Use of Propositions and Hypotheses in Legal Research: A Critical Reflection

Abstract

This paper offers a critical reflection on the use of propositions and hypotheses in legal research, engaging with their definitions, roles, benefits, and limitations within the methodological traditions of common law scholarship. It traces the origins of hypotheses as tentative, testable statements grounded in the scientific method, while acknowledging the challenges of translating this model into a discipline primarily concerned with normative reasoning, doctrinal analysis, and interpretive judgment. Propositions, understood as broader assertions about the law or legal principles, are highlighted as central to legal reasoning and scholarship, functioning as the building blocks of doctrinal analysis and theoretical debate. The paper argues that while hypotheses can provide clarity, focus, and methodological discipline particularly in socio-legal and empirical studies that rely on data collection, observation, and measurable outcomes they may be ill-suited for many doctrinal inquiries where legal interpretation and normative evaluation take precedence. Through analysis of both supportive and critical perspectives, the paper demonstrates that hypotheses can sharpen inquiry, prevent bias, and contribute to theory-building, yet their rigid application risks oversimplifying complex legal issues, fostering confirmation bias, or constraining creativity in normative debates. Drawing on examples from doctrinal, socio-legal, and interdisciplinary research, it emphasizes that the value of hypotheses lies in their context-sensitive use: as valuable tools in empirical inquiry and sometimes useful aids in doctrinal studies, but not as universally mandatory features of legal research. Ultimately, the paper concludes that propositions and hypotheses should be seen as complementary devices that, when applied judiciously, enhance the rigour and relevance of legal scholarship, but that legal researchers must remain flexible and critical in deciding whether to employ them, ensuring that the methodology serves the research problem rather than dictates it.