to ‘locate’ the required
apt statutory provisions and judicial reflections thereon that have bearing on the
legal doctrine, concept or rule under inquiry. Such legislative provisions and
judicial decisions constitute the basic data for a doctrinal legal researcher.

Basic Tools

The basic tools of a doctrinal legal researcher, thus, are:

(i) statutory materials,

(ii) case reports,
(iii) standard textbooks and reference books,
(iv) legal periodicals,
(v) Parliamentary Debates and Government Reports, and
(vi) Micro films and CD-ROM.

These tools, depending upon the nature of information they contain, may be
recategorized into primary and secondary sources of information. National Gazette
and Case Reports fall in the first category, while the rest fall in the latter.

Non-Doctrinal Legal Research or Socio-Legal Research

However, in the recent past, doctrinal legal research has received a severe jolt due
to change in the political philosophy of law from the laissez faire to the welfare
state envisaging socio-economic transformation through law and legal institutions,
the consequential new substantive and functional facets of law, and certain
compelling pragmatic considerations arising from this metamorphosis.

Prominent reasons and arguments stressing the need for inquiry into social facets
of law are:

1. the emergence of sociological jurisprudence and its underlying philosophy

assigned ‘law’ the task of ‘social engineering’. Almost every modern
civilized State perceives ‘law’ as an active instrument of socio-economic
justice and thereby a vehicle of social engineering. This new operational
facet of law has inevitably led to enactment of enormous statutes with
specified socio-economic drives. In fact, we have come to live in an age is of
social welfare laws.
2. Secondly, in the light of such a role assigned to law, it is argued, it becomes
necessary to look into the ‘factors’ or ‘interests’ of the Legislature that play
significant role in setting the legislative process in motion and in identifying
the beneficiaries thereof and the reasons therefore. These ‘factors’ and
‘interests’ (for putting law in motion for the desired planned socio-economic
change), indicate, rather dictate, ‘framework’ of the law as well reveal the
choices opted by the Legislature when it faced with alternative ‘paths’
towards, or ‘strategies’ for, the intended legislative goal.
3. Thirdly, it becomes necessary to carry out frequent attitudinal studies of
those whose legal position is sought to be modified by a given law as well as
of those who are vested with the power of interpreting and implementing it
so that the Legislature, armed with this feedback, can fulfill its job in a more
satisfactory manner.
 4. Fourthly, a number of facts or factors that lie outside a legal system may be
responsible for non-implementation or poor implementation of a given piece
of social legislation. A systematic probe into these factors and their
influence on the operation of law, therefore, becomes necessary to identify
these bottlenecks and to design appropriate strategy to remove them or to
minimize their influence on the law so that the law can be made an effective
instrument of socio-economic transformation.
5. Fifthly, there is nearly always a certain ‘gap’ between actual social behavior
and the behavior demanded by the legal norm and certain ‘tension’ between
actual behavior and legally desired behavior. Identification of the ‘gap’ and
‘tension’ as well as factors responsible therefore becomes necessary for
strengthening potentials of law as a vehicle for socio-economic justice.

It is, thus, stressed that an investigation into, through empirical data, the
operational facets of law intending to change or mold human attitudes and to bring
some socioeconomic transformation in the society is more important than
analyzing law as it exists in the book.

Such an inquiry ostensibly involves research into link between law and other
behavioral sciences. Here, emphasis is not on legal concepts or doctrines but on
people, social values and social institutions. It gives importance to economic and
social data rather than legal facts. It concerns with the impact of the legal process
upon people, their values and institutions.

Such research prominently involves an inquiry into dynamics of law, its social
contents, role and impact of law in the social system.
Aims and Basic Tools of Non-Doctrinal Legal Research

Aims

In non-doctrinal legal research, the researcher tries to investigate through empirical

data how law and legal institutions affect or mold human attitudes and what impact
on society they create. He endeavors to look into ‘social face or dimension’ of law
and ‘gap’, if any, between ‘legal idealism’ and ‘social reality’.

Non-doctrinal legal research, thus, involves study of ‘social impact’ of law

(existing or proposed) or of ‘social-auditing of law’. The researcher tries primarily
to seek, among other things, answers to:

(i) Are laws and legal institutions serving the needs of society?
(ii) Are they suited to the society in which they are operating?
(iii) What forces in society have influenced shaping or re-shaping a particular
set of laws or legal norms?
(iv) Are laws properly administered and enforced or do they exist only in
statute books?
(v) What are the factors, if any, responsible for poor or non-implementation
of the laws?
(vi) What are the factors that influenced the adjudicators (courts or
administrative agencies) in interpreting and administrating the laws?
(vii) For whose benefit a law is enacted, and are they using it? Have the
intended ‘legislative targets’ benefited from the law? If not, for what
reasons? Where do ‘bottlenecks’ lie?
(viii) What has been impact of the law or legal institutions in changing attitude
of the people or molding their behavior? and what are the social obstacles
in realization of the expected behavior or change?
The inquiry, in ultimate analysis, relates to:

(i) the legislative processes (inquiring into the initiation and formalization of
law, and the forces, factors or pressure groups that played significant role
in its making and with what objectives),
(ii) its social assimilation (involving an inquiry into its operational facets and
the factors that are responsible for making it dysfunctional), and
(iii) its impact on the intended beneficiaries (involving a post-natal study of
the law).

Most of non-doctrinal legal research, thus, seeks:

(i) to assess the impact of non-legal factors or events upon legal processes or
decisions, or
(ii) to find the ‘gap’ between legal idealism and social reality, or
(iii) to identify and appraise the magnitude of the variable factors influencing
the outcome of legal processes and decisions-making, or
(iv) to trace the consequences of the outcome of legal decision making in
terms of value gains and deprivations for litigants, non-litigants, non-
legal institutions.

A legal researcher undertaking non-doctrinal legal research takes either some

aspects of law or the people and institutions supposedly regulated by law as the
focus of his study. Such a research undertaking, compared to doctrinal legal
research, is much broader and the questions involved therein for further inquiry
are more numerous, the answers of which are not ordinarily available in
conventional legal sources-statutory materials, case reports and legal
periodicals. The researcher is usually required to undertake fieldwork to collect
data for seeking answers to these questions.
However, legal doctrines do not altogether become irrelevant in a non-doctrinal
legal research. They may be included in a non-doctrinal legal study, but if so,
they are treated simply as one of the many variables that may influence
decisions, or affect the practices and attitudes of people, or affect the operation
of institutions.

The distinguishing characteristics of a non-doctrinal legal research, thus, are:

(i) it lays down a different and lesser emphasis upon legal doctrines and
concepts,
(ii) it seeks answers to a variety of broader questions,
(iii) it is not anchored exclusively to appellate case reports and other
traditional legal sources for its data, and
(iv) it invariably involves the use of research perspectives, research designs,
conceptual frameworks, skills, and training not peculiar to law trained
personnel.

To put it differently, non-doctrinal legal research aims at highlighting the ‘gaps’

that exist between the ‘law-in-the statute book’ (that is, the image of law
projected in the books) and ‘law-in-action’ (that is, the perception it exhibits in
reality), and impact of law on the social behavior.

The former discloses the gap between legal idealism and social reality and
thereby it highlights the disjunction that exists between the law-in the books
and the law-in-action. While the latter, highlights the factors that are thwarting
the operation of law and thereby diminishing the attainment of its goal. It helps
us to find out the deficiencies in an enactment and the problem of its
implementation. And its impact on the society.
Basic tools in Non-Doctrinal Research

The basic tools of data collection for a socio-legal research, thus, are:

(i) interview,
(ii) questionnaire,
(iii) schedule,
(iv) interview guide,
(v) observation, participant or non-participant, and
(vi) published or unpublished materials (such as Census Reports, Reports of
Governmental and/or Non-Governmental Agencies, and appropriate
literature on sociology of law).

The first four methods of data collection are ‘primary sources’ of empirical data
as they are used in getting the required information ‘directly’ from the
respondents. While the last one is ‘secondary source’ of information as the
researcher collects the necessary information ‘indirectly’ from published and/or
unpublished documents.

Further, ‘interview’ and ‘schedule’ involve direct ‘oral communication’

between the information-giver (respondent) and the information-seeker
(investigator), while ‘questionnaire’ involves ‘written communication’ between
the researcher and his respondents. In ‘observation’, unlike in interview,
schedule and questionnaire, the researcher uses his ‘eyes’, rather than ears, for
collecting data. Hence, it is a ‘visual method’ of data collection.