Rethinking Legal Research Methodology: Addressing Conceptual Confusions and Methodological Gaps

Abstract

Legal research occupies a unique yet unsettled space within academic inquiry rooted in tradition, yet often resistant to methodological reflection and innovation. This paper critically examines the conceptual and methodological gaps that hinder the development of legal research as a coherent discipline. It highlights the persistent confusion between sources and data, the absence of a distinct methodological identity, and the overreliance on doctrinal approaches that fail to capture law’s interaction with society. The marginalization of socio-legal perspectives and the superficial adoption of qualitative methods further illustrate the epistemic and practical limitations of current research practices. Central to this critique is the discipline’s neglect of foundational philosophical questions specifically, ontology and epistemology which serve as the basis for methodological coherence in other fields. The paper argues that legal research must move beyond inherited doctrinalism and uncritical borrowing from the social sciences toward an integrated, discipline-sensitive methodology. By advocating for a pluralistic approach that combines normative analysis with empirical insight, and that is grounded in a clear understanding of law's dual character as both a normative and social institution, the paper proposes a framework capable of revitalizing legal scholarship. This rethinking is essential if legal research is to produce knowledge that is not only academically rigorous but also responsive to contemporary societal challenges such as global inequality, technological change, and climate justice.