“The Law is the Law” Rethinking Interdisciplinary Legal Research through the lens of Doctrinal Autonomy
Abstract
This paper reasserts the autonomy of law as a self-sustaining academic and professional discipline under the theme ‘the law is the law’. While acknowledging the insights interdisciplinary approaches can provide, it argues through the lens of doctrinal autonomy that they pose significant risks to the coherence, identity, and autonomy of legal scholarship. The argument proceeds in eight stages: first, by affirming law’s status as an autonomous discipline; second, by warning against disciplinary dilution; third, by identifying problems of methodological competence; fourth, by exposing the normative gap in interdisciplinary work; fifth, by showing the dangers to legal education and practice; sixth, by making a case for doctrinal purism; seventh, by rebutting the strongest arguments of interdisciplinarity; and eighth, by rethinking the balance. The essay concludes by affirming doctrinal legal research as the proper foundation of legal scholarship, with interdisciplinarity limited to a supplementary role.
Introduction
“The law is the law”[1]. This simple yet profound assertion captures the essence of legal autonomy; the idea that law constitutes a self-referential and normative system with its own reasoning, sources, and methods. The question of methodology has long occupied legal scholarship. Traditionally, legal research is concerned with the development and elaboration of legal doctrines and the normative purposes of the Law. In addition, it generally seeks to establish propositions concerning the nature of Law. This is so because the legal research process cannot be devoid of the essential nature of legal studies and Law itself.[2]
For the past few dark and stormy decades, ever since it irreversibly dismantled its formalist home, legal scholarship has been traipsing from door to door, looking for a methodological refuge.[3] Traditionally, doctrinal or “black-letter” legal research has been the dominant paradigm, focusing on the identification, interpretation, and systematization of authoritative legal sources such as legislation, case law, and treaties.[4] In recent decades, however, this model has been challenged by interdisciplinary approaches; socio-legal studies, law and economics, law and anthropology, critical legal studies, among others, which call for law to be studied not only in its internal logic but also in its social, political, and economic contexts.
Doctrinal Research involves analysing case law, arranging, ordering, and systematising legal propositions, and studying legal institutions through legal reasoning and rational deduction.[5] The research method is also described as research that has been carried out on a legal proposition or propositions by way of analysing existing statutory provisions and cases by applying the reasoning power.[6] Interdisciplinary research on the other hand is the practice of integrating knowledge and methods from multiple disciplines to address complex problems in scientific research.[7] Inter-disciplinary legal research is research done by a legal scholar in association with scholars from other disciplines related to law, such as sociology, anthropology, political science, history, philosophy, psychology, and economics.[8]
Legal research has long grappled with a fundamental methodological question; should the discipline be studied primarily through internal, doctrinal analysis of legal sources, or must it broaden its scope to incorporate insights from other academic fields.[9]
There is indeed a dilemma, noting that the role of doctrinal research has traditionally defined legal scholarship, but also that this approach may be insufficient given law’s purpose of ordering society and influencing human behavior. As law interacts with increasingly complex realities; globalization, technological innovation, socio-economic inequality, and climate change, the adequacy of doctrinal methodology comes under scrutiny.[10]
Law as an Autonomous Discipline
Doctrinal legal research is not simply one method among many but the foundation of law’s identity as an academic and professional discipline.[11] As Terry Hutchinson[12] defines it, doctrinal research systematically examines the legal rules governing a particular area, analyses the relationships between rules, and evaluates the coherence of the law. This methodology is distinctive because it is anchored in legal sources and employs legal reasoning, interpretation, and systematization.
The autonomy of legal scholarship derives from three features; source-based character, normative function and practical orientation.[13] Law draws its authority from specific, recognized sources such as statutes, precedents, treaties amongst others, unlike sociology or economics, which rely on empirical data or models.[14] Law prescribes what ought to be done, rather than merely describing or explaining what is. This prescriptive function gives law its authority in ordering society.[15] Legal scholarship is not only academic but also professional.[16] Courts, legislators, and practitioners rely on doctrinal research to clarify rules and resolve disputes.
If law abandons this autonomy in favor of interdisciplinary methods, it risks losing its identity as a distinct field of study. As H.L.A. Hart[17] famously argued, the internal point of view is essential to understanding law. From this perspective, legal scholarship cannot be reduced to external social or economic analysis without distorting its normative character.
The Problem of Disciplinary Dilution
One of the most serious risks of interdisciplinarity is the dilution of law’s intellectual and normative identity. Socio-legal studies often portray law as one among many forms of social control, stripping it of its unique authority. In Roger Cotterrell’s[18] work, law is situated within a broader sociology of normative orders, but such an approach risk conflating law with morality, custom, or politics.
Law and economics evaluate rules in terms of efficiency and utility. Richard Posner’s[19] influential work treats law as a mechanism for wealth maximization. While insightful, this view marginalizes justice, rights, and fairness, reducing law to cost benefit analysis. Critical legal studies argue that law is a mere reflection of politics and ideology. Duncan Kennedy[20] and others insist that law is indeterminate and driven by power. While such critique uncovers hidden assumptions, it undermines law’s capacity to claim legitimacy as a distinct normative order.
Each of these approaches’ risks subordinating law to another discipline, eroding its intellectual autonomy. If legal research is indistinguishable from sociology, economics, or political science, what remains uniquely legal about it?
Methodological Competence and the Risk of Superficiality
Interdisciplinarity demands methodological competence in disciplines far removed from traditional legal training[21]. Socio-legal studies employ interviews, ethnography, or quantitative surveys.[22] Without specialist training, legal scholars may misuse these tools, producing shallow or unreliable research. Law and economics require knowledge of game theory, econometrics, and rational choice modeling[23]. Few legal scholars possess this expertise, leading to oversimplified or misapplied economic reasoning.
Ethnographic fieldwork demands immersion, linguistic skills, and cultural sensitivity.[24] Lawyers attempting anthropology without training risk superficial generalizations. The result is often methodological weakness; scholarship that is neither rigorous law nor credible social science.[25]
By contrast, doctrinal research demands mastery of legal reasoning and authoritative sources, a skill set cultivated within the legal academy for centuries. To abandon this training for half-developed interdisciplinarity is to risk lowering academic standards.
The Normative Gap in Interdisciplinary Research
Perhaps the most fundamental critique of interdisciplinarity is its failure to address law’s normative dimension. Sociology explains but does not justify. As Max Weber[26] argued, sociology may describe the legitimacy of legal systems but cannot answer whether laws are just. Economics predicts but does not prescribe justice. A law that minimizes costs may still be unjust for instance, denying compensation to vulnerable victims because it is efficient. Anthropology contextualizes but avoids prescription. Anthropological accounts may describe indigenous legal systems but cannot resolve normative conflicts between them and state law.[27]
Legal scholarship, however, cannot evade the question of what ought to be. Courts must decide disputes, legislators must craft rules, and legal scholars must evaluate coherence and justice. Interdisciplinary research that remains purely descriptive or explanatory abdicates this normative responsibility. Only doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis can preserve law’s prescriptive role.
Dangers to Legal Education and Practice
Law schools’ serve a dual mission; to train practitioners and to advance scholarship.[28] Excessive interdisciplinarity threatens both. If law schools prioritize empirical or social science methods, students may graduate without rigorous grounding in doctrine, undermining their professional competence.
Courts and practitioners rely on doctrinal scholarship to clarify rules and principles.[29] Interdisciplinary work, often abstract and context-driven, offers little immediate utility to the legal system. Legal academia risks fragmentation into clusters of hybrid fields; socio legal studies, law and economics, law and literature without a shared methodological core.[30]
This weakens law’s coherence as a profession and discipline. As Brian Tamanaha[31] warns, if legal scholarship becomes dominated by external approaches, it may lose its practical connection to the legal system, leaving it academically fragmented and socially irrelevant.
The Case for Doctrinal Purism
Given these risks, there is a strong case for doctrinal purism; maintaining doctrinal research as the central, defining methodology of legal scholarship. Doctrinal analysis ensures legal certainty.[32] A functioning legal system depends on predictable, coherent interpretation of sources.[33] Without this, the rule of law collapses into arbitrariness.
Doctrinal research sustains law’s internal rationality.[34] Law has its own reasoning structures, precedent, analogy, statutory interpretation that demand internal mastery, not external substitution. Doctrinal scholarship is sufficient. Law’s purpose is to provide normative guidance and resolve disputes, not to explain human behavior.
Sociological or economic insights may be helpful, but they are not essential to law’s scholarly mission. In short, doctrinal purism defends the integrity of law as a distinct, normative discipline with a vital professional function.
Counter Arguments and Rebuttals
Proponents of interdisciplinarity argue that doctrinal research is too insular and detached from social reality.[35] Yet this critique underestimates the adaptability of doctrinal methods. Doctrinal research can incorporate context. Judges and scholars already consider social facts, policy arguments, and comparative perspectives when interpreting law but always filtered through legal reasoning.
Autonomy does not mean isolation. Law can remain open to insights from other disciplines without abandoning its methodological identity. For example, comparative law uses foreign legal systems for insight, but still applies doctrinal reasoning. Interdisciplinarity should be supplementary, not central. External insights may illuminate doctrine, but they should not displace it as law’s core methodology. Thus, interdisciplinarity is not rejected outright but confined to a modest, supporting role. Law’s central mission remains doctrinal.
Rethinking the Balance
The long-standing debate between doctrinal and interdisciplinary legal research is not, at its core, a battle of exclusion, but a question of balance and direction. Each tradition brings something valuable to the study of law. Doctrinal research offers structure, coherence, and a firm grounding in normative reasoning, while interdisciplinary approaches contribute context, imagination, and social insight.
The challenge is to determine which of these should anchor the study of law. This paper has argued that doctrinal research must remain at the center not out of disciplinary pride, but because law’s authority and integrity depend upon it. Interdisciplinary perspectives are useful and even necessary, but their value is realized only when they are filtered through the methods and purposes of legal reasoning. When external approaches begin to define the meaning of law rather than assist in understanding it, the discipline risks losing its coherence and distinct identity. It is within this delicate tension between autonomy and openness that the future of legal scholarship must locate its equilibrium.
Conclusion
This paper captures a methodological crossroad in legal scholarship; whether law should remain a doctrinal discipline, internally coherent but socially insulated, or whether it should embrace interdisciplinarity, with the attendant risks and benefits. Interdisciplinary legal research has enriched scholarship by highlighting law’s social contexts and challenging doctrinal insularity.
Yet its risks are profound: dilution of law’s identity, methodological superficiality, neglect of normativity, and erosion of professional education. The case against interdisciplinarity is therefore a defense of law’s autonomy as a distinct academic and professional discipline. Doctrinal research anchored in authoritative sources, guided by legal reasoning, and oriented toward normative clarity remains the proper foundation of legal scholarship. Interdisciplinary insights may play a supporting role, but only doctrine provides the coherence, certainty, and normative force that the rule of law requires.
In an age of academic hybridity, it is tempting to dissolve law into sociology, economics, or politics. But to do so is to forget that law is not merely an object of study; it is a normative system on which justice, legitimacy, and governance depend. The future of legal scholarship depends on defending this identity. Interdisciplinary methodologies, at best, can enrich the margins but doctrinal research must remain at the core.
In conclusion, the future of legal scholarship lies not in choosing between doctrine and interdisciplinarity, but in cultivating a methodological dialogue between them. Law must be studied both as a system of rules and as a living social practice. Only then can legal research fulfill its dual task in preserving internal coherence while responding to the demands of justice in an interconnected world. For law to remain meaningful, it must remain recognizably itself. The law must remain the law, autonomous in method, normative in purpose, and steadfast in its pursuit of justice.
* Chartered Quantity Surveyor [MRICS, MGhIS] and Private Legal Practitioner [BL]. [BSc., LLB., MPhil, LLM Candidate (KNUST), MEd Higher Education Pedagogy Candidate (KNUST)]
[1] This statement is notoriously attributed to H/L Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo CJ (as she then was) to assert that justice must be administered according to the law, and that all must participate in ensuring that laws are applied fairly to everyone.
[2] Rita Abhavan Ngwoke, Ibiene Mbano, and Oriaifo Helynn. “A critical appraisal of doctrinal and non-doctrinal legal research methodologies in contemporary times.” International Journal of Civil Law and Legal Research (2023) 3(1) 08-17. The authors concluded that there is a need for a combination of methodologies rather than competition between the doctrinal and non-doctrinal in addressing current trends in legal research and recommended including the blended approach in legal scholarly works.
[3] Charles Collier, “Interdisciplinary Legal Scholarship in search of a paradigm”. Duke Law Journal (1993) 42 p. 840
[4] Terry Hutchinson, and Nigel Duncan. “Defining and describing what we do: doctrinal legal research.” Deakin Law Review (2012) 17(1) p 83-119.
[5] Suyog Jain, “Doctrinal and Non-Doctrinal Legal Research, In S.K. Verma & M. Afzal Wani (Eds), Legal Research and Methodology”, Indian Law Institute, (New Dehli, 2006) 7(2) p 68-87.
[6] Myneni , Legal Research Methodology. (2006) India. Allahabad Law Agency
[7] Kenechukwu Makwudo and Basil Okonkwo. “Digital humanities and interdisciplinary research” Journal of Law, Language, Literature, and Gender Studies (2025) 1(2) 34.
[8] n.1
[9] Christopher McCrudden. “Legal research and the social sciences.” Legal theory and the social sciences. Routledge (2017). 149-167. The author observed that the approach to law in doctrinal legal scholarship is changing in ways that allow for increased multi-disciplinary work. The author observed further that Legal research is impliedly missing the point, reifying the legal at the expense of the real determinants of the social. Legal research has engaged with the more social sciences in ways that would have seemed unlikely even 50 years ago.
[10] Peer Zumbansen. “Transnational Law as Socio-Legal Theory and Critique: Prospects for Law and Society in a Divided World.” Buffalo Law Review (2019). 67 p 909.
[11] Jan Vranken. “Methodology of legal doctrinal research.” Methodologies of legal research. Which kind of method for what kind of discipline. Hart Publishing, 2010. 111-121.
[12] n.3
[13] Fábio Perin Shecaira. “Legal scholarship as a source of law.” Legal Scholarship as a Source of Law. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, (2024). 37-62.
[14] William Landes and Richard Posner. “Legal precedent: A theoretical and empirical analysis.” Scientific Models of Legal Reasoning. Routledge, 2013. 85-144.
[15]Myres McDougal and Michael Reisman. “The prescribing function in World Constitutive Process: how international law is made.” Yale Stud. World Pub. Ord. 6 (1979): 249.
[16] Philip Kissam. “The evaluation of legal scholarship.” Washington Law Review (1998) 63(2) p 221.
[17]MacCormick Neil. H.L.A. Hart, Second Edition. 2nd ed., Stanford University Press, 2009. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvr339v9. Accessed 24 Aug. 2025.
[18] Cotterrell, Roger. “Why must legal ideas be interpreted sociologically?” Journal of law and society (1998) 25(2) p 171-192. The author argued that legal ideas entail sociological understanding of law and that the two are inseparable.
[19] Richard Posner. “Utilitarianism, economics, and legal theory.” The Journal of Legal Studies (1979) 8(1) p 103-140.
[20] Kennedy, Duncan. “The stakes of law, or Hale and Foucault.” Legal Studies Forum (1991) 15(4) p 327.
[21] Douglas Vick. “Interdisciplinarity and the Discipline of Law.” Journal of Law and Society (2004) 31(2) p 163-193.
[22] Samza Fatima. “Employability of a Research Method and Methodology in a Socio-Legal Study.” Global Social Sciences Review (2023) 8(1) p 341-351.
[23] Thomas Ulen. “Rational choice theory in law and economics.” Encyclopedia of law and economics (1999) 1 p 790-818.
[24] Jane Jackson. “Language and cultural immersion: An ethnographic case study.” RELC Journal 35.3 (2004): 261-279.
[25] Jack Goldsmith and Adrian Vermeule. “Empirical methodology and legal scholarship.” The University of Chicago Law Review (2002) 69(1) p 153-167.
[26] Irving Zeitlin, “Max Weber’s sociology of law.” U. Toronto Law Journal (1985) 35 p 183.
[27] Sally Engle Merry. “Anthropology, law, and transnational processes.” Annual review of anthropology (1992) p 357-379.
[28] Richard Posner, “Legal scholarship today.” Harvard Law Review (2001) 115: 1314.
[29] Matyas Bodig “Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement.” Erasmus Law Review (2015) 8 p 43.
[30] Sally Wheeler, “Socio‐legal studies in 2020.” Journal of Law and Society 47 (2020) 47 p 209-226.
[31] Brian Tamanaha. Legal pluralism explained: History, theory, consequences. Oxford University Press, 2021.
[32] Gerrit Betlem, “The doctrine of consistent interpretation, Managing legal uncertainty.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (2002) 22(3) p 397-418.
[33] Jack Balkin, “Understanding legal understanding: The legal subject and the problem of legal coherence.” Yale Law Journal (1993) p 105-176.
[34] Ernest Weinrib, “Legal formalism: On the immanent rationality of law.” Yale Law Review (1987) 97 p 949.
[35] Urmi Roy, “Doctrinal and Non-Doctrinal Methods of Research: A Comparative Analysis of Both within the Field of Legal Research.” Issue 2 Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research (2023) 5(2) p1.
