Law dissertations : a step-by-step guide 9781138240674, 1138240672, 9781138240681, 1138240680, 9781315282824, 1315282828, 9781315282831, 1315282836

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
Acknowledgements
1 Introduction
Why read this book?
What will you find in this book?
How to do well
Summary
2 Finding and perfecting your topic
2.1 Key questions to consider when choosing a dissertation topic
2.2 Inspiration for finding a topic for research
2.3 Brainstorming
Summary
3 From a topic to a question
3.1 Narrowing down your topic to a question
3.2 What is a compelling research question?
3.3 Tasks on evaluating and strengthening research questions
3.4 Tools for self-evaluation
Summary
4 Creating a good research proposal
4.1 What is a research proposal?
4.2 Proposal as a ‘running document’
4.3 Evaluate sample proposals
4.4 Evaluate your proposal
Summary
5 Planning the project
5.1 Scheduling and working effectively
5.2 Creating a research journal
Summary
6 Creating a research plan
6.1 Formulating research aim and objectives
6.2 Creating a research plan
Summary
7 Online research
7.1 Online sources: the good, the bad, and the ugly
7.2 How to locate different legal databases
7.3 How to use different databases
7.4 How to use publicly available resources
Summary
8 Methodology
8.1 Introduction to methodology
8.2 Blackletter law methodology
8.3 Socio-legal methodology
8.4 Theory as a methodology
8.5 Comparative law methodology
8.6 How to engage with methodology
8.7 Reflexivity
Summary
9 Empirical research
9.1 What is empirical research in law?
9.2 Examples of empirical legal research
9.3 Pros and cons of empirical research
9.4 How to conduct empirical research
9.5 Presenting research findings
9.6 Key principles of research ethics
9.7 What is ethics approval?
9.8 Other ethical issues
Summary
10 Processing literature
10.1 What is key literature?
10.2 Deciding what to read and what not to read
10.3 How to create a working bibliography
10.4 Quick reading skills
10.5 Deep reading skills
10.6 Critically analysing a text
10.7 A critical and reflective reader
Summary
11 Literature review
11.1 What is a literature review?
11.2 Why conduct a literature review?
11.3 Sources for literature review
11.4 How to conduct a literature review
11.5 Highlighting the originality of your research project
Summary
12 Writing the dissertation
12.1 Understanding and improving your writing skills
12.2 Writing good paragraphs
12.3 How to captivate your audience
12.4 Making an argument
12.5 How to incorporate evidence into your writing
Summary
13 Referencing
13.1 Why reference?
13.2 Plagiarism and academic offences
13.3 OSCOLA referencing in a nutshell
13.4 Harvard referencing in a nutshell
13.5 Exercises to test your referencing skills
Summary
14 Structuring the dissertation
14.1 How to structure the introduction
14.2 How to structure the main body
14.3 How to structure the conclusion
14.4 Signposting
14.5 Creating a reverse outline
Summary
15 Navigating supervision
15.1 What are the roles of a supervisor and a supervisee?
15.2 Managing your supervision meetings
15.3 Supervision guidelines
15.4 Feedback cycle
15.5 Working with a critical friend
15.6 Tools for critical friend and for self-evaluation
Summary
16 Obtaining a first and avoiding fails
16.1 How to get a first
16.2 Why does a dissertation fail?
16.3 How to avoid common pitfalls
Summary
17 Preparing for submission
17.1 Presentation and layout of the dissertation
17.2 What are the examiners looking for?
17.3 Final presentation/submission checklist
Summary
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

‘In a very accessible format, Law Dissertations: A Step-by-Step Guide takes the mystery out of the process of dissertation writing. Thoroughly covering all aspects of law dissertations, from planning to implementation, the book is an essential tool for law dissertation students and those teaching legal research and writing skills.’ – Dr Ryan Hill, Senior Lecturer in Law, Anglia Law School ‘This book is an invaluable tool that I would recommend to any law student writing a dissertation or assessed essay. It is written in a clear, accessible style and covers all aspects of the dissertation including: how to do research; how to know which are the best sources; and how present your knowledge in an essay so as to achieve the best results.’ – Laura Giachardi, 42 Bedford Row ‘I would advise any student who aspires to writing a law dissertation to read this book before starting their work. Then, see what happens: a step closer to a good job.’ – Dr Alessandro Spano, Senior Research Associate, The Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London

Law Dissertations

Law Dissertations: A Step-by-Step Guide provides you with all the guidance and information you need to complete and succeed in your LLB, LLM or law-related dissertation. Written in a simple, clear format and with plenty of tools to help you to put the theory into practice, Laura Lammasniemi will show you how to make writing your law dissertation easy, without compromising intellectual rigour. As well as explaining the process of research and outlining the various legal methodologies, the book also provides practical, step-by-step guidance on how to formulate a proposal, research plan, and literature review. Unlike other law research skills books, it includes a section on empirical research methodology and ethics for the benefit of students who are studying for a law-related degree. Packed full of exercises, worked examples, and tools for self-evaluation, this book is sure to become your essential guide, supporting you on every step of your journey in writing your law dissertation. Dr Laura Lammasniemi is an Assistant Professor at School of Law, University of Warwick. She specialises in legal research skills, criminal law, and public law. She has previously convened Dissertation modules in a number of institutions and developed Dissertation module materials for the University of London (International Academy). Lammasniemi’s research focuses on law, gender, and crime from historical perspective.

Law Dissertations A Step-by-Step Guide

Laura Lammasniemi

First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Laura Lammasniemi The right of Laura Lammasniemi to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Lammasniemi, Laura, author. Title: Law dissertations: a step-by-step guide/Laura Lammasniemi. Description: New York, NY: Routledge, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017049855 | ISBN 9781138240674 (hbk) | ISBN 9781138240681 (pbk) | ISBN 9781315282831 (epub) | ISBN 9781315282824 (kindle) Subjects: LCSH: Law—Study and teaching—Great Britain. | Legal composition. | Dissertations, Academic—Great Britain. | Law—Study and teaching. | Dissertations, Academic. Classification: LCC KD442. L36 2018 | DDC 808.06/634—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017049855 ISBN: 978-1-138-24067-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-24068-1 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-28285-5 (ebk) Typeset in Joanna MT by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

Acknowledgements

xi

1 Introduction Why read this book? 1 What will you find in this book? 1 How to do well 5 Summary 5

1

2 Finding and perfecting your topic 2.1 Key questions to consider when choosing a dissertation topic 7 2.2 Inspiration for finding a topic for research 8 2.3 Brainstorming 12 Summary 14

6

3 From a topic to a question 3.1 Narrowing down your topic to a question 16 3.2 What is a compelling research question? 20 3.3 Tasks on evaluating and strengthening research questions 21 3.4 Tools for self-evaluation 24 Summary 25

15

4 Creating a good research proposal 4.1 What is a research proposal? 27 4.2 Proposal as a ‘running document’ 29 4.3 Evaluate sample proposals 29 4.4 Evaluate your proposal 33 Summary 34

26

5 Planning the project 5.1 Scheduling and working effectively 36 5.2 Creating a research journal 40 Summary 42

35

viii

Contents

6 Creating a research plan 6.1 Formulating research aim and objectives 44 6.2 Creating a research plan 46 Summary 52

43

7 Online research 7.1 Online sources: the good, the bad, and the ugly 54 7.2 How to locate different legal databases 57 7.3 How to use different databases 59 7.4 How to use publicly available resources 63 Summary 68

53

8 Methodology 8.1 Introduction to methodology 70 8.2 Blackletter law methodology 72 8.3 Socio-legal methodology 74 8.4 Theory as a methodology 75 8.5 Comparative law methodology 76 8.6 How to engage with methodology 78 8.7 Reflexivity 80 Summary 82

69

9 Empirical research 9.1 What is empirical research in law? 84 9.2 Examples of empirical legal research 85 9.3 Pros and cons of empirical research 86 9.4 How to conduct empirical research 87 9.5 Presenting research findings 92 9.6 Key principles of research ethics 93 9.7 What is ethics approval? 96 9.8 Other ethical issues 97 Summary 100

83

10 Processing literature 10.1 What is key literature? 102 10.2 Deciding what to read and what not to read 103 10.3 How to create a working bibliography 105 10.4 Quick reading skills 106 10.5 Deep reading skills 109 10.6 Critically analysing a text 110 10.7 A critical and reflective reader 112 Summary 114

101

Contents ix 11 Literature review 11.1 What is a literature review? 116 11.2 Why conduct a literature review? 117 11.3 Sources for literature review 117 11.4 How to conduct a literature review 120 11.5 Highlighting the originality of your research project 123 Summary 123

115

12 Writing the dissertation 12.1 Understanding and improving your writing skills 125 12.2 Writing good paragraphs 127 12.3 How to captivate your audience 132 12.4 Making an argument 135 12.5 How to incorporate evidence into your writing 136 Summary 139

124

13 Referencing 13.1 Why reference? 141 13.2 Plagiarism and academic offences 142 13.3 OSCOLA referencing in a nutshell 144 13.4 Harvard referencing in a nutshell 147 13.5 Exercises to test your referencing skills 150 Summary 154

140

14 Structuring the dissertation 14.1 How to structure the introduction 156 14.2 How to structure the main body 158 14.3 How to structure the conclusion 161 14.4 Signposting 161 14.5 Creating a reverse outline 163 Summary 166

155

15 Navigating supervision 15.1 What are the roles of a supervisor and a supervisee? 168 15.2 Managing your supervision meetings 171 15.3 Supervision guidelines 173 15.4 Feedback cycle 174 15.5 Working with a critical friend 175 15.6 Tools for critical friend and for self-evaluation 176 Summary 177

167

x Contents 16 Obtaining a first and avoiding fails 16.1 How to get a first 179 16.2 Why does a dissertation fail? 181 16.3 How to avoid common pitfalls 183 Summary 183

178

17 Preparing for submission 17.1 Presentation and layout of the dissertation 185 17.2 What are the examiners looking for? 186 17.3 Final presentation/submission checklist 187 Summary 188

184

Bibliography Index

189 191

Acknowledgements

This book stems from my work with dissertation projects and supervising dissertations in different universities, in particular University of London (International Academy) and Anglia Ruskin University. I owe a great deal to my colleagues (too numerous to mention all) with whom I have taught and supervised various projects. Many of them also contributed to the advice from examiners sections. In particular, I wish to thank Nicola Monaghan for encouraging me to write this book and Frederick Cowell for his continuing support and for helping to shape its direction. Thank you to my friends and colleagues for patience over the final months of the writing process. A special thank you to Kanika Sharma for her patience and for putting our research project on Age of Consent in the British Empire on hold while I finished the book. Thank you also to the editorial team at Routledge, and in particular Chloe James who has dealt with all enquiries with impressive speed and efficiency. Most of all, I am indebted to all the students with whom I have worked on various projects over the years. Their enthusiasm and passion never cease to amaze me.

1

Introduction

Dissertation writing comes with a range of emotions: excitement and enthusiasm, but perhaps also fear and sense of being overwhelmed. The primary aim of this book is to tackle the issues that cause anxiety to dissertation students so that you can focus on the research that you find exciting. The book breaks the process of dissertation writing into accessible, simple steps and guides you through the process from the moment you start to plan your project to the day of submission.

Why read this book? Although there are many generic books on dissertation writing and even some books on legal research skills, this book focuses specifically on law dissertations. The primary goal of this book is to provide an accessible introduction to law dissertation writing. The book consists of easy-to-follow steps and exercises aimed at breaking down the process into small tasks that help you successfully build the project without anxiety. The book is aimed at all students studying law. Whether you are studying for a qualifying law degree (LLB) or law-related course such as Law and Business, or Law and Literature, this book will guide you through the dissertation writing journey. If you are entering the final year of your studies with a clearly formulated, critical research question, wealth of research experience, and outstanding writing skills, this book might not be for you. However, if, like most law students, you are not entirely sure how to go about the dissertation project, or you want to improve your skills – and grades – this book will help you.

What will you find in this book? Many universities offer classes on methodology or on writing, but the steps that students often find most overwhelming – such as formulating a proposal – are rarely taught in class. This book tackles all those aspects of the dissertation writing process, so whether you are working independently or with a supervisor, you will be able to complete your project to the best of your abilities. The book is divided into eight easy-to-follow steps, as shown in Figure 1.1; each helps you to get closer to the submission day:

2

Introduction Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 1.1

The diagram is repeated at the beginning of each chapter so you can monitor your progress before moving on to the Step. Step I: formulating a proposal Step I addresses the burning question of how to come up with a topic for dissertation research. It also has a chapter on how to turn topics into good research questions and how to create excellent proposals. This is particularly important if your university only allows a select number of students to undertake dissertation. Step II: planning and preparing research Step II focuses on the planning. It gives you tools to manage your time and plan for the practical aspects of dissertation writing. It also has a chapter on research plan; this is a common requirement for postgraduate dissertations and now increasingly for undergraduate law dissertations also. Step III: conducting research and tackling methodology Step III focuses on how to conduct and discuss research. It will begin by a chapter that focuses on online research. This chapter is packed with tasks that enable you to utilise good-quality internet sources that are available freely and through university libraries. This Step also has chapters on methodology, both on traditional librarybased and on empirical methodology. It will explain what these methodologies are, and how to draw from them. It concludes with giving you tools to engage with methodologies and research ethics. Step IV: processing literature Step IV focuses on literature. It explains what is key literature in a field, and gives you guidance on reading skills. It also focuses on deep reading skills and has tasks that enable you to become a more reflective reader. This Step also has a chapter on literature reviews for those who need to complete a literature review as part of their dissertation writing process.

Introduction 3 Step V: writing your dissertation Step V focuses on good writing. Everyone who has reached the final year of a law degree can write well enough to pass a dissertation, but this chapter focuses on how to become a good, authoritative, and captivating writer. This Step also includes a chapter on referencing as anyone hoping to obtain the highest marks must possess good referencing skills. Step VI: structuring your dissertation Step VI offers practical guidance on structuring your dissertation based on your chosen methodology. It explains why signposting can make a difference between a very good and an excellent dissertation. It also gives you tools to assess your structure using a ‘reverse outline’. Step VII: navigating supervision Step VII focuses on the area of dissertation writing that often causes the most anxiety: the supervision relationship. What is a good supervision relationship, and how should that relationship be managed? Unlike most writing books, this chapter will also discuss the role of a critical friend and give you tools to evaluate your work if you are working without a supervisor. Step VIII: preparing for submission Step VIII offers on practical aspects of submission. This section also includes a chapter on how to obtain a first and to avoid a fail. There are no magic bullets in getting a first-class dissertation. But by following the steps in this book, incorporating feedback from your supervisor, working hard, and enjoying the process, you are well on the way to a first-class dissertation. Each chapter will have numerous tasks, highlighted by the pen and notepad symbol. Many of these tasks are tools for self-evaluation with no right or wrong answers. The tasks focus on skills you that will help you in the process of thinking and writing about your dissertation. Some tasks have guidance answers, but these are indicative thoughts rather than right/wrong. The tasks are always marked with the notebook and pencil icon. One special feature of this book is that advice from experienced examiners are incorporated to each relevant chapter of this book. The book contains advice from nearly 20 academics who have supervised and examined numerous dissertations and wanted to share their top tips for writing good dissertations with you. In every institution, there are certain things that examiners will look out for. This book has been constructed with those key points in mind. These are marked with the thought bubble icon.

4

Introduction

This book has a number of vignettes and examples to help you think about your topic differently. These are marked with the lightbulb icon.

The examiners will look for how well have you been able to:

explain the methodological basis employed in your research; conduct relevant research; analyse and critically engage with the relevant literature; plan, structure and write a dissertation on a chosen subject within the word limit; critically evaluate different interpretations; build and develop an argument; construct conclusions in a clear, logically structured, analytical and independently argued piece of work.

Figure 1.2

This book will give you practical guidance in how to approach all those areas highlighted in Figure 1.2. It is important to remember that guidelines for dissertation writing will vary in every institution. Some institutions will ask for 8,000-word project, whereas others might expect a 12,000-word dissertation and a research plan. This book provides for a general guidance on all key aspects, but before you read any further or embark on the process of dissertation writing, please read the following from your university:

Specific dissertation assessment brief from your institution e.g. word count, assessment components

Supervision guidelines

Figure 1.3

Assessment criteria

Introduction 5

How to do well The final chapter discusses how to obtain first-class grade in more detail, and every chapter includes some guidance on this. If you read no further than this introduction, there are two things to remember if you are aiming for first-class grades. First, it is essential to manage your time. First-class dissertation will require time to time to think and develop your ideas. It will also require time to incorporate feedback and rewrite. Therefore, excellent time management is a key component in doing well in your dissertation. Second, enjoy the process! If you are passionate about your research, it will inspire you to put in the late nights and go the extra mile when it comes to research. The examiner can also see the enthusiasm through your writing. Therefore, choose a topic that you are genuinely interested in – and enjoy the process!

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to get started. Have you read your university’s guidelines and assessment criteria for dissertation?

Are you ready to explore different areas for research?

Figure 1.4

2 Finding and perfecting your topic

Current stage of writing Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 2.1

In this chapter, you will find: 2.1 Key questions to consider when choosing a dissertation topic 2.2 Inspiration for finding a topic for research 2.3 Brainstorming

The first step in the journey of dissertation writing is finding a topic you are interested in. It is this step many students find the most challenging and can struggle with for a long time. Yet it is important to decide on a topic as early as possible in order to maximise research and writing time. There are many considerations to bear in mind when choosing a topic but, most importantly, it must be something that captures your interest. You will spend six months to a year researching and writing on this topic, so it is essential that it is an area you genuinely want to know more about. Dissertation topics often come from past life experiences, or from topics and debates that you found challenging during your studies. Some students know from the first year of their undergraduate studies what they want to research for the dissertation, whereas others struggle to find suitable topics until the very last moment. This

Finding and perfecting your topic 7 chapter aims to demystify the process of finding a topic for research, and it will provide tools and questions to help find an area that suits your interests and strengths.

Advice from the examiners:

Above all, choose a topic that interests you. Ensure you have access to the appropriate research data and materials.

Figure 2.2

2.1 Key questions to consider when choosing a dissertation topic Looking for topics can be exciting but also overwhelming. Law is a socially and politically important aspect of the world and it is constantly changing. Whatever your views or intellectual style, the dissertation offers the potential for conducting significant legal research on an engaging topic. There is no right way to come up with a topic, nor are there ready-made dissertation topic lists within this book or online. While some websites offer sample topics, it is likely these have been too over-researched to be original. Even if you already have a topic in mind, it is best to identify some alternatives, in case the first one proves unworkable. There are two main questions to bear in mind when choosing a topic: It is paramount that the research topic you choose can hold your interest for the duration of the research. Therefore, the topic that you choose should play to your strengths and to your interests.

Am I truly interested in this topic?

Am I able to complete this research?

Figure 2.3

8

Finding and perfecting your topic

The second important consideration is whether you will be able to complete the research project and achieve the objectives you have set out for yourself. It is important to consider here what your capabilities are and how much time you can dedicate to the project, as well as taking into account the research facilities at your institution. If your university library has no content on your particular area of study, you must consider whether you are able to find relevant, high-quality materials to rely on in the course of your research. Also consider the word length you are given; the scope of a 12,000-word dissertation can be significantly wider than, for example, an 8,000-word one. Even at this stage, it is useful to bear in mind that you are going to be turning your topic into an actual research question, so, as you think about topics, consider also which questions might be posed about them. If there are no probing questions that come to mind, then that is a very good reason for rejecting a possible topic. For instance, the supremacy of European Union law over national law has been settled long ago and while there might be opinions on whether it is desirable, there is no legal ambiguity over it.

Task To get started, ask yourself: Q. What area of law am I interested in/passionate about? Q. What are my strengths (e.g. problem solving, reading academic opinions, soft skills such as interviewing)? Q. What am I planning for the future (e.g. postgraduate studies or a career in a specific field of law)? Q. How much do I know about the topic? How much background reading will I have to do?

2.2 Inspiration for finding a topic for research Future plans Everyone finds their research topic in their own manner, but most topics are drawn from past life experiences, earlier studies, current affairs, or from developments in law, i.e. ‘something new’. However, some students prefer forward-thinking topics. Forward-thinking topics are based on future career or study plans. If you are choosing a topic that you believe will help you in the future but have yet to study, discuss first with your tutor whether it is possible to catch up with background reading on the topic.

Finding and perfecting your topic 9

Future plans – international criminal law International criminal law is an important and developing area of international law but rarely dealt with at undergraduate level. At Masters level, most international law LLMs would include a module on international criminal law and some universities offer specialised LLM degrees in the field. If you are planning to do an international law LLM or are seeking work experience in the NGO sector/international law firms, you might want to choose a topic within international criminal law such as development of a particular doctrine or the judicial functions of regional human rights courts in the field, even if this is something you have not yet studied in detail. This would give you material to discuss in application forms/interviews. This type of research can take many forms and you can shape the project to your strengths; it would, however, require engagement with primary sources of international law such as treaties, and you should be familiar with key international law doctrines before taking on such a project.

Past life experiences and studies Many students choose a topic for their dissertation that is more personal than the essays they have written in the earlier years of their studies. Overseas students are often interested in conducting a comparative study between the UK and their home country, or mature students want to research issues that might have impacted them in the past, such as family law.

Past life experiences –domestic violence The law on domestic violence is not condensed under a single statute, but rather governed by a patchwork of civil and criminal statutes. There have been numerous policy and legal interventions in the field in recent years. These interventions, such as criminalisation of coercive and controlling behaviour under the Serious Crime Act 2015, have been introduced to better respond to the psychological aspects and impact of domestic violence. Despite the numerous laws and policy interventions in the field, domestic violence is rife. Many students are interested in domestic violence as a topic for dissertation research, some because of the opportunity for intellectual engagement and others as a result of past life experiences. The different aspects of law or policing on domestic violence are important to investigate. Dissertations in the field can focus on a specific aspect of reform such as the introduction of new criminal legislation on coercion and control, or they can take a broader approach, examining for example the effectiveness of policing domestic violence in Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities.

10 Finding and perfecting your topic Dissertations on a subject like domestic violence normally focus less on the wording of the law and more on the social impact of it, and dissertations of this kind would be particularly suited for students who like to read journal articles and books on the social effects of law.

Often students who opt for a research topic that stems from past experience – for example, perceived injustice experienced at the hands of the police, or even a property dispute – know this is what they want to do from an early stage. If your reasons for choosing a topic are purely personal, please remember that it can be challenging to examine an area that brings to the surface difficult periods from the past, and to receive constructive feedback on writing on such issues. Therefore, you should consider the emotional impact of such a project before settling on it. Earlier studies During the past few years, you have studied various core modules such as criminal law and tort law, and possibly a number of optional modules. Hopefully you will have very much enjoyed some of these modules, while others you might have found challenging to engage with. One of the key considerations behind choosing a topic is finding something that you are interested in and that plays to your strengths. If you found yourself falling asleep in constitutional law classes, investigating parliamentary sovereignty in the present-day context is unlikely to maintain your dissertation for the year to come. However, if you were interested in the theory behind the constitutional doctrines, this is your time to explore those concepts further.

Earlier studies – judicial activism of the Court of Justice of the European Union The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is the highest court in the European Union and ensures that EU law is applied the same way in all member states. The case law from the CJEU has been integral in developing the key legal doctrines of the EU such as primacy of EU law over domestic legislation. The CJEU has been influential also in the European integration process, but there are those who argue that judicial activism has gone too far. Many students are interested in EU law, and in particular its relationship with domestic law. Legally, that relationship and the primacy of EU law have been settled long ago by the CJEU. A more interesting – and challenging – dissertation

Finding and perfecting your topic 11 could investigate similar principles from a technical legal perspective, and question how positive judicial activism of the CJEU has been. This type of research would be particularly suitable for students who have a good grounding in EU law, and interest in reading and analysing case law.

To start doing research on a ‘past studies’ topic, you should revisit past materials. It might be a while since you have studied these topics. Revisiting old notes, examining materials in your university’s virtual learning environment, or browsing old textbooks will bring back the areas you enjoyed – and questions left unanswered. Current affairs and something new One of the things that makes law such a fascinating area of study is its ever-evolving nature. Law – all areas of it – is continuously amended, redirected, and rewritten by parliaments, courts, and international treaty bodies. Some statutes, such as the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, might have been written well over a century ago but the way we understand the key provisions in this statute today is completely different from the year 1861, or even the year 2000. The concept of ‘bodily harm’ discussed in the statute has developed greatly in the last few decades to include, for example, psychological harm and sexually transmitted diseases. The courts’ changing interpretations of key legal doctrines are classic and usually worthwhile dissertation topics.

Current debates – law on same-sex marriages in country A In recent years, LGBT+ rights have not only been in the news around the world but also the focus of various legal initiatives. Many countries have legalised same-sex marriages in the 2010s onwards and taken strides forward in equality. Simultaneously, some countries around the world have moved in the opposite direction and introduced legal initiatives to explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages, or even same-sex sexual relations. From a legal perspective, these raise a number of questions that can be investigated in undergraduate dissertations. Dissertations can focus on questions such as whether the laws prohibiting same-sex marriages/relationships are compatible with international and regional human rights law obligations in the said countries; or whether it is discriminatory not to allow civil partnerships for differentsex couples. This type of research can take many forms and you can shape the project to your strengths, be they reading technical aspects of law or carrying out academic research on the impact of such laws.

12 Finding and perfecting your topic To start doing research on ‘something new’, you can set aside your textbooks for now and head to the library or the internet to read up on recent legal developments, or even current affairs. High-quality newspapers such as The Telegraph or The Guardian have legal sections with commentaries on these legal developments. For more detailed and legal analysis of the same issues, please refer to legal periodicals such as Solicitors Journal or New Law Journal. These all include a short and focused description and discussion on recent developments in specific fields of law.

2.3 Brainstorming

Task 1 Brainstorming and creating mind maps After you have read and considered the previously mentioned ways to find inspiration for a topic, it is time to write down some key ideas. If you have a topic in mind, start by writing key words and then turn these key words into a mind map. Try to develop your mind map at least three levels down from your central legal concept.

Example – human rights and religious rights Stage 1: Identify key words: Human rights – religious rights – religious wear – burqa ban Stage 2: Start building a mind map: level by level.

Those key words could look like Figure 2.4 on the next page when turned into a mind map. Mind maps are ever changing and expanding; once you have identified the key points, start considering how these points are interrelated, and add information to each part. Through this process of adding information and removing irrelevant information, your topic will come into existence. If you have a few possible ideas for a dissertation topic, do a mind map for each of these topics and then follow each mind map through as far as you can. Only by stretching out the sub-questions and individual elements within your wider topic will you be able to figure out which one of your ideas is the strongest.

Finding and perfecting your topic 13 3. Domestic, ECHR, EU antidiscrimination legislation

3. Article 9 ECHR

2. Religious wear and law 4. Does the law strike a balance in protecting religious freedom? 1. Human rights /Right to religion 3. UK: R (Begum) v Denbigh High School (2004)

3. CJEU: Achbita v G4S Secure Solutions NV (2017)

2. Case law

3. ECHR: Aktas v France (2009)

4. How are these cases related?

Figure 2.4

Task 2 Write a short description Once you have jotted down your key ideas into a mind map and developed it at least three levels down from the central idea, try writing a short description of the research. The more detailed your mind map is, the easier it will be to write about it. The description does not need to be longer than a paragraph, but it will help you in the next stage, which is turning your topic into a research question.

14 Finding and perfecting your topic

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to move on:

What are the key issues to consider when choosing an area to research? Have you considered the possible impact of your personal views on/attitudes to this area? Are you able to name a few key laws/cases in this field?

Figure 2.5

3

From a topic to a question

Current stage of writing Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 3.1

In this chapter, you will find: 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Narrowing down your topic to a question What is a compelling research question? Tasks on evaluating and strengthening research questions Tools for self-evaluation

In the previous chapter, we have discussed different dissertation topics and how to find an area that you are interested in researching. In this chapter, we will delve more deeply into the first step in your dissertation writing journey and focus on transforming your topic into a question. By now, you will have found one or two areas you are interested in conducting research on. The next step is to identify a specific research question. Narrowing down your ideas from a topic to a question should be done with two important considerations in mind: how can you answer the proposed research question; and does it command your interest? This chapter will first explore different types of research questions, before discussing what constitutes a compelling research question. The final part of the chapter will give you tools to evaluate your proposed question.

16 From a topic to a question

Advice from the examiners:

A narrow focus is vital if you are to finish in the time given. Your topic needs research questions.

Figure 3.2

3.1 Narrowing down your topic to a question One of the most important and difficult tasks for researchers – at all levels – is to transform general interest or curiosity into a subject of academic research. You might have decided to focus on topical issues such as counter-terrorism, or decided that you want to explore in-depth the long-standing, unresolved issues relating to our constitution. This is the point at which you need to narrow down your focus from an area to a question that your dissertation will answer.

Research topic

Research question

Figure 3.3

There is a difference between a topic, even a well-formulated one, and a question. Remember that a good dissertation shows originality, independent thinking, and critical analysis. A well-formulated question will allow you to show all this in your dissertation analysis. The examiners want to see you formulate and tackle a problem, analyse issues, and provide an answer – just like in the exams. Feedback from the examiners on all assessments is that the answers provided are often too descriptive; they do not show analysis or answer a specific question. In a similar vein, a dissertation should not simply be a description of everything you know about a particular topic, but rather it must show systematic analysis and provide a clear answer to a particular question. It is tempting to venture into new and unknown territory, but you should take into account limitations in terms of time and resources. This is why you should read as widely as possible at this point; explore the books in your university library, speak with the librarian about e-books available to you, and explore the legal databases – and be careful when doing generic internet research. Just because there

From a topic to a question 17 are many blogs, discussion forums, or news reports on a particular topic, it does not necessarily mean you will find enough academic research on the topic, so it is paramount that you explore appropriate legal resources. As you explore the literature in the field of study, aim for the following: 1 2 3

Find a question/topic specific enough to let you master a reasonable amount of information on it. Determine what kind of evidence your readers will expect in support of your answers, i.e. cases, legislation, socio-legal, or theoretical engagement. Determine whether you can find relevant sources – will you have enough, or too much, material at your disposal?

Remember, there is no set formula – as you read and begin to understand more about your topic, the question will become clearer to you.

Task Consider the following and write a 1–2 sentence answer to the following questions: 1 What am I actually trying to find out? ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 2 How will I answer the question? ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 3 What is the purpose/aim of my research? ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 4 Is the question worth asking? ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 5 Can I access relevant resources? ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

Law reform research questions Law is always evolving, and many students focus on law reform research in their dissertation. Law reform research focuses on recent changes or proposed changes in the law, often with a focus on the effectiveness of the new or proposed legislation

18 From a topic to a question (see Step III: conducting research and tackling methodology in this book). The research can focus on why the law changed or whether the new legislation has achieved, or will achieve, its aims. Although law reform research traditionally focuses on the effectiveness of the change, a change in law can give rise to a number of different types of research and different research questions. If you are researching a recent change in the law, you might find the questions in Figure 3.4 useful when articulating your key focus into a question:

If there is case law already in the field, does the case law reveal any issues and problems?

What was the aim of the reform?

Which interest groups have been consulted, and what was their response? Did the Law Commission have any input?

Law reform research

Has there been academic commentary and do the academic commentators agree on the issue?

Figure 3.4

Traditionally, law reform research focuses on the legislative changes and new Acts of Parliament, but let’s think about a recent landmark case on joint criminal enterprise as an example of law reform. R v Jogee: an example of formulating a question on law reform In February 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the law on joint criminal enterprise had been incorrectly interpreted for the last 30 years in the case of R v Jogee.1 This case has meant that criminal law textbooks have been rewritten all around the UK and it also raises a number of interesting questions for those interested in criminal law, murder, and punishment for gang crimes in particular: 1 2 3 4

Has the law now been settled in relation to joint criminal enterprise? Does the ruling mean that some of the most notorious criminals, such as those convicted for the murder of Stephen Lawrence, will have the right to a retrial? If you encourage someone to kill, are you morally/legally guilty of murder? The old law on joint criminal enterprise was heavily criticised, not least as it was predominantly used against gang members and most of those who were

1 [2016] UKSC 8.

From a topic to a question 19 convicted under the doctrine were young black men. Was the old law on joint enterprise discriminatory, and will the ruling on R v Jogee bring an end to the discrimination?

Task Take a moment to consider the above questions on joint enterprise. Q. Q. Q. Q.

How would you go about researching them? What would you read first? How do the questions differ from each other? What would the key sources be for each question?

Although all of the questions stem from the same Supreme Court ruling/change in law, they require a different type of research and different research focus. Let’s consider these questions one by one. If, after reading into the ruling on R v Jogee, 1

2

3

4

you find yourself questioning whether the law has now been settled in relation to joint criminal enterprise, you are most likely interested in traditional law reform research. Your focus could be on how the law has been reformed, what the proposals are for further reform of it, and how. To research this, you could go beyond legal sources, drawing on Law Commission reports, consultation papers, and even Hansard debates. you find yourself questioning whether those already convicted have the right to a retrial, you are more likely to conduct doctrinal or blackletter research. Your focus could be on what the law is and how it is applied, and whether there are any inconsistencies in its application. To research this, your key sources are likely to focus on primary legal materials such as case law, case commentaries, and legal doctrines. you find yourself asking more conceptual questions such as whether encouraging to kill equates to killing, you are more likely to do theoretical research. Your focus could be on the underlying conceptual and theoretical basis and justification for the specific law. To research this, you could go beyond the legal sources, drawing on more philosophical texts and authors who write about the philosophy behind crime and punishment. you find yourself more interested in the past failures of the law on joint enterprise and the arguably discriminatory basis upon which it was functioning, you are more likely to conduct socio-legal research. Your focus could be on the impact of the law on society and attitudes, and vice versa. To research this, you could go beyond legal sources, drawing on criminological studies on joint enterprise and gang culture.

20 From a topic to a question There is often overlap between these questions and methods of research and it is fine to include more than one method of research, but this shows that the topic or area of research will not determine the type of research you will conduct. Your question will.

3.2 What is a compelling research question? A good research question should be original, relevant, clear, and researchable. Once you have formulated your research question, you should consider whether your question is all of those things; and if it is not, how you can add the missing element. For instance, the question ‘Is European Union law supreme over domestic law?’ is researchable and clear – but it perhaps is not original or relevant as this is a topic that has been written about extensively. It has also been covered at length in your earlier LLB studies; you might have even written an essay on the topic before. Similarly, the question ‘Should euthanasia be legalised?’ has been explored by many students and academics, and to make it relevant, you would need to find an original perspective on the topic. Consider how your research question can demonstrate the following key words as explained in Figure 3.5. After you have considered the key terms, also consider why the proposed question should command the interest of your readers. What makes it worth asking? Original

An original approach to an existing issue, or asking an original question. Interesting and promises critical engagement and analysis. NB.Your question needs to go beyond topics covered in your studies, so topics such as supremacy of EU law would not be considered relevant!

Relevant

Is the question topical; has this area been reformed recently or are there plans or calls to reform it? Does this question have long-standing importance but remain unsettled? Is it related to a legal issue or series of interrelated legal issues? NB. Researching gang culture and perhaps conducting a case study to answer ‘Why do people join gangs?’ would be a good research question for a BA Criminology student but not for an LLB student as it focuses on criminal behaviour but not law.

Clear and focused

Does your research question ask a clear question that you are able to answer within the word count?

Researchable

Do you have sufficient materials at your disposal to answer this question?

The only way to answer some of these questions in Figure 3.5 is by conducting background research. The following chapters will focus on how to complete research, but at this point it is important to also consider your research sources and

From a topic to a question 21 how you will utilise them. If your question seems too broad and is tackling too wide an area of law, it might remain descriptive and not go into sufficient depth, as required at this level. Too broad a question could mean that you cover a number of possibly complex, interrelated areas but your analysis will remain superficial due to the limited word count dedicated to each issue. For example, consider the topic: ‘The Impact of Colonialism on Land Reform in Zimbabwe’. This is an evocative, critically informed area of study and one that is undoubtedly topical – it therefore fulfils most of the criteria set out previously. It might not, however, be researchable as an undergraduate dissertation of usually around 10,000– 12,000 words.2 The proposed study would require detailed explanation of land reform in Zimbabwe throughout the past century to contextualise the research, explanation of colonialism in the country and its political repercussions, leaving no space to actually analyse the key question of whether colonialism still impacts the recent law reforms in the country. The word count of a dissertation is simply not sufficient to answer such a complex and broad question.

3.3 Tasks on evaluating and strengthening research questions

Task Having read the previous section, evaluate the strength of the following questions and write down their perceived strengths, areas for improvement, and whether you think they are viable research questions. Also consider the key words – original, relevant, clear and focused, and researchable for each question. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Was the criminal law reform in Victorian England effective? Should surrogacy arrangements be enforceable in UK law? A comparative study Evaluating the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Coercive control – Will the Serious Crime Act 2015 have an impact on the policing of domestic violence? Should healthy people on benefits be given social housing? Reform of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights – would regional international criminal jurisdiction be free from the political bias that mars the ICC?

Remember that most questions begin from an idea, so although they might not be good questions now – they can be turned into one. Below is some reflection on the strengths, weaknesses and viability of each question in detail, and Table 3.1 showing if it meets the key criteria.

2 The word count can be different in every institution, and it is important to read the module handbook and regulations before planning your research.

22 From a topic to a question 1 Was the criminal law reform in Victorian England effective? Table 3.1 Original

Relevant

Clear and focused

Researchable

√

√

X

X

Strength: This is an interesting area of study. You will remember from criminal law that many important statutes that we still rely on such as the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 date back to the Victorian era; the era saw many similar reforms, and legislative activity peaked. Areas for improvement: The Victorian era was very long; Queen Victoria reigned during 1837–1901. This is therefore too long a time for a dissertation study and either the type of reform or the timeframe needs to be more concise. Society, values, and politics all impact law and reform, and so related changes also impact law reforms. Historical research for a dissertation would ideally not cover more than a few decades/a specific law reform. Viable question and why/why not: Not viable in this form; the question needs to be more focused. A good question would be ‘Psychiatric Injury and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – time to rewrite the Victorian legislation?’ or as a historical one, ‘Why Legislative Activity Peaked in the late Victorian Era: A case study of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861’. 2 Should surrogacy arrangements be enforceable in UK law? a comparative study Table 3.2 Original

Relevant

Clear and focused

Researchable

√

√

√

√

Strength: It is a clear question with the scope of research defined. It is a topical and contentious issue with recent case law to analyse. Areas for improvement: If the student has not studied medical or family law, engaging in a new area of study can be challenging. When thinking about a new area of study, always think of the materials at your disposal and whether you will be able to go deep enough into the topic without having a background in medical/family law. Viable question and why/why not: Yes, as it is original, relevant, clear, and researchable. 3 Evaluating the consumer rights Act 2015 Original

Relevant

Clear and focused

Researchable

X

√

√

X

Strength: It focuses on fairly recent legislation, thereby promising law reform research.

From a topic to a question 23 Areas for improvement: It proposes descriptive rather than critical research. Purely ‘evaluating’ something does not promise critical analysis, which is key to a successful dissertation, and it would also be difficult to create a focus. Viable question and why/why not: Yes, but needs to be reformulated so it promises more critical engagement. Consider questions such as ‘Has the Consumer Rights Act 2015 brought the promised transparency in the law?’ 4 Coercive control – will the serious crime act 2015 have an impact on the policing of domestic violence? Original

Relevant

Clear and focused

Researchable

√

√

√

X

Strength: This is an interesting area to study and it tackles a recent change in law. The question is relevant and original. Areas for improvement: The question is very narrow – perhaps too narrow to be researchable for a dissertation. There might not be sufficient statistical evidence on policing of a particular section/Act, and such fieldwork is beyond the scope of undergraduate research. Viable question and why/why not: The area is a good one for research, but the question needs to be reformulated in view of feasibility – consider ‘Will the inclusion of coercive control strengthen the legislation on domestic violence?’ 5 Should healthy people on benefits be given social housing? Table 3.5 Original

Relevant

Clear and focused

Researchable

X

X

X

X

Strength: Topical, controversial and easy to find viewpoints in the press. Areas for improvement: It does not propose legal or academic research. Research should be rigorous and intellectually compelling – not something you read from the tabloids. Viable question and why/why not: No, this is a value statement that proposes little legal or academic engagement. 6 Reform of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights – would regional international criminal jurisdiction be free from the political bias that mars the ICC? Table 3.6 Original

Relevant

Clear and focused

Researchable

√

√

√

X

24 From a topic to a question Strength: Relevant and topical area of study; one of the most contentious issues in international law. One could find primary and secondary materials on the topic. Areas for improvement: While the area of study is original and relevant, the question itself is politically charged. It assumes that the ICC is politically biased and so does not propose unbiased research. Viable question and why/why not: Yes, but the question would need to be reformulated in a more neutral tone. This is legal, not political, research – and while students often choose an area that is close to their interests, a researcher should be objective.

3.4 Tools for self-evaluation Most questions, even if not perfect in the initial stage, can be turned into viable research questions. Throughout your writing process, you will slightly amend and focus your question and this is normal. As you gather more knowledge in the field, you will learn where the gaps are and where you want to focus. Now complete the same exercise with your question.

Task Write down your question and evaluate the following: Question/working title: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Strength: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Areas for improvement: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Viable question and why/why not: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ And finally, consider whether your proposed research question ticks all the boxes. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

From a topic to a question 25 Table 3.7 Original

Relevant

Clear and focused

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to move on:

Why is it important to have a clear research question? What makes a good research question? Is your research question as strong as it can possibly be?

Figure 3.5

Researchable

4

Creating a good research proposal

Current stage of writing Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 4.1

In this chapter, you will find: 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

What is a research proposal? Proposal as a ‘running document’ Evaluate sample proposals Evaluate your proposal

By now, you will hopefully have formulated a strong research question within a topic you find interesting. This chapter focuses on how to create a strong research proposal. Some universities only accept a selected number of students to complete a dissertation and will use the proposal to determine who will be allowed to undertake an independent study project. Some universities use a proposal as a basis for allocating supervisors, whereas other institutions do not formally require a proposal at all. Even if your institution does not require a formal proposal, completing one is good practice. It allows you to focus your ideas and forces you to complete enough reading to identify the most important laws and academic writers in the field. This chapter will first explain what should be included in a research proposal;

Creating a good research proposal 27 and then it will provide samples of proposals, and tools for you to evaluate your own proposal.

Advice from the examiners:

Ensure you include a detailed description of how will you answer the question in the proposal.

Figure 4.2

4.1 What is a research proposal? A research proposal is a brief summary of your planned research. It should always set out the question and provide some context/background to this research question. This does not mean describing the area of law in great detail. Rather, consider the background/context part as an opportunity to explain how your proposed work fits in within existing debates and scholarship on the topic. Figure 4.3 shows the three key things every proposal requires:

Research question

Key sources

Background /context

Figure 4.3

You might also be asked to provide an outline of planned research, a methodology, and a list of key legal sources. A compelling research question By the time you submit a proposal, you should already have a compelling question in mind. If you are struggling to formulate your topic into a question, please consult Chapter 3 and complete the exercises within.

28 Creating a good research proposal You do not have to stick to this particular question permanently, and it is likely that your question will change as the plan and research progress.Yet a well-thoughtout question will impress your supervisor and examiner, and make it more likely that your proposal will be accepted.

Background context The proposal is the first time you formulate your research plans and thoughts clearly into a coherent text. It gives you an opportunity to demonstrate that this area of research is worthy of a dissertation. You should briefly describe the wider legal context for your research, then explain how your research fits within the debates in that field. It should show clearly what the focus of your work is, and why. Here you can and should also engage with methods of your research. How will you be researching the topic you have identified? Will the research include empirical research such as interviews? Will you mainly draw from case law or from theory? You should demonstrate that you have a clear understanding not only of what you will research, but also how you will approach the topic. You cannot complete a good proposal on the same day, or even in the week, that you formulate a topic. A good proposal requires a great deal of thought and research; and the ability to convey that thought and research concisely. Therefore, it is important that you also consider the clarity of your description. Potential supervisors are not necessarily looking for a familiarity with the relevant field, but they will evaluate your ability to communicate clearly and concisely. A background description that is not clearly structured or has typos is unlikely to endear a potential supervisor to your project.

Key sources/reading list To demonstrate that you have done sufficient reading into the topic, you have to include a brief reading list/key sources in a proposal. You should not just jot down the first sources that come up as a result of a superficial search through legal libraries – or let alone generic search engines. If you have not read enough in the field, you will not be able to identify which are the key sources for your dissertation. The supervisor will use the list of sources to evaluate how much reading and research you have done. They will also use it to evaluate what type of sources you are drawn to, and what kind of research you are likely to conduct. Some universities might ask you to include an annotated bibliography with your proposal. This differs a great deal from an ordinary bibliography, which is just a list of sources. An annotated bibliography requires the key sources to be annotated and described. Normally this means including a paragraph-long description of each source discussed in the plan, summarising it and explaining its importance to your research.

Creating a good research proposal 29

4.2 Proposal as a ‘running document’ The proposal is likely to be the first document you write down for your dissertation. It is not, however, set in stone but is a ‘work in progress’. You will get feedback from your colleagues and from your supervisor/critical friend on this document, and you are likely to keep editing it. It will also expand into a wider document; and in time form part of your introduction. Often the idea of starting to write a dissertation is daunting, and everyone – both students and seasoned authors – fear the blank page. Keeping your proposal description as a running document to which you add your thoughts and sub-questions, and turning it into a document that will eventually form an introduction, takes away the pressure of ‘starting writing’.1 It is advisable that you keep a running document containing the description of your work and a separate running document on your sources. It is important to keep track of everything you need as you will not be able to locate all these sources at the end of the dissertation writing process. The document on your sources might be easier to maintain in a spreadsheet in which you can sort the list alphabetically after adding sources. It is highly recommended that you maintain this spreadsheet of sources in the stipulated referencing format, in order to reduce the amount of editing you need to do at the end.

4.3 Evaluate sample proposals After reading a proposal, the reader should be clear on: • • •

What the research is about; Why it is important/worth researching; and That the student is able to complete the project.

Task Evaluate proposal samples Read the proposal samples A and B, and consider: Q. Q. Q. Q.

Is the research question strong and clear? Is it clear what the student is planning to do and why? Are the sources included rigorous, academic sources? Should this proposal be approved?

1 Lisa Webley, Legal Writing (4th ed., Routledge 2016) 58.

30 Creating a good research proposal

Research proposal A Research question: Can necessity be a defence to murder? Description of the proposed research, including research methods (150–200 words) Necessity is the defence of the lesser of two evils. There was a famous case of Dudley and Stephens where sailors killed and ate their colleague. Once they were rescued, Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder. They were convicted as the court said that necessity cannot be a defence to murder. They were pardoned but the principle remained as a precedent. There have been cases after Dudley and Stephens that have said that necessity can sometimes be a defence to murder. For example, if a group of people are stuck in a cave with no food, facing starvation, should they be responsible for murder if they kill and eat one of their colleagues? I don’t think they should be.

Key cases R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273

Reading (around 5 key sources) Biju Kotecha, Necessity as a Defence to Murder: An Anglo-Canadian Perspective (2014) 78(4) Peter Jepson, Necessity is never defence to murder. www.peterjepson. com/law/LA2-5%20Barnes.pdf www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jerome-taylor-why-thenecessity-defence-is-rarely-granted-7562837.html2 Comments on proposal A Evaluate proposal sample A Q. Is the research question strong and clear? A. The question is clear, well-focused, and always topical. Q. Is it clear what the student is planning to do and why? A. No. This is a description of necessity, but it is not clear what the research will focus on and what it will include. Nor is there is any discussion of methodology, so the reader does not know how the research will be conducted. 2 Correct citation would be J. Taylor, ‘Why the “Necessity” Defence Is Rarely Granted’ Independent (London, 12 March 2012).

Creating a good research proposal 31 Q. Are the sources included rigorous, academic sources? A. No. These are clearly found through a superficial internet search. While the internet can provide a good starting point if you do not know where to start with academic materials, internet/news sources should not feature here. The journal article by Kotecha is a rigorous academic source but the description does not mention comparative elements, so including sources on comparative research here implies the student has not read the sources they have listed. Furthermore, there are not enough cases. Necessity is a common law defence, so more relevant cases should feature in the proposal. Should this proposal be approved? After you have considered all of the factors, consider if the proposal should be approved as it is, based on the three key questions as identified in Figure 4.4:

Question

Yes/No

Is it clear what the research is about? Is it clear why it is important? Is it clear that the student is able to complete the project, and how?

Only if you answered yes to all three questions should a proposal be accepted. In this case, the proposal needs more work before it can be approved.

Research proposal B Research question: Can necessity be a defence to murder? Description of the proposed research, including research methods (150–200 words) This dissertation will examine whether necessity can and should be available as a defence to murder. It was decided in the case of R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) that necessity cannot be a defence to murder. Yet, the courts and commentators have struggled to maintain a consistent stance on the issue, particularly in the cases involving medical decisions as demonstrated by A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment) (2000).

32 Creating a good research proposal This dissertation will utilise socio-legal and theoretical approaches to analyse primary and secondary legal sources. It will question whether the law on necessity has been consistently applied, and then provide a more theoretical inquiry into the issue. It will compare necessity to other defences such as selfdefence to examine whether there is overlap and to question the moral basis of excluding necessity as a defence when the charge is murder. It will also provide some thoughts on whether the law on necessity should be reformed, or whether the current stance taken by the courts is satisfactory. Key cases A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment), Re [2000] 4 All ER 961 Dudley and Stephens, R (1884) 14 QBD 273 Southwark London Borough Council v Williams and Another [1971] Ch 734 Reading (around 5 key sources) Dennis I, ‘On Necessity as a defence to Crime: Possibilities, Problems and the Limits of Justification and Excuse’ (2009) 3 (1) Criminal Law and Philosophy 29–49 Fuller L ‘The Case of the Speluncean Explorers’ (1949) 62(4) Harvard Law Review 616 Glazebrook P, ‘The Necessity Plea in English Criminal Law’ (1972) 30(1) Cambridge Law Journal 87 Law Commission, A New Homicide Act for England and Wales? (Law Com Consultation Paper No 177 2005) Tamblyn N, ‘Necessity and Murder’ (2015) 79 (1) Journal of Criminal Law 4

Comments on proposal B Evaluate proposal sample B Q. Is the research question strong and clear? A. The question is clear, well-focused, and always topical. Q. Is it clear what the student is planning to do and why? A. Yes. The description shows knowledge of the area and a clear structure of the dissertation. Also shows the student knows the approach they will take, and how this approach supports their planned research. Q. Are these rigorous, academic sources? A. Yes. This is a thorough list of key sources that shows it has been considered carefully; the quality of the sources indicates that the student has read widely

Creating a good research proposal 33 in the field and listed only the key sources. The student has listed a variety of primary and secondary legal sources. It shows the student is familiar with most recent developments from the Law Commission, as well as academic materials in the field. The cases listed are relevant and show that the student is familiar with the most important cases in the field. Should this proposal be approved? After you have considered all of the factors, consider if the proposal should be approved as it is, based on the three key questions as identified in Figure 4.4:

Question

Yes/No

Is it clear what the research is about? Is it clear why it is important? Is it clear that the student is able to complete the project; and how?

Only if you answered yes to all three questions should a proposal be accepted. In this case, the proposal can be approved.

4.4 Evaluate your proposal

Task Use the following grid and questions to evaluate the strength of your proposal. Only after you are happy with all the elements of the proposal, and have ticked yes for all the key questions in Figure 4.6, should you submit the proposal.

Question

Yes/No

Is it clear what the research is about? Is it clear why it is important? Is it clear that the student is able to complete the project; and how?

Happy with your proposal? Time to submit it and move on to the next stage in dissertation writing: planning and preparing research!

34 Creating a good research proposal

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to move on:

What should be included in a dissertation proposal? What type of sources should you include in your proposal? What might make a dissertation proposal fail? Do you know what to include in your proposal? Are you happy with the quality of your proposal? Figure 4.4

5

Planning the project

Current stage of writing Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 5.1

In this chapter, you will find: 5.1 Scheduling and working effectively 5.2 Creating a research journal

This chapter focuses on planning. Planning different aspects of your research and writing process is integral. You might not always stick to the plans you create, but it is essential that you create and amend your plans as you go along. The number one enemy of dissertation students is lack of time, and most of the time poor results for dissertations are simply a result of bad time management. This chapter focuses on an important aspect of planning: scheduling. It will give you tools to plan your dissertation writing process and weekly schedule. It will also discuss the benefits of a research journal.

36 Planning the project

Advice from the examiners: Planning time to edit is vital if you are to finish in the time given.

Figure 5.2

5.1 Scheduling and working effectively Planning your dissertation often takes as long as actually writing it. You will spend time planning your research overall, planning chapters and possibly completing assessed research plans. The concepts in Figure 5.3 are all an essential part of planning and completing the research project:

Research plan

Formulating objectives

Research journal

Time planning

Figure 5.3

If your university asks you to complete a research plan, it is likely that it is an assessed component. Even if no ‘formal’ or assessed planning is involved, planning is an integral part of any large research project. At the start of the project, you are likely to be involved in planning the big picture, such as which chapters to include and how to conduct research. As the work evolves, the planning will be more on a micro level and

Planning the project 37 focus on what to include in each chapter. In addition to the content of the dissertation, it is absolutely paramount that you plan your time. There will come moments when you will fall behind and times when you might be ahead; that is absolutely normal. It is good practice to make a plan for completion at the start of the academic year. This plan will change as your work progresses and takes shape, yet it is important that you plan ahead. This is a time-consuming, independent research task. The single most important reason why students fail or do badly in their dissertation is because they run out of time. Therefore, it is vital that you take control of the project from the start.

Task Create a plan for your dissertation completion using the following template. You might want to add any important milestones in the middle, such as completion of a research plan if one is required by your university.

When you are writing down the weekly progress plan, remember that life will continue during your dissertation writing project. In particular, when planning, ensure you write in the plan in Figure 5.4 any periods when you will not be able to work on your dissertation such as: • • •

Exam/coursework submission period; Pre-booked holidays; and Family occasions such as weddings.

Step

What to do

Date/Week

Step I

Establish the topic you wish to write Rephrase your statement/plan as a question Make a list of sub-questions

For example, 2nd week of October

Step II

Start drafting a structure Complete a plan for your research

Step III

Research and finish writing the introduction Conduct research on your sub-questions

Step IV

Make notes on your reading Review your notes for each question

Step V

Write up Chapter 1 and submit for feedback Edit Chapter 1

38 Planning the project Step

What to do

Date/Week

Write up Chapter 2 and submit for feedback Edit Chapter 2 Write up Chapter 3 and submit for feedback Edit Chapter 3 Repeat for as many chapters as you have Write conclusion First draft polishing – overview Step VI

Check the structure and complete reverse outline Second draft polishing

Step VII

Submit final draft for feedback to your supervisor

Step VIII

Final check of assessment and submission criteria

Finally . . .

SUBMIT!

The deadline to submit the dissertation is:

Working effectively In addition to planning the work, it is also important to know how you work to maximise your efficiency. Long hours do not necessarily equate to hard work. A walk around the British Library reading room at 4pm reveals a plethora of activities people do during ‘working hours’: writing academic materials, writing work emails, browsing Facebook, online shopping for shoes, or browsing holidays. For most people, it simply is not possible to write consistently many days in a row 9am–6pm. Therefore, it is important that you know how you work, and how you avoid working. When planning your research and writing schedule, there are many considerations to bear in mind. While it is essential to plan the big picture and to outline the work you have to do, it is also important to make a weekly timetable. The easiest way is to use your timetable from university and fit your dissertation work around that; bearing in mind that there are 24 hours in a day. Before you do this, it might be worthwhile to record your activities for a week to get a clearer picture of how you actually spend your time, and how you can maximise the time you have available. Once you have done that, consider how much time is taken up by other commitments such as work, commuting, family, friends, in-class time, and studying for your other modules.

Planning the project 39 Example timetable Time

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Study for Lecture/ Lecture/ tutorials tutorial tutorial Afternoon Time off Study for Debating tutorials club Evening Football

Morning

Night

Lecture/ Work Time off tutorial Lecture/ Work Work tutorial Boxing Time off Time with Work friends Study for Time with tutorials friends

Looking at this timetable, as shown in Figure 5.5, it is clear that Friday is a day that can be dedicated to dissertation writing, along with Tuesday and Wednesday evenings. It is important that you make the schedule work for you, and make it realistic. Planning to spend all your time on your dissertation is unrealistic, as you have other commitments; and planning to spend all your free time is equally unhelpful, unless you actually determine how much free time you have. While making the plan and starting to work, it is a good idea to keep the following considerations in mind. First, consider when the best time is for you to work Are you a morning person, or an evening person? Some people like to write at 2am, whereas for others staying up past 10pm is time completely wasted. There is no right or wrong time to write, but you should take a moment to consider when you are most productive and plan accordingly. Second, consider where the best place is for you to work Some people prefer the quiet atmosphere of the library, whereas others like a buzzing coffee shop. In the early weeks and months, you probably have to spend quite a bit of time in the library as you are gathering materials and evidence, but afterwards it might be that to write, you prefer a different space. Some people prefer to work from home, but home comes with distractions; and wherever you do work, it should be a place where you can prioritise your research. It is not uncommon for those who are working from home to suddenly begin making elaborate dinners or spending too much time on social media. If you find yourself prioritising such low-priority tasks, you are probably avoiding work and it would be better for you to work in a place where such avoidance is not possible. Third, how do you avoid work? Procrastination is known and dreaded by everyone who has had to write a report, dissertation, or even a book. Taking breaks during your working hours is important,

40 Planning the project but you must limit the breaks; taking 15 minutes to catch up on news is healthy but spending two hours watching clips from your favourite show on YouTube is clearly procrastinating. Consider switching off your social media accounts and even data from your phone during periods when you need to work intensely or when a deadline is approaching. Fourth, have you scheduled time off? In order to keep to the schedule and to keep motivated, you also need to plan time off. No one is able to work 24/7 and produce great-quality, interesting work. When you are making your schedule, it is important to consider how much time you normally spend relaxing; whether it is spending time with your family and friends, taking part in sports, or watching TV. It might be that you will not be able to have as much time ‘off’ as you would like in the lead-up to your dissertation submission, but it is important to accommodate that into your weekly schedule. If the schedule does not have a work/life balance, you are far more likely to fall behind and then to ignore the schedule completely.

Task Using the following grid in Figure 5.6, record your activities and create a timetable for yourself:

Time

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Morning Afternoon Evening Night

Once you have identified when the best times are for you to complete your dissertation research, include them in your timetable/calendar and do not book anything for those times.

5.2 Creating a research journal A research journal is a notebook or folder that you use to write your thoughts, reading, brainstorming, and notes from supervision meetings. It can be an organised planning document or a notebook you carry around with you for brainstorming. There is no right or wrong way to keep a research journal, yet many students do naturally write one even if they do not necessarily call it such. Many students like

Planning the project 41 to carry an actual notebook with them in which they can scribble thoughts as they arise, but equally, you can do this in one rolling document on your laptop or tablet, or even in the format of short vlogs. What goes into a research journal?

Brainstorming

Developing ideas

Supervision meeting notes

Keeping records

Tracking progress

Figure 5.4

‘Thinking on paper’ is the simplest way to describe what a research journal is. This will involve different uses at different stages of your research such as those in Figure 5.7. During the research stage, you are likely to make mind maps and use them for brainstorming. Once things are moving on and the research is progressing, the journal will include references of texts you have read or should read in the future. You can also use the research journal as a planning document and consider what you want from this research project. Good grades and a chance to improve your overall mark? Do you want to improve any specific skills, such as writing or referencing? Or maybe this project will act as a bridge between your undergraduate studies and future plans? When you have supervision meetings, it is important that you make notes. Keeping all the comments and notes from the supervision meeting in one place makes sense as this allows you to refer back to the notes when you are editing, and when you have your next meeting. As you are processing the comments and feedback from the supervisor, you might also want to write your responses in your journal; these will form the reasoning as to why you have made some editorial choices and disregarded others.

42 Planning the project One of the most important roles that a research journal can play is to provide a space where you start to draft out segments of your arguments but without the constraint of writing for an audience. This will work best if you have been using the research journal on a regular basis and got used to thinking on paper, but even if you have not, writing down where the argument takes you can be immensely helpful. The idea behind a research journal is to force you to try to develop your ideas through writing. Following the ideas and chains of association that start to appear before you often result in different outcomes from the one anticipated when you first sat down. In the end, it is through writing that you will develop your capacity for independent thought. Another use of a research journal is record keeping. This is the most obvious use but, as we have seen, not its only one. Throughout your research process, you will read various journal articles, newspaper articles, and books; watch documentaries; and even find blog posts relevant to your work. It will be impossible to remember all this. When you see something that catches your attention, make a note of it in your research journal; it might be a note to read an article in full later, or a summary of an article you have read. You will not be able to retain all the information in your memory alone, and therefore it is important to use the research journal as an aid.

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to move on:

Have you made a timeframe for completion of the dissertation?

Have you made a weekly timetable for your dissertation writing?

Have you started a research journal?

Figure 5.5

6

Creating a research plan

Current stage of writing Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 6.1

In this chapter, you will find: 6.1 Formulating research aim and objectives 6.2 Creating a research plan

This chapter focuses on the second aspect of research planning: research design planning. The first part of the chapter focuses on research aims and objectives. Having clearly defined aim and objectives will ensure that your project stays focused on the key question and analytical. This chapter also includes a section on creating research plans; the final part on research plans is mainly relevant for students whose dissertations are assessed by a research plan and a dissertation.

44 Creating a research plan

Ensure you translate your research question into an aim/research statement

Advice from the examiners:

Allocate realistic and proportionate word counts to each chapter which place appropriate weight on the more important chapters in your dissertation in the research plan.

Figure 6.2

6.1 Formulating research aim and objectives An important part of any research planning is being clear on your research aims and objectives. While these are often focused on the research itself, you might also have personal objectives such as improving your skills or grades. In terms of your research aim and objectives, these terms have specific meanings within this context. Research aim is the overarching goal or the general purpose of the project. Research objectives are specific statements on key ideas and essential features of this project. Research aim and objectives are linked to the main research question or hypothesis, and they should always be clearly articulated. The aim should be formulated first as it is closely linked with the research question/main hypothesis. To formulate your aim, you must consider what you hope to find out and accomplish with this research project. The wider aim is often followed by more specific objectives. The benefit of formulating clear and concise objectives is that they assist you in focusing the work, and finding essential aspects of the research. These in turn will be helpful when you are identifying topics for individual chapters. To formulate both the aim and the objectives, it is best to use action verbs, e.g. to assess, evaluate, identify, compare, establish, analyse, and so on. Example Research question: Should surrogacy arrangements be enforceable in UK law? A comparative study. Aim: To examine whether surrogacy arrangements should be enforced in the UK.

Objectives (1–5): The objectives of this dissertation are to: 1 2

Analyse the legal status of surrogacy arrangements in the UK. Evaluate case law on surrogacy arrangements in the UK.

Creating a research plan 45 3 4 5

Assess the impact of the lack of enforceability on families who have made such arrangements. Compare the legal status of surrogacy arrangements with another country, namely USA. Determine whether the law on surrogacy arrangements should be reformed.

Task Write down your research question, aim, and objectives: Research question: ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Aim: ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Objectives (1–5): 1. __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ 2. __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ 3. __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ 4. __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ 5. __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________

Once you have formulated your aim and objectives, it becomes easier to consider how to achieve those objectives and what challenges you might face such as time or resource limitations, or issues that have hindered your academic life in the past. The next task in Figure 6.3 is to consider if you foresee any challenges in achieving these objectives.

46 Creating a research plan Identify objective

What steps to take to achieve that objective?

Any potential challenges in achieving the objective?

Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Objective 6

6.2 Creating a research plan A research plan is part of an assessment at some universities. The main dissertation is assessed at universities around the country in identical ways, i.e. looking at the strength of the research question, originality, depth of research, and quality of writing within the word count given. However, when it comes to the research plan, the requirements vary greatly. It is important that you familiarise yourself with the assessment briefs and assessment guidelines for the research plan at your institution before you embark on the task. The following section gives generic guidance on how to complete a research plan and literature review, but it should be read alongside the guidance from your institution. What goes into a research plan?

Research question/ context

Plan/outline for completed research

Research plan

Review of literature

Figure 6.3

Methodology

Creating a research plan 47 Research question and context When the time to complete and submit the research plan comes around, your research question should be clearly defined. If your question is still vague or potentially too wide, return to Step II and consider how to make it stronger, clearer, and more original. You should always begin the research plan, and the introduction to the dissertation, by explaining your research question. What is the question this dissertation will aim to answer? What will be the golden thread/idea that runs through all of the chapters? Once the research question is clearly defined and explained, next it should be contextualised. This means unpacking the question and its importance in more detail. • • • •

Why is it important to ask this question? Why research this question now? Is this topical/have there been recent changes to or media attention on this particular issue? What is the purpose/aim of this research? What is the rationale behind this question and research focus?

Once you have explained why this question is important to ask, you might also want to include some discussion of any sub-questions you might have. Methodology Methodology is discussed in detail in Step III of this book and you should ensure you read and engage with the tasks in Step III before completing a research plan. Methodology, in short, is the methods of research; how will the researcher conduct the research they are proposing to do? You might change your methodology after the research plan is complete, but by this stage you should have a solid understanding of how you will go about this research and which research approaches you will utilise, and why. • • •

Will you conduct interviews/surveys, or will this be library-based research? Will you analyse mainly case law and legislation, or will you focus on academic analysis? Are you interested in the societal impact of the law you are examining, or more on its procedural aspects?

It is important that you are able to engage with the type of research you are proposing to do and that you are able to discuss the correct terminology; you need to know whether you are conducting blackletter law research or socio-legal research, and choose your sources accordingly.

A plan or an outline for proposed research An outline or a plan in the research plan should explain to the reader what this dissertation will cover, and in which order. This can be a detailed bullet-pointed

48 Creating a research plan chapter structure or a more general discussion of each part of the dissertation. The outline should provide a logical sequential list of the points that you will need to cover in order to answer your research question. This is where you transform all your plans and mind maps from your planning stage and research journal into a logical and workable outline for your dissertation. The more research you have conducted, the clearer and more detailed the outline will be. The outline will include selected parts from the notes/mind maps and turn these into themes/topics/sub-topics essential to include in your dissertation.You then set out what you have identified as ‘essential features’ of your dissertation sequentially; these are likely to be the chapter headings. This can be further divided into sections and sub-sections. It might look a bit like an index or table of contents, but it does not need to be presented as an index unless specified. The outline could be presented as a series of questions, with a number of themes set out under each question that will address the question. Although there is no one standard model of what an outline should look like, consideration should be given to the following: • • • •

The logical structure/progression of the outline; How well it fits with your research question, the approach you wish to take, and the key themes for consideration around the question you have identified; The extent to which it is likely to deliver an answer to your research question; and Its layout.

Task Here are two examples of dissertation outlines from research plans. Consider how effective these research plans are. By reading the outline, consider the following: Q. Q. Q. Q.

What will the focus of the dissertation be/what is the research question? What will be the essential features/chapters of the dissertation? Do the topics/themes logically flow from each other? Is the layout effective?

Example 1 – dissertation research plan outline Chapter 1 This chapter will outline the direction of this thesis. It will explore the background to the African Court. The hypothesis to be tested in this research will be explained.

Creating a research plan 49 Chapter 2 This chapter will discuss the rationales and incentives for the proposition of an African criminal court. It will be contended herein that attributing the incentive to the upshot of Al-Bashir’s arrest warrant is too simplistic and erroneous. The second part of this chapter will achieve an insight into the prospect of an African Criminal Court (ACC). The AU Assembly decision prompting a report on the conferment of criminal jurisdiction on the court will be explored, amongst others. Chapter 3 The practical and theoretical consequence of ACC on ICC will be explored. The effect of the court on the interest of justice in Africa, the world and African people will be examined. The second part will focus on the rationale for the creation of ICC, its complementarity principle. The rationale behind the creation of ICC will be examined, and it will be ascertained whether this principle is observed in the latter’s dealings with African States. Chapter 4 The challenges facing the creation, operation, and effectiveness of the proposed court – both external and internal – will be investigated here. The provision of the proposed Draft Protocol will be reviewed, and it will be ascertained whether those challenges will prevail over the prospect of the regional court. The thesis will offer possible reform to the Draft Protocol, especially possible reforms as regards a combination of civil and criminal jurisdiction in the court and the principle of complementarity. A discussion on having both ICC and ACC will be provoked here. Chapter 5 A summary of key trends will be highlighted here, and the contention of the writer will be summed up. It may be positioned that Africa’s susceptibility to colonialism and selective application of justice in Africa by ICC or more aptly perceived selective justice necessitate the political call for unassailable sovereignty.

Example 2 – dissertation research plan outline Chapter 1 on the law on forced marriages prior to 2007 will include discussion on: • • • •

The pre-existing law to address forced marriage prior to 2007; Human rights; Legislative provisions; and Government consultations.

50 Creating a research plan Chapter 2 on the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 will include discussion on: • •

Aims of the FMCPA; and Civil law approach.

Chapter 3 on immigration control will include discussion on: • • • •

Directive 2003/86/EC; Measures specific to the UK; ‘Marriage to a partner from overseas’; and The case of Quila and Bibi.

Chapter 4 on the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 will include discussion on: • • • •

Criminalisation and the impact of criminalisation; Criminalising the breach of ‘Forced Marriage Protection Orders’; The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act; and Will the criminalisation of FM be counterproductive?

Chapter 5 on recommendations will include discussion on: • • •

The work of NGOs; Training for professionals; and Education and awareness raising.

Having reviewed both the examples, which one did you think was most effective?

Comments on the research plan outlines Example 1 shows that the author has read a great deal into the topic and knows what the focus of the work will be, which is great. At the stage of research plan and planning, it is good to keep an open mind still about the exact content and, in particular, the findings of the work. The writing is quite flowery here; this, combined with the tight layout, makes the outline quite difficult to read. A clear and precise style of writing would have made the outline stronger. However, it is clear here that the dissertation is focusing on the criminal jurisdiction of the African Court/proposed African Criminal Court, so it is effective in addressing the key question in a logical order.

Creating a research plan 51 Example 2 is also very detailed and easy to read. The outline here focuses on key sources and points of analysis rather than how the work will be completed. It also shows great research and knowledge of primary sources of law in the field. It is clear here that the dissertation is focusing on the recent changes in the regulation of forced marriages; therefore, the outline is effective. There is no right or wrong answer here; both the outlines have strengths and weaknesses. What is clear, though, is that each outline gives a different approach and impression of the proposed research. Some institutions might want you to include an outline in the shape of a mind map also, but if not explicitly discussed, it is best to adopt a more traditional format. Review of literature There are two ways to review literature: annotated bibliography and a literature review. A literature review is an analytical essay that focuses on analysing the literature that is relevant in your field in one coherent discussion. An annotated bibliography is an extended bibliography that includes discussion of all or the key sources in the bibliography. In an annotated bibliography, each entry of the bibliography is followed by a brief descriptive and evaluative paragraph; this is the annotation. The purpose of the annotation is to give the reader a summary of the content and importance of the entry. Annotation is not purely descriptive; i.e. it is not merely a summary of the source. It should have an evaluative aspect, which analytically, if briefly, explains the importance and relevance of the entry to the research. An annotated bibliography might sound easier than a literature review, but a good annotation requires all the same skills that a literature review does: the ability to conduct thorough research, to critically analyse, and to write succinctly. An example of an annotated bibliography entry SOURCE

Lucy Bland, Banishing the Beast: Feminism, Sex and Morality (Tauris Parke 2001) ANNOTATION

Lucy Bland’s book, Banishing the Beast: Feminism, Sex and Morality, gives a particularly brilliant overview of the women’s rights movement at the turn of twentieth century: the tensions, rhetoric, and complexities that impacted the campaigns on moral regulation. It focuses on distinct yet intertwined campaigns by suffragists, anti-marriage campaigners, and anti-prostitution campaigners. The book is helpful to this dissertation as it helps to locate the emergence of the anti-trafficking rhetoric in that context.

Even if the research plan does not require an annotated bibliography, getting into the habit of creating notes on each text you read is a good habit. If the research plan

52 Creating a research plan requires a full literature review, move to Step IV: processing literature in this book How to conduct literature reviews will be discussed in this step.

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to move on:

Can you explain the importance of research aim/objectives?

Have you formulated an aim and set of objectives for your research? If you need to complete a research plan, do you know what to include in the plan?

Figure 6.4

7

Online research

Current stage of writing Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 7.1

In this chapter, you will find: 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Online sources: the good, the bad, and the ugly How to locate different legal databases How to use different databases How to use publicly available resources

This chapter focuses on research in the digital era. Unlike how it was for the earlier generations, who would have to spend nights in the library trawling through hardcopy volumes of case reports, in the present day, knowledge is easily accessible at the click of a button. We have unprecedented access to primary sources of law, journal articles, books, commentaries, and the news. While the digital era has made research less laborious, it has in some ways also made it more challenging. It can be overwhelming to find hundreds of search results among dozens of databases. It can also be difficult to determine what information is reliable and what is not. This chapter focuses on the skills you will need to complete research in the digital era. It will explain pitfalls to avoid but will also focus on law-specific resources, and how to learn to use them.

54 Online research

Advice from the examiners: Only use reputable sources!

Figure 7.2

7.1 Online sources: the good, the bad, and the ugly How do students look for information online?

Online university library

Wikipedia Social media and YouTube Google/search engines

News sites

Blogs/opinion pieces

Figure 7.3

How do lecturers/supervisors believe students should seek information online?

Online research 55

Google scholar News sites University online library

Online books

Figure 7.4

There is no doubt that there is a bit of a disconnect between how students do research and how their lecturers think they should do research as demonstrated by Figures 7.3 and 7.4. A smart researcher can combine the best of both approaches. Online search engines such as Google, and a breadth of information at your fingertips, mean that research is easier than ever.You should obviously utilise search engines and other forms of online information in your research. When it comes to finding quick facts and overviews, search engines, Wikipedia, and even social media can immediately provide the information you seek. You can find more radical discussions in social media and in opinion blogs, which can provide different perspectives and help to challenge prevailing views. There is no reason why you should not listen to these views, but do so with caution. While they can be interesting and inspire different perspectives, they carry no more academic weight than having a chat with someone in a supermarket. When it comes down to more analytical elements of the research, you do need to utilise the university online library and peer-reviewed scholarship. The section below gives an overview of online sources: how to utilise them, and which ones to avoid. The good: online legal databases As a guideline, anything you can access through your university online library is in the good category. There is a wealth of information available through your university library, and it’s advisable to take some time to explore it. You might think you are an active user of the resources, but it could be that you are only using a small proportion of the library resources. Primary sources of law are also freely available online. You can search: •

Legislation website for all statutes and statutory instruments.1

1 www.legislation.gov.uk/ accessed 20 August 2017.

56 Online research • •

Parliament website for all Bills. You can also track their progress and even read the parliamentary debates.2 British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) for a full text of all rulings, including tribunals, in the UK dating back decades.3

The (good and) bad:Wikipedia Wikipedia is a grey area; it can be very useful for finding things out quickly, but it cannot feature on your references. Your lecturers and supervisors will have told you repeatedly that you cannot use Wikipedia as a source. Yet Wikipedia is the place you are most likely to start from, to find facts quickly, and to confirm things you are unsure of. Why is it, then, that academics generally do not want you to rely on Wikipedia? Wikipedia does have a strong editorial community and errors are quickly picked up and amended. While there is no formal peer-review system, as there is for academic sources, there is a community that keeps Wikipedia largely accurate. Yet Wikipedia itself acknowledges that it is not a reliable source for research.4 This is mainly due to the lack of academic rigour in the editing process; anyone can become an editor for Wikipedia and add/delete information. Some might add wrongful information out of spite whereas other pieces of information are genuine mistakes. Even if you do use Wikipedia for some background reading and to find out information quickly, you should never acknowledge it in the footnotes. This is paradoxical as, so far, you have always been encouraged to acknowledge all your sources. If you did include a Wikipedia entry in your footnotes or bibliography, it is likely that the examiner would highlight it and warn you against this. While you might check the quick fact from Wikipedia, your research cannot rely on it. The bad: online case law summaries In short, you cannot refer in the footnotes to sites that provide snapshot case summaries. When preparing for a tutorial or quickly wanting to check a citation for a case, these sites can be useful. However, they cannot be used for academic research, nor should they ever appear in the references. The case law summaries on these websites are snippets of facts and perhaps of the outcome. There are two issues with such sites. First, the summaries are simply too brief and they do not go into nearly enough detail for you to understand a case. Second, the information on these sites is not necessarily reliable. They might summarise the facts of the case, but the facts are rarely what you need to know. When you do not have the time to read an entire case, use legal research search engines such WestLaw, LexisNexis, or JustCite. These sites provide not only the full text of the case, but also a summary that has been prepared by a member of an editorial team who will have a legal background. They are, therefore, far more reliable sources. 2 www.parliament.uk/ accessed 20 August 2017. 3 www.bailii.org/databases.html#uk accessed 20 August 2017. 4 Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_ is_not_a_reliable_source accessed 20 August 2017.

Online research 57 The ugly: online example essays It goes without saying, hopefully, that you cannot rely on information from a sample essay. It is not possible to trace the author of sample essays; they may be answering a question from a particular angle, and, most importantly, the interpretation of the law might simply be wrong. Another problem is that sample essay sites are often associated with essay selling services. These services are occasionally masked as essay editing services but, in reality, they write essays on behalf of students. Hiring an editor or someone to write essays on your behalf is called ghost-writing. In recent years, this has become a problem in all universities. It is also something universities tackle heavy-handedly. It is almost as common for essays and dissertations to be reported for the academic offence of ghost-writing as they are for plagiarism. Including a site that is associated with selling essays in your footnotes is going to be a big red flag for the examiner, even if you had quite innocently stumbled on the site when looking for sample essays.

In short, you must avoid sites with sample essays.

7.2 How to locate different legal databases

Task How do you seek information online? If you were asked to find information on the following, or to locate a specific item detailed below in Figures 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7, where would you go to find that information? NB. The aim here is to be honest about how you seek information. You do not need to find the source, but consider which research sites you utilise in your research.

Section A: information sought on case law A case summary: Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 Full text of the case: Yearworth and Ors v North Bristol NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 37 A case review on the case of: R (SG and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16

Where would you search for this?

58 Online research Section B: information sought on legislation

Where would you search for this?

The parliamentary debates and to see how MPs voted on: Immigration Act 2015 Section 33 of: Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 A journal article that reviews: Housing and Planning Act 2016

Section C: information sought on topical legal issues

Where would you search for this?

The legality of process and production methods (PPMs) under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) The justifiability of an unincorporated international treaty, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in domestic courts. Proportionality in judicial review after Brexit.

Once you have completed all of the above sections, calculate how many different websites and databases you used. ANSWER: ___________________________________________________ Now, consider how many databases there are at your disposal through your university online library. Browse the university library website, and tick all the databases identified in Figure 7.8 you can find through your university library.

Database CRCNetBase: Forensics & Criminal Justice DawsonEra Lawtel LexisLibrary HeinOnline House of Commons Parliamentary Papers Jordans (Company Law or Family Law) JSTOR JustCite Justis Nexis

Tick if accessed:

Online research 59 Database

Tick if accessed:

Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: UK & Ireland (includes Index to Theses) WestLaw Any additional databases you have access to:

It is likely that your university will not have access to all of the databases mentioned, but rather a selection. Each of these databases has a slightly different focus and content. WestLaw content is different from what you would find on HeinOnline, and only by using a combination of databases will you find all relevant information.

7.3 How to use different databases This section will give an overview of key databases you should be able to use during your dissertation research project and activities for each key database. WestLaw is the go-to tool for many law students, and undoubtedly these are the databases (in Figure 7.9) most commonly used by law students: WestLaw UK legislation, cases and commentary

LexisLibrary

JustCite and Justis

Figure 7.5

It might be that these are the only databases you ever use. However, when seeking information that is not purely a blackletter analysis of the law, or when researching non-UK law, then it is necessary to look beyond those databases. For international law, HeinOnline is the leading database. For interdisciplinary research or for law that draws from humanities, JSTOR is a good place to begin. The grid below in Figure 7.10 shows which databases to use for most commonly sought information: International law & international journals

Figure 7.6

Case commentaries: domestic, European and international

Interdiscplinary scholarship

HeinOnline

WestLaw

JSTOR

JSTOR

HeinOnline

HeinOnline

60 Online research JustCite JustCite is a great place in the early stages of your research when situating your research. It is also perhaps the best place to go to when trying to understand connections between cases. The most used function on JustCite is the precedent map. The precedent map is an interactive visual tool that allows you to see how cases are connected. It will link the case that you are seeking not only to cases that came before but also to all cases that have considered your case since. It will also show relationships between the case and any relevant legislation and journal articles.

Task The JustCite precedent map Go to your university online library. Find a link to JustCite. Once you have found and logged into JustCite, search for a case that is highly relevant to your research. View the results and open a precedent map for the case. If you do not have any cases that are relevant, use the case of Chahal v United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHRR 413 for this search. Make a note of the following questions: Q. What are the key cases that were considered/distinguished in the ruling of your case? Q. Has your case been discussed/followed/distinguished in any future cases? Q. Are there any journal articles that discuss your case?

WestLaw and LexisLibrary WestLaw has various functions that can be useful in your research. You can find similar functions in LexisLibrary; and you should utilise both resources. WestLaw has been chosen here only to highlight the functions available. Stage I: for the initial research phase/understanding the area, use these functions Insight: This is a good place to start your research; together with the Current Awareness tab (see below). Find your particular area, such as company law, and then move to a more specific area. Here you can find updates, recent cases, and commentaries on your specific field. Current Awareness: You can search for recent events, news, cases and developments in your field. The results are limited to 90 days, so there will not be information overload.

Online research 61 Stage II: once the research is ongoing, and researching more specific sources Legislation: When looking for Acts, secondary legislation or related commentary, this is the place to start from. Legislation is searchable by title, key words, or related case law. Cases: Various case reports, also a summary of most cases. Cases can be searched by party names, citations, or key words. Journal articles: Key domestic legal journals, particularly those aimed at practitioners, are indexed or in full text here. Journals can be searched by author, title, key words, or related cases/legislation. More specific resources that may be relevant to the project EU: Key EU cases, legislation, and primary documents can be found through this specific tab. E-books: Books that are mainly useful for the practitioner and those completing blackletter research. It contains encyclopaedias of law for areas such as criminal law, patents, and trademarks.

Task Go to your university online library. Find a link to WestLaw and LexisLibrary. Find a source that is directly relevant to your proposed research question using WestLaw and LexisLibrary. If you have not settled on a question or you don’t have any idea what you might want to research, please use the hypothetical research topic ‘From the perspective of public international law, discuss and critique Kosovo’s struggle to achieve self-determination’ for the exercise. Part A:WestLaw Case (domestic or European):

__________________________________________________ Journal article:

__________________________________________________ The source (author, title, citation):

__________________________________________________ Why is it relevant?

__________________________________________________ Part B: LexisLibrary Use the Current Awareness function on LexisLibrary. Through the Current Awareness search bar, find out any current events/news/cases that are relevant to your topic and that arose in January of the current year. The source (author, title, citation): Why is it relevant?

62 Online research HeinOnline and JSTOR HeinOnline is a great resource when your research has started and you are seeking more in-depth analytical sources. HeinOnline has full-text articles from over 1,000 titles around the world. It has an unmatched library on international law, and it indexes leading US law journals and all leading international law journals. It also has UK-specific content. Here you will find analytical, highly cited journal articles. JSTOR is not necessarily included in your library access. It is not a law-specific database and you would not find any blackletter law journal articles or primary legal sources on this site. JSTOR is a generic academic database. It has full-text articles from more than 2,000 journals around the world. If your research is on criminology, or draws from other disciplines such as medical ethics and philosophy, JSTOR can be a great addition.

Task Go to your university online library. Find a link to HeinOnline and JSTOR, if your university has signed up to these resources. Part A: HeinOnline Find two journal articles that are directly relevant to your proposed research question using HeinOnline. If you have not settled on a question or don’t have any idea what you might want to research, please use the hypothetical research topic ‘From the perspective of public international law, discuss and critique Kosovo’s struggle to achieve self-determination’ for the exercise. Journal article 1: The source (author, title, citation):

__________________________________________________ Why is it relevant?

__________________________________________________ Journal article 2: The source (author, title, citation):

__________________________________________________ Why is it relevant?

__________________________________________________

Online research 63 Part B: JSTOR Find two journal articles that are directly relevant to your proposed research question using JSTOR. If you have not settled on a question or don’t have any idea what you might want to research, please use the hypothetical research topic ‘From the perspective of public international law, discuss and critique Kosovo’s struggle to achieve self-determination’ for the exercise. Journal article 1: The source (author, title, citation):

__________________________________________________ Why is it relevant?

__________________________________________________ 7.4 How to use publicly available resources It might be the case that your university has signed up to all or some of the databases discussed previously. Even if you do not have access to a wide range of databases, all the following primary sources can be accessed free of charge. Legislation All legislation is publicly available and searchable on the Legislation website (www.legislation.gov.uk/). Here you can find all legislation enacted since 1988. You can also find statutory instruments dating back to 1948 in full text. Most legislation that predates 1988 and which is still in force can also be found here. For older legislation that has been repealed, you can find details but not the full text. You can access full-text legislation dating back centuries through paid databases such as Justis. Acts of Parliament are available on this site together with explanatory notes. If you are researching a new law, you should always read the explanatory notes as these will reveal how the legislation relates to international law documents, what the main aim of the law is, and how Parliament wants key issues interpreted.

Task 1 Legislation website Using the Legislation website (www.legislation.gov.uk/), find the explanatory notes for the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

64 Online research What does the background section in the explanatory notes claim is the main international instrument against human trafficking? Your answer: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You can find the answer at the end of this section.

Bills and parliamentary debates Before a law comes into force, you can find all the details of it on the Parliament website (www.parliament.uk/). The Parliament website has tabs for ‘BILLS’ and for ‘HANSARD’. For anyone who is researching a law that has just come into force, this is a key resource. In the BILLS section, you can: • • • •

Search for Bills; Find out what the status of the Bill is, i.e. is it still debated and where, or whether it has received Royal Assent and come into force; In the BILL STAGES section, find links to all the debates and read what was said by MPs and Lords at each stage of the debate; and In the BILL DOCUMENTS section, find written documents by all stakeholders who gave evidence in the proceedings; and responded to initial consultation.

In short, you can review all the evidence the MPs heard as well as their discussions here. If you are researching a law that has just come into force, this is the best place to start.

Task 2 Parliament website Using the Parliament website (www.parliament.uk/), go to the Bills section and find the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This was a very important piece of legislation that consolidated and strengthened consumer rights. Once you have located the Consumer Rights Act, consider the following: Q. When did the Bill receive Royal Assent? Q. Who introduced the Consumer Rights Bill, and why? Hint: you can find this at (2nd reading: House of Commons).

Online research 65 Q. Name three stakeholders that gave written evidence to Parliament on the strengths and weaknesses of the Bill. Hint: you can find this at Bill Documents. You can find the answers at the end of this section.

Law Commission Before a new law is created or significant changes to an important area of law are introduced, a Bill is often preceded by a Law Commission report. You can find Law Commission reports and recommendations on their website.5 If you are researching an area that is in need of reform or has recently been reformed, you should be familiar with Law Commission recommendations. It is rare that all Law Commission recommendations come into law exactly as they recommended, so do not assume that the recommendations were adopted by Parliament without investigating further. Case law For case law, it is recommended that you use one of the databases you can access via your university library, e.g. WestLaw or LexisNexis, as their search functions are detailed and easy to use. However, if you do not have access to these databases you can find the full text of cases dating back decades at the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website (www.bailii.org/). Much like the other databases, you can search cases by name, citation, key words, or by the court.

Task Go to BAILII website (www.bailii.org/). Find a source that is directly relevant to your proposed research question using the BAILII search function. Case (domestic, European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), or Court of Justice for European Union (CJEU)):

While BAILII does not provide summaries, or recognise all citations in the search, it is a publicly available and free resource that you can use anywhere, at any time, regardless of your university library.

5 Law Commission, www.lawcom.gov.uk/ accessed 20 August 2017.

66 Online research Google Scholar and Google e-Books Google Scholar is a specific tool of Google’s that allows you to search for academic resources. Instead of typing the key words you are seeking to search, you type them into Google Scholar, which is an extension of an ordinary Google search. Google scholar indexes an incredibly vast number of articles, books, and theses from all academic disciplines. It does not filter them by discipline or region, so the number of search results can be overwhelming. It also does not have full-text materials; it merely provides the links. After you have located reading material on Google, revert back to your university online library to see whether you have access to the particular publication. The great thing about this resource is that the results are listed in the same order that academics filter information: by how many citations the article has, who it was written by, and where it was published.You can also see the number of citations on the site. If the source you found has been ‘Cited by’ over 100 other authors, you know this is essential reading and a key resource for you. While it is not as detailed as law-specific databases, it is a great place to start to see what is out there or at the end of the project, to double check your citations, etc.

Task Google Scholar Go to Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.co.uk/). Using this, find two journal articles that are directly relevant to your proposed research question. If you have not settled on a question or don’t have any idea what you might want to research, please use the hypothetical research topic ‘From the perspective of public international law, discuss and critique Kosovo’s struggle to achieve self-determination’ for the exercise. Journal article 1: The source (author, title, citation):

__________________________________________________ Why is it relevant?

__________________________________________________ Answers to tasks Here you can find answers to Tasks 1 and 2 for this section. TASK 1: LEGISLATION WEBSITE

The background section in the explanatory notes explains how the Modern Slavery Act 2015 relates to other anti-trafficking laws and treaties. It states that the main

Online research 67 international instrument to fight trafficking is the Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, named the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (the ‘Palermo Protocol’). TASK 2: PARLIAMENT WEBSITE

Q. When did the bill receive Royal Assent? A. 26 March 2016 Q. Who introduced the Consumer Rights Bill, and why? Hint, you can find this at (2nd reading: House of Commons) A. Vince Cable, the then Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, introduced the Bill. He said in his opening remarks that as competition laws have been reformed, there is a need to also reform and strengthen consumer rights. In particular, he said that the Bill ‘will enable us to strengthen that framework by making it easier for individuals and businesses to seek redress through private actions where they have been harmed by anti-competitive behaviour’. Q. Name three stakeholders that gave written evidence to Parliament on the strengths and weaknesses of the Bill. Hint: you can find this at Bill Documents. A. Dozens of leading organisations and companies gave evidence, together with regulatory bodies. Those stakeholders included the Office of Fair Trading, the Advertising Standards Authority, the British Bankers’ Association (BBA) and Microsoft Ltd. You can find the full list at the end of the Bill Documents section (http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/consumerrights/documents. html). You can also read all those written documents if you are interested in what their views were on the Bill. Librarians and online guides Hopefully, this chapter has opened your eyes to the wide variety of legal resources available – both through your university and free of charge. If you do get stuck in your research or are not sure how to proceed with a database, get in touch with the university librarian. Most universities have law librarians who are trained to use these databases and are more than happy to help. Furthermore, all the companies discussed in this chapter have online guides. We have not provided the links as the links change continuously, but use your online research skills to find the guides.

68 Online research

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to move on:

Can you reflect on how you conduct research online? Which websites can you rely on? Which websites should you avoid? Do you know which databases your online library has subscribed to? Can you use at least three online legal databases? Can you use free online legal resources?

Figure 7.7

8

Methodology

Current stage of writing Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 8.1

In this chapter, you will find: 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7

Introduction to methodology Blackletter law methodology Socio-legal methodology Theory as a methodology Comparative law methodology How to engage with methodology Reflexivity

Tackling methodology can cause anxiety even with a more seasoned researcher. It is, however, nowhere near as daunting as it seems once you get started. The easiest way to describe methodology is, simply, methods of research. Most dissertations do not neatly fall into one method category or another, but rather utilise a number of different methodologies or research approaches. Legal research has traditionally been dominated by blackletter or doctrinal research. In recent decades, however, socio-legal research has transformed legal research. In addition to these dominating methods of legal research, dissertation students often draw from law reform and comparative law methodologies. This chapter will introduce all of these different research approaches

70 Methodology

Advice from the examiners:

Unpack the question as a mind map and then construct an outline. From this, a methodology will become identifiable.

Figure 8.2

and methodologies, and help you engage with them. It will provide some tools for you to assess your research approaches and how to get the most of out of them.

8.1 Introduction to methodology The key to getting started with your research is logic. With your research, you should engage with materials in the following order, as shown in Figure 8.3:

Preliminary analysis/ identifying key issues Understanding what type of reseach you want to conduct, i.e. methodology Research into primary and secondary legal sources

Figure 8.3

Once you have identified the key materials and reading, the next question is how you will go about analysing them. Methodology will help you answer that question. Simply put, methodology can be described as methods and rules that are used to analyse a particular field, or a particular procedure or set of procedures. Methodology requires you to understand and write down what you are researching and how. Methodology is not the same as ‘how to do legal research’; it is about understanding which approach you take for the research that you conduct. This chapter is going to explore different approaches to research in law. The chapter focuses on the following approaches to legal research as these are the most common types of research conducted by dissertation students:

Methodology 71

Comparative law

Blackletter law

Socio-legal

Theoretical analysis

Figure 8.4

It is often thought that blackletter law research or reform-orientated research are often favoured by practitioners in the field, whereas socio-legal and theoretical analysis is often favoured by those who do purely academic research. In reality, it is common for research to draw from a number of different methodologies, and researchers change their methodology depending on the project. In dissertations in particular, the early chapters often draw from blackletter analysis, whereas the final chapters focus on reform or socio-legal analysis. It is important that the approach you take supports your research aims and focus. For example, a dissertation entitled ‘A comparative study on the adoption laws’ would indicate that the aim of the work is to compare law on adoption in two or more countries. Therefore, an appropriate methodology would be comparative law methodology. It would be problematic if a dissertation with such title only focused on explaining adoptions laws in Country A and then in Country B and proposing reforms for each. The dissertation obviously would not fully answer the question it set out to answer but, furthermore, the dissertation would not engage with the key methodology, i.e. comparison. Similarly, if your research title is ‘effectiveness’ of a particular legal phenomenon, purely a blackletter approach would not be appropriate. It is paramount that the title of the dissertation is line with the sources utilised and the chosen methodology. For example, see Figure 8.5, how the title, methodology, and sources are aligned: The next section of the chapter offers a brief discussion on each key methodology. It is important that you learn to engage with these methodologies. This is not only so that you can write about your own methodology, but also so that you can recognise which approach the authors you read and cite have adopted. This might also be something you want to consider before selecting a supervisor – if you are given the option. It is advisable to read some of the publications by your supervisor to see if their approach is similar to that which you were hoping to take. Even if the approach is drastically different, it does not mean you cannot have a good supervision relationship. Yet in those circumstances, it is important to discuss the approaches to research in the initial meeting. If your supervisor is known for a radical theoretical approach, it is likely that they will want you to engage with some theoretical reading. Similarly, a supervisor who is dedicated to a blackletter law approach might not be sympathetic if you plan a project around radical feminist approaches to law.

72 Methodology

Title: Comparative study on adoption laws in Countries A and B

Sources: Materials from Countries A and B; as well as on comparative law

Methodology: Comparative law methodology

Figure 8.5

8.2 Blackletter law methodology Blackletter or doctrinal research is concerned with the formulation of legal ‘doctrines’ through the analysis of legal rules.1 This analysis is also known as the ‘doctrinal’ approach or, sometimes, ‘legal dogmatics’. Legal doctrine goes beyond merely stating the rules of law accurately. Typically, it seeks to identify underlying legal principles on which legal decisions are based. This type of analysis is perhaps best illustrated by the type of advice a practitioner would give their client: detailed application of the law according to the rules as they are. Blackletter law analysis is not interested in what ought to be but rather on what the law is; and how it can best be dissected to understand its very essence. For example, if considering what constitutes consent under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the main point of analysis would be the wording of section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act. By applying each of the elements set out in the section, one should be able to come to a conclusion on what is consent, and when it can and cannot be given. The analysis might take into account case law that has elaborated the elements of consent under section 74. It would not, however, take into account any theoretical, gendered, or societal issues on the definition of consent or problems with it. There are certain assumptions that underline the blackletter methodology: perhaps most importantly, the assumption that the legal system is autonomous and coherent. There is an assumption that the legal system can be evaluated separately from its political and moral origins, something that socio-legal scholars strongly dispute. There is also an assumption that the legal system is coherent and logical. If it was not, seeking order and logical connections within it would become impossible. 1 Paul Chynoweth, ‘Legal Research’ in A. Knight and L. Ruddock (eds) Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment (Wiley Blackwell 2008) 29.

Methodology 73 Anyone who utilises blackletter law methodologies has to be comfortable with reading primary sources of law. Yet, these are not the only sources blackletter law draws on; blackletter law methodology mainly draws from: • • • • •

Legislation (Acts of Parliament and secondary legislation); Case law; Practitioner guides/legal journals; Parliamentary debates; and Government reports and consultations.

How to formulate a blackletter law question First, it is important to approach the task as a lawyer rather than as a social scientist.2 Consider how judgments are written and how judges formulate their legal reasoning; what type of arguments they make; what kind of evidence they draw from; and how they express those views. Obviously, you will not be expected to produce the quality of a judicial writing or reasoning – for another 30 years, at least – but this helps to contextualise the mindset. You will have engaged with a variety of doctrinal or blackletter law research throughout your studies. Textbooks, for example, often take the blackletter law approach whereby they explain a particular law in detail, and how it relates to other legal doctrines and cases in the field of that study. As a student, if taking the blackletter law approach, you would be seeking to answer the question ‘what is the meaning and scope of the relevant legal provisions?’3 – for example, what is the meaning of dishonesty in the law relating to theft? The answer would not need to entail detailed discussion on what is and is not honest, but rather an explanation of the Theft Act 1968 and case law, in particular the cases of R v Ghosh and Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords.4 If you are attracted to this type of methodology, it is important that you approach this from a lawyer’s perspective and ignore the societal implications of your research topic. They might be interesting and compelling, but they are outside the scope of this methodology. Moral or political considerations should not enter into a blackletter law dissertation, as these are external considerations and irrelevant to the strictly legal analysis of the key doctrine.

Examples of blackletter law dissertation questions 1 2

Is irrationality still a ground for judicial review? Are the recommendations made by the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review (UPR) a mechanism enforceable against states in international law?

2 Julie Mason and Michael Salter, Writing Law Dissertations (Pearson 2007) 57. 3 Ibid., 50. 4 [1982] EWCA Crim 2; and [2017] UKSC 67.

74 Methodology

8.3 Socio-legal methodology Socio-legal methodology is at times referred to as the sociology of law, or even law in action. Roger Cotterrell has said that socio-legal scholarship in the broadest sense is the most important scholarship presently being undertaken in the legal world.5 Socio-legal scholars believe that law cannot be understood or examined in isolation from its relationship with society, politics, and morality. Law’s reciprocal relationship with society is something that has occupied scholars for centuries; the extent to which law impacts society, and vice versa – and how we explore that relationship. Socio-legal scholars also often have a focus that is not purely legal, such as gendered or racial issues within particular laws, or within certain decisions. There is less focus on the language of the law – unless it is to analyse its meaning in a symbolic sense – and more of a focus on the doctrines that underpin a particular legal phenomenon. Socio-legal researchers often draw from source materials that are not purely legal, and from other disciplines. It is not uncommon to see source materials from sociology, politics or media studies in socio-legal research. You would have read journal articles in particular that have been written utilising socio-legal methodology for some of your modules. You might have been asked to read some materials that take a gendered perspective on land law, for example; it is likely that these articles would have had a combination of theoretical and socio-legal approaches and materials. Socio-legal studies mainly draw from: • • • • •

Legislation (Acts of Parliament and secondary legislation); Case law; Reports from the government, NGOs, different stakeholders; Academic scholarship from law and other disciplines; and Occasionally, from empirical research conducted by the researcher or others.

Please note that while socio-legal studies can draw from a wide variety of materials, they are grounded in law and legal doctrines. How to formulate a socio-legal question A typical socio-legal research question might be evaluating the effectiveness of a particular piece of legislation. By considering if a particular law is effective, we move away from the purely legal world where morality and society does not matter; and we are focusing on the impact of said law. Has this law impacted those regulated by it? Has it impacted communities or changed practices? For example, a dissertation that explores the effectiveness of criminalisation of forced marriages is socio-legal because it will focus on the effect and impact of that law upon individuals. It might also consider whether attitudes towards forced marriages have changed as an outcome of the law, therefore focusing on the societal impact. 5 Roger Cotterrell, Law’s Community (Oxford University Press 1995) 314.

Methodology 75

Examples of socio-legal dissertation questions 1 2

What is the impact of racial profiling in stop and search cases? Criminalising FGM – how to balance respect for tradition and human rights?

8.4 Theory as a methodology Methodology cannot be separated from one of the most fundamental questions: how do we decide what law is? Even if you might not be attracted to theoretical research, it is important to consider whether your topic and proposed research has racial, gendered, colonial, etc. aspects. For instance, if you are keen to examine questions that deal with international law, it might be appropriate to take a moment to consider the impact or legacy of colonialism. The Critical Lawyers’ Handbook explains the critical legal approach as follows: The central focus of the critical legal approach is to explore the manner in which legal doctrine and legal education and the practices of legal institutions work to buttress and develop radical alternatives, and to explore and debate the role of law in the creation of social, economic and political relations that will advance human emancipation.6 Critical legal theory is not a new phenomenon, but it is one that has garnered more and more attention in recent years with dedicated books, journals, blogs and conferences. Critical legal theory departs from our traditional understanding of legal research considerably, but it has helped to illuminate areas of law and legal thinking that previously have been marginalised. It is possible to do a theoretical study for your dissertation if this is something that interests you. You might have studied jurisprudence or legal theory as a core or optional module, and there might be questions that you want to explore further in relation to the social contract or race theory and the law. Or perhaps you want to look at a particular legal phenomenon from a feminist perspective. Even if you are not interested in a purely theoretical dissertation, you might want to engage with some theoretical perspectives in your work to highlight to the reader what those perspectives are. Here ‘legal research methodology’ means legal research conducted from the point of view of a specific theoretical perspective, such as legal feminism, critical race theory, or law and economics. Here you would thus need to include in your research an investigation of what is entailed in this theoretical position and how it influences your research methodology.

6 The Critical Lawyers’ Handbook, Volume 1, available at www.nclg.org.uk/book1/introduction.htm accessed 20 August 2017.

76 Methodology Adopting a specific theoretical approach could affect research methodology by influencing how you specify what sources/materials to examine; and how you interpret the results. In jurisprudence or legal theory classes, you will have studied positivism, the relationship with law and morality, etc. These are the cornerstones of jurisprudence, and you should be aware of these debates. However, a dissertation should be more focused and not just a reflection or summary of a key debate. Sources for theoretical research often include: • • •

Legislation (Acts of Parliament and secondary legislation); Case law; Primary reading in theory (i.e. key theoretical texts as relevant to your topic); and Academic scholarship from law and other disciplines.

•

Please note that critical legal theory methodology is rooted in law and theory, and you should engage with primary materials for both. How to formulate a legal theory question A good theoretical dissertation engages clearly and critically with theoretical authors such as Thomas Hobbes, Jacques Derrida, Catherine MacKinnon – whoever is the leading author in your field. The dissertation must show a clear and critical reading of the key theories. The dissertation should then consider a legal question in light of the work of authors you have chosen to discuss. Merely summarising Leviathan by Hobbes will not be enough for a dissertation; you will need to analyse Leviathan in the context of something such as the modern-day social contract.

Examples of theoretical dissertation questions 1 2

The limits of autonomy – re-examining Ashworth and Williams’ debate on omissions in light of R v Evans. Are the welfare cuts a renegotiation of the social contract?

8.5 Comparative law methodology Comparative law is by no means a new methodology; comparison is probably the oldest form of research analysis there is. Palmer says that: The need to compare and differentiate phenomena seems to pervade all forms of human decision-making and may be indispensable to the development of human intelligence and judgment. This holds true not merely for lawyers, but for architects, physicians, biologists, sociologists, and others. All lawyers are

Methodology 77 comparatists in a natural sense, as when they make distinctions, draw deductions or look for a case in point.7 Yet, often when researchers and students are conducting research, they fail to acknowledge comparative law methodology for what it is: a methodology. It is very common for students to want to do a comparative study such as looking at enforcement of certain contracts in Nigeria and the UK; or exploring the law on euthanasia in the Netherlands and the UK. This type of research is comparative law methodology and requires the student to acknowledge and discuss it. Sources for comparative law research often include: • • • •

Legislation (Acts of Parliament and secondary legislation) in both countries of comparison; Case law in both countries of comparison; Academic scholarship from law and other disciplines from both countries; and Existing comparative literature on the topic.

Please note that you have to engage with both countries in some detail. It might be that Country A is your focus point, but you have to conduct rigorous research into Country B also. Comparative law methodology comes perhaps with more pitfalls than other types of methodologies. If you are considering using this type of methodology, there are a few points to bear in mind. First, what is the purpose of the comparison? The purpose of the comparison will determine the appropriate points of comparison and form the basis of your methodological discussion. You should never do a comparison just because you are struggling to meet the word count; this approach is unlikely to give you good results. In fact, including a comparative chapter without a clear explanation of the rationale behind it is likely to break the coherence of your dissertation and lose some marks. Other common problems might be linguistic and cultural problems. Can you get access to the materials in a language you are fluent in? If English is not a language used in a country you are comparing to, there is a danger that you are excluding preeminent scholars from that country. Ensure you will have access to enough materials in your language; and that these materials can be verified by the examiner. It is also important to ensure you know enough about the country of comparison. The legal system you have studied is the common law system and ideally the point of comparison would also be a common law system. Learning an entirely new legal system in the final year of your studies might be overwhelming and too time-consuming. Finally, always be aware of your own preconceptions. When doing a comparison, always keep an open mind and do not assume that a legal system or a rule in another country is superior to that of somewhere else. You should also be conscious of making assumptions, for example, about levels of corruption or impact of that 7 Vernon Valentine Palmer, ‘From Lerotholi to Lando: Some Examples of Comparative Law Methodology’ (2005) 53(1) The American Journal of Comparative Law 261.

78 Methodology upon the legal system. While you might have anecdotal stories to support assumptions, you must evidence all points and arguments as you would any other legal point. Poverty does not equate to a ‘bad’ legal system; and state religion does not mean that certain rules are popular within a country. Therefore, if making a comparison, it is paramount you leave your preconceptions behind and embrace the challenge with an open mind. How to formulate a comparative law question Once you have decided what the purpose of the comparison is, the next consideration is finding out more about the point of comparison. If conducting a comparison between two countries, you have to spend some time reading about the legal system, key legal institutions, and systems of each country you are comparing. You should also conduct some research into the wider context of that country; are there any religious or political considerations you should take into account when reading into that legal system? For example, you cannot compare the impact of Sharia law in the UK and in Saudi Arabia, as each legal system has a completely different grounding in it; and they are incomparable in relation to this aspect. It is important that you spend a considerable amount of time gathering information on both countries, and considering what type of materials you need from these countries. Only then organise and analyse the materials before forming conclusions.8

Examples of comparative law dissertation questions 1 2

Should surrogacy agreements be enforceable? A comparative study of surrogacy agreements in the UK and USA. Critical analysis of decriminalisation of prostitution in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Germany.

8.6 How to engage with methodology Now that you have an overview of different commonly used methodologies, the next stage is being comfortable describing your methodology. Figure 8.6 provides a simple three-stage process to follow when writing a brief description of methodology, for the introduction, for example:

8 Peter de Cruz, Comparative Law in a Changing World (Routledge Cavendish 2007) 242.

Methodology 79

State the methodology • • • •

Blackletter Socio-legal Comparative, etc. Remember that dissertationn can include a combination of more than one type of methodology

Explain why

Sources

• What is this methodology? • Why is this methodology relevant to your research? • How does it support your research aims? • How does it support the research question?

• How are you analysing the sources? • How does the methodology support and guide your selection of sources?

Figure 8.6

Task Engaging with methodology Step I: identifying your methodology Q. Where in the Figure 8.7 is your topic and proposed research positioned? Q. If you were researching crime and sentencing, how would your research vary at different ends of the spectrum? In other words, can you think of an example of research into crime and sentencing in law reform research? How about legal theory?

Comparative law

Blackletter law

Socio-legal

Theoretical analysis

Step II: explain why Q. Why have you chosen this methodology or these methodologies? _______________________________________________________

80 Methodology Step III: sources Q. What are your key sources? ________________________________________________________ Q. How will you analyse these sources? ________________________________________________________ Q. How will they support your methodology? ________________________________________________________

8.7 Reflexivity Reflexivity is not a methodology but something that impacts your research approach, which is why it is discussed here. It can also be a methodology in longer research projects such as a PhD thesis. Reflexivity and self-awareness are interlinked concepts and something you should be aware of throughout your dissertation writing. Some universities have reflective assessment elements as part of a dissertation portfolio. These assessments normally focus on your development as part of the dissertation writing process and any challenges you might have faced. Beyond any formal assessments, it is important that you become a reflective researcher. The dissertation, more so than any other module you have undertaken during your studies, is personal. You choose the topic, the approach, the source materials, and how you want to approach them. This is the first time you can choose your own direction. This means that often students choose an area they are personally invested in; it might be related to your country of origin, your work, or your past life experiences, good or bad. If you are researching an area that you are personally invested in or feel strongly about, it is particularly important to be reflective of your position. Before your research begins, ask yourself: • • • •

Why have I chosen this topic? Do I have a strong opinion on the topic? And if so, can I remain objective? Can I be open about my beliefs and views during the project, and how do I write that in? Do I have certain preconceptions I should be aware of?

For example, in recent years, many countries, including the UK, have moved to outlaw female genital mutilation (FGM). The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 criminalises FGM, but there have been only very few prosecutions in the field. This is something that is difficult to research for a number of reasons. There are many people who argue that FGM is a human rights violation, and there are some that argue that it is a tradition and not all forms of FGM cause health risks. In recent years, there has been more discussion about beauty ideals overall and people have

Methodology 81 begun to question whether Type 4 FGM is really that different from plastic surgery.9 Your view on this question might be very different depending on where are you from or your beliefs, gender, or even age. It is important that you acknowledge what the factors are that impact your thinking and that you engage with those. It is fine to argue that FGM is always a women’s rights violation or that consenting adult women should be allowed to go through Type 4 FGM if they so choose; as long as your argument shows sensitivity to the breadth of the debate. Sometimes, we are drawn towards a research topic we are part of ourselves; consider the example of the recent outlawing of same-sex marriage in Nigeria, or antigay laws in Uganda. These laws have attracted wide criticism and been researched by many who are interested in human rights, international law and gay rights in the region. When you are conducting research on a group that you are part of yourself – this is called insider-outsider research – it is particularly important to show reflexivity and self-awareness. Amani Hamdan has said: Reflexivity is researching myself and reflecting on my personal beliefs and values both as a researcher and as a member of the researched group. As an insideroutsider researcher believing in the merit of reflexivity, I am aware of the fact that my reflexivity could be pushing me beyond my comfort zone as a researcher. By this I mean that reflexivity has exposed aspects of my identity that I did not reveal in my research endeavour. This is what I call ‘reflexivity of discomfort’. I believe that reflexivity of discomfort enriched my experience in insider-outsider research, made me more aware of the value in conducting this type of research, and confirmed the importance of encouraging other researchers to follow this approach.10 Situations of conducting insider-outsider research, or when looking at a particularly controversial issue such as FGM, lend themselves to reflective analysis perhaps more easily. Even if you are not looking at something as controversial but are doing, for instance, a comparative study, you should consider your position within the research and any preconceptions you might have on the point of comparison. So before embarking on a research project, ensure that you know why you are researching the specific topic and any preconceptions you might have on the subject of study.

Task Methodology Consider the following dissertation titles. They all tackle a similar area of law – counter-terrorism – but they are all formulated in different ways. Consider the following dissertation titles and consider what type of research methodology the author is likely to utilise.

9 For more information on FGM, see United Nations Population Fund, www.unfpa.org/resources/ female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions. 10 A. Hamdan, ‘Reflexivity of Discomfort in Insider-Outsider Education Research’ (2009) 44(3) McGill Journal of Education 377.

82 Methodology Q1. Re-evaluating Belmarsh 15 years on – how has judicial interpretation of Article 5 developed in cases of terror suspects? Q2. Forget equality? Security, liberty and the ‘war on terror’. Q3. Renegotiating the social contract? Habeas corpus and the case of the terror suspect. Q4. Are there human rights implications on racial profiling in stop and search cases? Q5. War on terror or war on Muslim communities? The impact of surveillance on local communities.

Answers: A1. Blackletter/doctrinal research, as the focus is on the development of the judicial interpretation, i.e. legal doctrine. A2. Theoretical research; it proposes to engage with philosophical terms such as security and liberty. A3. Theoretical research; social contract is a jurisprudence term and the dissertation would need to discuss key authors who have written on this, such as Hobbes, and on state of emergency, such as Schmitt. A4. Socio-legal; the dissertation is proposing to look at law in action. It might also engage with critical race theory when analysing the relationship between police and the public. A5. Socio-legal: this is a classic socio-legal example of looking at the impact of law on society.

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to move on: Why is it important to understand and address your methodology?

What are the main types of legal methodology?

What is your chosen methodology?

Can you explain why this is the most appropriate methodology for your research? Have you considered the possible impact of your personal views/attitudes on this area?

Figure 8.7

9

Empirical research

Current stage of writing Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 9.1

In this chapter, you will find: 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8

What is empirical research in law? Examples of empirical legal research Pros and cons of empirical research How to conduct empirical research Presenting research findings Key principles of research ethics What is ethics approval? Other ethical issues

Empirical study of law has entered the legal arena, but what is it, and can it be beneficial to your research? This chapter will give you some practical guidance on how to go about carrying out empirical research and how to structure a dissertation that includes empirical research.

84 Empirical research

Advice from the examiners: Plan your time and keep questions simple and focused.

Figure 9.2

A word of warning before you embark on empirical research such as statistical analysis or small ethnographic focus group study: empirical research is not permitted in every institution, and most institutions will only approve it if you successfully apply for ethics approval. It is important that you check with your institution at a very early stage what the requirements of ethics approval are and whether the institution permits empirical research.

9.1 What is empirical research in law? John Baldwin and Gwynn Davis have said that empirical study of law has ‘entered into and enriched the study of law’.1 It has influenced many aspects of legal practice and ‘the rules and procedures of the law, which can seem arcane and specialist, reflect this influence’.2 The increase in empirical study of law has been influenced by other social sciences, in particular criminology. In criminology and studies of criminal behaviour, empirical research is often essential. What is empirical research in law then? It is anything that deals with human participants or the creation of data such as statistical analysis. It has been described as: the study, through direct methods rather than secondary sources, of the institutions, rules, procedures, and personnel of the law, with a view to understanding how they operate and what effects they have.3 These direct methods of gathering data can take various forms. All of these ways of information gathering identified in Figure 9.3 can come under the umbrella of empirical work in law:

1 John Baldwin and Gwynn Davis, ‘Empirical Research in Law’ in Peter Cane and Martin Tushnet (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies (Oxford University Press 2003) 880. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.

Empirical research 85

Statistical analysis

One-to-one interviews or focus groups

Questionnaires

Surveys

Figure 9.3

The majority of legal research is non-empirical and so your earlier studies will mainly have concentrated on the language of the law, case law, and perhaps theoretical views on law. You might have come across a few empirical studies in some of your modules, however.

9.2 Examples of empirical legal research Examples of empirical research in legal scholarship When studying criminal law, you might have come across studies on rates of offending, rehabilitation, and so on. An excellent example of empirical research in law is a study by Vanessa Munro and Louise Ellison on the effectiveness of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.4 Munro and Ellison conducted a series of mock trials on rape with the aim of assessing how jurors interpret the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and provisions on consent.5 This type of study cuts across empirical and socio-legal methodologies, and socio-legal analysis can also draw from studies involving human participants. Munro and Ellison held a series of mock trials with actors pretending to be victims/perpetrators. Their study showed that although all the mock trials were conducted in a similar manner, the outcome of the mock trials were different. The study is interesting for those who wish to learn more about criminal law and gender and it also provides an excellent example of empirical research in law. By creating mock trials, the researchers were able to find the stereotypes jurors believed in and come to some conclusions on the success of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. These conclusions could not have been reached without empirical research, as any research on real juries is strictly prohibited. Empirical research in dissertations You are not, of course, expected to conduct mock trials as this is too lengthy and time-consuming a project for a dissertation. However, there may be circumstances where you might consider conducting statistical analysis through existing data or creating your own by surveys. You might also want to draw from ethnographic methods and obtain data through focus groups or even interviews. 4 Vanessa Munro and Louise Ellison, ‘Better the Devil You Know? “Real Rape” Stereotypes and the Relevance of a Previous Relationship in (Mock) Juror Deliberation’ (2003) 14 International Journal of Evidence & Proof 299. 5 Section 74 of Sexual Offences Act 2003.

86 Empirical research Examples of empirical research that it is possible to conduct within a dissertation:

Example 1: homelessness and the Housing Acts How to research: In addition to library-based research, a small, localised study on the effectiveness of the Housing Act could be used. For example, this could be done by conducting interviews with those responsible for housing within one borough to evaluate the effectiveness of Housing Acts in tackling homelessness. Interviewees could include local shelter/homeless charity employees, or, if permission is obtained, the council housing department employees. Pros: This would enhance the originality of the work and introduce a new perspective. It would also improve your research skills and be a great addition to cover letters for postgraduate studies and employment. Cons: It might not be easy to set up interviews and to navigate through confidentiality issues. Interviews are also time-consuming.

Example 2: impact of legal aid cuts How to research: In addition to library-based research and utilising existing research on the topic, surveys or statistical analysis could be useful. Conducting surveys with 10–15 practitioners in a particular employment tribunal about the impact of the cuts would bring fresh socio-legal research into a dissertation. Completing a statistical analysis of the number of claims brought to an employment tribunal before and after the legal aid cuts could reveal crucial information. Pros: Statistical analysis or survey analysis would add originality and bring more depth to the research. It would improve your research skills and also show the examiners a wide variety of skills. Cons: Only plan to carry out statistical analysis if you are quite comfortable with spreadsheets. This can be time-consuming, as can analysing surveys. You should also check whether there are any existing studies on the exact point you are researching already. If so, you should utilise those rather than create your own.

9.3 Pros and cons of empirical research Pros of empirical research Empirical research can bring a fresh perspective to a topic that has been previously much explored. It can help to reveal problems with law that purely library-based research cannot; and it can certainly help to highlight the need for reform. Often empirical research is also interesting to conduct as you get to explore new angles that you have not yet explored.

Empirical research 87 If done well, it adds a great deal of value to your research. It can improve your research skills, and certainly shows a range of research skills. Cons of empirical research The first and most important reason why you should consider not doing empirical research is time. Setting up/planning empirical research, conducting it, and analysing the results will take more time than library-based research. Both the examples discussed above, on homelessness and legal aid, share a common denominator; the size of the study. Each of the studies is small-scale – both in terms of the scope of the study and in terms of participants.

When planning empirical research, your main consideration should be feasibility; is it possible to conduct this work in the time that I have been given?

In many cases, the answer might be no. Empirical research is very time-consuming, and this is the main drawback of this method. The second potential problem is that not all institutions and supervisors are supportive of empirical research. It is important to discuss with those responsible for the dissertation module at your institution whether it is advisable to conduct empirical research. You should also try to find out whether there are any ethical considerations that need to be taken into account and whether you need to apply for ethics approval. It might be that in many instances, the institution will not be supportive of empirical research and will discourage you from doing any. If this is the case, you should follow the institutional guidance. There are many reasons why your institution might be reluctant to allow empirical research. As dissertation studies will have to be smallscale, their relevance may be negligible. Often students plan too large a project that will be difficult if not impossible to conduct in the timeframe given. For example, it is not possible to measure public opinion as part of a degree research (even at PhD level). Public opinion Public opinion cannot be measured in a dissertation-sized study. At times, students plan to do research that includes evaluating public opinion on a topic such as reintroduction of the death penalty. This cannot be done, and it should never be approved by a university. Public opinion studies require thousands of participants who are representative of geographical, financial, class, gender, age, etc. divisions. This simply is not doable. However, public opinion on various controversial issues is measured by companies such as YouGov. You can utilise their existing research data in yours.

9.4 How to conduct empirical research If your institution is supportive of your plans, then the next stage is to consider how you will go about it. If you are planning to carry out interviews/surveys, etc., the first question to ask is why, and then how, as demonstrated in the Figure 9.4.

88 Empirical research Two questions you must answer before planning empirical research:

Why?

How?

Figure 9.4

Why conduct empirical research? To answer the WHY part, before planning you should take a moment to consider the following questions.

Task If you are planning to conduct any type of empirical research, ask yourself before deciding: Q. Q. Q. Q.

Why am I conducting this type of research? What do I hope to find out? Have there been similar studies in the past? Can I find this information in some other way?

If you can find the information elsewhere, it is strongly recommended that you take advantage of the existing data and analyse that in your dissertation. There is no point in repeating research – unless you believe that the original research results were not reliable. You must plan your empirical work well and take into account that it takes a long time to set, conduct, transcribe and analyse interviews. Remember that people have busy lives and they might not have time for interviews; and even if they agree, you have to be prepared for cancellations and rescheduling. Research design: creating a plan for empirical research Once you have decided that it is necessary and feasible to conduct empirical research and your supervisor agrees, it is time to consider how. Even if a research plan is not an essential requirement for your course, you should consider drafting a plan for empirical research or research design, as it is sometimes called. This plan can then feed into the methodology chapter of your dissertation. Research design has two main functions: •

To demonstrate how the practical side of research will be completed; this includes what type of research, how many participants/size of the sample, the timescale and scope; and

Empirical research 89 •

To ensure quality; why it is necessary to conduct this research, why in this particular manner, and why these particular participants are chosen.

In your plan, however informal it might be, you should address the following questions identified in Figure 9.5:

Why is it necessary to conduct this research?

What type of research do you plan to conduct?

Who might be the participants and why these participants?

Can you obtain the data in any other way?

Statistical analysis, focus groups; interviews; questionnaires?

Are they a representative sample? Are they qualified to comment on these issues?

Have you considered ethical issues?

Figure 9.5

Select a method of research The method should support the primary aim of the research. The methods most commonly used in dissertations are interviews, focus groups, surveys, and statistical analysis. They all have their drawbacks and benefits which are discussed in Figure 9.6. Method

Pros

Cons

Surveys

Easy to set up and administer

Respondents might not give full answers; or be entirely truthful Closed questions do not elicit in-depth answers Potentially low response rate

If conducted online, easy to collate results Easy to analyse and to present findings Interviews

Allows for clarification and follow-up questions High response rate More personalised and tailored to the individual Easier to target the desired individuals, for example, practitioners in a particular tribunal

Time-consuming Requires soft skills and interviewing skills More difficult to analyse Results cannot be generalised

(Continued)

90 Empirical research (Continued) Method

Pros

Cons

Focus group

Time efficient Easy to analyse as discussion often provides analytical points and summary Useful for studying small issues or views of a particular group

Difficult to set up Not much control of the situation as discussion will naturally flow Results cannot be generalised

Statistical analysis

Data is numerical, so it is nonbiased

Data is numerical, so it can be difficult to analyse when not accustomed to it Data will not make sense on its own; need to conduct extensive library research to contextualise it Reliant on existing data from pollsters or government bodies; will not be tailored to your needs

Data – for example, on crime or how many cases have been brought to a tribunal – is fast to obtain Data is reliable (as long as it is from courts, government, or organisations such as YouGov)

Use the stated pros and cons to decide which method works, and which issues you might encounter. In addition, consider the following: • • •

Will I have time to conduct the interviews/collect data? Will I have time to transcribe and analyse the interviews/data? How will I analyse the data?

Task Having read the pros and cons, identify the appropriate method of research for your project. Q. Why have you chosen this method? Q. What are the pros of this method? Q. What are the cons of the method?

Selecting participants/a sample This section mainly focuses on research methods with human participants such as interviews and focus group. Once you have decided on a method, it is time to choose the participants. At this point, remember that the sample should be small and manageable. For example, planning more than 20 interviews will be difficult to set up and analyse.

Empirical research 91 The people who are chosen to participate should be identified for a specific reason; for example, they are directly involved with or impacted by this legal doctrine or phenomenon. They should not be people known to you personally, or just randomly chosen. The participants should also be suitable for the study: for example, in a study on legal aid cuts, interviewing legal practitioners is appropriate but interviewing your next-door neighbour with no experience in the legal sector is not. When choosing the participants, consider: • • • • • •

How many participants you should choose; What these participants can tell you about your research topic; Whether there are any contradicting or balancing views you should include; Whether different ages, genders, and professions are represented in your research design; Whether it is unethical to include any of these participants; and Logistics; have you considered if it will be possible to meet with these people?

You should have a clear answer to all of those questions before embarking on the research. It is likely that your university will ask you to complete ethics forms that will ask you to respond to at least some of the questions. Furthermore, when completing your dissertation, you will need to include the rationale for the research design in your methodology section/chapter. Communicating with the participants All the participants are giving up their time, thoughts, and possibly expertise to help you. It is important that you acknowledge the effort they are making and remain utterly professional at all times. You should be polite in all your interactions and accommodate reasonable changes, for example, to interview arrangements. When agreeing on places to meet, you cannot expect the participants to travel or accrue costs of travel to participate. Interviews and focus groups should therefore be at a location convenient for the participant unless you have a grant from the university to pay for their travel expenses. Before conducting your first interview, read up on and practise your soft skills. It is advisable to plan in advance how you will manage if the participant only gives short, factual answers. Plan follow-up questions and tactics to help the interviewee feel more at ease. Equally, you should consider how you will manage an interviewee who talks too much or strays from the questions you were asking. The participants have agreed to take part because they find your work interesting. It is important, therefore, that you get the most out of the interviews once they are set up. Depending on the research design, if you cannot meet face-to-face, it is usually fine to conduct interviews over the telephone or even via email.

92 Empirical research

9.5 Presenting research findings This will be a key chapter in your dissertation research. After reading the findings chapter, the reader and the examiner should be able to tell what you found out from your research and what the importance is of those findings. When planning your findings chapter, please remember to include these three steps identified in Figure 9.7:

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

• Identify key themes • Structure findings chapter through key themes

• Present the findings clearly, possibly using visual aids for each theme

• Explain and analyse those findings (and visual aids) for each theme

Figure 9.6

It is important that you consider the structure of this chapter carefully; what is the best way to present these findings? Normally this would be done thematically. For example, if your questions focused on the participants’ views on the effectiveness of a particular law, and how it should be reformed, then you should have clear sections to that effect. When presenting findings, you must be clear about how you came to these conclusions. It is also important to highlight key findings for each section. An easy way to do this is to open each section with the key finding before explaining it further. You should analyse and discuss the findings in this chapter, but you can also present the findings through explicit reference to the participants’ statements through vignettes or quotes. Vignettes are short scenarios and descriptions that you might have shown to the participants. For an example of a vignette, read the task on Ethical issues in research involving Thomas and faked interviews in the final part of this chapter. Quotes are a good way to discuss findings and to highlight key points made by your participants. Remember that quotes should always be explained, contextualised, and analysed. If you conducted a survey, you might want to consider presenting those findings through charts, graphs, or tables. Again, first create the graph/chart, then analyse it. Do not expect the reader to be able to read it and come to conclusions about it – explaining the conclusions is your task. Using visual aids in your findings chapter is important and can really liven the chapter up, but the visual aids cannot replace analysis. Once you have included the graph, you must explain it. Every visual should

Empirical research 93 be followed by an explanation, such as ‘the survey shows that . . . ’ or ‘as shown by the graph, the respondents felt that . . . ’, etc. While we talk about presenting findings, it is essential that in your findings chapter you do not merely present or state what the findings were. You must analyse them, and do this consistently for all themes as shown in Figure 9.8:

Theme 1

Theme 2

Present findings

Present findings

Interpret and analyse findings

Interpret and analyse findings

Figure 9.7

Once you have identified the key themes that arose from the data, structure the chapter around those themes. Then for each theme present the findings and analyse them, before moving to the second theme.

Your analysis is a key part of presenting findings. Any graphics, quotes, or vignettes you use are meant to support the text, not replace the text.

9.6 Key principles of research ethics Before you embark on any interviews, please take a moment to consider research ethics. In most universities, it is compulsory to apply for ethics approval before undertaking empirical work. Simply put, research ethics refers to the principles of appropriate conduct that govern research. The responsibility for maintaining ethical conduct lies, in the first instance, with researchers themselves. Ethical obligations are owed by researchers to all participants as well as to your university. Why is it important to consider ethics (see, Figure 9.9)? Unethical research can lead to harm – to you as well as the participants. You should be aware of the wider key principles of research: • • •

Never lie; Always ensure that your research does not result in harm; and Never intervene in the events that you are researching.

94 Empirical research Rights and wellbeing of the participants

Ethical research ensures Validity of the research

Reputation of the institution

Figure 9.8

Task Consider the following scenario. Before you embark on research that includes human participants, you should always consider whether your research could result in harm. For example, a student is proposing to evaluate the law on assisted dying. He is interested in the concept of autonomy – in particular, the conflict between paternalism and autonomy when it comes to right-to-die cases. This is a good and interesting dissertation that one is able to conduct without empirical work; yet the student in question is also planning to conduct interviews with terminally ill patients and their families. In particular, he wants to interview patients and their families at hospices to find out their views on the law on assisted dying. Q. Should the student be allowed to conduct the interviews? Q. What ethical issues might this research raise? Q. What research design issues might this research raise?

Q. Should the student be allowed to conduct the interviews? A. In short, no. There are many reasons why the student should not and cannot conduct such interviews: most importantly, the vulnerability of the participants. Q. What ethical issues might this research raise? A. People suffering from terminal illnesses and their families are in a particularly vulnerable position and therefore asking end-of-life questions could result in considerable distress to the participants – even if they had indicated that they wanted to participate.

Empirical research 95 Q. What research design issues might this research raise? A. The interviews are not crucial for the dissertation. There is ample data already available, and so the student should use existing resources instead. There are a number of ethical standards that have been accepted throughout the UK and abroad, and all researchers and ethical committees are expected to comply with these key concepts identified in Figure 9.10:

Informed consent

Confidentiality

Benefit not harm

Figure 9.9

Informed consent All participants must be fully informed of the study and what is being asked of them in order to make a fully informed decision about whether or not to participate in the research. Everyone who participates in the research should give free, informed consent. Freely given informed consent is the most important ethical principle in research. This means that the persons you approach to participate in the research must know all relevant information about the project. You must tell the participants: • • •

What the project is; What the aims of the project are; and How their interviews will be used in this project.

Even if the participant does not ask any of these questions, you must proactively inform them of the project. Only then can they be sure they want to take part in the project, and feel comfortable in taking part. The participants also have the right to see the final project if they so choose, so you might want to discuss with them it at this point whether they will want to see it. It is important that you obtain written consent from each of the participants. The consent form ordinarily includes: • •

Name and signature of the participant; Name and signature of the researcher;

96 Empirical research • • • •

Date; Title of the dissertation; Purpose of the study (a description of the research in plain language); and An indication of whether the participant agrees to have the interview recorded.

You do not need to attach the consent forms as an appendix, but you should keep a copy in case any questions are asked later by the examiners or the institution. Informed consent is not just about signing the consent form. Like all forms of consent, it is an ongoing process, and the participants should feel they have the right to withdraw from the research anytime they wish. Benefit not harm Research involving human participants must have some benefit. When thinking about the benefit of undergraduate dissertations, student research is generally accepted to have benefit to society, as the student researchers are learning how to conduct research. In larger scientific studies, the risks involved to participants must be balanced against the potential benefit. However, in undergraduate law dissertations, there should be no risks involved for the participants or stemming from the research. Confidentiality It is vital that the participants can trust you as a researcher. They will not feel comfortable discussing issues if they do not, and this impacts upon the quality of the research. When you are discussing consent at the beginning of the research project, you should also explain confidentiality, and how you will ensure that their input remains confidential. Generally, only you should have access to information concerning the identity of the participants and who said what. In the final dissertation, you should ensure that the results are fully anonymised. This means not including names, specific titles, or anything that makes it possible to identify an individual participant.

9.7 What is ethics approval? How do universities then ensure that all students and staff follow the key principles of ethics as discussed previously? By ensuring that everyone applies for a research ethics approval. Ethics approval is required by most institutions for all research undertaken by a student that involves human participants (either directly or indirectly). If your institution requires ethics approval, research must not commence until ethical approval has been obtained. If you collected any data before you obtained ethics approval, you will not be able to use this in your dissertation. You can only use data you obtained after the ethics approval, and please remember:

Empirical research 97

The requirements for ethics approval vary from institution to institution and it is essential that you find out early on what the requirements are, before you start even thinking about conducting any empirical research.

Figure 9.10

Some universities will not allow empirical research under any circumstances, others discourage it, and some encourage it. It is therefore important that you know what the stance of your university is and how to go about obtaining research ethics approval within two to three weeks of the start of term/the project. There are no standard ethics approval forms; rather, they vary from institution to institution. The research design will also impact on how difficult it will be to obtain approval. If you are planning to conduct research via short, anonymous questionnaires, obtaining approval should be quite straightforward. However, if you are planning to observe a focus group, the ethics committee will want to know a great deal of detail about the rationale for this design. What the research ethics committee will look for in the applications are: • • • •

Clearly defined research design; Rationale for the research design; Evidence that you have considered what the ethical issues are; and Evidence that you have minimised any ethical issues.

The aim of an ethical review is to protect participants: they are a valuable part of the research process and not merely a means of accessing data or making your research appear better researched. Ethical review also helps to protect you. If there are any questions asked later, you will have evidence to show your project complied with all guidelines.

9.8 Other ethical issues Beyond the key ethical principles and ethics approvals, there are various ethical issues that might arise during your research project. Some might relate to participants and what they tell you; and others might stem from your classmates. What do you do, for example, if your classmate is cheating?

98 Empirical research

Task Ethical issues in research Consider the following scenario. Thomas is conducting research for his law dissertation. He is examining the impact of the welfare cuts in the UK on the social contract. He is interested in legal theory and public law, so this work fits in well with his research interests. He plans to conduct a series of interviews with people who are working for local authorities, particularly at the Job Centre in his local city of Bradford. He then plans to theorise the answers and place them in the context of social contract theories. His proposal was well received by the supervisor and he obtained ethics approval within weeks of the project commencing. His supervisor gave him good feedback, but said that the research should be small-scale and have no more than a dozen interviewees in order for Thomas to be able to complete it. Despite positive feedback so far, Thomas feels a bit overwhelmed with the project he has planned. He does not do anything for the dissertation for months and only in the middle of December does he decide to start tackling the dissertation. When he contacts people in the local Job Centre, he realises that many people are going on holiday and would only be willing to be interviewed in late January – and many more did not even respond to his request for an interview. In January, Thomas is getting anxious. He feels the three interviews he has secured will not be a sufficient sample and that his dissertation would not demonstrate rigorous research. At the end of January, after conducting the three interviews, he decides to fake some interviews. He includes imaginary responses to his work and analyses ‘this data’. Thomas realises that if his examiners check on his sources, he will face severe consequences. He confides in his friend, Shabna, about his deceit. Shabna is a student at the same university who has worked hard on her dissertation since September. She is upset with Thomas for faking the interviews and feels she should say something to Thomas’s supervisor but realises that if she does, Thomas will be found guilty of an academic offence and possibly will never be able to practise law. Consider the following: Q. Why was Thomas’s behaviour unethical? Q. If you were in the position of Thomas, unable to conduct the interviews, what would you have done? Why? Q. Does it matter that it was for a good purpose, i.e. to highlight the impact of welfare cuts on the lives of many? Q. If you were in the position of Shabna, would you have reported Thomas? Why yes/no?

Empirical research 99 First, there are no right or wrong answers to these questions. The following answers are more suggestions on what could have been done. Q. Why was Thomas’s behaviour unethical? A. Thomas’s behaviour was unethical and it would also constitute an academic offence. The final part of this book, Step V: writing your dissertation has a section on academic offences that you should read. Academic honesty is more important in law than in other disciplines, as future lawyers are expected to uphold the ideas of honesty, justice, and fairness. Cheating on your dissertation goes against all of those principles. Q. If you were in the position of Thomas, unable to conduct the interviews, what would you have done? Why? A. When it became clear that Thomas was unable to conduct the interviews, he should have changed the research design. He should have just removed the empirical aspects of the research and redesigned the project into a librarybased study. He could have focused instead on judicial review challenges to austerity measures, the equality impact assessments, or existing academic commentary on the austerity measures. This way, he would have remained in the same theme, but completed the research from a different perspective. Another key issue here is time management. Thomas should have started to set up the interviews the moment ethics approval was granted; this way, he would have been able to complete the project. Alternatively, if it simply turned out that it was impossible to conduct enough interviews, he should have changed the research design and he would have had plenty of time to refocus the project.

It is absolutely fine to change your research plans in the middle of the project if you realise that the original plan cannot be followed through.

Q. Does it matter that it was for a good purpose, i.e. to highlight the impact of welfare cuts on the lives of many? A. It does not matter. Faking interviews means that his research project had no credibility, and so he would have been unable to reach his wider aim in any case. Q. If you were in the position of Shabna, would you have reported Thomas? Why yes/no? A. This is a difficult decision for Shabna, and for any student in her circumstances. It is also a problem many students face, unfortunately. There would be occasions when a student has seen another student cheat, maybe in the exams, or they might know that a fellow student did not write their own coursework. Some students do not interfere as they feel it is not their business to do so.

100

Empirical research Others would report this to the supervisor or module leader. Simply put, other students do not like cheaters. If it is widely known that a student has cheated, it is likely that one person at least will tell a member of the faculty of this, either directly or indirectly.

From the perspective of the examiner or the supervisor, you should obviously report such behaviour. Reluctance to do so is understandable, and if you do not feel reporting a fellow student is the best option, try approaching the student first. By letting them know you disagree with their actions, hopefully the student will change their course of action before it is too late.

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to move on:

Does your institution allow empirical research?

What are the benefits of conducting this type of research? Is your research design small scale and possible to complete in the time you have been given?

Have you found out the university's ethics requirements? Are there any other ethical considerations to take into account?

Figure 9.11

10 Processing literature

Current stage of writing Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 10.1

In this chapter, you will find: 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7

What is key literature? Deciding what to read and what not to read How to create a working bibliography Quick reading skills Deep reading skills Critically analysing a text A critical and reflective reader

This chapter focuses on how to process literature. It is absolutely fundamental that your research shows familiarity with the literature relevant to your research question. The key literature consists of key materials in your field such as key cases, journals, etc., you absolutely you have to know. This chapter will discuss hierarchy of academic sources as well as how to process them. It will also give you tools to become a more critical and reflective reader.

102

Processing literature

Advice from the examiners: Do not waste time reading low quality internet sources!

Figure 10.2

10.1 What is key literature? It is important to note that in different stages in your dissertation work, you will be engaging with the literature in different ways. The literature refers to the core texts on your topic, the leading writings that you would have to be acquainted with in order to discuss that topic with any authority or credibility. Imagine if a person is writing a dissertation about parliamentary sovereignty but has never heard of the case of Factortame.1 It would appear that they lacked any understanding of the field, despite the fact that they might have read in the field otherwise. The literature naturally includes the key cases, legislation and the authoritative rulings, and also a grasp of where, how and why different lines of judicial decisions differ. The literature also includes scholarly writing in legal academic books and journals and, again, it is important to know about important debates as well as merely the names of important writers. Your research proposal must describe how your research relates to the literature and also identify key sources from ‘the literature’, including key cases that you propose to draw upon in your research. In the next phase, the literature may also help you to find answers to your research question and to build your arguments. Then, later, when you come to write your dissertation, you will need to be able to present the literature relevant to your research question in a clear and concise way. When you are considering the academic legal literature related to your question, you would need to familiarise yourself with: • • • •

The key primary legal sources, i.e. cases and legislation/international treaties; The influential and most quoted/referred to books and journals in your field; The key writers (who have written extensively, or one of the key texts in your field); and The current debates (for this you can read broadly and beyond purely academic sources).

1 R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [1990] UKHL 13, [1991] 1 AC 603.

Processing literature 103 Whatever type of topic you are researching, there is always a relevant literature. The type of literature you should engage with is closely related to the chosen methodology and research approach. If you have chosen a blackletter legal question and research approach, you would not be expected to engage with current debates beyond academia. The relevant literature depends on the type of topic and you should focus on the relevant literature alone. This means you do not need to discuss everything around the subject area – only literature relevant to your topic. Consider the following examples in Figure 10.3 to see how key literature depends on the field of research:

Field of research

Key literature

Law reform/new law in a particular field

In addition to primary legal sources and scholarship, the literature would include the background context of official reports (typically by the Law Commission, but also inquiries) leading to the reform. In addition to the previous leading cases, the literature includes legal and academic journals about the new case/law and about the area of law. In addition to primary legal sources and scholarship, the relevant literature would include previous empirical research that had been conducted on that topic. In addition to primary legal sources and scholarship, you would also need to investigate the theoretical and philosophical literature in the field.

A new case

A socio-legal topic

Critical legal studies/ theoretical topic

At the most general level, grasping the literature involves becoming familiar with the different types of text available in the field. When you feel at home with the kind of text that you are approaching, you can adapt your reading style. When you are searching, you can decide which type of texts would be appropriate or inappropriate for your purpose.

10.2 Deciding what to read and what not to read It is important to distinguish between different types of sources and to ensure you have a good variety of sources in your dissertation. You need to become a critical reader and not to take everything you read at face value; or to recognise the different approaches different publishers take. Remember that you do not need to read everything about your topic. If you are working on a popular topic or have not fully narrowed down your research question, you are likely to come across thousands upon thousands of search results on Google Scholar or law research databases. No

104

Processing literature

one can or should read thousands of journal articles for their dissertation. It is therefore important that you learn what not to read. Once you have a basic understanding of the field, it is time to move away from generic information on the topic. You can spend days browsing through websites and newspaper reports that tell you what you already know; this is time wasted. Once you know the basics, only read materials you can reference in the dissertation. If the source is not reliable and you cannot reference it, there is little point spending time reading it. The second consideration is how relevant the approach taken by the literature is to your question. If we consider again the example of assisted dying, hundreds of thousands of good-quality journal articles have been published on the issue. All of these sources would be reputable, and could be referenced in your dissertation. The question arises then: are they relevant to your research question? A search in Google Scholar for assisted dying brings back 364,000 results. How many of these results are likely to be relevant to you? There would be results from medical journals, ethics journals, legal journals, and even human rights journals. In deciding which of these sources you will read, and which you will disregard, you have to be ruthless. When making these decisions, consider the following questions in Figure 10.4: Is this relevant?

Is this just generic information on the topic?

Does the ke publication take a similar approach to me?

Do I need to read all of it or just particular sections?

Does it focus on D the same key issue(s)?

Figure 10.3

When deciding whether to spend an hour reading a source, one important consideration is the research approach the reading takes; for example, if you are seeking information on a new Bill or an Act that has come into force. Consider these three publications: • • •

Modern Law Review; Parliamentary Affairs; and New Law Journal.

Processing literature 105 All of those are reputable sources for research, but the approach taken in each of these journals would be vastly different from the others. The Modern Law Review, one of the most respected law journals in the UK, publishes deeply analytical and original journal articles and case reviews. A review of a Bill or an Act is likely to take the form of a highly researched, critical analysis of the issue. In turn, Parliamentary Affairs is likely to focus on how Parliament voted on the issue, the Hansard debates, and issues around the enactment of the law. Finally, the New Law Journal would offer a shorter, practical review of the Bill or Act to practitioners, focusing on what lawyers in the field should know about it. Three journals; three very different approaches. Before you start reading a text, consider what type of text it is. You can then read the text appropriately – or decide not to read it at all. It is important therefore that you become a critical reader in your field; this means learning to recognise different sources that are relevant to you. For example, you would expect a textbook to give you an authoritative statement of law on a topic and information on conflicting cases and – depending on the level of the textbook – an outline of the issues or principles involved in the conflict. But you would need to look elsewhere to find a deeper analysis of the conflicts. Where would you look? In Supreme Court judgments and legal academic journals.

10.3 How to create a working bibliography A working bibliography is not the same as an actual bibliography. It is a record of everything you have read and everything you are planning to read. It is called a working or running bibliography because it is a work in progress; it will change and evolve as your work progresses. It is highly recommended that you enter information in the running bibliography in the same referencing format that you need to use for your dissertation. This avoids duplicating work at the final stages of the dissertation polishing process. You can use dedicated software for this or you can use any word processing software or spreadsheet package for this information. Spreadsheets are easier to use than MS Word as you can sort the information alphabetically. As the dissertation reading list becomes longer, you might not want to spend a day manually organising your sources alphabetically. In the working bibliography, you should enter anything you have read and a brief note on those items: • • •

Was the text useful, and which part of it? Do you have to go back and read it again? Where can you locate the item if needed again?

A working bibliography can be as brief or as detailed as you wish, as long as it has all the key information that you need about the text and how to retrieve it again.

106

Processing literature

Source

Comments

Location

Archard D, Sexual Consent (Westview 1998)

TO READ comes up in footnotes to many sources. FINISHED READING Introduction and chapter 3 are useful; read those again.

British Library

FINISHED READING Not useful for dissertation; detailed historical perspective but no modernday consideration

University online library

Waites M, The Age of Consent: Young people, Sexuality and Citizenship (Palgrave Macmillan 2005) Bullogh VL et al., ‘Age of Consent: A Historical Overview’ (2003) 16(2/3) Journal of psychology & human sexuality 25–42

University library

10.4 Quick reading skills There is no need to read everything you come across on your topic, word for word. As explained in the previous section, some sources you can disregard immediately as they are not specific enough on your topic or they focus on your topic but from a perspective that does not support your reading. Once you have selected the key sources, it is important to remember that you do not need to read the source from page 1 to the end at the same speed. Rather, it is important to learn to scan the materials for important information. It is also important to consider what it is that you are looking for from this particular text. Before reading, you need a sense of your own purpose for reading this particular source. Before embarking on a day of reading, consider these questions: • • •

Are you looking for background information on a topic you know a little bit about already? Are you looking for specific details and facts that you can marshal in support of an argument? Are you trying to see how an author approaches her topic rhetorically?

Knowing your own purpose in reading will help you to focus your attention on relevant aspects of the text. Take a moment to reflect and clarify what your goal really is in the reading you are about to do. Talking about quick reading skills, it is important to become familiar with scan reading and skim reading, as shown in Figure 10.6. While talked about separately, both scan and skim reading have overlap as both are focusing on the surface information that is easy to extract. Scan reading is used to find specific information such as locating a relevant section of a book or a journal article. The aim of scan reading is to locate the information that is relevant to the question you are asking and to disregard anything else. It might be you are looking for a particular quote, statistic, or a particular fact in the text. For this purpose, you would not read the entire text but much like you use the search function

Processing literature 107

Scan reading

Skim reading

• Use when looking for an answer to a specific question

• Use when overviewing a text

Figure 10.4

in word, you just seek that particular piece of information. You can do this by index, or skimming through headings or opening paragraphs to a particular chapter. Skim reading is used to get an overview of a text: what it contains and what the author wanted to convey. Rather than finding specific information as you would with scanning, skimming gives you an overview so you can consider the relevance of this text overall in relation to your work. While skimming, you can consider the scope of that particular research, the methodology they have utilised, and what the approach of the author is to the question they are trying to answer. When looking for surface information to determine the relevance of the source, you would consider the title, the author, the publisher, and when the title was published. These give you the basic facts of the title. You should also scan or skim through the following sections as shown in Figure 10.7:

Books and journals

Bibliography

Sub-headings

Books only

Table of contents

Who has the author cited? Are these authors also important to you, and do the titles suggest they take a similar research approach? Or does the research approach differ from yours, i.e. majority of sources in the bibliography focus on an area that is not important to your studies? Sub-headings will give the reader a clear idea of the content and structure of the source, and also what is not included in the study. This will tell you the scope of the study without needing to skim through the book. (Continued)

108

Processing literature

(Continued) Index

Tables of cases and legislation

Chapter introductions

Journals only

Abstract

Located at the back of the book, an index is a list of key words in alphabetical order. For scan reading, this is an invaluable tool as looking at the index and following up the page references can tell you very quickly whether the book has anything relevant for your purposes. These tables will list every case and Act/treaty that has been discussed in the book. If the cases you are working on are not listed here, it is probably safe to disregard the source. Chapter introductions summarise the key argument made in that chapter; and how it relates to the main argument of the title. Journal articles nearly always have a short 150–200-word-long abstract. This abstract is a summary of what the article will discuss, in what order, and why. It will normally highlight the key question as well. It will be a vital source of information when skim reading: providing an overview of the source without having to skim through it entirely.

Task Once in the library, locate four sources that are relevant but do not necessarily deal entirely with the same topic as your dissertation research. Using the tools in this section, try to get an overview of each of the sources and decide whether they are relevant to your research, and if so which part(s).

Processing literature 109 •

•

Ignore the content of the text completely at this point. For the books you have chosen, review the table of contents, bibliography, and index only. For journals, review the abstract and bibliography only. Write down in a few sentences what you have learned about the text, and a note on whether you should read this source or disregard it.

10.5 Deep reading skills Quick reading skills are vital for managing the information overload that you will experience at the early stages of your research project. Once the research project progresses, however, you will need more meaningful engagement with the text, in order to understand what the author is saying and to relate their views to other texts. By finding the relationships between different texts, you become a more critical reader. Being a critical reader involves understanding how texts are related to each other within a field of knowledge and discussion. To engage with the text in a critical and meaningful way, consider: • • • •

What is the context of this research: is it social, temporal, or philosophical? How does this text relate to your prior reading in the field? Does it form part of an ongoing debate? How does this relate to the author’s work more broadly? Have their views changed and developed in relation to this issue? If it is a case, how does this case relate to other cases or earlier stages of the same dispute? What is the likely impact of this case? Does it set a precedent; and if so, which case does it overrule or what doctrine does it amend?

You should always engage with the text in a critical and meaningful way. Students are often better at making connections between different scholarly/secondary materials than with primary legal materials. It is quite common to have a chapter that includes or consists of a review of case law. This review should be constructed in the same way as a literature review: thematically or through clashes/issues. You should never just list cases and explain their facts. Reading primary legal sources, you should keep the same critical eye and ask the same question – how do these sources relate to one another? – as you would when reading secondary sources. For cases, to investigate their importance and inter-relatedness, you should read widely around the case and not only the case itself. Have there been case reviews published on the case? Has a known legal scholar or practitioner written about the case on an authoritative blog such as the Supreme Court blog? Use these secondary sources to drag out the key themes when reading cases.

110

Processing literature

10.6 Critically analysing a text The most important skill you will learn during your studies is critical analysis. This means the ability to read scholarly work, even from those most esteemed in the field, in a critical and analytical manner. Analysing a text means you do not accept everything written in it as ‘the truth’, but rather evaluate it. Evaluate the usefulness of the arguments it makes, examine how it relates to other texts, and analyse whether the argument is well supported or not. Critical analysis is a process of evaluating knowledge and questing different ways of thinking. Critical reflection requires you to go beyond just accepting the analysis of authors as facts; it requires you to question and unpack their arguments. Why have they made the arguments that they have? What type of evidence they have used? Have they persuasively argued their case, or could their thoughts have been developed further? Here are some general thoughts that might help: • • •

• •

What is the main point or theme of this text? Do you agree with the central theme or argument? What is the context of this text? Does it acknowledge that context? Who is the author? Not only in terms of their name but also their background; are they coming from a particular perspective such as a judge or academic? Has the author’s background, such as their age or political views, influenced the text? What is not included in this text? Are there any notable absences in terms of sources/themes/ideas? Are there any tensions or contradictions in the text?

Task Critical analysis This task focuses on analysing two short paragraphs on omission liability in criminal law. Imagine that during your research you have come across the following two paragraphs, one from Andrew Ashworth and one from Glanville Williams, and you want to use them to build an argument about these two aspects of the same legal issue. First, read the extracts and then critically analyse them, using the questions provided.

Andrew Ashworth argues in the ‘The Scope of Criminal Liability for Omissions’2 that: What the scope of such duties should be is therefore a major question for the legislature when considering criminal law reform and for the courts when 2 Andrew Ashworth, ‘The Scope of Criminal Liability for Omissions’ (1989) 105 LQR 424.

Processing literature 111 developing the common law or interpreting statutes. Two contrasting positions may be identified, the ‘conventional view’ and the ‘social responsibility view’. They are not polar opposites, and in a practical sense the difference between them is a matter of the extent of the duties recognised. But the two views do proceed from different theoretical foundations, and these are important when considering reasons for and against particular instances of criminal liability for omissions. What it is proposed to call the ‘conventional view’ – though one cannot be sure how settled or how prevalent it is – maintains that the criminal law should be reluctant to impose liability for omissions except in clear and serious cases. It is accepted that there are many activities in modern society which must, to some extent, be regulated by criminal offences, of which some will properly be offences of omission; it is also accepted that citizens have duties to support the collective good by paying taxes, etc., and that such duties may be reinforced by offences of omission; but the distinctive argument is that our duties towards other individuals should be confined to duties towards those for whom we have voluntarily undertaken some responsibility. Whereas we owe negative duties (e.g. not to kill or injure) to all people, it is right that we should owe positive duties (e.g. to render assistance, to support) only to a circumscribed group of people with whom there exists a special relationship. When supporters of the conventional view are pressed to justify this limitation, they might tend to argue that there is moral distinction between acts and omissions, maintaining that failure to perform an act with foreseen bad consequences is morally less bad than performing an act with the identical foreseen bad consequences. Compare Ashworth’s view to that of Glanville Williams, in ‘Criminal Omissions – The Conventional View’,3 that: First, omissions liability should be exceptional, and needs to be adequately justified in each instance. Secondly, when it is imposed this should be done by clear statutory language. Verbs primarily denoting (and forbidding) active conduct should not be construed to include omissions except when the statute contains a genuine implication to this effect – not the perfunctory and fictitious implication that judges use when they are on the lawpath instead of the purely judge-path. Thirdly, maximum penalties applied to active wrongdoing should not automatically be transferred to corresponding omissions; penalties for omissions should be rethought in each case. The case for the conventional view The arguments for this philosophy may be briefly stated. (I would have thought them too obvious to need statement.) First, society’s most urgent task is the repression of active wrongdoing. Bringing the ignorant or lethargic up to scratch is very much a secondary endeavour, for which the criminal process is not necessarily the best suited. Secondly, our attitudes to wrongful action and wrongful inaction differ. 3 Glanville Williams, ‘Criminal Omissions – The Conventional View’ (1991) 107 LQR 86.

112

Processing literature

Task Critical analysis Step 1 is to summarise: Both of these views present a very different view on the same issue in criminal law. In terms of using these ideas in your own writing, you will need to summarise the views of Ashworth and Williams to make sure that you understand their argument. You can either write a short summary of their ideas in your own words, or simply list what you think are the main ideas and how they relate to each other. Step 2 is to form a critical judgment on the topic: Q. Thinking about your summary, do the authors agree or disagree? Q. Is there any overlap between the arguments? Q. Which view do you find has been more persuasively argued? The first step in exercising critical judgment is to understand the arguments that you read and to be able to use them effectively to support the development of your opinions. When you come across views that do not support your argument, you should not ignore them but engage with them, following the same two-step process. Summarise the points that have been made against your argument, and then consider how they differ from yours before explaining why they do not apply in this scenario. You can only make a judgment about the relevance or usefulness of an argument after you have processed it.

10.7 A critical and reflective reader Task First, consider these two (fictional) journal article headings. Which article are you more likely to read? • •

The social science perspective on why same-sex marriages should not have been legalised. Same-sex marriage should be recognised as a human right in every part of Europe.

Once you have chosen a heading, can you explain why you chose that particular article? Whether you are aware of it or not, it might be that you are seeking information through confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is a term of psychology that means when people would like a certain idea/concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. People often ignore beliefs and readings that do not support what they

Processing literature 113 already know, or they gravitate towards information that supports and reinforces their earlier knowledge. For example, people who hold left-wing political views are more likely to read The Guardian than The Telegraph, and vice versa. Our political views dictate to a degree what we want to read on daily basis. We live in an era that is suddenly rife with ‘fake news’, yet fake news spreads: no matter how absurd, it will find readers who want to believe it to be true. Bias impacts us in two ways: in terms of the type of information we are willing to read, and how we interpret that information. When reading an article whose approach you thoroughly disagree with, you are more likely to read it in order to form an argument against it. While we can never truly be free of all forms of bias, we can be aware of it. Being a critical reader requires you to go beyond comparing and contrasting, to instead engage with the topic, and understand why you agree with some authors while disagreeing with others. It requires you to question how you know what you think you know, and why you hold the beliefs that you do. After reading a text that you found difficult or that stirred up some emotions, it is good to consider what those emotions or reactions are. Why did you respond to the text in the way that you did? And do those reactions tell you something about yourself and your own views? It is also important to note that our views are not set in stone; rather, they evolve as we read and experience more. It is likely that you start from a particular viewpoint with your dissertation, but as your research progresses your views become more nuanced and less absolute. Or perhaps you start from an ambivalent perspective and become passionate about your key argument as the work progresses. It is important to realise how our perspectives change, and which texts were intrinsic to that change.

Task If we replicate the task from the earlier page, consider if you are better able to explain your choices this time around. First, consider these two (fictional) news headlines. Which article are you more likely to read? • •

Street parties erupt in Montevideo as Uruguay legalises smoking marijuana in public spaces. Police statistics show a clear link between use of marijuana and property crime.

Once you have chosen a heading, can you explain why you chose that particular heading?

We all come with a variety of opinions and values and inevitably bring these with us to our research. While all researchers should aim to maintain an objective view, realistically this is not always possible. What is more important is that you

114

Processing literature

are aware of these opinions and values, and how they impact upon your research. Being a critical and reflective researcher means that you can interrogate your own arguments and stance as much as those of others.

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to move on:

What is the key literature in your field? What are the most authoritative sources of research for your project? Are there any conflicting views you should include? How do your views impact on the materials you research and read?

Figure 10.5

11 Literature review

Current stage of writing Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 11.1

In this chapter, you will find: 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5

What is a literature review? Why conduct a literature review? Sources for literature review How to conduct a literature review Highlighting the originality of your research project

This chapter focuses on literature reviews. It will explain what they are, why literature reviews are important, and how to complete one. In Step II: planning and preparing research in this book, we discussed research plans and annotated bibliographies. Literature reviews are a way to process literature, but they also form an important part of planning your project. Therefore, this chapter forms an essential part of both Step II and Step IV. A literature review might be an assessed part of the research plan or a separate component in your dissertation portfolio. Even if there is no assessment element that includes a literature review, most dissertations include one informally. This can be a chapter of your dissertation or incorporated into various chapters of the dissertation. It is therefore important that you know how to complete a literature review in a way that supports your research goals.

116

Literature review

Advice from the examiners: Remember to highlight why your project is original.

Figure 11.2

11.1 What is a literature review? Literature reviews are descriptive and analytical reviews of literature in a particular field. A literature review is not a chronological summary of different sources you have read. It is also not a summary of your proposed work with few references thrown in. Rather it is a systematic, critical review of literature in the field of your research question. It is likely that this is the first time in your studies you have been asked to conduct a literature review, but it is likely not to be the last. If you are planning to do a master’s or postgraduate studies or are aiming for a career that involves research, you will find you will need to conduct literature reviews for every research project you complete. The two key functions of a literature review are summarised in Figure 11.3 as follows:

Summarise scholarship and knowledge in a particular field

Reach conclusions on how accurate that knowledge is and to note any gaps in that knowledge

Figure 11.3

The process of creating a literature review can be summarised as follows: 1 2 3

Choose the key sources. Summarise each source that will form part of the review. Consider where the sources overlap/differ; structure the review around these themes.

Literature review 117 4 5

Consider how your research fits within the existing views. By understanding and analysing literature in the field, highlight the importance and originality of your research/perspective.

11.2 Why conduct a literature review? It is essential that you complete the literature review at the start of the research project. There are a number of benefits in conducting a literature review but most importantly, it validates your research question. If you do not know what has been written about your topic before, you cannot know if your question is worth asking. By conducting a literature review, you will get to know the key literature in the field; these are the authors you will rely on extensively throughout your project. It will help you to find out what has already been said about your topic, and what the general views are on this topic. This means that you will not waste your time pursuing obvious questions or questions that are impossible to answer. Most importantly, a literature review will enable you to determine where the big issues are in the field and, hopefully, any gaps in the literature. It might be that you find a lot has been written about your topic, but all the authors keep repeating the same point or analysing it from the same perspective. Bringing in a different, fresh perspective into your research topic provides the type of originality examiners are looking for in first-class dissertations. A good literature review also positions your work within the context of the existing literature. By so doing, it gives context to the reader and helps the reader to understand why you are doing this research and how it contributes to the existing knowledge in the field.

11.3 Sources for literature review Once you have an idea what a literature review is, next it becomes necessary to identify the sources. It is customary to rely on high-quality academic sources when conducting a literature review, i.e. books and journal articles. Depending on the approach you take, it might also be relevant to include some reports/primary legal sources, but these should be the exception to the rule. Reports? There are some fields where key literature is produced by government agencies and NGOs. For example, if you are completing a dissertation on possible reform on homicide laws, it might be necessary to include a report from the Law Commission in the literature review. Similarly, if you are looking at international human rights and a right to education in a specific country, it might be relevant to include a report from the relevant UN body or from an NGO. However, when using nonscholarly sources, it is important to be aware of the context in which they were written and any particular agenda, political or otherwise, the organisation might have.

118

Literature review

Internet sources? What about internet sources? This is a potential minefield that you should be cautious of. There is no list or ranking that tells you which internet sources you can include in the literature review and which ones should be avoided. It is clear that blogs and general information sites should always be avoided. However, it has become increasingly common for academics to post their work online while it is awaiting publication, and these sources might be relevant to your research. If a leading expert in your field has posted a highly relevant article on academia.edu while it is waiting to be published in a leading journal, it might be good practice to include this in your literature review. Otherwise, be very cautious about internet sources and err on the side of caution when deciding. Remember that anyone can post anything online; just because a piece of writing has visibility online does not mean it has any merit or truth to it. Newspaper reports? These should never be included in your literature review as they are not academic literature. Overall, newspapers should always be used with caution and as a point of analysis rather than as a research source. Primary legal sources? Traditionally, these are not included in the literature review as, again, they are not literature. If your entire dissertation is based on a case, you have to obviously mention that case. For example, if your dissertation is on the field of equity and evaluating Quistclose trusts, you have to mention the case of Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd1 in the review. Yet the case should not be used as a source for the review. Rather what should be included are scholarly views on the case. Research the relevant legal databases for relevant case reviews, and for journal articles that discuss the case. Then base your review on those materials rather than the case itself. When reviewing a topic that is based on particular legislation, the same principle applies: scholarship about the law, rather than the law itself, should be reviewed. If high-profile legislation is passed, it is preceded by a Law Commission report and a government consultation, which various stakeholders can respond to. There would also be a plethora of academic writing on the law once it is enacted, evaluating the change it is likely to bring about, and any issues the experts perceive with the law. The literature review should focus on these academic views, and potentially preceding reports, rather than on the law itself. Textbooks? Textbooks are great reading to get into a particular field. They give you an overview of the area and how it relates to the wider legal framework in the field. However, they are unlikely to be focused enough for the purposes of literature review. Remember that the task is not to summarise a field of study such as equity but the literature 1 [1968] UKHL 4.

Literature review 119 on the field of a particular question. A textbook on equity is unlikely to give you insights into the debates on Quistclose trusts; it will explain what they are and give an overview of some of the issues, but it does not reach deep enough into the topic. Key authors In summary, you cannot go wrong by relying on high-quality academic sources such as books and peer-reviewed journals. By the time you are conducting a literature review, you should have identified who the key authors are in the field and what they have written on the topic. To identify the key texts, consider the following: • • • • •

Which authors are repeatedly mentioned or quoted in the articles you have read? Is there a book/journal article that many scholars have either quoted or responded to? Is there a title that is controversial in the field, and has attracted negative responses? In the key cases in your field, do the judges mention specific scholars? Is there an author in the field who came up with a key term/concept?

Once you are doing your reading, and you find that three journal articles you have read all discuss/rely on/dispute a particular book in the field, then it is likely that you need to discuss this in your literature review. If a particular author has invented a term, you must also acknowledge and discuss their work in the literature review. For example, if a dissertation focuses on the effectiveness of the Equality Act 2010 and you note that the provisions that deal with dual discrimination have not been implemented, then you could, and should, also discuss what intersectionality of discrimination means. To do this, you have to discuss the work of Kimberlé Crenshaw, who invented the term ‘intersectionality’ to describe how discrimination works on multiple levels. In essence, it means that a person might be discriminated against due to their race or gender; or because they are of a particular race and gender. For example, the discrimination faced by women of Bangladeshi origin while seeking employment might be different from the discrimination experienced by women who are Caucasian and born in Britain.

Task Step 1 – Identify the five most important sources/reading so far: The first step is to identify the key sources, and the second step is to analyse them. Consider the reading you have done so far, and list five of the most important sources you have read. Considering which of the sources are most important, pay attention to where this source was published. Who wrote it, and have they written extensively in the field? Did the source make you question your thoughts about the field?

120

Literature review

Source 1.

__________________________________________________ Source 2.

__________________________________________________ Source 3.

__________________________________________________ Source 4.

__________________________________________________ Source 5.

__________________________________________________ 11.4 How to conduct a literature review Once the sources for the review have been selected, the process of summarising and evaluating the literature begins. To get started, it might be easiest to summarise each source and map them in relation to each other. Do not start writing the review until you have a clear idea of each source and how they relate to each other.

Task Step 2 – Evaluate sources: Having identified five of the most important sources you have read so far, the next step in the process of creating a literature review is to analyse the importance of those sources. Based on these five key sources, write down a summary, paying attention to the following questions: Source 1 1. Summarise the source:

__________________________________________________ 2. Why is it important?

__________________________________________________ 3. What are the key themes the author focuses on?

__________________________________________________ 4. How does it relate to other sources in your list?

__________________________________________________ Now do this for all of the five sources you have defined as the most important ones in your field.

Literature review 121 A literature review should be organised by comparing, contrasting, and highlighting emerging themes, not in a chronological order. It should be organised in a logical and intellectual way. An easy way to organise your literature is to structure it around key themes that emerge from the literature. For example, reading a vast body of literature on the field of legalising assisted dying reveals certain themes that could be organised as shown in Figure 11.4:

Repeated themes on scholarship on assisted dying

Religious arguments

Law reform

Human rights

Most scholars mention autonomy OR sanctity of life

Comparative element; most scholars mention the the Dutch experience

Most scholars mention the case of Pretty or the case of Purdy

Medical profession

Figure 11.4

Most scholarship on assisted dying at least touches upon religious arguments, law reform, human rights implications, or the perspective of the medical profession. A literature review for a dissertation that focuses on whether assisted dying should be legalised could focus on these themes, summarising and evaluating the views of the key authors. This format is more effective than discussing each author in turn as it shows the reader that you have an overall understanding of the field. Working on a controversial topic It is particularly important to contextualise and situate your research question if you are working on a topic that is particularly controversial. For example, a student who is doing their undergraduate dissertation on legalisation of euthanasia is likely to find that the literature in the field is incredibly divided. There is a body of literature that supports the legalisation of euthanasia for philosophical reasons, such as the right to autonomy, or human rights reasons, such as freedom from discrimination. There is also a body of literature that strongly opposes legalisation of euthanasia for philosophical reasons such as sanctity of life and practical concerns of a ‘slippery slope’. There is some scholarship in between, but the majority of authors who have written about the topic have a view on whether euthanasia should be legalised. If you are writing your dissertation in such a controversial field, you should be able to identify that there are starkly opposing views in the literature and be able to situate your work somewhere on the scale.

122

Literature review

Sometimes, at the start of the literature review process, you might want to map out the authors, if the field is particularly divided, to consider where on the scale your belief and perspective fits in, such as for example in Figure 11.5: Opposing legalisation of euthanasia; authors such as John Keown

Supporting legalisation of euthansia; authors such as Ronald Dworkin

The undecided/ your beliefs?

Figure 11.5

Compare and contrast Even if the field you are working on is relatively harmonious, it is likely there are some differing views on the effectiveness of a particular law, or the need for reform. In a literature review, it is important to compare and contrast the views of different scholars to get a coherent picture of the field. In your review, you can then explain where leading authors agree and where they disagree. By comparing and contrasting, you are critically analysing the literature. This also helps you to identify gaps in the literature. Have all the authors focused on a particular aspect and ignored other considerations? If so, your review can and should point this out. By highlighting the gaps in the literature, you are also highlighting why your work is important. For example, structure B in the Figure 11.6 is far more effective than structure A in Figure 11.7, as it is analytical. It compares and contrasts the views of different authors on the same issue. Structure A Paragraph 1 – Author A says this about legalisation of euthanasia Paragraph 2 – Author B says this about legalisation of euthanasia Paragraph 3 – Author C says this about legalisation of euthanasia

Structure B Paragraph 1 – Authors A and B argue that the criminalisation of assisted suicide has been ineffective; however, Author C in contrast argues it should remain in place to empower police to investigate potential cases of abuse.

√

Literature review 123

11.5 Highlighting the originality of your research project Highlighting why your dissertation topic and approach is original is difficult and many students struggle with this. You can write a dissertation without doing this and even get fairly good marks. However, to get a first (70 or above), it is necessary to bring something new to the table and to highlight how this work is original. You should highlight that originality throughout the dissertation, but the literature review is an optimal place to remind the reader why your work is original and fresh. After you have read extensively in the field and identified key themes, it is time to think what you can offer that is different from the rest. To do this consider once more: •

• •

What has been the research focus so far? Is there anything new you can bring through highlighting a different perspective? For example, can you introduce a comparative element or a more theoretical take on the topic? Where do the authors agree or disagree? Can you build on a view that is not mainstream, or challenge the views of certain authors? Most importantly, where are the gaps in the existing literature?

If you have identified a clear gap in the literature on a particular doctrine/legal principle, then focus on this and explain to the reader that there is a gap in the literature and how your research fits into that.

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to move on: Do you have to complete a literature review as a separate assessment task/as a part of the dissertation?

Can you name your key sources?

Can you explain why they are important to your work?

Have you identified a gap in the existing literature?

Figure 11.6

12 Writing the dissertation

Current stage of writing Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 12.1

In this chapter, you will find: 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5

Understanding and improving your writing skills Writing good paragraphs How to captivate your audience Making an argument How to incorporate evidence into your writing

This chapter will focus on good legal writing in the context of a dissertation. By now, you will know that the ability to communicate clearly and persuasively is the one skill that all good lawyers share. The dissertation can be daunting for those who do not enjoy the process of writing, but it is also a great opportunity to work on your writing skills. In fact, most students find that their writing skills greatly improve during the process of writing, and that the style of writing gets better by the chapter. This chapter will focus on some key aspects to bear in mind, such as writing with the reader in mind, making arguments, and incorporating other people’s writing into yours.

Writing the dissertation 125

Advice from the examiners:

Set out your main argument clearly and concisely at the start of your dissertation not at the end!

As writing, continue to ask the question ‘Am I addressing the research question?’

Figure 12.2

12.1 Understanding and improving your writing skills Do any of the following sentiments in Figure 12.3 apply to you?

I might be dyslexic The reader should be able to understand my point regardless of my writing skills

I have been told my writing doesn’t flow / is passive

English is my second language

I have been told my essays lack clarity

I have always been bad at spelling

My coursework feedback often says I need to work on syntax/grammar/ writing

Figure 12.3

If you have spoken or thought of any of those sentiments, keep reading! It matters how you write. Clarity of expression/quality of academic English is part of the assessment criteria for the dissertation at every university. Learning how to write effectively is an important part of any academic work, but especially so for law. The reason law lecturers and examiners are likely to point out every grammar and spelling error is simple: they are preparing you for a career in law.

126 Writing the dissertation Legal writing is known for being clear, concise, and accurate; and this is what you should aim for at all times.

It is true that some people are naturally drawn to words and have more attention to detail when it comes to spelling and grammar. If this is not you, it is something you need to pay more attention to and actively work on. Word processing software such as Microsoft Word has checks for spelling; therefore’ basic spelling errors are unlikely to be forgiven by examiners. There is no substitute for taking the time to edit when it comes to improving your written academic English. Most universities have study skills tutors or workshops dedicated to academic English. If you have struggled with writing and the feedback you have obtained for your earlier assignments suggest that you need to improve writing skills, you should make use of any extra support your university offers. If you suffer from dyslexia or are concerned about your writing, it is best to be open about this with your supervisor and tutors. Dyslexia is not an impediment in completing your assessments or becoming an outstanding legal practitioner. If your university is familiar with this, it can support you. Your university will guide on testing for dyslexia and then will put in place procedures for supporting you with your studies. Your tutors might be able to give specialist advice and there is also specialist, assistive software that you can utilise. As your studies progress, you are likely to become familiar with the particular errors you make. Being aware of the issues with your writing, or what makes it difficult for you to write/read, is the first step in finding ways to overcome these issues. The next step is ensuring you have all the support you need. If English is your second language or you have always struggled with grammar and spelling, you should take this into account when planning your dissertation project. Plan extra time for editing and rewriting each chapter, and additional time at the end for proofreading. Learn from your past mistakes and study the feedback you have received in the earlier years to see what your weaknesses and strengths are when it comes to writing, and then work on the areas that need to be improved. For example, feedback for your essays in the second year might include comments such as: ‘needs more clarity’; ‘syntax needs work’ or ‘sentences are hard to read’; or ‘too many typos’. The issues identified in Figure 12.4 are common issues in undergraduate essays and dissertations. These are also issues that you can work on and improve.

Writing the dissertation 127

Feedback comment

How to rectify.

Needs more clarity

Include subheadings and signposting.

Read paragraphs out loud to ensure they are linear.

Syntax issues

Ensure your sentences are short and only make one point.

Read your sentences out loud.

Issues with flow

Keep the imaginary reader in mind when writing.

Use transition words and phrases; and ensure you signpost.

English as a second language

Learn to identify the repeat mistakes such as missing out on articles.

Plan in extra time for editing.

Typos

Use the spellcheck function.

Passive voice

Read each sentence out loud.

Ensure you have a clear subject in every sentence.

Figure 12.4

Writing is like any other skill in life; the more you practise, the better you get. The most important step in becoming a better writer is identifying your weaknesses and then working on those mistakes.

12.2 Writing good paragraphs There are two common mistakes students make in terms of writing. One is writing too-long and complex sentences. The second is writing non-linear and weak paragraphs. A sentence is not a paragraph. Similarly, a page-long continuing flow of thoughts is not a paragraph.

128 Writing the dissertation A paragraph should make one point. It should be clear, self-contained and well structured. Each paragraph should: Make a point at the beginning. • Explain the point. • Evidence the point. • Conclude the point in the final sentence. This extract on Rose Heilbron, the first woman judge, is from a book on Women’s Legal Landmarks.1 Consider how effective the paragraph is in getting its point across:

Sentence 1: make a key point Heilbron was a role model for women also due to her visibility.

Middle paragraph: discussion and evidence The press followed her every trial and affectionately, if patronisingly, called Heilbron the ‘woman judge pin up girl’2 and the ‘housewife who is Britain’s Portia’.3 These representations, possibly due to the fact that she fitted conventional notions of feminine beauty and presentation and that she was very careful not to appear overtly feminist, might have been the key to her mainstream popularity as they made her seem less threatening, gentler and perhaps less judicial. It was also in stark contrast to how women in law were represented in the past – for instance, Sybil Campbell was labelled as the ‘Beast of Belsen’ by the press.4 Heilbron showed that women could combine a highly successful career and happy family life without being pilloried by the press, but only if observing the correct decorum.

Final sentence: Conclude Behind the scenes, through her work with the Soroptimists and other organisations, she acted as a mentor and inspiration to many aspiring professional women. This paragraph makes a clear point that Rose Heilbron was a role model for women due to her visibility. It then explains how was she visible, and how she was a role

1 Laura Lammasniemi, ‘Rose Heilbron’ in Rosemary Auchmuty and Erika Rackley (eds) Women’s Legal Landmarks (Hart in press). 2 ‘Woman Judge Pin-up Girl of British Courts’ Rockhampton Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton 1957). 3 ‘Housewife Who Is Britain’s Portia!’ Durban Sunday Tribute (Durban, June 1955). 4 Erika Rackley, Women, Judging and Judiciary: From Difference to Diversity (Routledge 2013) 115.

Writing the dissertation 129 model with reference to evidence. It finally concludes on the point that she was a role model and inspiration for other women. A paragraph should always make a clear point, and that point should be evidenced. As paragraphs should always be evidenced, this means that you should not have paragraphs without footnotes/references. The first sentence of the paragraph should always identify the key point/idea that the paragraph discusses. If the paragraph is clearly structured and focused, a reader should be able to identify what the opening line is from the content of the paragraph.

Task The following is an extract from a first-class dissertation on liberty and security in the era of anti-terrorism.1 The first sentence of the paragraph has been removed. Read the paragraph and consider what the opening sentence could look like: _________________________________________________________. Negative liberty is described as preserving more individual autonomy by positing freedom from restraints by the state, the absence of obstacles or barriers except when it is actually necessary or essential. Positive liberty on the other hand is not just the freedom from constraint, but a broader idea, the possibility of taking control of one’s life and acting to realise one’s central purpose. While the first suggests the absence of something, the latter implies the presence of something.

In the original version, the complete paragraph read: There are two types of liberty: positive and negative liberty. Negative liberty is described as preserving more individual autonomy by positing freedom from restraints by the state, the absence of obstacles or barriers except when it is actually necessary or essential. Positive liberty on the other hand is not just the freedom from constraint, but a broader idea, the possibility of taking control of one’s life and acting to realise one’s central purpose. While the first suggests the absence of something, the latter implies the presence of something. But any sentence where concepts of positive and negative liberty are identified would be fine and a clear reflection of the paragraph that follows.

1 For published version, see Ifeolu Tokimi, ‘Liberty and Security in the Age of Terrorism: Negotiating a New Social Contract’ (2015) 7 The Plymouth Law & Criminal Justice Review 195, 198.

130 Writing the dissertation Strengthening paragraphs Read the following text and consider whether these are effective paragraphs and how they could be improved. The ethical perspective looks at people’s right to autonomy. That is to say individuals have an inherent right to make decisions on what they think is good and right for themselves. In this context, autonomy gives people the right to choose when and how to die. Professor Stephen Hawking, who has motor neurone disease, mentioned in an interview that ‘to keep someone alive against their wishes is the ultimate indignity’. He has also said that he would consider assisted suicide only if he were in great pain, had nothing to contribute to the world, and was just a burden to those around him.

Task Do the paragraphs in this extract: Q. Q. Q. Q.

Make clear points? Include discussion on the point? Include evidence? Include a conclusion/ending point?

The answer to all of the questions is no. None of the paragraphs are coherent in their development. As three separate paragraphs, they are not effective. However, if we combine the paragraphs and remove irrelevant information, we have one clear, evidenced paragraph that makes a point. It is important to consider the right to autonomy from an ethical perspective. Autonomy means that individuals have an inherent right to make decisions on what they think is good and right for them. In the context of euthanasia, autonomy gives people the right to choose when and how to die. For example, Professor Stephen Hawking, who has motor neurone disease, mentioned in an interview that ‘to keep someone alive against their wishes is the ultimate indignity’. The author of the previous extract wrote too-weak paragraphs that could not be understood independently. This is quite common. Equally common is including far too much in one paragraph.

Writing the dissertation 131

Task The following is an extract from a very well researched dissertation on forced marriages.5 Read the following extract and consider whether this is an effective paragraph, and how it could be improved.

As a result of these public concerns of the civil legislation not being wholly effective in tackling forced marriages, the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) expressed their feelings about the ineffectiveness of this civil legislation stemming from the lack of awareness of the Act’s provisions amongst frontline professionals, and was particularly concerned about the attitude of schools. Besides the public responses, so many academic writers and policy makers had mixed views as regards the effectiveness of the criminalisation of FMs. The CPS in the consultation summary stated that criminalisation may arise to a duplication of the law which would cause confusion rather than clarify the misconception in the FMCPA and the consultation response report went ahead to plot the Government’s recommendations, including affirming that FM would turn into a criminal offence. A programme of work would be produced throughout the following three years, including work to help ensure children are protected and constrained into marriage, and enhanced and extended training for frontline professionals. The report repeated that the Government would criminalise the breach of a Forced Marriage Protection Order as criminalisation will enable breaches to be dealt with effectively.

Does the paragraph: Q. Q. Q. Q.

Make clear points? Include discussion on the point? Include evidence? Include a conclusion/ending point?

This paragraph is packed with information. It has so much information that it is hard to read and work out the key point the paragraph is making. If we break the paragraph down into sentences, it becomes clear that there are two issues within this paragraph: sentence structure and paragraph structure.

5 Ogechi Omerekpe, The Effectiveness of Criminalisation of Forced Marriages within England, Wales and Scotland (Anglia Ruskin University 2017) 15.

132 Writing the dissertation

Sentence 1: making a point As a result of these public concerns of the civil legislation not being wholly effective in tackling forced marriages, the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) expressed their feelings about the ineffectiveness of this civil legislation stemming from the lack of awareness of the Act’s provisions amongst frontline professionals, and was particularly concerned about the attitude of schools. This sentence makes numerous points: 1 2 3

There are public concerns that the civil legislation on forced marriages is not effective; There is lack of awareness of the civil legislation amidst frontline professionals; and The Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) is concerned about the lack of awareness, particularly in schools.

Each one of these points could be developed into a paragraph of its own. Furthermore, the following sentences include discussion on unrelated points of criminalisation and training. What follows is that each of the points mentioned in the opening paragraph, criminalisation, and training should all be separate paragraphs. The paragraph should therefore be turned into six coherent paragraphs to fully make the points the author wanted to make. When writing, the key to good paragraphs is:

Remember: A paragraph should only contain one single, evidenced idea

Figure 12.5

12.3 How to captivate your audience Legal writing must be clear, concise, and accurate, but this does not mean it has to be boring. If anything, the best legal writers are not so different from any other writers: captivating and interested in how the audience perceives their words. This extract is from Lord Bridge’s ruling in the case of R v Moloney:6 read the extract and consider how Lord Bridge tells the facts of the case:

6 R v Moloney [1985] A.C. 905 (Lord Bridge) [22]. Contains public sector information licenced under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Writing the dissertation 133 My Lords, in the early hours of 22 November 1981, the appellant fired a single cartridge from a twelve-bore shotgun. The full blast of the shot struck the appellant’s stepfather, Patrick Moloney, in the side of the face at a range of about six feet and killed him instantly. According to the police surgeon, who was on the scene within an hour of the shooting, the whole of the skull had in fact been destroyed, leaving just the root of the neck. Behind this shocking event lies a tragic story. In November 1981 the appellant was aged 22. He was a serving soldier in the Gordon Highlanders and was at the material time on leave at the home of his mother and stepfather, having returned from duty in Belize in South America. He had been in the army since November 1978 and had served in Northern Ireland, in this country, and finally in South America. There is no doubt that the appellant was one of a united, happy family. His mother had married the victim, Patrick Moloney, when the appellant was a very small boy. The appellant, at some stage, changed his name to Moloney. To all intents and purposes Patrick Moloney acted as a father to the appellant and was treated by the appellant as such. The undisputed evidence at the appellant’s trial was that the stepfather and stepson enjoyed a happy and loving relationship with each other. On 21 November 1981 there was a dinner party at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Moloney to celebrate the ruby wedding anniversary of Mrs. Moloney’s father and mother, the appellant’s maternal grandparents. The party was a convivial one. Drink flowed freely. Both Patrick Moloney and the appellant drank a great deal of wine and spirits. By 1.00 a.m. in the morning of 22 November all the members of the family had retired to bed except the appellant and his stepfather. They were heard downstairs laughing and talking in an apparently friendly way. Shortly before 4.00 a.m. on 22 November the grandfather was awakened by the sound of a shot. He immediately came downstairs and found the appellant already on the telephone to the police station. The appellant said to the police officer who answered his call: ‘I’ve just murdered my father’. He gave the address of the Moloney home.

Task Consider the following: Q. Does the judgment articulate a story? Q. Furthermore, how does the law narrativise the story of the Moloneys? Q. How does the text of the ruling strike you?

134 Writing the dissertation This ruling is one of the best-known and important cases in English criminal law. The ruling clarifies the meaning of intention, sets a precedent, and has been quoted in countless criminal cases since. It is a landmark ruling that sets a legal rule, yet it is written in a way that captivates the reader from the first sentence. In his judgment, Lord Bridge of Harwich proffers a conventional image of the relationship between father and son in almost cinematic terms. Both the father and the son are fine, upstanding gentlemen who have defended their country. The Moloneys are described as a happy and normal family. It is almost as if the judge is setting a scene here for the events that followed; and for the criminal act he has been called to judge upon. Yet the facts are told with precision and are factually indisputable. Legal writing should not be boring, and you too should keep the reader in mind when writing your dissertation. Your dissertation will be read by two or maybe three examiners at the end; each of them will spend hours, if not a day, reading your work. It is important that you keep them interested in your dissertation and on the story you want to tell.

Task Write a scene In the ruling in the case of Moloney, Lord Bridge sets the scene for the tragic, almost melodramatic, events that leave one member of a family dead and another facing prison. His reading of the events is compassionate, yet authoritative. In setting the scene in such detail, Lord Bridge is showing us what happened, not just telling. Scenes include something happening, and they require detail. Scenes require engagement with the protagonist more than purely theoretical discussion would do. For this exercise, you should first consider what the story is you want to tell with your dissertation. Second, write a scene within that story. You should take an idea from your research, such as property, sovereignty, constitution, movement, crime, punishment – and write a scene focusing on the idea. Or, you could write a scene centred on a particular place – a courtroom, prison, immigration centre, UN meeting. The goal is to create a coherent and vivid scene that shows and does not just tell the reader something that is based on your research. Write as much or as little as you like. If you want to write a couple of shorter scenes, that is fine too.

The aim of the exercise is to bring your dissertation story to life in your mind, and through your words. Obviously, the story cannot make its way into your dissertation but think about how you wrote the scene and whether you can integrate that flow into your academic writing.

Writing the dissertation 135

12.4 Making an argument If the examiner is not clear on your key argument, they cannot give you first-class – or even second-class – marks. Take the reader with you to a journey through your dissertation by steps identified in Figure 12.6: 1

• Making an argument

2

• Logically developing the argument

3

• Concluding the argument

Figure 12.6

What is an argument? An argument in dissertation writing is a statement that is proved in light of the evidence you present to the reader. An argument does not need to be controversial or entirely novel; but it does need to come from you.

Task Consider the following and come up with an answer in no more than four sentences: What is the most important ruling from the Supreme Court, and why? There is no right or wrong answer here. Your answer to the question will probably show some level of personal bias or preference; those who are interested in human rights are likely to name a different case from those who are interested in commercial law. Whatever case you name, you need to be able to explain why that particular case is the most important case the Supreme Court has decided on. By naming a case you are making an argument that ‘that case is the most important ruling from the Supreme Court’ and by giving reasons for it, you are supporting your argument with evidence.

Task Say for the purposes of the previous task, the case of R v Jogee7 was chosen. Which one of these arguments is the most convincing? R v Jogee (2016) is the most important ruling from the Supreme Court as it was widely covered in the news. R v Jogee (2016) is the most important ruling from the Supreme Court because the defendant could get a retrial. R v Jogee (2016) is the most important ruling from the Supreme Court because it applied to UK and the Commonwealth. R v Jogee (2016) is the most important ruling from the Supreme Court because it changed the law on joint enterprise. 7 [2016] UKSC 8.

136 Writing the dissertation If we consider the statements above, all of them are factually correct. R v Jogee (2016) is the most important ruling from the Supreme Court as it was widely covered in the news. From a legal perspective, it is irrelevant that a case has received a great deal of publicity. In fact, trivial cases are often reported in the news, whereas some legally ground-breaking cases receive less attention.Therefore, this is not a very convincing argument. R v Jogee (2016) is the most important ruling from the Supreme Court because the defendant could get a retrial. From the perspective of the defendant this is important, but this is true for all criminal cases. Supreme Court rulings are significant because they have wider impact than just upon the individuals involved; therefore, this is not a very convincing argument. R v Jogee (2016) is the most important ruling from the Supreme Court because it applied to UK and the Commonwealth. This is a stronger argument. It focuses on the impact of the ruling, and shows its significance. R v Jogee (2016) is the most important ruling from the Supreme Court because it changed the law on joint enterprise. This is a strong argument as it details what exactly the legal impact of the ruling was. The next chapter on structuring dissertations goes into more detail on how to develop and conclude your argument.

12.5 How to incorporate evidence into your writing An argument always needs supporting evidence:

Legal argument/statement support with primary sources of law (i.e. cases and statutes). Analytical argument support with secondary sources (i.e. academic writing).

How to process evidence Figure 12.7 identifies the most common way to process and incorporate other people’s work. One of the most common mistakes students make is not acknowledging other people’s work. At worst, this is plagiarism and, at best, bad academic practice. Yet many students think that if they footnote the source, their work will seem less original. In fact, the opposite is true. The more sources you acknowledge, the stronger and more authoritative your research appears.

Writing the dissertation 137 Quote (rarely)

Paraphrase (often)

Critically analyse (continuously)

Figure 12.7

Paraphrasing This is the most common way of incorporating other authors’ scholarship into your work. Instead of directly quoting a source, when paraphrasing you summarise a point made by another author in your words and acknowledge the source in a reference. When paraphrasing, it is important you accurately represent the opinion of the author and do not add your opinion in this. If you do agree/disagree with the author’s point, you can obviously state this – but it has to be clear from your writing which are your words and which are those of the original author.

Task Read the following paragraph from an editorial article ‘Ten years on the UN Human Rights Committee: some thoughts upon parting’ by Rosalyn Higgins8 on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, and then consider the key point she is making: As for the liberal democracies, their approach has often been that the Covenant is a splendid instrument – splendid, that is, for the Third World countries and Eastern Europe, where human rights are in urgent need of attention. Although they submit their reports and attend for public examination, the impression is often given that the Covenant is not really for them, because the observance of human rights is fully guaranteed in their countries.

8 Rosalyn Higgins, ‘Ten Years on the UN Human Rights Committee: Some Thoughts Upon Parting’ (1996) 6 EHRLR 570–82.

138 Writing the dissertation Which one of the following statements has been paraphrased more accurately? • •

Higgins argues that Western countries follow the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. Higgins argues that Western countries recognise human rights violations in less developed countries more easily than in their own countries.

The second statement is a more accurate description of the paragraph. Higgins does not say that Western countries or liberal democracies follow human rights treaties, but that they give the impression that they do; and presenting it as a fact is a misrepresentation of her words. The second paraphrasing is representing her words more accurately, and also getting to the core of what Higgins is saying in this part. Quoting Before using direct quotes, you should always consider if the quoted text could be effectively paraphrased instead, and bear in mind:

Quotes should never be used instead of your own writing but only as points of analysis.

Figure 12.8

There are some legendary quotes from judgments or points that have been made in a particularly poignant way by an academic who you might want to quote. Quotations when used sparingly are effective in breaking up the text, and highlighting key points made by a judge or an academic. You should, however, bear in mind that quotes cannot be used instead of text, and never to conclude a paragraph, let alone a chapter. Quotes are points of analysis. What this means is that once you have included a brief quote, you should unpack and analyse that quote in your own words. Quotes should be kept brief and never more than a few lines. A half-page-long quotation gives the impression that you are either unable to paraphrase/analyse or are too lazy to do so. The examiner is going to examine your analysis; if a third of the work is quotes, there is little for the examiner to analyse. Analysing The most important skill you will learn during your studies is critical analysis. This means the ability to read scholarly work, even from those most esteemed in the field, in a critical and analytical manner.

Writing the dissertation 139 Analysing a text means you do not accept everything written in it as ‘the truth’ but rather evaluate it. Evaluate how useful the arguments it makes are; examine how it relates to other texts; and analyse whether the argument is well supported or not. This also shows that the author is able to engage with both sides of any debate and with views they may not agree with. This is discussed further in Chapter 10.

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to move on:

What has been the feedback on your writing so far?

Do you have any specific issues with writing?

How can you make your writing more interesting?

How do you make an argument?

How can you incorporate the work of others into your writing?

Figure 12.9

13 Referencing

Current stage of writing Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 13.1

In this chapter, you will find: 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5

Why reference? Plagiarism and academic offences OSCOLA referencing in a nutshell Harvard referencing in a nutshell Exercises to test your referencing skills

Referencing causes difficulties to students and seasoned researchers alike. When and how to reference are common questions asked by students – particularly so by law students as case names, legislation, and conventions are not often covered in referencing guides. For this reason, the law schools around the UK prefer Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities, commonly referred to as OSCOLA, referencing. OSCOLA is a style of referencing that is specific to law; it is used by lawyers, academics writing about law, and most law schools in the UK. Your institution would normally issue guidelines on which referencing style you have to follow. If any style is fine, it is recommended that you use OSCOLA referencing or Harvard style in-text referencing in your dissertation.

Referencing

141

An OSCOLA guide is available for free in full online and you should learn how to use the guide before you start writing. This chapter gives a brief summary of key OSCOLA conventions, and issues that are specific to dissertation writing. Unlike OSCOLA, Harvard does not have a set rule book and it can refer to a number of referencing styles that include in-text author name + year reference. The chapter gives some advice on Harvard referencing, and it also includes some exercises to test your knowledge and application of OSCOLA and Harvard. The chapter begins by discussing the importance of academic honesty and how to avoid plagiarism.

Advice from the examiners: Ensure that you take all measures to avoid plagiarism.

Figure 13.2

13.1 Why reference? One of the most common questions asked by students doing a dissertation is why they have to reference and why it is important to adhere to a particular referencing convention. Sometimes students believe that they must reference for the sake of convention or because Grademark/Turnitin – plagiarism software used by all UK universities – will give us an unacceptably high score if we do not. While it is true that you must reference to avoid plagiarism, referencing is important as it credits the original source of information. It also allows the reader the opportunity to read more deeply into the topic through those sources. Overall, referencing backs up the validity of your argument. Sometimes students feel when they find an argument they find compelling that it is better not to acknowledge it and to pass those ideas off as their own. This is never a good idea. Acknowledging other people’s ideas and writings on your topic does not take away from the originality of yours, but rather shows you have researched the area sufficiently to form your own opinions. Furthermore, referencing allows the reader to have a better understanding of the research you have conducted and, thereby, they

142

Referencing

can assess the authority that is referenced and your interpretation of it. Finally, you should remember that failure to reference and passing off other people’s words or thoughts constitutes plagiarism.1 It is also important that you reference as you write. At times students have a habit of leaving referencing till the end with coursework writing. You simply cannot do this with a dissertation. It will be impossible to locate all the references and page numbers at the end of the project and you will run the risk of not acknowledging some sources or giving false citations. It is also far more time-consuming to do it at the end.

13.2 Plagiarism and academic offences Plagiarism is a serious academic offence. Academic offences vary from cheating in the exams to essay writing offences such as plagiarism, ghost-writing, or overreliance on sources. The university needs to ensure that the work you submit, and are graded on, is yours – any third-party intervention in that work can be an issue. For instance, your supervisors and critical friends may comment on your work, give you writing tips and note where you have made mistakes. This is the normal process of dissertation writing. However, paying someone to edit, or write, your dissertation or parts of it is an academic offence; then you are no longer submitting your work. What, then, constitutes plagiarism and an academic offence? Any one of the issues identified in Figure 13.3:

Taking someone else’s words or thoughts

Copying and pasting without quotation marks

Inadequate referencing Academic offence

Hiring an editor or ghost writer

Paraphrasing too closely

Figure 13.3 1 Lee Roach, Card & James’ Business Law for Business, Accounting, and Finance Students (Oxford University Press 2012) 22.

Referencing

143

Law in particular requires honesty from those who practise it, so law departments take plagiarism and academic offences very seriously. If an academic offence (AO) is committed, in most institutions the work will result in a fail mark and an AO is placed on your transcript for that module. This may bar you from ever practising law. In the UK, the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority (SRA) has a zero tolerance of AOs and a student cannot ordinarily practise law if they have committed an AO during their law degree or LPC. The SRA considers that people who have committed AOs during their studies are not suitable to practise law. Clause 4 Assessment offences from the SRA handbook (April 2016 edition) states that: Unless there are exceptional circumstances we will refuse your application if you have committed and/or have been adjudged by an education establishment to have committed a deliberate assessment offence which amounts to plagiarism or cheating to gain an advantage for yourself or others.2 AOs can also have long-term consequences. Sometimes, plagiarism can go unnoticed at the time but when later discovered can have a serious impact on career progression. Ministers and officials have had to resign from their posts later in life when it is discovered that they had plagiarised as students.3 It must be noted that GradeMark/Turnitin software is not a perfect method of detecting plagiarism. At times, it picks up footnotes and gives deceivingly high similarity index, and other times, it fails to match direct copied text to sources available online. That said, Grademark/Turnitin is an invaluable tool for lecturers as it matches the work submitted to online sources and also to all work submitted previously to the database. This means that every submission on Grademark/Turnitin is matched to millions of other student essays and dissertations around the world, as well as online sources. It makes it easier to detect not only plagiarism, but also collusion where two or more students submit similar pieces of work. Before submission, always ensure you have enough time to check your Grademark/Turnitin score and ensure that there are no paragraphs or full sentences highlighted within the text. In recent years, ghost-writing has become increasingly problematic in all universities around the UK.4 This might appear tempting at first or you might know colleagues who have bought essays and have not been caught in the past. Buying an essay or hiring an editor is a serious academic offence. Although essay selling services argue that all the essays are written from scratch and tailored to the buyers’ needs, this often is not the case. Furthermore, the examiners will be able to compare 2 SRA, Solicitors Handbook, available at: www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/suitabilitytest/part2/rule4/ content.page accessed 20 August 2017. 3 Farina Fawzy, ‘From Speeches to Ph.D.s: Politicians Called Out for Copying’ CNN (19 July 2016), http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/politicians-plagiarism/ accessed 20 August 2017. 4 Harry Yorke, ‘More Than 20,000 University Students Buying Essays and Dissertations as Lords Call for Ban on “Contract Cheating” ’, The Telegraph (London 1 January 2013), www.telegraph.co.uk/ education/2017/01/13/20000-university-students-buying-essays-dissertations-lords/ accessed 20 August 2017.

144

Referencing

dissertation submission to earlier coursework submissions if they suspect it has not been written by the student to analyse the style of writing. Many universities have also introduced oral examination, often referred to as a viva, where there is doubt over the originality of the work. In short, your examiner will know if the work has not been fully written by you.

13.3 OSCOLA referencing in a nutshell As the OSCOLA guide is comprehensive, this guide does not go into detail on how to reference each individual entry – this is something you can find in the guide. Rather, here we focus on things that are specific to a dissertation and where students make the most mistakes. You must learn how to use the guide to find information. The guide will give you detailed guidance on how to reference primary sources of law as well as secondary sources. So whenever in doubt, please consult the guide. The key thing to note about OSCOLA is that it is a footnoting system that uses very little punctuation. It also requires less information in the footnotes than some other footnoting systems.

Download the OSCOLA guide (fourth edition) here: www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/oscola_4th_edn_hart_2012.pdf

For secondary sources, the formatting in footnotes and the bibliography are similar but not identical. In footnotes, you have to give the author’s name in full, e.g. ‘Nicola Lacey,’ but in the bibliography you only use the surname followed by the initial, e.g. ‘Lacey N’. Footnotes also always have a full stop. Consider Nicola Lacey’s book, Unspeakable Subjects: Feminist Essays in Legal and Social Theory, as an example. CITATION in a footnote: 15 Nicola Lacey, Unspeakable Subjects: Feminist Essays in Legal and Social Theory (Bloomsbury Publishing 1998) 15. CITATION in a bibliography: Lacey N, Unspeakable Subjects: Feminist Essays in Legal and Social Theory (Bloomsbury Publishing 1998) Bibliography In OSCOLA, the bibliography only contains secondary sources – not primary sources of law. The secondary sources should be listed in alphabetical order of the author’s surname followed by the initial of first name, e.g. Lacey N. Primary sources (cases and legislation) must precede the main body of the work in the following order:

Referencing 1 2

145

Table of cases Table of legislation

In the table of cases, you should outline all the cases you have used in the dissertation. The cases should be listed in alphabetical order of the first significant word. Unless there are very few cases, divide the table into separate sections for different jurisdictions. If you have only mentioned half a dozen cases or fewer throughout your dissertation, there is no need for a table of cases. In the table of legislation, legislation should be listed in alphabetical order of the first significant word of the title, not chronologically by date of enactment. If legislation from more than one jurisdiction is cited, it may be helpful to have separate lists for each jurisdiction, but it is not normally necessary. Common mistake: incomplete citation There are some common mistakes that appear in dissertations at all levels that examiners often comment on. Two of the most frequent referencing mistakes are including only a partial citation and not including a page number. If the page where the information was taken from does not appear in the citation, whoever is reading the dissertation will not be able to locate the original source. Incomplete citations and not including page numbers also give the impression to the reader that the author did not necessarily read the original source but rather got the information from the internet or from a secondary source. It is therefore important that citations are in full and page numbers included in the references. Quotations It is important to quote properly. As mentioned previously, failure to indicate something is a direct quotation can amount to an academic offence. When you quote verbatim, you must always indicate that it is a quote. Quotes of fewer than three lines should be within the text and quoted with single quotation marks. Quotations of three lines and longer should be placed on a new line and indented with no quotation marks. The same rule applies to all quotations regardless of whether the source is a case or a journal article. Long quotation example: Lord Hoffmann argued in the case of A and others that: In my opinion, such a power in any form is not compatible with our constitution. The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.5 5 A and others v SSHD [2004] UKHL 56 [97] (Lord Hoffmann).

146

Referencing

A shorter quotation example:

Lord Hoffmann argued in the case of A and others that Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with the ECHR and that the real threat to the life of the nation ‘comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these’.6

Please always remember that in OSCOLA there should be no italics in quotations, and that quotations must always be followed by a footnote.

Cross-referencing The OSCOLA guide gives detailed guidance on how to cross-reference, but this can still be a confusing and time-consuming exercise. This is what the OSCOLA guide says about cross-referencing: Cross-references direct the reader to points of substantive discussion elsewhere in your work. Avoid sending the reader off to another part of the text when a short point could as easily be restated. Never make a cross-reference that will be difficult for the reader to find, such as ‘See above’. A good cross-reference takes the reader straight to the very place: ‘n 109’ or, within the same chapter, ‘text to n 32’. Do not cross-refer to ‘Chapter 6A2(c)’ unless you have running headers on each page showing the 7 sequence of sub-headings. Use ‘See . . . ’ only when you actually want the reader to look at the place indicated, for example ‘See n 109’. Pagination may change from draft to draft, especially in preparation for publication. It is therefore easiest to cross-refer to footnote markers, for example ‘Text to n 107 in ch 7’. Cross-reference functions in word processors can help you keep track of changes in footnote numbers.7 For example: The first time you footnote a secondary source, case, etc., you do so in full. Subsequently, you can cross-reference the original footnote so as not to repeat all the content. First mention: 15 Nicola Lacey, Unspeakable Subjects: Feminist Essays in Legal and Social Theory (Bloomsbury Publishing 1998) 15. 6 Ibid. 7 OSCOLA Referencing Guide (4th edn) 38, www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/oscola_4th_edn_ hart_2012.pdf accessed 14 July 2016.

Referencing

147

Subsequently: 20 Lacey (n 15) 13. Cross-referencing should be done after the final edit; otherwise there is a risk of messing references around. If you add a footnote after you have done the cross-referencing, you risk messing things around (unless you are using cross-referencing functions in your word processor). Never cross-reference until you have merged all the chapters and together.

13.4 Harvard referencing in a nutshell The first thing to note about Harvard is that there is no one single, authoritative guide for Harvard as there is for OSCOLA. There are many variations of Harvard, and the most important thing if using Harvard is consistency and adhering to one system throughout. Harvard uses in-text citations of the ‘author-date’ approach; i.e. there are no footnotes but rather you include the name of the author, year of publication and page number, if relevant, in the text e.g. (Harvard, 2016:1). It is easier than footnoting but not as detailed. When you are using the Harvard style, your citation should always include: 1 2 3

the author(s) or editor(s) of the cited work; the year of publication of the cited work; if quoting directly or referring to a pinpoint in the text, then also a page number after the year.

If you use the author’s name in the text, you can follow that immediately with the year or repeat the name + year at the end. For example: Citing one author The Fraud Act has come under criticism for relying too much on the common law concept of dishonesty (Ormerod, 2007) or Ormerod (2007) argues that the Fraud Act relies too much on the common law concept of dishonesty. If the work has two or three authors, include all of the names in your citation. If it has four or more authors/editors, the abbreviation ‘et al’. should be used after the first author’s name. It is also acceptable to use ‘et al’. after the first author if the work has three authors. If you cite a new work which has the same author and was written in the same year as an earlier citation, you must use a lower case letter after the date to differentiate between the works, for example (Ormerod, 2007a) and (Ormerod, 2007b) and use the same in the bibliography. Quotations It is important to quote properly – similar rules of quotation apply in both OSCOLA and in Harvard. When you quote verbatim, you must always indicate it is a quote.

148

Referencing

Quotes of fewer than three lines should be within the text and quoted with single quotation marks. Quotations of three lines and longer should be placed on a new line and indented with no quotation marks. The same rule applies to all quotations regardless of whether the source is a case or a journal article. Long quotation example:

Lord Hoffmann argued in the case of A and others (2004) that: In my opinion, such a power in any form is not compatible with our constitution. The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.

A shorter quotation example:

Lord Hoffmann argued in the case of A and others (2004) that the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with the ECHR and that the real threat to the life of the nation ‘comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these’.

References In Harvard, the list of sources at the end is called ‘References’ and not ‘Bibliography’. In terms of References, you should ensure that: • • • •

you have listed all sources mentioned in the text; the list is in alphabetical order by author/editor; books, papers, or electronic journal articles, etc. are written in a particular format that must be followed; and when you have used more than one piece of work by the same author, in your reference list you should list the works in date order, beginning with the most recently published work.

You have to consult a relevant Harvard guide to see how all sources are correctly cited; this guide only gives brief examples. You need the following information on books:

Referencing

149

Author/editor (if an editor, always put (ed.) after the name); (Year of publication); Title (this should be in italics for books); Series title and number (if part of a series); Edition (if not the first edition); Place of publication (if there is more than one place listed, use the first named); and Publisher. e.g. Author Surname, Author Initial. (Year Published) Title. City: Publisher.

You need the following information on journal articles: Author(s); (Year of publication); Title of journal article; Title of journal (this should be in italics); Volume number; Issue number; and Page numbers of the article (do not use ‘p’. before the page numbers). e.g. Author Surname, Author Initial. (Year Published) Title. Publication Title. Volume number (Issue number), Pages.

There are various guides to Harvard referencing, and you should consult the guide your university has issued. If your university has not issued any guidelines, see generic Harvard guides such as Cardiff Harvard Referencing tutorial8 or different institutional guidelines.9 Parliament has also issued a Guide on Referencing Parliamentary Material that you might find useful.10

8 Cardiff Harvard Tutorial, https://ilrb.cf.ac.uk/citingreferences/tutorial/ accessed 20 August 2017. 9 Imperial College London, Citing & Referencing: Harvard Style, www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/ administration-and-support-services/library/public/harvard.pdf accessed 20 August 2017. 10 Referencing Parliamentary Material: A Guide for Lecturers and Students, www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Refer encing_Parliamentary_Material.pdf accessed 20 August 2017.

150

Referencing

13.5 Exercises to test your referencing skills

Task Notes for the task:

• • •

For internet sources, give the accessed date as today’s date. Just for the activity test, you can identify an internet source as Use a relevant guide to Harvard, and the OSCOLA guide; this activity tests your ability to use referencing systems – not your memory.

1

Nicola Monaghan Law of Evidence Cambridge University of Press 2015 Pinpoint page 198 OSCOLA footnote: _____________________________________________________________ OSCOLA bibliography: _____________________________________________________________ Harvard in-text: _____________________________________________________________ Harvard reference list: _____________________________________________________________

2

Philip Larkin Delineating the gulf between human rights jurisprudence and legislative austerity The Journal of Social Security Law, Issue 1, 2016 Pages 42–63 OSCOLA footnote: _____________________________________________________________ OSCOLA bibliography: _____________________________________________________________ Harvard in-text: _____________________________________________________________ Harvard reference list: _____________________________________________________________

3

Robert Mendick London acid attacks: ministers urged to tighten laws on teenager ‘weapon of choice’

Referencing

151

The Telegraph, London, 14 July 2017 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/14/london-acid-attacks-ministersurged-tighten-laws-teenager-weapon/ OSCOLA footnote: _____________________________________________________________ OSCOLA bibliography: _____________________________________________________________ Harvard in-text: _____________________________________________________________ Harvard reference list: _____________________________________________________________ 4

R v Jogee Supreme Court [2016] UKSC 8, [2016] WLR (D) 84 Pinpoint para 3 OSCOLA footnote: _____________________________________________________________ OSCOLA bibliography: _____________________________________________________________ Harvard in-text: _____________________________________________________________ Harvard reference list: _____________________________________________________________

5

Lord Advocate v Dumbarton DC House of Lords, 30 November 1989 [1990] 2 AC 580; [1989] 3 WLR 1346; [1990] 1 All ER 1 OSCOLA footnote: _____________________________________________________________ OSCOLA bibliography: _____________________________________________________________ Harvard in-text: _____________________________________________________________ Harvard reference list: _____________________________________________________________

6

Case C-131/12- Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 Reports of Cases: 2007 I-04713 OSCOLA footnote: _____________________________________________________________ OSCOLA bibliography: _____________________________________________________________ Harvard in-text: _____________________________________________________________

152

Referencing Harvard reference list:

7

Hansard Debate Place: House of Commons Date: 3 November 2013 Column number: 468 OSCOLA footnote: _____________________________________________________________ OSCOLA bibliography: _____________________________________________________________ Harvard in-text: _____________________________________________________________ Harvard reference list: _____________________________________________________________

Answers for the learning activity: NB.The Harvard system used here follows the Imperial College/University of London general guidance but it is also fine to use other Harvard systems whereby a full stop is added after the year of the publication. 1 OSCOLA footnote: Nicola Monaghan, Law of Evidence (Cambridge University Press 2015) 198. OSCOLA bibliography: Monaghan N, Law of Evidence (Cambridge University Press 2015) Harvard in-text: (Monaghan, 2015: 198) Harvard reference list: Monaghan, N. (2015) Law of Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2 OSCOLA footnote: Philip Larkin, ‘Delineating the gulf between human rights jurisprudence and legislative austerity’ (2016) 1 The Journal of Social Security Law 42. OSCOLA bibliography: Larkin P, ‘Delineating the gulf between human rights jurisprudence and legislative austerity’ (2016) 1 The Journal of Social Security Law 42 Harvard in-text: (Larkin, 2016) Harvard reference list: Larkin, P. (2015) Delineating the gulf between human rights jurisprudence and legislative austerity. The Journal of Social Security Law. 1, 42–63. 3 OSCOLA footnote: Robert Mendick, ‘London acid attacks: ministers urged to tighten laws on teenager ‘weapon of choice’ The Telegraph (London 14 July 2017)

Referencing

153

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/14/london-acid-attacks-ministersurged-tighten-laws-teenager-weapon/ accessed dd mm year. OSCOLA bibliography: Mendick R, ‘London acid attacks: ministers urged to tighten laws on teenager ‘weapon of choice’ The Telegraph (London 14 July 2017) www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/14/london-acid-attacks-ministersurged-tighten-laws-teenager-weapon/ accessed dd mm year. Harvard in-text: (Mendick, 2017) Harvard reference list: Mendick, R. (2017) ‘London acid attacks: ministers urged to tighten laws on teenager ‘weapon of choice’ The Telegraph, 14 July. Available at: www. telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/14/london-acid-attacks-ministersurged-tighten-laws-teenager-weapon/ (Accessed dd mm year). 4 OSCOLA footnote: R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8, [2016] WLR (D) 84 [3]. OSCOLA bibliography: No entry in bibliography but should be cited in Table of Cases; no italics or pinpoint. Harvard in-text: R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8, at 3. Harvard reference list: R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8. 5 OSCOLA footnote: Lord Advocate v Dumbarton DC [1990] 2 AC 580 (HL). OSCOLA bibliography: No entry in bibliography but should be cited in Table of Cases; no italics or pinpoint. Harvard in-text: Lord Advocate v Dumbarton DC [1990] 2 AC 580 Harvard reference list: Lord Advocate v Dumbarton DC [1990] 2 AC 580 6 OSCOLA footnote: Case C-157/15- Achbita v G4S [2017]. OSCOLA bibliography: No entry. NB. • •

EU cases are numbered according to whether they were registered at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) or the Court of First Instance (CFI). Given the prefix C – (for ECJ cases) or T – (for CFI cases).

154

Referencing Harvard in-text: Case C-157/15- Achbita v G4S [2017] Harvard reference list: Case C-157/15- Achbita v G4S [2017].

7 OSCOLA footnote: HC Deb 3 November 2014, cols 468. NB: House of Commons Debates always HC Deb and House of Lords Debates always HL Deb. OSCOLA bibliography: No entry necessary. Harvard in-text: (HC Deb 3 Nov 2014, c468) Harvard references: No entry necessary

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to move on:

What system of referencing does your university want you to follow?

Have you struggled with referencing in the past?

What are the consequences of an academic offence? Did you make mistakes in the final referencing exercises?

Figure 13.4

14 Structuring the dissertation

Current stage of writing

Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 14.1

In this chapter, you will find: 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5

How to structure the introduction How to structure the main body How to structure the conclusion Signposting Creating a reverse outline

This chapter builds on the previous chapter on writing and focuses on structure. Much of the clarity of your writing will come from having a clear, linear structure. The importance of a linear structure cannot be overemphasised. Everything in your dissertation should be well structured: your chapters, paragraphs, and – of course – the dissertation itself.

156

Structuring the dissertation Always ask the question ‘what does this section/chapter need to do’ and then review the chapter on completion to see that it does it.

Advice from the examiners:

Ensure chapter 1 is not too heavy. You should restate your main argument at appropriate moments throughout your dissertation.

Figure 14.2

14.1 How to structure the introduction An introduction should be about 10% of the word count; leaving 80% of the words to be used on the main body, and another 10% on the conclusion as shown in Figure 14.3: Introduction (10%) Main body (80%) Conclusion (10%)

Figure 14.3

A good introduction clearly identifies the issues to be discussed in the main body and sets out the structure that the dissertation will follow. If your dissertation word count is 10,000 words, the introduction should be 1,000 words. Making an argument: the introduction In the previous chapter, it was stated that you should take the reader on a journey with you by:

2

• Making an argument • Logically developing the argument

3

• Concluding the argument

1

Figure 14.4

Structuring the dissertation 157 Your dissertation will involve complex discussions, various supporting evidence, and many thoughts of your own. Each of the chapters might have a sub-question or an argument you are exploring. Each chapter ideally makes a strong claim that supports your overall enquiry. At the core of the dissertation there must be one argument or question that you examine. To unpack this key question, you can use multiple lines of enquiry and unpack a number of smaller arguments. You should be able to state your key question or argument succinctly and refer back to it repeatedly, showing evidence in support. This is no different in many ways from being a practitioner presenting a case in court.1 Your dissertation should always begin with a strong introductory chapter. In the essays that you have written in the previous years, you will hopefully have always begun with an opening paragraph which is an introduction to your essay. The dissertation is no different. The introduction to your dissertation is often the chapter you spend the most amount of time rewriting and editing. In the introduction, you should set out your key argument clearly; this is the most important part of the introduction, and of the dissertation itself. Remember that the introduction does not introduce the topic; it introduces your dissertation. A good introduction will set out and unpack the research question. It will also explain the steps you will take in addressing the question. You should always include the following in the introduction: Argument/ brief context

Objectives and research questions

Good introduction must include

Structure of the dissertation

Figure 14.5

You might also want to include: • • • •

Methodology; The significance and reasons for your work; Definition of the topic and the scope of work; and Explanation of key terminology; for example, if your study is on terrorism, you might want to explain how the word terrorist is used in this study.

1 S.I. Strong, How to Write Law Essays and Exams (LexisNexis 2003) 38.

158

Structuring the dissertation

Logically developing your argument Your dissertation should be written coherently and structured around your key argument. An easy way to ensure coherence in your work is by using short introduction and conclusion paragraphs in each chapter. In the introduction paragraph, you simply state what this chapter will do and how it relates to previous ones. In the conclusion, you summarise what you have argued/shown in the chapter and how the next one builds on this analysis. This brings flow and coherence to your writing. The main point of the introductory paragraph is to give the reader a clear sense of what they are about to read and why.

14.2 How to structure the main body Library-based research dissertation There is no set structure for a dissertation; the topic and your research approach will set the structure. Normally, the structure is something you should discuss with a supervisor, or with a critical friend. There are, however, some common features that most dissertations share. One is that dissertations ordinarily start as fairly descriptive and then move in a more analytical/critical direction, as shown in Figure 14.6: Introductory Descriptive Analytical Critical

Conclusion

Figure 14.6

This descriptive to analytical process is absolutely fine and most topics support this structure. In terms of the main body, most dissertations set the scene, analyse key issues, and provide recommendations or an explanation of flaws in the system. Part I – setting the scene. It is customary to spend the first chapter setting out the key issues or laws. For example, in a dissertation that evaluates the effectiveness of domestic violence legislation, it might be sensible to have a first chapter that sets out the law on domestic violence. If the dissertation is based on scholarly work, the first chapter could be an extended literature review that highlights the issues scholars have raised in the field. Or if it is a complex field, the first chapter can simply clarify the terminology in the field. Be careful not to include too much in this part. Often the first draft of chapter 1 is very long and with all issues thrown in. Remember that you do not need to make all your points in chapter 1; just focus on one area.

Structuring the dissertation 159 Part II – analysing key issues. After the initial part in which the key issues or laws are explained, dissertations normally become more analytical. This is where the real critical analysis of case law, reforms, scholarly views, theoretical considerations, or country comparisons happens. Part III – recommendations or highlighting flaws. Often as the dissertation draws to a close, it is appropriate to provide recommendations. If the dissertation has highlighted that a particular area of law is ineffective or in need of reform, it can simply conclude that a reform is needed. It can also provide a list of recommendations that would remedy the state of affairs. Some students move away from the practical reform path, and use the final parts of the main body to theorise the particular question; or to bring together their analysis on the legal doctrine from a critical perspective. Example of a full dissertation structure: • • • • • •

Abstract (Short summary of your dissertation; states what you did, why and the results/conclusions) Table of contents Table of cases Table of legislation Introduction Main body • •

•

•

• •

Chapter 1 – Setting out the issues/key legal framework, for example setting out the legal framework on domestic violence. Chapter 2 – Showing the conflicts/analysing key cases/key scholarship. For example, discussing scholarly views on policing, victims of domestic violence, race, highlighting key issues. Chapter 3 – Case study examples/comparative element/more specific study into an issue within the field. For example, an analysis of the most recent crime statistics and cases on domestic violence where the victim identifies as ethnic minority origin to examine whether the responses of the police/criminal justice system show racial bias. Chapter 4 – An evaluation of how adequate the law is/proposing reforms. For example, noting that there are systematic failures to protect victims of domestic violence who are from ethnic minorities, and providing recommendations on how to address this.

Conclusion Bibliography

Remember that there is no right or wrong way to structure a dissertation, as long as it follows logically! Empirical research dissertation The structure for a dissertation that includes empirical research is normally different from a library-based research dissertation. If you are conducting library-based

160

Structuring the dissertation

research, most of the time you do not need a chapter on methodology. If you are working on something where methods warrant further exploration – such as a discourse analysis on newspaper sources, or court transcripts – you might want to include a short chapter explaining what you have done and why. For some library-based research dissertations, you can address methodology in the introduction. If you are conducting empirical work, you probably need an entire chapter on methodology. It can be a brief chapter, but it should explain how you have conducted your empirical research; it should include: • • • • • • •

•

a breakdown of respondents by age, gender, profession, etc.; why these respondents/participants were chosen; the methods used, i.e. interviews, focus groups, surveys, etc.; why this method was used; detailed explanation of the questions; did you use structured or semi-structured interview questions, or perhaps open-ended ones, and why; any methodological issues you might have had, e.g. cancellation of a particular interview; confirmation that all participants agreed to take part (consent forms do not need to be attached as an appendix, but you should ask each participant to sign them and you should keep copies); and some of the data as graphs if you prefer, such as the breakdown of the respondents.

A dissertation with empirical research should include the following (you might have other chapters, too, but please ensure that you include) sections, as identified in Figure 14.7:

Introduction

Literature review

Methodology chapter

Chapter analysing responses/findings

Optional: Recommendations

Conclusion

Include the original questionnaire/interview questions as an Appendix (not included in the word count)

Figure 14.7

Structuring the dissertation 161

14.3 How to structure the conclusion In the conclusion, you must go back to the key argument and show how you have proven it and answered your research question. The conclusion is the final part of the dissertation that the reader will read, and it is likely to have a long-lasting impact; yet even the strongest dissertations often have descriptive conclusions. There are two points to remember when writing a conclusion. Your conclusion should draw all the issues you have discussed in your chapters together, and not introduce new issues or evidence. Common problems in introductions: 1 2 3

The conclusion is just a repeat summary of previous chapters. The student makes claims that are too big to knowledge; i.e. the dissertation will change the law in the particular field. The student introduces new material as a way of thinking forward.

The conclusion should be about 10% of your overall word count and include the following points:

Conclusion must include:

Key research findings

The importance of those findings

Figure 14.8

At this point you should be clear what your key finding is and the answer to your research question. This finding should be the core of your conclusion. In addition to the major findings, it is good practice to read and synthesise the chapter conclusions. This does not mean repeating what you have already said in each of the chapter conclusions, but rather bringing those thoughts together in support of your main conclusion.

14.4 Signposting You should signpost throughout your dissertation so the reader follows the work with ease. There are two forms of signposting: major signposting, and linking words and phrases. Chapter introductions and conclusions belong to major signposting. Major signposting means the parts of the dissertation that aid the reader in identifying your key arguments and contributions. Another form of signposting is using linking words and phrases. Consider how you could use the following words in Figure 14.9 to improve the flow of your writing:

162

Structuring the dissertation To bring a paragraph to a conclusion following a discussion on an idea: To suggest a different viewpoint: To add evidence on a point already made: To make a counter point:

Therefore As a result Consequently Alternatively Additionally Furthermore However

Figure 14.9

Remember that signposting is not limited to your introduction and chapter conclusions, but this is rather something you should do throughout each chapter, and ideally within each paragraph. Major signposting: chapter introduction and conclusion The dissertation should be written in a consistent fashion and structured around your key argument. An easy way to bring coherence into your work is by using short introduction and conclusion paragraphs in each chapter. In the introduction paragraph, you simply state what this chapter will do and how it relates to previous ones. In the conclusion, you summarise what you have argued/shown in the chapter and how the next one builds on this analysis. The main point of the introductory paragraph is to give the reader a clear sense of what they are about to read and why. The introductory paragraph should always explain: • • •

The focus of the chapter; The structure of the chapter; and How it relates to the previous chapters/main research question.

For example, the introduction to a comparative chapter on a dissertation on legalisation of assisted dying could state: This chapter provides a comparative analysis on the right to die. It focuses on the Netherlands as it is one of the few countries that have legalised euthanasia. The chapter gives a brief overview of the Dutch legislation and experience before moving on to critically evaluate the Dutch model. Building on from the previous chapters’ analysis on UK legislation, the chapter draws some comparison with the UK and evaluates what the UK could learn from the Dutch experience. The first sentences of the paragraph explain the focus and the middle part explains the structure of the dissertation. The final sentence explains how it relates to the dissertation and other chapters. With this clear introductory paragraph, the reader knows exactly what to expect and why. This gives clarity to your work and helps to highlight the key arguments the dissertation is making.

Structuring the dissertation 163 Headings and sub-headings It is good practice to use headings and sub-headings in a dissertation, or in any research essay. Headings give structure to your chapters and to your dissertation overall. When you are planning the chapters and creating outlines, try to create the outlines that identify clear headings. These headings will then form essential parts of your chapter. Try to limit your headings to three levels and use different styles to indicate the different levels. This can be done by using different sizes or bold/italics. It does not matter which style you choose as long as the style is always consistent. For example:

Level 1 Subheading/Chapter heading Level 2 Subheading/Section heading within a chapter Level 3 Subheading/Subheading within a section By using the heading function in MS Word, you can compile an index or table of contents automatically.2

14.5 Creating a reverse outline What is a reverse outline? You will have spent a lot of time at the beginning planning your dissertation, and then planning each chapter. A reverse outline or plan is something you do after you have finished writing a chapter. A reverse outline is a great tool to look back at your writing and structure in order to see if it is logical and where it could be improved. It helps you to have an overview of your work, whether this is one chapter or the entire dissertation. How to create a reverse outline Normally, you would only do a reverse outline once you have completed a full draft. The outline is created by identifying the essential point made by each paragraph; and writing that down in chronological order. You can use the first line of the paragraph if it clearly identifies the point that the paragraph makes. Otherwise, clearly summarise the paragraph into one sentence. If you cannot summarise the paragraph into a sentence, it means the paragraph is not clear enough and should be edited. Then, in numerical order, list the sentences together. This is your reverse outline. The first paragraph should always be an introduction, whether this is for an essay or a dissertation paragraph.

2 See, How to Create a Table of Contents by Marking Text in Word, https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/ help/285059/how-to-create-a-table-of-contents-by-marking-text-in-word accessed 20 August 2017.

164

Structuring the dissertation

Task Analyse a reverse outline: This is a reverse outline for a dissertation on whether euthanasia should be legalised in the United Kingdom. As part of the dissertation the student decided to include a comparative chapter; this chapter focuses on the Netherlands, a country that has legalised euthanasia. The aim of the chapter is to conduct a comparison with the UK and to see what the UK could learn from the Dutch experience. Looking this outline, does the chapter remain focused on its key aims?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Introduction Background: explaining why the Netherlands is a good comparison Background: explaining how law reform came about in the Netherlands Case law analysis Case law analysis Law on euthanasia in the Netherlands Law on euthanasia in the Netherlands (again) How courts have developed the law in the Netherlands Have euthanasia laws led to a slippery slope in the Netherlands? Comparison with the UK What can the UK learn from the Netherlands? Conclusion

Chapter 3 reverse outline 1. Introduction 2. Background: explaining why the Netherlands is a good comparison 3. Background: explaining how law reform came about in the Netherlands 4. Case law analysis 5. Case law analysis 6. Law on euthanasia in the Netherlands 7. Law on euthanasia in the Netherlands (again) 8. How courts have developed the law in the Netherlands 9. Have euthanasia laws led to a slippery slope in the Netherlands? 10. Comparison to the UK 11. What can the UK learn from the Netherlands? 12. Conclusion

Case law is discussed on numerous points; at different parts

Structuring the dissertation 165 Q. Is the outline logical? Q. Does it focus on the key point of comparison?

This reverse outline has 12 paragraphs; out of these only three directly focus on the comparison with the UK (paragraphs 2, 10, and 11). The reverse outline shows that the majority of the chapter is spent explaining what the law in the Netherlands is and how it has been applied by the courts. This means that the chapter does not focus on its key aim, which is to conduct a comparison. A comparative chapter that spends the majority of the time on explaining laws in a different country is unlikely to be analytical; and it would be better to have more paragraphs dealing with the comparison. Furthermore, the outline shows us that the chapter is not logically structured. It starts in a clear and logical manner, yet the outline shows that case law is discussed before the law is explained; and then again afterwards. How to analyse a reverse outline Once you have completed a reverse outline for your chapter, consider the following: •

Are the paragraphs clear and linear? If you struggled to write a clear summary of a paragraph, the paragraph could either be making multiple points or making no point at all.

•

Does the argument flow logically throughout the chapter? Do the paragraphs link to each other logically and are they related/building on each other? If something seems out of place, such as case law analysis in our example, then consider moving the paragraphs up or down; or to an entirely different chapter.

•

Is there too much repetition? If you have two or more paragraphs making the same key point all over again, then your work is likely to be too repetitive. In this case, consider combining the content of those paragraphs and deleting repetition where appropriate.

•

Does the outline match your original focus/plan for the chapter? Once you have completed the outline, consider if it remains focused on the key idea you had for the chapter, such as the comparison with the Netherlands in our earlier example.

Once you have analysed the reverse outline, you should make corrections based on your analysis. You will now have identified any issues with chapter structure, and can use your notes to transform your chapter into a more logical and coherent one.

166

Structuring the dissertation

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to move on:

What type of research are you conducting? Does it impact on your dissertation structure?

Have you thought about focus for individual chapters? Are your chapters balanced in terms of word count and issues covered?

Have you thought about the structure of individual chapters?

Do you know what a reverse outline is?

Figure 14.10

15 Navigating supervision

Current stage of writing Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 15.1

In this chapter, you will find: 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6

What are the roles of a supervisor and a supervisee? Managing your supervision meetings Supervision guidelines Feedback cycle Working with a critical friend Tools for critical friend and for self-evaluation

Working with a supervisor, obtaining feedback, and being able to talk about your research project are integral parts of any research project. The role of the supervisor is to support the research project, yet the supervision relationship can cause much anxiety and stress. This chapter addresses how to manage the supervisor relationship, and how to make the most of it. Most of this chapter is addressed to students who are working with a supervisor, but it is also useful for students studying independently, without a supervisor, as it indicates a number of functions that may be fulfilled by other means, such as your

168

Navigating supervision

own reflective practices or peer review from fellow students (for example, someone studying at the same independent teaching institution or via discussion forums). It also discusses the role of a critical friend: a person, maybe a colleague or a friend, who provides feedback on your work.

Advice from the examiners:

Make sure you attend supervision meetings; even if you are behind with writing.

Ask for help when you need it.

Figure 15.2

15.1 What are the roles of a supervisor and a supervisee? Most universities allocate a supervisor for undergraduate and postgraduate research projects. There are many benefits to working with a supervisor. Broadly speaking, these include receiving regular feedback on your work and the sense that you are being guided by an experienced mentor who is knowledgeable in the field of study. A supervisor’s role normally includes advice on: • • • • •

Background reading sources, ‘the literature’, the key debates, and ‘hot topics’; Current developments in both specific and wider areas of research; Possible topics suggested by students (e.g. is it too broad or narrow?); Viability of proposed research – can it be done? Is it interesting?; and Developing a plan of action for your work. This should include advice on setting deadlines for production of your main deliverables.

Your supervisor should also read and provide feedback on your work. Institutions will have different policies on this. It is customary that the supervisor reads at least 20% of the dissertation, but some institutions will allow a supervisor to comment on the entire draft. You should not expect your supervisor to read any parts more than once. You should provide the supervisor with draft material as you write it, e.g. a completed chapter. Do not wait until you have written the whole draft before showing it to your supervisor. If there is a structural problem, major rewriting may

Navigating supervision

169

be needed and there may not be enough time left for that by the time the first draft is complete. If your supervisor reads your work as you go along, they will be able to ensure that you are made fully aware of the adequacy, or indeed inadequacy, of progress or of standards of work. Giving constructive criticism is an important role of the supervisor. Being clear about when work is not up to standard may feel harsh, but such feedback is crucial. A supervisor’s role does not include: • • • •

Coming up with your dissertation topic or research question or a proposal; Writing parts of your dissertation for you; Conducting research on your behalf; or Proofreading or editing your dissertation.

Equally, it is important to remember that the supervisor will not be instantly available if you drop in without an appointment or be able to comment in a short space of time. They will also not be able to offer more meetings than are agreed at the outset, nor to chase you up if you miss appointments or deadlines. What about your role as a supervisee? You may not have thought about your role as a supervisee and what this entails. Surely you just do your work and whatever the supervisor tells you to do? Wrong. Even if you have a supervisor, their role is to support you in working independently. You should take the initiative in raising problems or difficulties, however elementary they may seem. Prompt discussion and resolution of problems can prevent difficulties and disagreements at a later stage. It is of paramount importance that you communicate any issues you have with your research, meeting deadlines, or even with the feedback they have given to you in a timely manner. A supervisor takes on a number of roles, as discussed in more detail in the following section. The role of the supervisor contains many different elements; some of these roles are identified in Figure 15.3:

Task It’s good to be clear about what you want from a supervisor relationship and to know what they expect from you, and you should discuss your expectations at the start. A supervisor potentially plays many roles as illustrated previously. Consider the roles the supervisor can take, described in the following grid. Which of these roles is most important to you?

170

Navigating supervision

Consultant

Research skills advisor

Supervisor

Reviewer

Support

Figure 15.3

Role

What the role includes

Consultant

The consultant role is the one that students often initially think is most important. They may feel very anxious if there is no specialist available on their specific research topic. Your supervisor should be knowledgeable about the legal subject area (e.g. criminal law or tort) of your dissertation, but at the undergraduate level, any subject area specialist should know enough about your chosen topic to offer sound advice. In fact, many of the roles of a supervisor are generic and do not require expertise in your specific topic.

Reviewer

At times, when you are intently working on something, you cannot objectively assess your own work. However, the supervisor can as an objective reviewer see whether you are on track, or are spending too much time on irrelevant materials. The most obvious example of supervisor’s role as a reviewer is when you submit drafts of your work and the supervisor provides feedback. This feedback might be on matters such as the academic content, structure, coherence, quality of writing/English, quality of referencing/citations. But, of equal importance is discussion by you and your supervisor of plans, outlines, and schedules that you have provided, along with your own self-reflection reviews of your progress. Feedback on the work you have done and the work you are planning to do is the most important contribution by a supervisor.

Navigating supervision

171

Role

What the role includes

Support

Source of encouragement and support Ideally, your supervisor will keep you going through difficult times – although you cannot expect them to be a counsellor or help sort out family or personal problems. ‘Being there for you’ Part of the role of supervisor is to meet with you on a regular basis, as agreed and to make themselves available for one-off meetings with suitable advance notice or by appointment. Do not abuse this privilege by expecting the supervisor to be ‘on call’ any time you feel like talking to them: always make an appointment and give them enough time to respond to your contact requests.

It is important at the start to establish, as explicitly as you can, what the terms of your working relationship will be. Good communication and clearly set rules are the foundation of any good supervision relationship. After you have considered all the roles and ranked what is important to you, take your notes with you to your first supervision meeting.

15.2 Managing your supervision meetings It is important to recognise that not all supervisors will be able to fulfil all the ideal roles, or to do so consistently. It is therefore important that you take responsibility for your project and make the best of the particular supervisor’s good qualities. For example, it may be that the person appointed as your supervisor is not a specialist in your chosen subject. While non-specialists will not be acquainted with all the relevant literature, they will often be able to help with methodology and planning, and their experience in the wider field may make them good people to try out ideas on.1 You should never take criticism or feedback personally. You should also always take notes during meetings with your supervisor. To get the most out of the meetings, always provide something to discuss. Ideally you would send completed but not necessarily polished chapters to your supervisor before the meeting. At the early stages, you will not have completed substantive chapters so in these meetings it is a good idea to bring with you a plan, some questions, or even a list of problems you have or anticipate. Normally, the supervisor and supervisee will meet quite intensively closer to submission. After the initial planning meeting, your contact may be infrequent until you move from the research to the writing state. This is something you should discuss at the initial meeting.

1 Peter Levin, Excellent Dissertations! (Open University 2005) 19.

172

Navigating supervision

Aim of the supervision meetings The main aim of a supervision meeting is to evaluate what has been done so far and use the result in planning for the future. Thus, a meeting may include the following points identified in Figure 15.5:

Aims of supervision meeting: Review progress on work done since the last meeting, compared to that planned. Agree on direction for the next step and deadline for completed work. Agree time for the next meeting.

Supervision meeting format In your initial meeting, you should establish how often you will normally meet (once a month? Maybe you will meet the first time in September/October but then agree to meet only around December/January when you have written materials to discuss?). Once the frequency has been agreed, find out the schedule of your supervisor: what days are you both normally available and are they likely to be away for long periods of time? It is good to always have an agreed date for your next meeting before finishing the current meeting, and a date for submitting materials. You might also agree how long a meeting will typically be and whether all meetings will be face-to-face. It’s common to have a combination of face-to-face meetings and discussions over emails. Supervision log Establish how you will record the decisions made at meetings. Some supervisors might want you to complete a supervision log. This should include dates of meetings, key points discussed, and details of recommendations made by the supervisor. The student should maintain the log and send a copy to the supervisor at the end of the project writing. It is the student’s responsibility to make a note of decisions taken at meetings and then send/give this note to the supervisor for confirmation. Supervisors can keep their own records as a backup or in cases of disagreement. Planning the way forward It is advisable to include discussion of planning as a regular part of each meeting, or at least every other meeting, depending on how often meetings are scheduled.

Navigating supervision

173

Current practice is that it is the student’s responsibility to present an outline plan and the supervisor’s responsibility to comment on it. Included as a regular part of meetings – and recognising that plans need frequent adaptation – this should be part of the student’s normal work routine.

15.3 Supervision guidelines Many universities have a code of practice governing the respective roles of supervisor and supervisee, laying out duties and rights and also procedures to follow if things go wrong. These can also be called supervision guidelines. While these codes of practice are normally developed for postgraduate research students, studying for a master’s or doctoral degree, there are a number of key points that apply equally to supervisors and supervisees at the undergraduate level. These guidelines set out the supervisor’s duties and responsibilities, as well as those of the student. You should have access to the supervision guidelines of your institution. This is an example of institutional supervision guidelines. NB.These will vary between institutions.

1 Student responsibilities The supervision will be determined by the student taking advantage of the supervision and guidance opportunities available to them. It is not to be expected that academic staff will chase students who fail to take advantage of those opportunities. 2 Frequency of meetings Normally you can expect to meet with your supervisor face-to-face, by email, or by phone about twice a semester. At times during the year, the frequency may be less because there is nothing productive to discuss. The frequency, location and duration of meetings will be agreed between the supervisor and the student. It is unlikely that any meeting can exceed 1 hour and often they can be shorter. Comment cannot be expected where a draft thesis or part has been submitted to the supervisor less than two weeks before the dissertation is due to be handed in. Where a final overall draft is submitted for comment in the weeks leading up to the submission deadline, students should normally expect only comments relating to the overall thesis and not feedback on individual elements. 3 Feedback Academic staff can be expected to comment on the structure, methodology, sources, referencing, content, and style of the dissertation. This will include constructive feedback on the proposals developed in the research plan and literature review, as well as feedback on draft chapters. Unless it is specifically agreed with your supervisor you cannot expect comment or meetings to take place out of term time.

174

Navigating supervision

4 Grammar/spelling It is not expected that academic staff are to correct grammatical, style, or spelling errors, but instead should comment if there are issues concerning these matters. 5 Possible/suspected plagiarism It is not expected that academic staff should mark up any sections of text where they suspect plagiarism – merely draw the student’s attention to the need to ensure that the work is fully referenced and makes appropriate use of quotation marks. 6 Supervisor’s role It is not expected that academic staff should give line-by-line feedback on the dissertation in draft. The role of the academic supervisor is as academic guide, mentor, and critical friend not co-author or editor.

What do you do when your supervisor does not comply with the guidelines? If your supervisor does not comply with the supervision guidelines of your institution and you believe you are not getting the supervision you need, it is important that you raise this, initially with your supervisor. In most cases, supervisors are busy and might have forgotten about your email or call and will be grateful for a reminder. If after you have raised the issues with your supervisor, you still are not getting the support you need, raise it with the person who is responsible for the dissertations at your institution. Do not suffer in silence.

15.4 Feedback cycle Submit complete writing for feedback Edit and refocus your work

Respond to the feedback

Figure 15.4

Obtain feedback

Reflect on the feedback

Navigating supervision

175

Figure 15.6 describes feedback cycle. Whether you are working with a supervisor or critical friend: 1

2

3

4

5

Initial meeting: discuss the project; both the student and the supervisor/critical friend can clarify questions about the research project, boundaries, feedback desired, and methods of communicating here. Follow-up: the student should set out the aims of the relationship; and the supervisor/critical friend should set any limitations: for example, time, subject knowledge. Feedback cycle, stage I: the supervisor/critical friend provides feedback on the first stage, normally the proposal. It would be beneficial to have a supervisor/critical friend from the beginning until the end of the project-writing process. Therefore, engaging with a supervisor/critical friend before the writing begins – when the research question is being formulated – is good practice. Feedback cycle, stage II: the supervisor/critical friend raises questions and critiques the work, nudging the student to see the project from different perspectives. The supervisor/critical friend can provide feedback on the question and proposal plans; this initial feedback stage might be more generic and may focus on the significance of the project. Feedback cycle, stage III: student to reflect on the feedback and provide a response to the supervisor/critical friend – who in turn will reflect on the response. The student should consider the points raised and reflect on questions such as, will the proposed changes make this work better or worse? What have I learned from this refocusing process?

Remember that you do not need to incorporate all/any of the suggestions from your supervisor/critical friend – the main aim is to help you think about your work from different perspectives and critically.

15.5 Working with a critical friend Not everyone will have a supervisor to guide them through the research project. It might be that you have completed your studies entirely independently, your local institution does not offer supervision, or simply that you believe it would not be beneficial for you. This is absolutely fine, and many people complete the project without supervision. If you are completing a project without supervision, it is important to use tools for self-evaluation. In addition to this, you might consider getting a critical friend. Who is a critical friend? Someone you trust and who is in a position to give you constructive but honest feedback. Some of the roles a critical friend can take are identified in Figure 15.7: A critical friend does not necessarily need to be someone who has a similar academic background – or even an academic background at all. A critical friend can be a colleague or a friend – a person who is able to read and discuss your

176

Navigating supervision Critical friend

Encourages and supports

Provides honest, candid and, at times, difficult-to-hear feedback

Helps you to identify weaknesses and strengths

Figure 15.5

work objectively and give you feedback. They do not necessarily need to have a legal background. You will become the master of your subject area through your research; the role of the critical friend, much like a supervisor, is to give you general guidance and feedback. Trust is essential for critical friendships. In order for the relationship to be useful, the student/person receiving feedback must feel that the critical friend will be clear on the nature of the relationship and that they will not feel judged on a personal level.2 Before anyone agrees to be a critical friend, they should be sure that they have the time to review the project all the way to completion and the time to discuss it. They should be able to listen and help you clarify your ideas, and more than anything, take the time to engage with your project. It is important, therefore, that you discuss the expectation and aims of the friendship before any feedback is given. Many people equate feedback with criticism or critique – wrongly! Feedback at best offers you tools to think about your work and learning critically, it helps to you reflect, learn, and delve deeper into the subject matter. It is not a judgment on you or your work.

15.6 Tools for critical friend and for self-evaluation Once you have established a good working relationship with your critical friend, you should ask for feedback on different stages of your project writing. If you want feedback on anything specific, always be sure to highlight this. In addition, ask your critical friend to consider the following questions in particular when providing feedback:

Content • • • • •

Is the key argument clearly identified from the beginning? Is the argument compelling and strong? How could it be improved? Are all chapters balanced; are there any chapters that appear weaker than others, and why? Is the content analytical? If there are long sections that are purely descriptive, the critical friend should identify those. Does the research seem thorough? Has the student used a variety of sources, such as books and journals, or are there too many internet sites in the footnotes/

2 Arthur Costa and Bena Kallick, ‘Through the Lens of a Critical Friend’ (1993) 52(2) Educational Leadership 49, available at www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct93/vol51/num02/ Through-the-Lens-of-a-Critical-Friend.aspx accessed 20 August 2017.

Navigating supervision

177

bibliography? The critical friend may not be able to assess this if they are not from a legal background.

Writing • •

Is there anything that is unclear, hard to follow, or could be clearer? Does the writing make sense at all times? Is the tone of the writing appropriate for this level of study?

Structure • • • • • •

Is the structure of the entire dissertation logical? Do the chapters clearly follow each other and develop the argument? Are the individual chapters clearly structured? Does every chapter have a clear introduction so it links to the previous chapter, and explains the aims and structure of the chapter in question? Is the introduction clear? Does it introduce the key argument and the dissertation? Does the conclusion appear in line with the aims outlined in the introduction? Does the conclusion provide a clear answer to the key research question asked?

Task Use the questions in this section as a tool for self-evaluation whenever you complete a chapter.

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to move on: What do you expect from your supervisor?

What do you think your supervisor expects from you?

Have you agreed on the terms of your supervision relationship?

Do you know how to prepare for a supervision meeting?

Do you know what a critical friend is?

Figure 15.6

16 Obtaining a first and avoiding fails

Current stage of writing Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 16.1

In this chapter, you will find: 16.1 How to get a first 16.2 Why does a dissertation fail? 16.3 How to avoid common pitfalls

This chapter offer some insights into how to get a first-class mark from your dissertation. All of the key aspects have already been discussed in the earlier Steps, so this chapter draws those key considerations together. The chapter also discusses what to do if a dissertation is about to fail or has failed, and how to rectify common problems.

Obtaining a first and avoiding fails 179

Advice from the examiners:

Be prepared to write, rewrite, and rewrite again to get a first class grade!

Figure 16.2

16.1 How to get a first Many students start their dissertation project in view of getting a first. A first in your dissertation can raise the overall grade for your degree, or help you to achieve a muchcoveted first-class law degree. Yet the majority of candidates do not obtain a first in their dissertation. There are a few things to remember when you are working towards that first-class dissertation. First, there are no shortcuts or magic bullets that will get you a first. No one has obtained first-class marks from their dissertation without those late evenings in the library. Hard work is required, but hard work is also required to achieve very good (60+) marks. What, then, distinguishes a first-class dissertation from the rest? Simply put, consistent quality in every aspect of the process. Remember that firstclass work does not need to be perfect; it can still contain a few errors, and there is a range within the first-class marks. A first-class piece of work can be excellent (70+) Excellent range of research Critical analysis and authoritative conclusions

Original research question

Professional presentation

Clearly written/appropriate legal terminology

Logically develops a line of argument throughout

Figure 16.3

Excellent, in-depth knowledge and understanding of the legal issues

180

Obtaining a first and avoiding fails

or even outstanding (80+); outstanding is a dissertation the supervisor might recommend for publication. What are the key words associated with first-class dissertations? Figure 16.3 identifies the key words often used to describe first-class dissertations: Thinking about these key words, it becomes obvious that there is no magical element that is required from first-class dissertations. A first-class dissertation contains an original research question; excellent research; and well-presented authoritative findings. You can achieve this by following the steps set out in this book. Original research question For a first-class dissertation, it is essential you bring something original to the task. As discussed in Step I, this does not mean you need to reinvent the wheel, but you do need an original, interesting take on an area of law that is topical or worthy of an investigation. A standard question you may find on internet sites will never give you first-class marks. Excellent research Excellent research that supports your research question and approach is vital. As discussed in Step II and Step III, it is essential that your question, sources, and research methods are in harmony. There is no set number of sources that will guarantee you a first, but rather the sources need to be highly relevant to your question and approach. If the dissertation includes interviews, that is the main research data and it must be analysed and presented very well. If you are examining a law that just came into force, an excellent piece of research would include reading consultation papers and Hansard debates. If you are examining an area that has been amended by courts, excellent research would include reading the relevant Supreme Court, ECtHR, or CJEU rulings and analysing them in detail. There is no right number of sources, but the key to excellent research is using a range of different primary and secondary materials that are relevant to your question and approach. Well-presented authoritative findings Remember that your dissertation is answering a question: a question that you have set out in the introduction and logically developed throughout. That question should be critically analysed in each chapter, and in the Conclusion (or Recommendations) chapter you should present and conclude your findings. A dissertation is not an extended essay where you evaluate a thought, but rather a logical, wellresearched answer to a question. Communicate with your supervisor and obtain feedback Much of dissertation writing consists of the solitary tasks of reading, writing, and editing. To get a first, though, you need to be able to take on board constructive feedback and be willing to amend your work in line with that feedback. If you speak with any author – fiction or non-fiction – they will tell you that writing is rewriting. The same goes for dissertation writing, and a student who is aiming for

Obtaining a first and avoiding fails 181 a first should allow themselves time to edit each chapter at least once, as shown in Figure 16.4:

Write

Feedback

Feedback

Edit

Figure 16.4

It is essential therefore that you communicate with your supervisors, obtain feedback, and have a dialogue about your progress. If your goal is to get a first, be open about this with your supervisor and ask for specific advice on how to get there and where you can improve. One of the most common mistakes students make is failing to communicate with their supervisor, leaving the entire feedback process until the final month when it is too late. Regular interaction and taking feedback on board from your supervisor or a critical friend will greatly increase your chances of obtaining your desired grade.

16.2 Why does a dissertation fail? Academic offences aside, there is one reason behind most dissertation fails:

RUNNING OUT OF TIME

A student who has followed the steps set out in this book and systematically consulted their supervisor or critical friend will not fail, providing there are no issues with plagiarism. Without exception, students who fail are those who simply left it too late. No one can write a dissertation in two weeks. The section below offers practical guidance on how to avoid common pitfalls but also guidance for resubmission for those who have submitted their dissertation and failed. A marginal fail (30–39) would often have some of the issues identified in Figure 16.5:

182

Obtaining a first and avoiding fails

Issue

How to rectify?

Misunderstanding of key legal issue Repeat Step II and Step III: that is central to the dissertation Research more; only by reading more can you have a solid grounding on the specific area of law. The dissertation does not stay Repeat Step VI: focused on the question/has Each of the chapters needs to support your key irrelevant chapters question/argument. Lacks appropriate level of research/ Repeat Steps II and III: reliance on internet sources Particularly on how to find good-quality academic sources; and a better understanding of the hierarchy of information. Poor grasp of written English Repeat Step V: To improve your written English and to ensure there are no typos, all you need is time and patience to edit. Poor presentation Repeat Step VII: It only takes a few hours to ensure a highly-polished presentation; therefore, submitting a poorly presented dissertation appears sloppy and lazy. Inadequate referencing Repeat Step VII: Complete the referencing tasks. Figure 16.5

Fails (0–29) would often have some of these issues identified in Figure 16.6:

Issue

How to rectify?

Misunderstanding of basic legal issues in the field

Repeat Step II and Step III: Research more but focus also on planning research. If there are issues with the basics of the field, then it is good to go back to the textbooks to get a solid grounding on the specific area of law. Repeat Step I: Go back to the exercises in Step I on how to improve your research question and strengthen your proposal. Repeat Steps II and III: Particularly on how to find good-quality academic sources; and a better understanding of the hierarchy of information. Re-read your module information and consult your supervisor if you have been allocated one. Ensure you understand what your institution requires from this work and, most importantly, ask for help.

No clearly articulated research question, or dissertation is just generic discussion Relies extensively on poor-quality internet sources Work submitted is not complete, i.e. it is significantly short of word count/lacks part of the assessment criteria Poor grasp of written English/typos in every paragraph

Repeat Step V: To improve your written English and to ensure there are no typos, all you need is time and patience to edit.

Obtaining a first and avoiding fails 183 Issue

How to rectify?

Extremely weak presentation

Repeat Step VII: It only takes a few hours to ensure a highly-polished presentation, therefore submitting a poorly presented dissertation appears sloppy and lazy. Repeat Step VII: Complete the referencing tasks.

Inadequate referencing

Figure 16.6

Please remember: What combines all these issues?

They can be rectified!

Figure 16.7

16.3 How to avoid common pitfalls By following the general guidelines provided in this guide and these five action points, you will avoid the common pitfalls and give yourself the best possible chance to obtain a high mark: 1 2 3 4

Plan your research well, leaving time for editing in between writing, not only at the end. Communicate with your supervisor, especially when you are falling behind on deadlines. Stay on track with time management. Avoid internet sources.

Remember that the best dissertations always convey the student’s passion and interest for the topic, so most importantly, enjoy the process!

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to move on: Do you know what is expected from a firstclass dissertation? Do you know what the most common reason for students failing is? Have you identified any issues with your work, and ways to rectify those? Have you found areas to improve upon?

Figure 16.8

17 Preparing for submission

Current stage of writing Step I: Formulating a proposal

Step II: Planning and preparing research

Step III: Conducting research and tackling methodology

Step V: Writing your dissertation

Step VI: Structuring your dissertation

Step VII: Navigating supervision

Step IV: Processing literature

Step VIII: Preparing for submission

Figure 17.1

In this chapter, you will find: 17.1 Presentation and layout of the dissertation 17.2 What are the examiners looking for? 17.3 Final presentation/submission checklist

This chapter focuses on the practical aspects of putting your final dissertation together, such as what the final presentation should be like. Presentation is the first thing your examiner will pay attention to, so it is important the dissertation is polished and follows your institution’s submission guidelines. A dissertation that is put together in haste and does not have a tidy and consistent presentation is unlikely to receive high marks. It is therefore important that you give yourself enough time to polish the presentation so that the work looks as good as it reads. This chapter gives you practical tips and provides a checklist of things to consider before you submit.

Preparing for submission 185

Advice from the examiners: Proofread, again.

Figure 17.2

17.1 Presentation and layout of the dissertation You have now finished the most difficult part of the process of dissertation writing: the research and putting together a compelling argument. The final part of the process is editing and ensuring the work is as polished as possible. It is paramount that you proofread your work well and that there are no typos, as this gives a sloppy and unpolished impression to the reader. Proofread once more

Proofread

Proofread

Figure 17.3

So please give yourself enough time to edit and: It is essential that your dissertation has a cover page, an abstract, and a table of contents. These do not normally count towards the final word count. Have you included the following? (You should double check with your institution the specific requirements.) Title page (title of work, name, student number, year, and word limit declaration); Acknowledgments: optional; Abstract/synopsis: this is a summary of the dissertation, usually 200–300 words long, briefly detailing the main research question, content, and findings/ recommendations.

186

Preparing for submission

Tables where appropriate, preceding the text: • Table of statutes – in alphabetical order and divided by jurisdiction (if dissertation has numerous statute references from different jurisdictions, e.g. domestic and international); • Table of cases – in alphabetical order with full citations (if dissertation has numerous case references) and divided by jurisdiction (if dissertation has numerous case references from different jurisdictions, e.g. domestic and international); Contents page: • Including e.g. Tables; Introduction; main chapters, headings, and subheadings; Conclusion; Bibliography (in OSCOLA format); Appendices; Bibliography (or list of references if your institution uses Harvard style) after conclusion; and Appendices – numbered and cross-referenced in main text (if empirical research) at the end.

17.2 What are the examiners looking for? As you are preparing to submit, it is time to go back to the learning outcomes of the module. These will be set out in the handbook/module information for your module. It is important you read these before submission again to know exactly what the examiners will be looking for.

The examiners will look for how well have you been able to:

explain the methodological basis employed in your research; conduct relevant research; analyse and critically engage with the relevant literature; plan, structure and write a dissertation on a chosen subject within the word limit; critically evaluate different interpretations; build and develop an argument; construct conclusions in a clear, logically structured, analytical and independently argued piece of work.

Figure 17.4

Preparing for submission 187 In addition, there is some general guidance that markers follow when grading your work; they consider what has been done well, very well or even what is excellent about the work. Figure 17.4 gives you an idea of the type of points the examiners are looking for – it is the combination of writing, research, and presentation that your final mark is based on, and therefore it is important that you pay close attention to all aspects of your work, not just one, e.g. research. As you are preparing to submit, it is time to go back to the learning outcomes of the module. The examiners will be looking at these and assessing the extent to which your dissertation has reached them. The learning outcomes are outlined in the module descriptor (you should read this for every module you take) and also consider the points in Figure 17.4. Try to think about your work objectively and reflect on Figure 17.4; where have you done really well, and which elements could you still improve upon?

17.3 Final presentation/submission checklist

Task It is nearly time to submit your dissertation. Before you do, please go through the checklist below and ensure that before submission you have done all that it says.

Does your dissertation: Use a consistent font throughout (for example Arial 11 or Times New Roman 12 font), and one size smaller for footnotes? Have clear chapter headings and consistent subheadings? Have a cover page and table of contents? Have a bibliography? Have an introduction chapter where you outline your argument and introduce your dissertation? Have a conclusion where you have summarised your findings? Have a clear introduction and conclusion to each chapter (one paragraph)? Use OSCOLA or other referencing system consistently throughout? Have page numbers? Start each chapter from a new page? If you conducted empirical work only: has the ethics approval been attached as an appendix?

Tick

188

Preparing for submission

Summary If you can answer all of these questions, you are ready to submit:

Have you familiarised yourself with the submission guidelines of your institution? Do you know which font, etc., your institution wants you to use? Is the presentation of your dissertation polished and coherent?

Have you proofread your dissertation, more than once?

Hope you have enjoyed the journey!

Figure 17.5

Bibliography

Ashworth, A., ‘The Scope of Criminal Liability for Omissions’ (1989) 105 LQR 424 Baldwin, J. and Davis, G., ‘Empirical Research in Law’ in Peter Cane and Martin Tushnet (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies (Oxford University Press 2003) 880 Brooks, R. and others, Ethics and Education Research (SAGEe 2014) Chynoweth, P., ‘Legal Research’ in A. Knight and L. Ruddock (eds) Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment (Wiley Blackwell 2008) Clinch, P., Using a Law Library: A Student’s Guide to Legal Research Skills (2nd ed., Blackstone Press 2012) Costa, A. and Kallick, B. ‘Through the Lens of a Critical Friend’ (1993) 52(2) Educational Leadership 49, available at www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct93/vol51/ num02/Through-the-Lens-of-a-Critical-Friend.aspx accessed 20 August 2017 Cotterrell, R., Law’s Community (Oxford University Press 1995) Critical Lawyers’ Handbook, Volume 1, available at www.nclg.org.uk/book1/introduction.htm de Cruz, P., Comparative Law in a Changing World (Routledge Cavendish 2007) Greetham, B., How to Write Your Undergraduate Dissertation (2nd edn, Palgrave Macmillan 2014) Hamdan, A., ‘Reflexivity of Discomfort in Insider-Outsider Education Research’ (2009) 44(3) McGill Journal of Education 377 Higgins, R., ‘Ten Years on the UN Human Rights Committee: Some Thoughts Upon Parting’ (1996) 6 EHRLR 570–82 Lammasniemi, L., ‘Rose Heilbron’ in R. Auchmuty and E. Rackley (eds) Women’s Legal Landmarks (Hart in press) Levin, P., Excellent Dissertations! (Open University, 2005) Mason, J. and Salter, M., Writing Law Dissertations (Pearson 2007) Munro, V. and Ellison, L., ‘Better the Devil You Know? “Real Rape” Stereotypes and the Relevance of a Previous Relationship in (Mock) Juror Deliberation’ (2003) 14 International Journal of Evidence & Proof 299 Omerekpe, O. The Effectiveness of Criminalisation of Forced Marriages within England, Wales and Scotland (Anglia Ruskin University 2017) 15 Palmer, V., ‘From Lerotholi to Lando: Some Examples of Comparative Law Methodology’ (2005) 53(1) The American Journal of Comparative Law 261 Roach, L., Card & James’ Business Law for Business, Accounting, and Finance Students (Oxford University Press 2012) Strong, S.I., How to Write Law Essays and Exams (LexisNexis 2003) Tokimi, I., ‘Liberty and Security in the Age of Terrorism: Negotiating a New Social Contract’ (2015) 7 The Plymouth Law & Criminal Justice Review 195, 198. Webley, L., Legal Writing (4th ed., Routledge 2016) Williams, G., ‘Criminal Omissions – The Conventional View’ (1991) 107 LQR 86

Index

Note: Page numbers in italics indicate figures and those in bold indicate tables. academic offences: defined 142; examples of 142, 142; law and 143; referencing and 142 – 144; Solicitor’s Regulation Authority and 143; see also plagiarism aims and objectives, formulating research 44 – 46 analysing evidence in writing 138 – 139 annotated bibliography 51 argument, in dissertation writing 135, 135 – 136; defined 135 audience, captivating your 132 – 134 Baldwin, J. 84 bibliography, OSCOLA referencing guide 144 – 145 blackletter law analysis 72 – 73 brainstorming, for topic finding/perfecting 12 – 13 British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) 56, 65 Cardiff Harvard Referencing tutorial 149 case law, public resources for 65 case law summaries, online research and 56 citations, incomplete or partial 145 comparative law methodology 76 – 78 conclusions, structuring dissertation 161 confidentiality 96 consultant, supervisor as 170 Cotterrell, R. 74 Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dissertation 10 – 11 critical analysis 110 – 112 critical friend 175 – 177, 176; described 175 – 176, 176; tools for 176 – 177 critical legal theory, as methodology 75 – 76 critical reader 112 – 114

cross-referencing, OSCOLA referencing guide and 146 – 147 current affairs, as research topic 11 Davis, G. 84 deep reading skills 109 Derrida, J. 76 digital era research see online research dissertation fails 181; avoiding 183; marginal 182 – 183 dissertation writing see law dissertation writing doctrinal research 72 domestic violence dissertations 9 – 10 dyslexia 126 earlier studies, as research topic 10 – 11 Ellison, L. 85 empirical research 83 – 100; conducting 87 – 91, 88; cons of 87; defined 84 – 85; design 88 – 89, 89; dissertation example of 85 – 86; dissertations, structuring 159 – 160, 160; ethical issues in 98 – 100; ethics, principles of 93 – 96, 94, 95; ethics approval and 96 – 97; examiner advice for 84; findings, presenting 92, 92 – 93, 93; legal scholarship example of 85; methods 89 – 90, 89 – 90; overview of 83; participants 90 – 91; pros of 86; public opinion and 87 essay feedback comments 127 ‘et al’ use in referencing 147 ethical issues, research 98 – 100 ethics: benefit not harm and 96; confidentiality and 96; informed consent and 95 – 96; principles of 93 – 96, 94, 95 ethics approval 96 – 97

192

Index

evidence in writing: analysing 138 – 139; incorporating 136 – 139; paraphrasing 137 – 138; processing 136 – 137, 137; quoting 138 examiner advice: for empirical research 84; for first-class grades 179; for literature review 116; for methodology 70; for navigating supervision 168; for online research 54; for processing literature 102; for referencing 141; for research plan, creating 44; for research planning 36; for research proposal, creating 27; for research questions, from topic to 16; for structuring dissertations 156; for submission preparation 185; for topic, finding and perfecting 7; for writing dissertations 125

informed consent 95 – 96 institutional supervision guidelines 173 – 174 internal analysis 72 international criminal law 9 interviews, as research method 89, 89 introductions, structuring dissertation 156 – 158; components of 157; conclusion 158; length of 156, 156; logically developing argument 158; making argument 156 – 157

fails, dissertation 181; avoiding 183; marginal 182 – 183 fake news 113 feedback cycle, supervision 174, 175 first-class grades: examiner advice for 179; excellent research and 180; key words associated with 179; obtaining 178 – 181; original research question and 180; passion and 5; supervisor communication/feedback and 180 – 181, 181; time management and 5, 181; well-presented authoritative findings and 180 focus groups, as research method 89, 90 forward-thinking topics of research 8 future plans, as research topic 8 – 9

Law Commission reports 65 law dissertation writing: components of 185 – 186; final presentation/ submission checklist 187; introduction to 1 – 5; literature, processing 101 – 123; methodology and research 53 – 100; obtaining a first/avoiding fails 178 – 183; presentation and layout 185 – 186; proposal, formulating a 6 – 34; referencing and 140 – 154; research planning and preparing 35 – 52; steps, overview of 2, 2 – 3; submission, preparing for 184 – 188; supervision, navigating 167 – 177; university guidelines/assessment criteria for 4; see also structuring dissertations; writing dissertations legal databases 55 – 56; HeinOnline 59, 62 – 63; JSTOR 59, 62 – 63; JustCite 59, 60; LexisLibrary 59, 60 – 61; locating 57 – 59; using 59 – 63; WestLaw 59, 60 – 61 legal dogmatics 72 legal writing skills, understanding/ improving 125 – 127, 127 legislation public resources 63 – 64 Legislation website 55, 63, 66 – 67 LexisLibrary 59, 60 – 61 librarians 67 library-based research dissertations, structuring 158, 158 – 159 linking words and phrases, as signposting 161 – 162, 162 literature, processing 101 – 114; critical analysis 110 – 112; critical reader

ghost-writing 143 – 144 Google e-Books 66 Google Scholar 66 Grademark/Turnitin plagiarism software 141, 143 Guardian, The 12, 113 Guide on Referencing Parliamentary Material 149 Hamdan, A. 81 Harvard style in-text referencing 140, 147 – 149; components of 147; exercises 149 – 154; guides to 149; overview of 147; quotations and 147 – 148; References 148 – 149 headings 163 HeinOnline 59, 62 – 63 Hobbes, T. 76

JSTOR 59, 62 – 63 JustCite 59, 60 key literature 102 – 103, 103 key words, identifying 12, 13

Index 112 – 114; deep reading skills 109; examiner advice for 102; key literature, described 102 – 103, 103; overview of 101; quick reading skills 106 – 109, 107 – 108; relevant vs. irrelevant sources 103 – 105, 104; working bibliography, creating 105, 106; see also literature review literature review 115 – 123; benefits of conducting 117; conducting, process for 120 – 122, 121, 122; controversial topics and 121 – 122, 122; creating process 116 – 117; defined 116; examiner advice for 116; functions of 116; internet sources as 118; key authors 119; legal sources and 118; newspaper reports and 118; overview of 115; project originality, highlighting 123; reports as, sources 117; research plan 51 – 52; sources for 117 – 120; textbooks and 118 – 119 MacKinnon, C. 76 main body, structuring dissertation 158 – 160; analysing key issues 159; for empirical research 159 – 160, 160; features of 158; for librarybased research 158, 158 – 159; recommendations or highlighting flaws 159; setting the scene 158 major signposting 161, 162 marginal dissertation fails 182 – 183 methodology 69 – 82; blackletter law analysis 72 – 73; comparative law 76 – 78; critical legal theory as 75 – 76; engaging with 78 – 80, 79; examiner advice for 70; introduction to 70, 70 – 71, 72; overview of 69 – 70; reflexivity and 80 – 81; socio-legal 74 – 75 mind map 12 – 13 Modern Law Review 104, 105 Munro, V. 85 New Law Journal 12, 104, 105 online legal databases 55 – 56 online research 53 – 68; databases, using 59 – 63; examiner advice for 54; lecturer/ supervisor methods of 54 – 55, 55; legal databases for 55 – 56, 57 – 59; librarians and 67; overview of 53; publicly available resources 63 – 67; student methods of 54; unreliable sources for 56 – 57; Wikipedia for 56 oral examination 144

193

OSCOLA referencing guide 144 – 147; bibliography 144 – 145; citations, incomplete or partial 145; crossreferencing and 146 – 147; exercises 149 – 154; footnoting system of 144; obtaining 144; overview of 144; quotations and 145 – 146 Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA) 140 – 141; see also OSCOLA referencing guide paragraphs: described 128; example of 128 – 129; strengthening 130 – 131; writing 127 – 132 paraphrasing 137 – 138 Parliamentary Affairs 104, 105 Parliament website 55, 64, 67 participants, research 90 – 91; communicating with 91; selecting 90 – 91 past life experiences, as research topic 9 – 10 plagiarism: career progression and 143; defined 141; examples of 142; referencing and 142 – 144; see also academic offences processing evidence in writing 136–137, 137 project originality, highlighting 123 proposal, formulating a 6 – 34; overview of 6; research proposals, creating 26 – 34; research questions, from topic to 15 – 25; topic, finding and perfecting 6 – 14; see also individual steps public opinion, empirical research and 87 public resources 63 – 67; for Bills 64 – 65; for case law 65; Google Scholar/e-Books 66; Law Commission 65; legislation 63 – 64; parliamentary debates 64 – 65 questions, research: blackletter law 73; comparative law 78; compelling 20 – 21; evaluating/strengthening 21 – 24; law reform 17 – 20; legal theory 76; socio-legal 74 – 75; well-formulated 16 quick reading skills 106 – 109, 107 – 108 quotations 92; Harvard style in-text referencing and 147 – 148; OSCOLA referencing guide and 145 – 146 quoting 138 reading skills: deep 109; quick 106 – 109, 107 – 108 References, Harvard style in-text referencing 148 – 149

194

Index

referencing 140 – 154; academic offence and 142, 142 – 144; examiner advice for 141; Harvard 147 – 149; OSCOLA 144 – 147; overview of 140 – 141; plagiarism and 142, 142 – 144; reasoning for 141 – 142; skills testing for 149 – 154; as you write 142 reflexivity 80 – 81 research aim: defined 44; formulating 44 – 46 research design 88 – 89, 89 research ethics, principles of 93 – 96, 94, 95 research findings, presenting 92, 92 – 93, 93 research journal: components of 41; creating 40 – 42 research objectives: defined 44; formulating 44 – 46 research participants 90 – 91; communicating with 91; selecting 90 – 91 research plan, creating 43 – 52; aim and objectives, formulating 44 – 46; components of 46, 46 – 48; examiner advice for 44; examples of 48 – 51; literature review for 51 – 52; overview of 43 research planning 35 – 42; examiner advice for 36; overview of 35; research journal, creating 40 – 42; scheduling 35 – 38; working effectively 38 – 40; see also research plan, creating research proposals: background context 28; compelling question 27 – 28; components of 27; creating 26 – 34; defined 27; evaluating 29, 33; examiner advice for 27; examples of 30 – 33; overview of 26 – 27; reading list/key sources 28; as running document 29 research questions, from topic to 15 – 25; compelling research questions 20 – 21; evaluating/strengthening research questions 21 – 24, 22 – 23; examiner advice for 16; law reform research example 17 – 20, 18; narrowing down topic 16 – 20; overview of 15; self-evaluation tools 24 – 25, 25 research topics, inspiration for finding 8 – 12; current affairs 11; earlier studies 10 – 11; future plans 8 – 9; past life experiences 9 – 10; something new 12 reverse outline 163 – 165; analysing 165; creating 163 – 165; defined 163 reviewer, supervisor as 170

same-sex marriages/relationships dissertations 11 sample essay sites, avoiding 57 scan reading 106 – 107, 107 – 108 scheduling 35 – 38 signposting: headings and sub-headings 163; linking words and phrases as 161 – 162, 162; major 161, 162; structuring dissertations 161 – 163, 162 skim reading 106, 107, 107 – 108 socio-legal methodology 74 – 75 sociology of law 74 Solicitors Journal 12 Solicitor’s Regulation Authority (SRA) 143 sources, relevant vs. irrelevant types of 103 – 105, 104 statistical analysis, as research method 89, 90 structuring dissertations 155 – 166; conclusion 161; empirical research 159 – 160, 160; examiner advice for 156; headings and sub-headings 163; introduction 156 – 158; library-based research 158, 158 – 159; main body 158 – 160; overview of 155, 156; reverse outline, creating 163 – 165; signposting 161 – 163, 162 sub-headings 163 submission, preparing for 184 – 188; checklist 187; examiner advice for 185; examiners and 186, 186 – 187; overview of 184; presentation and layout 185 – 186 supervisee role 169 supervision 167 – 177; critical friend and 175 – 177, 176; examiner advice for navigating 168; feedback cycle for 174, 175; guidelines 173 – 174; meetings, managing 171 – 173; overview of 167 – 168; self-evaluation and 176 – 177; supervisee’s role in 169; supervisor’s role in 168 – 171, 170 supervision meetings: aim of 172, 172; format 172; managing 171 – 173; planning discussions in 172 – 173; supervision log of 172 supervisor role 168 – 171, 170 support, supervisor and 171 surveys, as research method 89, 89 Telegraph, The 12, 113 theoretical research sources 76

Index topic, finding and perfecting 6 – 14; brainstorming and 12 – 13; examiner advice for 7; inspiration for 8 – 12; overview of 6 – 7; questions to consider 7, 7 – 8 university assessment criteria 4 university guidelines 4 vignettes, defined 92 visual aids 92 – 93 viva 144 well-formulated question 16 WestLaw 59, 60 – 61

195

Wikipedia 56 working bibliography, creating 105, 106 working effectively 38 – 40 writing dissertations 124 – 139; argument in 135 – 136; audience captivation 132 – 134; evidence, incorporating into 136 – 139; examiner advice for 125; overview of 124; paragraphs, writing good 127 – 132; writing skills, understanding/improving 125 – 127, 127; see also referencing writing skills, understanding/improving 125 – 127, 127 written consent 95 – 96