From Struggle to Strategy: Teaching PhD Researchers Legal Writing and Methods

Legal scholarship is rich with reflections on method, and these reflections matter: they shape how we ask questions, how we seek answers, and ultimately how we understand law. What was once defined narrowly through the lens of doctrinal analysis has evolved into a broader, more varied research tradition. Today, legal scholars approach their work with growing confidence in a range of methods. These include not only empirical and comparative approaches but also more integrated multi- and mixed-method toolkits. This methodological expansion does more than diversify our techniques; it reshapes the very way law is explored, explained, and imagined. This blog is not about legal methods per se, but about how we teach them to doctoral researchers in law. It explores how the often unspoken, experience-based knowledge of more experienced legal scholars, gained over time through trial and error, can be shared to support those at the start of their journey. By making this tacit knowledge visible, we can help doctoral researchers face the methodological monster not with fear or confusion, but with tools, guidance, and growing confidence.

Bridging the Gap Between Methods Literature and Practice

We both work closely with doctoral researchers at various stages of their PhD journeys. As supervisors, we frequently support our supervisees in engaging with methodological literature and positioning their work within the diverse and evolving landscape of legal scholarship – a field that is becoming increasingly outward-looking, fast-paced, and methodologically pluralistic. Over time, however, we have noticed a recurring gap between the kinds of questions early-stage researchers ask and the methodological literature available to them. While doctoral researchers often seek practical guidance – such as how to align a research question with an appropriate approach, or how to reshape a question based on an emerging interest in a particular method – the literature they encounter is often highly specialised or abstract. Yet in its simplest form, a method is a systematic and consciously selected process for generating knowledge or answering a research question. A methodology, by contrast, refers to the theoretical framework that informs the choice of methods and reflects broader assumptions about what counts as knowledge and how it can be accessed. What is missing are accessible, concrete steps for navigating this ‘matchmaking’ process (that is, aligning the research question with an appropriate method and its underlying methodological assumptions) in a way that supports well-grounded and purposeful methodological choices.

To address this gap, we developed a seminar course titled Legal Research Skills and Career Development. The course was created in direct response to a recurring call from doctoral researchers, voiced year after year in seminar discussions, during individual supervision, and even at the final stages of the dissertation process. This uncertainty around methodological choices is especially common among PhD researchers and postdocs early in their independent work, though it likely extends to more senior scholars in both legal and socio-legal scholarship. The primary aim of the course is to support researchers in identifying and critically engaging with different theoretical and methodological orientations in legal research, and in learning to position their own work within them with greater clarity and confidence. The course combines online lectures with independent and collaborative work, focusing on three areas: writing legal texts, exploring legal research approaches, and navigating academic career paths.

As a prerequisite, participants submit a 1,000-word reflection on the challenges they face in legal writing and methodology. This encourages them to consider how to formulate a compelling research question, select an appropriate framework, and define their argument. Each year, these reflections inform a hands-on workshop designed to respond directly to their concerns. One researcher described how “this quite time-consuming process (of matching questions and methods) didn’t lead to many tangible results,” adding that “the lack of visible progress was quite frustrating.”

Teaching from the Inside Out: Co-developing Research Skills

Rather than prescribing what doctoral researchers should know about methods, we began with what they actually need. This meant shifting from abstract typologies to the often messy, iterative process of structuring a thesis, finding narrative coherence, and clarifying analytical focus. Many researchers are drawn to multi-method approaches but feel unsure how to use them effectively – or even what they mean in the context of legal research. Instead of offering neat answers, we focused on creating space for better questions.

We also made space for something often missing in formal training: methodological insecurity. Talking openly about getting stuck, changing direction, or questioning one’s chosen framework became part of the course. These moments are not signs of failure, but stages where research deepens. As one participant put it, “I often find that as I delve deeper into the topic and begin writing, the question I initially formulated no longer aligns with my intentions.”

From Insecurity to Agency: Reframing Writing and Method

Another central idea was treating writing as method. We explored how writing is not just a way of conveying analysis and research findings; the process of writing is also part of the method itself. Planning, drafting, and even procrastinating are part of how legal thinking develops. Understanding this helped participants move from struggle to strategy, and sometimes even to a sense of progress.

Ultimately, our aim was not just to teach skills, but to support researchers in developing their own methodological judgement and voice. Just as legal research is methodologically pluralistic, so too should be our pedagogy. The hybrid course structure – combining lectures, flexible assignments, and tailored feedback – allowed us to meet researchers where they are and reflect the diversity of ways in which law is studied, written, and understood.