Empirical research in legal context

Question:

Critically discuss the role that empirical methodology may play in legal research, the value it may bring to such research and explain the considerations which need to be taken into account when undertaking empirically based research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

a) Books

Baldwin J and Davis G, Empirical research in law, in: The Oxford handbook of legal studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)

Bradney et al, Law in action/Law in books, in: How to study the law? (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000)

Deech R, Matrimonial property and divorce: A century of progress?, in: Freeman M, The law and the family (London: Tavistock, 1984)

Genn H, Paths to justice: What people do and think about going to law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)

Gilbert N, Researching social life (London: Sage, 2001)

Hillyard P and Sim J, The political economy of socio-legal research, in: Thomas P, Socio-legal studies (London: Sage, 2002)

Hood R, Criminology and the administration of criminal justice: A bibliography (London: Mansall, 1976)

Hoyle C, in: King R and Wincup E, Doing research on crime and justice, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)

McQueen R and Knussen C, Research methods for social science, an introduction (London: Prentice Hall, 2002)

Pawson R and Tilley N, Realistic evaluation, (London: Sage, 1997)

Pole C and Lampard R, Pratical social investigation, (London: Prentice Hall, 2002)

Reiner R, The politics of the police, 2nd ed, (Hemel Hempstead: Weatsheaf, 1992)

Riddall JG, Jurisprudence, 2nd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1999)

Rock P, The social world of an English Crown Court, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993)

Thomas P, The aims and outcomes of social policy research, (London: Croom Helm, 1985)

Weis C, Using social research in public policy making (New York: Teakfield, 1977)

Wimperis C, The unmarried mother and her child, (London: Prentice Hall, 1960)

b) Articles

Deech R, (1990) Divorce law and empirical studies, 106 The Law Quarterly Review, pp. 229 - 245

Eekelaar J and Maclean M, Divorce law and empirical studies – A reply (1990), 106, The Law Quarterly Review, pp. 621 ff.

Gysels M, Houtte van J and Vogels M, (In)equality of husband and wife in patrimonial matters: an empirical investigation of the effects of a progressive matrimonial law in Belgium, vol. 15, International Journal of the sociology of law, 1987, pp. 29 - 38

Kellough G and Wortley S, Remand for plea: Bail decisions and plea bargaining as commensurate decisions, vol 42, British Journal of Criminology, 2002, pp. 186-210

c) Internet Sources

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/genn/empirical/consultation/index.shtml?chpt2

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/genn/empirical/consultation/index.shtml?chpt3

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/files/lc268.pdf

http://www.agd.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/lrc/ll_lrc.nsf/pages/LRC_history4

http://library.kentlaw.edu/Resources/EmpTutorial/

d) Table of cases

Heil v. Rankin (2000) 3 All ER 138; (http://web.lexis-nexis.com/professional/form?_index=pro_en.html&:lang=enfut=3281791749)

Muller v. Oregon 208 U.S. 114 (1908)

1. Introduction:

Empirical studies in law is a methodology of socio-legal approaches to legal issues. In the 1960s the first empirical works on legal topics developed. Professors Brian Abel-Smith, Robert Stevens and Michael Zander were one of the first scholars that undertook empirical legal research.^[1] Since then more and more empirical studies were used in legal research, particularly in the criminal justice research.

In order to understand the task, it is first of all necessary to know what empircism means. Therefore I provide the following definition:

Empiricist take the view that the only source of knowledge is experience. The empiricists do not start from general principles assumed and make deductions from these. Rather, empiricists use the method of induction. That means that they observe a particular relationship between two components in a single case. Then the empiricist observes the same relationship in various cases, in order to construct a general theory to cover all the cases. The general theory drawn from all the cases is valid unless it is falsified. For the empiricist truth is provisional.^[2]

Moreover it is important to explain what empirical research in law means:

Empirical research in law is “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].

That means that lawyers mainly use studies of social scientists for legal purposes. They make use of for instance of statistics in order to explain legal issues. Moreover the study of law is enriched by philosophy, psychology and economics.

Empirical research in law gives a broader approach to legal issues, than law itself can provide. The law itself or black-letter law is the law in books which is the system of legal rules that one can understand by reading cases and statutes.^[4] Whereas law in action is what actually happens in the legal system.^[5] To understand how the legal system works, it is necessary to make use of the materials and techniques of the social scientist.^[6]

The empiricist studies the operations and the effects of the law. Empirical studies focus on the practice of law because the empiricists study the way legal processes and decisions impact upon the citizen.^[7]

The following discussion first deals with the role that empirical studies plays in law. This includes an overview over the actors who provide empirical legal research. Moreover this chapter describes the different actors who make use of empirical studies.

Second, I discuss the value that empirical methodology brings to legal research. In this connection I will describe the different views and present my own opinion in the end.

Third, I explain the considerations an empirical researcher who deals with legal subjects needs to take into account. This chapter is mainly divided into qualitative and quantitative methods.

In the end I will draw a conclusion.

2. Role of empirical studies in law:

As empirical studies in law get more and more important, it is necessary to understand the role that empirical studies play in legal research.

Although basically empirical studies can be undertaken in all areas of law and legal institutions^[8], the results of empirical research are particularly present in company law, criminal justice, tort and family law^[9]. The reason for this lies in the easier accessibility of certain legal subjects to non-lawyers.^[10] For example in criminal law sociologists provided groundbreaking studies^[11] of the police and prosecuting authorities. These studies contributed to a deep understanding of legal phenomena in this field.

a) Who undertakes empirical studies in law?

There are different groups which provide empirical research in law.

In the UK the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies is an important body for socio-legal research. The staff of the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies comprises lawyers as well as social scientists and research staff from other disciplines who work together. The above mentioned Centre published path-breaking empirical research in the fields of tort law and the compensation for personal injury, the financial implications of divorce and the resolution of family disputes and business disputes.^[12]

There are also other centres for empirical research in the UK, such as the Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy.^[13]

Individual scholars as well as groups of researchers working together in loose coalitions undertake empirical socio-legal research.^[14]

A number of Government departments have undertaken empirical research (e.g. The Department for Constitutional Affairs, The Legal Services Commission) .^[15]

Moreover there are also private social research companies that carry out empirical research into legal issues, such as The Policy Studies Institute.

Finally there are some freelance researchers which do empirical studies in law who have undertaken a wide range of empirical projects funded by Government and other research funders on topics such as legal aid, legal service delivery, county court litigation.^[16]

b) Who makes use of empirical studies in law?

(1) Policy-makers:

Policy-makers are increasingly interested in empirical legal research.

Policy-makers such as government departments in Great Britain dispose of certain budgets to support empirical research on topics which are relevant to the department.

Governments use empirical studies to have a basis for policy choices and, to have a guide in which way policy needs to change.^[17] They use the results of empirical research as arguments for necessary changes in policy and as a source of legislative proposals. Areas in which empirical work influenced legislative proposals are mostly in the family law and in the system of the legal services.

The following discussion gives some examples in which Law Commissions and Committees used empirical material for their proposals for the reform of law. The areas comprise family law and legal profession:

In 1966 the Law Commission used empirical material to predict how a new divorce law would look like in practice.^[18] These predictions influenced the reform of divorce law of this time.

Furthermore empirical studies were the basis for influential reports and studies, such as those of the Finer Committee on One-Parent Families and its predecessors which were the Morton Commission in 1956 and the Gorell Commission in 1912.^[19]

Figures drawn from empirical studies influenced acts of legislation like the Legitimacy Act 1959, the Divorce Reform Act 1969 and the Family Law Reform Act 1987.^[20] The Divorce Reform Act 1969 was inter alia based on figures of Wimperis^[21] and figures of the General Register Office.^[22]

The NSW Law Reform Commission^[23] started in 1976 conducting empirical research in the field of legal profession. The Commission had to examine the law and practice of the legal profession, including its structure, organisation and regulation, exclusive areas of work, professional ethics, complaints against lawyers, guarantee and supervision of trust accounts and legal education. The proposals finally made were based on statiscal analyses, surveys and questionnaires.

Furthermore in some cases empirical research is undertaken after a new law was introduced in order to look at the effects of the new law. The empiricist has the task to examine whether the intended effects of the legislator were realized. For instance the marriage law in Belgium was reformed in 1976. The purpose of the new law was to establish legally the equality between husband and wife in a marriage. Ten years later researchers used empirical methods to find out whether equality between husband and wife exists as a result of the legislation.^[24] The results of these studies were that the new marriage law did not change the behaviour of spouses, but that cultural and economic factors are more important for the equal status of wife and husband.

(2) Judiciary:

Furthermore the judiciary has benefited from empirical legal research.^[25]

The case Heil v Rankin^[26] is a good example for judicial use of empirical research. This case deals with damages in personal injury cases for non-pecuniary loss.

In 1996, the Law Commission stated that current awards of damages for non-pecuniary loss for serious personal injury were substantially below the level that they should be, in the light of prevailing social, economic and industrial conditions. The Law Commission formulated a report which contained recommendations on increased damages in personal injury cases. The Commission wanted the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords to lay down guidelines in a series of cases which would raise damages. This was a new approach of empirical studies in order to avoid legislation and thus the intervention of the Parliament. The guidelines should facilitate awards of compensation that were fair, just and reasonable. The Commission recommended in its Law Com No. 257 Recommendations on General Damages in Personal Injury Cases to increase the damages and gave a group of cases to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. The Courts heard several cases and got written material. The defendants argued as the Law Commission had argued in its recommendations. In its 35th annual report 2000^[27] the Law Commission wrote that in Heil v. Rankin the Court of Appeal and House of Lords partly implemented their recommendations. Therefore this empirical approach was successful.

Another aspect which shows the benefiting of the judiciary from empirical research is Hood’s work^[28] on discrimination in the criminal courts. These works led to a major programme of judicial education on equal treatment of parties which was organized by the Judicial Studies Board.^[29]

Other empirical work that influenced judicial behaviour was work on child protection cases written by Brophy and public perceptions of the judiciary written by Genn.^[30]

(3) Lawyers:

Lawyers need to do research. That means they have to do legal research on case law, statutes and regulations. In addition, very often they need to find empirical information to support their arguments.^[31] Lawyers need to find for instance statistics, financial analyses and information from disciplines such as medicine, technology, business.

In the USA the first case in which a lawyer used empirical studies for his argumentation was the case Muller v. Oregon^[32]. Louis Brandeis who was later on a judge of the Supreme Court, litigated the Muller Case as Attorney General of Oregon. He supported his argument that factory hours should be shorter for women than for men on a number of sociological research studies from the United States and Europe. In the end Louis Brandeis won the case.

Moreover according to Deech particularly family lawyers in the role of concilliator^[33], make use of empirical material provided by sociologists. Family lawyers rely on the conclusions that to their opinion need to be drawn from works of social scientists. Family lawyers often base their argumentation on statistics in order to support their view.^[34]

(3) Part of legal education:

Furthermore empirical research plays an increasingly important role in the education of law students and other legal professions. More and more law faculties give their students the opportunity to get knowledge in empirical legal research and thus a vivid picture of a corner of the law.^[35] Moreover law faculties offer courses for professionals in order to explain them the importance of empirical research and how they can use it for their own work. In this way law students and legal professionals get a better understanding of how law works in society. They get more sensible for these issues.

3. Value of empirical legal research:

Value can be describe by the following questions: Does empirical research bring any advantage to legal research? Do we get a deeper understanding of law through empirical research in legal issues?

There are different views on the question whether empirical studies are of any value for legal research.

a) Deech’s view:

On the one hand Deech^[36] thinks that particularly family law has been over-influenced by empirical research findings which were to her of dubious validity^[37]. According to Deech law reformers pay too much attention to the research of social scientists and too little to legal standards. She is of the opinion that the intellectual challenge and content of the law has been apparently reduced.^[38]

To her mind particularly family lawyers rely on empirical research without questioning the results at all.^[39] She thinks that family lawyers hold that their arguments are only persuasive if they are based on the results of empirical research, whereas the argumentation based on legal aspects gets less important.

Because of her fear that empirical research becomes more influential than legal issues in law, she criticizes the use of empirical data in law in many ways in order to stop the influence of empirical data in legal issues.

First, to her, the predictions of the Law Commissions based on empirical studies were often wrong.^[40] The Law Commissions seem to have not understood the figures presented by empiricists properly. The effects of the new acts of legislation were opposite to the intention of the Law Commissions.

Second, according to Deech the Law Commission misused statistics in family law in various ways.^[41] The researchers have certain opinions on the results they wish to get from their empirical studies before they start researching. The statistics are seen in international comparison while the national differences are ignored. According to Deech this is not possible because figures in different countries have to be treated differently because of the differences in the circumstances.^[42] Every country has its own national characteristics and attititudes. Moreover the figures used for policy predictions are selective. That means that the Law Commission could have drawn contrasting conclusions from the statistics used but they emphasized certain aspects while ignoring other factors.^[43] Furthermore, in some cases the figures used for policy analyses are incomplete because there are missing important factors in the statistics to explain certain results.^[44] Some empirical studies are based on a very small sample which cannot be representative.^[45]

Deech is afraid that empirical studies get more value in law than they deserve. She is anxious that empirical research gets more important than the legal aspects like statutes, regulations. She wants to avoid that empirical research in law is over-valued.

b) Second opinion:

On the other hand the more generally accepted view^[46] says that empirical studies have little influence. The relationship between empirical research and policy or empirical studies and law reform is very tenuous.^[47] The reason for that is that policy-makers very rarely make use of the results of empirical studies. There are much more empirical studies that are undertaken for government departments than there are studies that are really used for new developments of policy.^[48] Therefore according to this opinion empirical studies are under-valued in legal research.

Furthermore the critical aspects which Deech describes are not right according to Eekelaar and Maclean.^[49] The critic of Deech is based on the wrong assumption that the data drawn from empirical research are neutral and need no evaluation by policy-makers which is not the case. It is always necessary to evaluate empirical work in a critical way. Eekelar and Maclean^[50] state that empirical studies have to be seen only as an additional element to legal research and not as a replacement of traditional legal scholarship.

c) My opinion:

In my opinion empirical research helps us to bring the black letter law into line with reality.

Empirical legal research helps us to build our theoretical understanding of law as a social and political phenomenon and contributes to the development of social theory. Empirical research helps us to understand the law better and an empirical understanding of the law in action helps us to understand society better. Thanks to empirical studies we can create a link between society and law.

It is necessary to see that empirical research is only additional to black letter law and that the skills of lawyers cannot be replaced by sociologists. The fear of Deech^[51] that empirical research in law could get too much influence is exaggerated. Rather empirical research in law is used in not enough fields. So far, empirists mainly undertook research in areas such as criminal, tort and family law. However there are other areas of law which could have been enriched by empirical work. I think that one of the reasons for the relatively small extent of empirical studies in legal issues is that the empirical methodology is compared to the black letter approach to law relatively young. In the beginning of empirical studies the empiricists had difficulties to be accepted. Therefore there is a slow development of the empirical methodology in law which has up to now not come to an end.

The empirical methodology offers a new perspective in legal issues. Through empirical studies working persons in legal professions get the chance to get to know how law works in its social context.It is desirable that empirical studies will take place in more legal matters than it is the case by now.

The value of empirical studies in law still needs to be recognized. Therefore I believe that empirical work in legal education at university is very important.

4. Which considerations need to be taken into account when undertaking empirically based research?

The person who undertakes empirical studies in law needs to proceed in the following way.

First he/she has to find a worthwhile research topic. Second, the researcher needs to plan his study.^[52] That means one needs to think about the appropriate method one can use in order to get the results needed. After that the empiricist has to draw a research plan. Third, the researcher needs to carry out his/her study and thus using the research method in practice.^[53] In the end the researcher needs to analyse the research made and write it down. The research results can then be used by for instance policy-makers.

The methods used for empirical research are basically the qualitative method – interview – and the quantitative method – questionnaire -. Both methods have advantages. To get better results it is often useful to combine the two methods.

The following discussion will first describe the characteristics of the qualitative method, then the features of the quantitative method and in the end suggest the combination of the two.

a) interviews:

Interviewing is a qualitative research method. Its aim is of an explorative nature. Interviews focus on a limited number of interviewees, but the interviews are in depth.

Before starting an interview it is necessary to consider which are the right questions to ask and who are the right people to talk to.^[54] That means that the academic needs to plan asking those questions which help achieving the aim of the research. Moreover the researcher should, in order to achieve the best representative results, talk to a wide range of people from different groups. This includes also to talk to interviewees who are more difficult to reach than others.

The considerations what are the right questions to ask and who are the right people to talk to does not mean at all that the researchers exclusively are looking for respondents and such type of questions to obtain the answers they expected.^[55]

There are broadly two types of interviews: structured and unstructured interviews.^[56] Whether an interview is structured or unstructured depends on the way in which questions are posed by the interviewer, whether they are open-ended, requiring an opinion or detailed factual information, or whether they are closed and can be answered by reference to a pre-determined attitude scale.^[57] Open questions give the respondent the possibility to give a spontaneous answer in his/her own words. Closed questions direct the respondent to select an answer from different alternatives.

Many researchers combine structured and unstructured elements during one interview. That means they make use of a semi-structured interview. In this case they make for instance use of questions which require short, standardised or numerical responses.^[58] On the other hand they ask questions which require expansive answers from the respondents.

The type of interview (highly or loosely structured) depends on various factors: the topic of research, the number and kinds of interviewees, the type of access possible and the location of the interviewees, the amount of research budget, the time provided for interviews and the number of staff assisting the research.^[59]

Having considered these factors the researcher needs to identify the kind of interview which best fits his purpose of research.

The aim of the highly structured interview (characterised by a high degree of uniformity in the questions) is to receive generalisable data. In this case the researcher wants to identify trends across a population of a country.^[60] Such kind of research tries to provide an objective and thus valid analysis of public opinion.

On the other hand an unstructured or loosely structured interview aims at providing insider accounts of social phenomena.^[61] In this case the researcher is interested in the specific case. Depth and detail of a relative small number of cases are important characteristics of unstructured interviews. It aims at identifying the subjective experiences of the interviewee.

Pilot interviews are helpful to gather basic information about the field before imposing more precise and inflexible methods.^[62]

After the interviews were conducted it is necessary to analyse the results and write them down by using for example statistics.

b) Questionnaires:

The use of questionnaires is a quantitative method. The study will be carried out on a large scale and the information gathered allows complex statistical analysis.^[63] This kind of methods can reveal much about the weight of experience or opinion within a given population.

Good questionnaires are the result of a process because it is necessary to undertake different steps to draw a questionnaire. It is very helpful to pilot questions in order to get to know how to ask the question.^[64] Questionnaire include, as interviews do, open-ended and closed questions. However there are more closed questions. In some cases closed questions in a questionnaire have been piloted as open questions.

Drawing a questionnaire, it is necessary to have a certain question order. The aim of the researcher is to achieve that most of the respondents answer the questions. Therefore it is helpful to start with interesting questions which are easy to answer. Personal and demographic questions should be left to the end. In most cases the last question is an open-ended question about feedback on the questionnaire.^[65]

The wording and the vocabulary of the questions have to be short and simple so that the respondents understand the questions in the same way as the researcher. The researcher cannot explain the questions to the respondents in a questionnaire if the wording is ambiguous.

Questionnaires are often used in postal surveys where the views of large populations are needed.^[66]

c) Combination of interviews and questionaires

In order to increase the strength of either the interview and the questionnaire it is very useful to combine the qualitative and the quantitative method. For example it is useful to start interviewing people on a particular subject to get information on how to draw the questions for a questionnaire.^[67] Piloting projects for questionnaires are often conducted by interviews.

Empirical legal researchers increasingly employ a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques. The combination can result in a greater explanatory completeness.^[68] One example where this was achieved was the study of bail decisions and plea bargaining^[69] which comprised a variety of methods. In this study there were considered 1800 criminal cases. Moreover there were conducted face-to-face interviews with a limited number of offenders.

In the end it is always important to pay attention to ethical issues while undertaking empirical research, such as data protection and respect of privacy.

5. conclusion:

The discussion has shown that the empirical methodology gets an increasingly important role in law. The use of empirical methods in legal issues will be further extended. The use of empirical studies in the legal education will contribute to the broader use of this methodology in law. Therefore the value of empirical legal research will increase as well. Legal scholars, sociologists, economists and psychologists need to work together to increase the use of empirical methods in legal topics. This will contribute to a deeper understanding of judges, lawyers and all kinds of legal profession for the role of law in society. They will not only have knowledge about the law in books but also about the law in action. This will reduce the gap between the society and the legal system which sometimes exist.

Word count: 3999

[...]

---

^[1] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/genn/empirical/consultation/index.shtml?chpt2

^[2] Riddall JG, Jurisprudence, 2nd ed (London: Butterworths, 1999); Gilbert, N, Researching social life, (London: Sage, 2001), pp. 19, 20, 21

^[3] Baldwin J and Gwynn D, “Empirical research in law”, in: The Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 880, 881

^[4] Bradney et al, Law in action/law in bookds, in: How to study the law (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000), p. 16

^[5] Bradney et al, Law in action/law in books, in: How to study the law (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000), p. 16

^[6] Bradney et al, Law in action/law in books, in: How to study the law, (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000), p. 20

^[7] Baldwin J and Gwynn D, Empirical research in law, in: The Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 881

^[8] Hillyard P and Sim J, The Political Economy of Socio-Legal Research, in Socio-legal studies, Philip A Thomas (ed), (London: Sage, 2002), p. 45

^[9] Baldwin J and Davis G, Empirical research in law, in: The Oxford handbook of legal studies, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 884, 885

^[10] Baldwin J and Davis G, Empirical research in law, in: The Oxford handbook of legal studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 884

^[11] Reiner R, The politics of the police, 2nd ed, (Hemel Hempstead: Weatsheaf, 1992); Rock P, The social world of an English Crown Court, (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1993)

^[12] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/genns/empirical/consultation/index.shtml?chpt 2

^[13] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/genns/empirical/consultation/index.shtml?chpt 2

^[14] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/genns/empirical/consultation/index.shtml?chpt 2

^[15] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/genns/empirical/consultation/index.shtml?chpt 2

^[16] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/genns/empirical/consultation/index.shtml?chpt 2

^[17] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/genns/empirical/consultation/index.shtml?chpt 2

^[18] Deech R. (1990), Divorce law and empirical studies, 106 The Law Quarterly Review 229, 229

^[19] Deech R. (1990), Divorce law and empirical studies, 106 The Law Quarterly Review 229, 229/230

^[20] Deech R. (1990), Divorce law and empirical studies, 106 The Law Quarterly Review 229, 230/231/232

^[21] Wimperis C, The unmarried mother and her child (London: Prentice Hall, 1960), p. 25

^[22] Deech R, (1990), Divorce law and empirical studies, 106, The Law Quarterly Review p. 229, 230

^[23] http://www.agd.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/lrc/ll_lrc.nsf/pages/LRC_history4

^[24] see Gysels M, Houtte van J and Vogels M, (In)equality of husband and wife in patrimonial matters: an empirical investigation of the effects of a progressive matrimonial law in Belgium, 15 International Journal of the Sociology of law 1987, pp. 29-38

^[25] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/genns/empirical/consultation/index.shtml?chpt3

^[26] Heil v. Rankin (2000) 3 All ER 138; http://web.lexis-nexis.com/professional/form?_index=pro_en.html&_lang=enfut=3281791749

^[27] http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/files/lc268.pdf

^[28] Hood R, Criminology and the administration of criminal justice: A bibliography (London: Mansall, 1976)

^[29] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/genns/empirical/consultation/index.shtml?chpt3

^[30] Genn H, Paths to justice: What people do and think about going to law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/genns/empirical/consultation/index.shtml?chpt3

^[31] http://library.kentlaw.edu/Resources/EmpTutorial/

^[32] Muller v. Oregon 208 U.S. 114 (1908)

^[33] Deech R, Divorce law and empirical studies, (1990) 106 The Law Quarterly Review 229

^[34] Deech R, Divorce law and empirical studies, (1990) 106 The Law Quarterly Review, p.229, 245

^[35] Deech R, Divorce law and empirical studies, (1990) 106 The Law Quarterly Review, p. 229, 244

^[36] Deech R, Matrimonial property and divorce: A century of progress? In: Freeman M, The state, the law and the family (London: Tavistock, 1984), pp. 245-261; Deech R, Divorce law and empirical studies, (1990) 106 The Law Quarterly Review 229 – 245;

^[37] Baldwin/ Davis, Empirical research in law, in: Cane, P and Tushnet M, The Oxford handbook of legal studies, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 896

^[38] Eekelaar J and Maclean M, Divorce law and empirical studies – A reply, (1990) 106 The Law Quarterly Review, p. 621, 621

^[39] Deech R, Divorce law and empirical studies, (1990) 106, The Law Quarterly Review, p. 229, 234

^[40] Deech R, Divorce law and empirical studies (1990) 106, The Law Quarterly Review, p. 229

^[41] Deech R, Divorce law and empirical studies (1990) 106, The Law Quarterly Review, p. 229, 233

^[42] Deech R, Divorce law and empirical studies (1990) 106, The Law Quarterly Review, p. 229, 239

^[43] Deech R, Divorce law and empirical studies (1990) 106, The Law Quarterly Review, p. 229, 233

^[44] Deech R, Divorce law and empirical studies (1990) 106, The Law Quarterly Review, p. 229, 236

^[45] Deech R, Divorce law and empirical studies (1990) 106, The Law Quarterly Review, p. 229, 237

^[46] Thomas P, The aims and outcomes of social policy research, (London: Croom Helm, 1985) p. 85; Weis C, Using social research in public policy making (New York: Teakfield, 1977), p. 179

^[47] Baldwin J and Davis G, Empirical research in law, in: Cane P and Tushnet M, The Oxford handbook of legal studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 896

^[48] Weis C, Using social research in public policy making (New York: Teakfield, 1977), p. 181

^[49] Eekelaar J and Maclean M, Divorce law and empirical studies – A reply, (1990) 106, The Law Quarterly Review, p. 621 - 631

^[50] Eekelaar J and Maclean M, Divorce law and empirical studies – A reply, (1990) 106, The Law Quarterly Review, p. 621, 631

^[51] Deech R, Divorce law and empirical studies, (1990) 106 The Law Quarterly Review, pp. 229 - 245

^[52] Mc Queen R and Knussen C, Research Methods for social sciences, an introduction, (London: Prentice Hall, 2002), p. 24

^[53] Mc Queen R and Knussen C, Research Methods for social sciences, an introduction, (London: Prentice Hall, 2002), p. 69

^[54] Hoyle C, in: King R and Wincup E, Doing research on crime and justice, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 398

^[55] Hoyle C, in: King R and Wincup E, Doing research on crime and justice, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 400

^[56] Pole C and Lampard R, Practical social investigation, (London: Prentice Hall, 2002), p. 128

^[57] Pole C and Lampard R, Practical social investigation, (London: Prentice Hall, 2002), p. 128

^[58] Pole C and Lampard R, Practical social investigation, (London: Prentice Hall, 2002), p. 128

^[59] Pole C and Lampard R, Practical social investigation, (London: Prentice Hall, 2002), p. 128

^[60] Pole C and Lampard R, Practical social investigation, (London: Prentice Hall, 2002), p. 129

^[61] Pole C and Lampard R, Practical social investigation, (London: Prentice Hall, 2002), p. 131

^[62] Gilbert N, Researching social life (London: Sage, 2001), p, 125; Mc Queen R and Knussen C, Research methods for social science (London: Prentice Hall, 2002), p. 208

^[63] Baldwin J and Davis G, Empirical research in law, in: Cane P and Tushnet M, The Oxford handbook of legal studies, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 892

^[64] Pole C and Lampard R, Pratical social investigation, (London: Prentice Hall, 2002), p. 102

^[65] Pole C and Lampard R, Practical social investigation, (London: Prentice Hall, 2002), p. 105

^[66] Gilbert N, Researching social life, (London: Sage, 2001), p. 87

^[67] Pole C and Lampard R, Practical social investigation (London: Prentice Hall, 2002), p. 103

^[68] Pawson R and Tilley N, Realistic evaluation, (London: Sage, 1997)

^[69] Kellough G and Wortley S, Remand for plea: Bail decisions and plea bargaining as commensurate decisions, British Journal of Criminology, 42, (2002), pp. 186-210