VolokhEugene, ‘Writing a Student Article’ (1998) 48Journal of Legal Education247, 248.
5.
MarcuNicoleta Aurelia, ‘Drawing Up Academic Articles on Legal Matters’ (2013) 16(3) Juridical Current110, 110.
6.
NagelStuart S, ‘Testing Empirical Generalizations in Legal Research’ (1962–1963) 15Journal of Legal Education365, 366.
7.
A move away from the dictatorial role of the hypothesis may be detected in some forms of research: Although there is a variety of different research approaches that are inspired by poststructural and discourse-theoretical premises, with respect to research strategy and methodology, these approaches are united in that they do not set out to verify a pre-determined hypothesis.' (LoughnanArlieShackelRita, ‘The Travails of Postgraduate Research in Law’ (2009) 19Legal Education Review99, 107).
8.
PosnerRichard, In ‘Memoriam: Bernard D. Meltzer (1914–2007)’ (2007) 74(2) University of Chicago Law Review435, 437. As found in HutchinsonTerryDuncanNigel, ‘Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research’ (2012) 17Deakin Law Review83, at 107.
9.
VolokhEugene, ‘Writing a Student Article’ (1998) 48Journal of Legal Education247, 248.
10.
It goes without saying that some commentators may disagree with my assertion here. See, eg, Cohen, above n 1, 233 as to what is scientific in law.
11.
To use one of Solum's examples, walking one's dog does not violate the antitrust law and as a result the antitrust laws are not completely indeterminate – this is an easy case, and a case that I think unsuitable as a PhD topic. See further: SolumLawrence B, ‘On the Indeterminacy Crisis: Critiquing Critical Dogma’ (1987) 54University of Chicago Law Review462–503, 472.
12.
SvantessonDan, ‘What is “Law”, if “the Law” is Not Something That “Is”? A Modest Contribution to a Major Question’ (September 2013) 26(3) Ratio Juris456–85, 465.
13.
DickersonReed, ‘Legal Drafting: Writing as Thinking, or, Talk-Back from Your Draft and How to Exploit It’ (1977–1978) 29Journal of Legal Education373, 374–5.
14.
Ibid376.
15.
HutchinsonTerry, Researching and Writing in Law (Lawbook Co, 2nd ed, 2006) 147.
16.
Hutchinson acknowledges that ‘the “hypothesis” used may simply be a working idea of what the outcome of the study might be’ and that it is ‘likely to be tentative and provide possible explanations only.’ In fact, she states that at an early stage ‘it is likely to be no more than a “gut” feeling’. (Ibid).
17.
I am indebted to two of the anonymous reviewers for this perspective.
18.
FrankfurterFelixLlewellynKarl NSunderlandEdson R, ‘The Conditions for and the Aims and Methods of Legal Research’ (1926–1930) 6American Law School Review663, 668.
19.
For an interesting discussion see: HutchinsonTerryDuncanNigel, above n 8.
20.
Volokh, above n 9, 249.
21.
See further: SvantessonDan, ‘A Legal Method for Solving Issues of Internet Regulation’ (Autumn 2011) 19(3) International Journal of Law and Information Technology243–63.
22.
LlewellynKarl N, ‘On What Makes Legal Research Worth While’ (1956) 8 (4) Journal of Legal Education399, 402.
