Why Legal Research Should be Aspirational, Not Paraphrased

Amulya Anil, Chief Knowledge Officer,

Internationalism.


HERE’s A NOTE TO MY RESEARCH INTERNS!


I would begin by simply saying - be opinionated with the originality of ideologies. Youngsters in the Research arena need to understand, that research doesn’t necessarily have to fall in consensus with the big names in the industry. Research isn’t merely about being fascinated with arguments which are already put forth in black and white. As a researcher, you have the right to dissent, to disagree and most importantly even derive support from hypothetical situations. All the researches that have been done are also speculations of a probability, which could turn into reality or even remain as a fiction. We need to understand that the previous researches made could only be corroborative support. If we were to merely jumble up the previous conclusions and paraphrase them, that would defeat the very facet of research. Let’s, therefore, focus on the proposal of ideas, of solutions and of multilateral non-conventional approaches which are off the mundane.


Furthermore, when you make your inferences and differ, you invite criticism, and that’s totally fine( Galileo was asked to write the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun, and he had the courage to not obey it). There surely must be an acceptance of logical and constructive criticism, however, you have all it takes to still stand by your inference ( and inferences are what you make after assessing logical and concrete elements ). Researchers aren’t Government to be so concerned about the public response or consumer experience. What you must venture into is - be loyal to your inferences and be strategical while convincing others that you make sense. But yes, you’ll have to make sure to keep the personal prejudices or biases out of your research and the same applies to the evaluators too.


With respect to legal research, I believe that charity begins at home. Law schools need to stop forcing students to come up with an answer which is unconditionally in consensus with an age-old precedent. If things were to be so pre-decided, well then we must do away with the judicature system. It’s fine to be using the precedents as additional support to the argument, but treating it as gospel, is nothing but a predicament!


So, be brave enough to dissent, as long as you know that there’s the logic in your conclusions, hail! We will have to come out of the fallacy that research is paraphrasing and abiding by someone else’s conclusion.

33 views

Recent Posts

See All

Support us

In order to keep our content open accessed and free, we need your support. Please donate any amount up to 500 INR if possible.

Paypal

Other

Amazing Information. Clear Stats.

200+

3

50+

Applications for our Internships

every month

Books Published so far

Members so far

© Internationalism™ - AbhiGlobal Legal Research & Media LLP, 2020.

 

[Registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 | LLP Identification No. AAQ-1629. Please refer to mca.gov.in for more details.]