*Writer: Johann Chiritt

Research is an essential part of the development of science, because it is through research that it is possible to advance the frontiers of knowledge and develop new theories and techniques. It is the researcher's role to examine current knowledge, understand its construction and its state of the art, in order to then explore the unknown, what we are yet to discover.

The research efforts of the past are what built our current science, just as our current research will be the basis for future development. Science is a collective, intergenerational effort; the current scientist only knows and experiences the world as they do because, to paraphrase Newton, they stand on the shoulders of giant researchers.

With scientific development, the advancement of knowledge became such that what was once science became divided into sciences. Each science with its specific objects of study, its methods, and its discoveries. Naturally, there is communication between one science and another, mainly in the field of natural sciences, but the complexity of the fields of knowledge has forced the researcher to specialize.

This specialization of science gave rise to the human sciences, within which is located legal science, whose object of research is law, or, in Kelsen's view, more specifically legal norms, in the words of the Austrian author:

The evident statement that the object of legal science is Law contains the less evident statement that legal norms are the object of legal science, and human conduct is only so insofar as it is determined by legal norms as a presupposition or consequence, or – in other words – insofar as it constitutes the content of legal norms. (KELSEN, 2009, p. 79).

The specialization of knowledge, besides giving each science specific objects of study, also imposes on these lines of knowledge a specific logic suited to their reality. Kelsen highlights this by arguing that one of the differences between the natural sciences and legal science is logic. While the natural sciences use the logic of causality, with a chain of facts tending towards infinity, legal science uses the logic of imputation, with knowledge limited by the fundamental norm, in the author's words:

In describing a normative order of conduct among men, another ordering principle is applied, different from causality, which we can designate as imputation. (...) In the legal proposition, it is not said, as in natural law, that when A is, B is, but that when A is, B ought to be even when B, perhaps, is not actually so. The meaning of the copula or connection of elements in the legal proposition being different from that of the connection of elements in natural law results from the circumstance that the connection in the legal proposition is produced through a norm established by legal authority – through an act of will, therefore – while the connection of cause and effect, which is affirmed in natural law, is independent of any intervention of this kind. (KELSEN, 2009, pp. 86-87).

The most interesting aspect of legal science is that the perspective through which a scientific study is analyzed can modify not only the object of study but also the very logic of the science. Kelsen's position is positivist; therefore, his focus was on legal norms. However, if he were a natural law theorist, his focus would extend beyond norms, aiming to deduce rights from moral norms.

Once we have established ourselves within our field of knowledge, we need to study how we will contribute to the advancement of legal science, that is, how we can conduct scientific research.

What is the purpose of the research?

Not all scientific research has the same scope of output. Some research is intended for publication in journals, while other research aims to produce master's dissertations and doctoral theses. Naturally, this creates limitations in the scope of the research.

Research for writing articles is conducted with a narrow scope, focused on specific aspects of the subject. In contrast, research aimed at developing theses and dissertations has a broader scope. Although the object of study remains specific, the researcher can better develop the context and the construction of the argument. Furthermore, if the research is empirical, it can utilize a larger and more detailed sample size.

Understanding the purpose of the research is essential to determining its scope; furthermore, by determining the scope of the research, it is possible to consciously choose which topic will be addressed.

What is the research topic?

The research topic is fundamental because it allows you to define the boundaries of your study more clearly. The research topic may focus on a specific problem, an independent theoretical construct, a critique of a particular theory, in short, the topic can be based on various aspects.

The subject matter can always be divided into what we colloquially call "cuts." These "cuts" aim to guide the research, delimiting its scope. Let's use a study on possession as an example. The research could aim to study the history of possession in Roman law. Here, three cuts were made, representing the most varied research styles: this one will be purely historical; of all the legal institutions, we will only analyze possession; and finally, of all existing legal systems, we will only analyze Roman Law. Note that a fourth cut is possible, which is by time; the research could be a historical study of possession in Roman law during the Republican era.

Finally, the research topic is important for defining the boundaries of the research and verifying whether these limits coincide with the purpose that the researcher wishes to give to the research. To facilitate this work of specifying or generalizing the research topic, the author may make "cuts" in the topic.

What is the methodology?

The major difference between scientific knowledge and common sense knowledge is the methodology. Common sense is based on lived experience, on ordinary life experiences, while scientific knowledge is obtained through study methods, which can be reproduced and demonstrate the same results. While common sense is an amalgam of knowledge, scientific knowledge is a system of interconnected knowledge.

Therefore, when a researcher wishes to conduct research, one of their fundamental concerns must be which methodology will be used to analyze the object of study. Methodology is the means by which the researcher will access the object of study, which can be through bibliographic research, empirical experience, or other methods.

In legal science, in addition to concerns about methodology, there is also concern about the theoretical basis upon which the study will be conducted. The theoretical basis is the lens through which the object of research will be analyzed; it is the way of interpreting the results obtained with the methodology.

Want to delve deeper into this topic? Download our ebook "How to Define Your Research Topic in the Field of Law" and gain access to a detailed, step-by-step guide to assist you in your academic research.

Do you wish to delve deeper into your studies?

Scientific research begins with a solid theoretical foundation, which can only be acquired with qualified professors who have extensive training in the field. You can find all of this at IDP, which offers online postgraduate courses, and on-campus master's (BSB and SP) and doctoral (BSB) programs.

References

KELSEN, Hans. Pure Theory of Law . 8th ed. São Paulo: Editora WMF Martins Fontes, 2009.

POPPER, Karl R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery . 9th ed. São Paulo: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, 1993.