The researcher must also demonstrate objectivity in interpreting historical events and provide an appropriate historical perspective on the topic under study. The sociological approach uses empirical data to study how law and legal institutions influence human attitudes and what impact they have on society; Assessment of the adequacy of legal institutions to the needs of society. Frontier research is conducted to explore areas about which the researcher has little or no knowledge. It is about finding the reason for things, events and situations, and showing why and how they became what they are. Exploratory research allows the researcher to formulate problems for further investigation, develop hypotheses and find the best solution. In the analytical approach, the researcher should consider the positive aspect of the law, for example: what a legal situation is and emphasize its normative aspect, for example what a legal situation should be. Quantitative research is about finding a solution to a real problem that requires political action or decision. The main advantage of the qualitative method is that the qualitative analysis relies on the interpretive abilities of the researcher and opens up the possibility that more than one explanation is valid. As a result, empirical or interdisciplinary legal research has emerged as an independent type of jurisprudence in law schools in Western countries to study law in broader social and political contexts.
An analytical approach is sometimes considered doctrinal research. Legal research methods perform three main functions: the study of a legal problem, the critical description of facts and laws, and the explanation or interpretation of legal issues and concepts. In most cases, the analytical approach focuses on one or more legal concepts or theories. But historical research can be aimed at the simple scientific desire of the researcher to arrive at an accurate account of the past. The same reasons are given for legal research. With proper analysis, it could be concluded that the scientific method can usefully be applied to social law research if reasonable precautions are taken to develop appropriate indicators. On the contrary, the combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches may be the best way to achieve the objectives of the research work. Quantitative research can provide new evidence, challenge old theories, and contribute to conceptual clarification.
Indeed, in quantitative research, researchers use a number of statistical methods and generalizations to determine the meaning of data. Qualitative research is crucial in the behavioral sciences, where it is about uncovering the underlying patterns of human behavior. A qualitative approach deals with the subjective assessment of attitudes, opinions and behaviours. Normative analysis concerns rational criticism and evaluation of legal doctrines and rules. Such judicial interpretation and procedure should only be a logical application of existing legislation. An analytical method is the most important and widely used in legal research. The analysis includes an explanation of the cause and effect of complex phenomena. Doctrinal legal research provides a systematic presentation of the rules of a particular legal category, analyzes the relationship between the rules, explains problems, and predicts future developments. More recently, pure and doctrinal legal research has been criticized for its rigidity, narrower scope, and lack of flexibility in dealing with the different contexts in which legal issues or situations arise and operate. “The context of the research process is a factor that matters,” the participant said, “but I don`t think it`s on the eligibility scale.
If this is the case, it should be possible for the industry expert to be excluded for the same reason. To balance the scale, he suggested, courts should require full disclosure of all possible biases, including studies that have been conducted, that have not been conducted, and that have been conducted but rejected. Under the current rules, workshop participants were informed that the opposing party does not have the right to disclose which parts of a particular study are reported and which are not.