In 2013/14, we carried out a survey across five law schools in the UK, Ireland and Germany, looking in more detail at the research methods adopted by scholars in these institutions, and the reasons behind those choices.
The results will appear in the forthcoming edited collection Rethinking Legal Scholarship: A Transatlantic Interchange, edited by Rob van Gestel, Hans Micklitz and Edward L. Rubin, and published by Cambridge University Press.
In 2012, we published our initial work in the Cambridge Law Journal. The article, 'Mapping Legal Research', includes an outline of the three categories we use to map legal research - 'practical', 'humanities' and 'social sciences'. The reasons for the identification of these categories are set out, as are some initial views on how approaches vary over time and across states. We present some data (e.g. on faculty/departmental structures) and contend that ternary plots can be an effective method of presenting the methods that scholars identify with.
To read the article, see here or here.
Cite it as Mathias Siems & Daithí Mac Síthigh, 'Mapping legal research' (2012) 71 Cambridge Law Journal 651-676.