Interview in

Legal Research
- Balaji P Nadar

The heart of Legal Research is the collection and

Analysis of data. Interview method is one of the methods of
data collection. It is a direct method of data collection and
the most commonly used method of data collection in the
study of Human Behavior. This is a Traditional Doctrinaire
study on the interview method after referring views of
various scholars.

1st Yeat LL.M,

ILI,
New Delhi.
 Contents

I. Introduction
II. Question content
1. Content aimed mainly at ascertaining facts
2. Content aimed at ascertaining beliefs about what the facts are
3. Content aimed at ascertaining the problem

III. Types of Interviews

1. Structured Interview
2. Semi-Structured Interview
3. Unstructured Interview
4. Emerging approaches to Interviewing

IV. Advantages of Interview

V. Art of Interview
1. Creating a friendly atmosphere
2. Asking the Questions
3. Obtaining the response
4. Reporting the response

VI. Interview Techniques

VII. Conclusion
Introduction:

Research means to search or to find out and examine again. This is the very essence of
the process of acquiring new knowledge. Legal research means research in the branch of
knowledge which deals with the principles of law and legal institutions. The aim of the law is to
regulate the human behavior in the present day society and hence the legal research must be
directed to the study of relationship between the world of the law and the world that the law
purports to govern1. Legal Research consists of analysis of rules, concepts, and institutions of
law as well as the legal system itself. Every research begins with a question or a problem of
some sort. The aim of the legal research is to discover the answers to the meaningful questions or
a problem that exists or tends to exist in a society, through the application of legal procedures.
Further research in law is an important component of the process of law reforms.
The heart of any research design is the collection of data and analysis of data. The first
aim of a research is the collection of data and facts about certain aspects in the society.
Collection of data is regarded as fascinating phase of legal research. Through the collection and
handling of information, the researcher begins to feel the actual excitement of research. A
researcher can either collect the data himself or rely on others for their collected data or
information available with them. In both cases, there is a great need for data of high quality. The
selection of data requires great skill and experience. There are two source of collecting data- the
primary and secondary. In the first the data is directly collected from the respondent whereas in
the second the main source is published and unpublished material. This is often called library
research as well2. Generally Questionnaire, Schedule, Interview, Case study and Sampling
design are the primary sources of data collection in Legal Research. Law Reports, Enacted Law,
Case Laws, Personal Document, Published Documents are the secondary sources in collection of
data. In this study we shall confine our discussion to one important source: Interview. The
specific preparation, construction and sue of these tools will largely depend on aim, nature, scope
and contour of the research.
The interview method is a kind of verbal technique for obtaining data. It is the most
appropriate technique for revealing information about complex emotionally it is the most
commonly used method of data collection in the study of human behavior. It is a direct method

1
George D. Braden, “Legal Research: A variations on old Lament”, 24 JILI 190 (1982).
2
Manju Koolwal, “Collection and Analysis of Data in Legal Research”, 38 Journal of the Legal Studies 290 (2008).
of data collection3. Collecting data through interviews has qualities that personal observation and
objective data and tests do not possess. Interview can obtain a great deal of information. It is
flexible and adoptable to individual situations and it can often be used where other methods are
not possible or inadequate. It may be regarded as a systematic method by which a person enters
more or less imaginatively into the life of a comparative stranger4. Interviewing itself is an art
but the planning and writing of an interview schedule is all the more so. It is difficult to produce
a good schedule without considerable prior study and practice. There are several reasons for this
the main one probably being the multiple meaning and ambiguity of words the lack of sharp and
constant focus on the problems and hypotheses being studied a lack of appreciation of the
schedules as a measurement instrument and a lack of necessary background and experience. It is
for this reason that interviewing is both a skill and an art. Effort has to be made to improve this
skill and the ability of the respondent to give information. On the other hand interview is an
interactional situation. Two persons are involved- one asking questions and the other answering
them. A proper social climate has to be created so that this exchange can be facilitated.

Question Content:

The objective of the interview is to secure information from the person who knows the
subject or the matter and the laboratory study of verbal behavioral pattern under given
circumstances. In both interview and Questionnaires, information is obtained by asking
questions. Although both interview and questionnaire place heavy reliance upon the validity of
verbal reports, there are important differences between the two methods. In a questionnaire, the
information one obtains is limited to the written responses of subjects to prearranged questions.
In an interview, since the interviewer and the person interviewed are both present as the question
are asked and answered, there is opportunity for greater flexibility in eliciting information; in
addition, the interviewer has the opportunity to observe both the subject and the total situation to
which he is responding5.
In the interview method, information is obtained by asking questions. Questioning is
particularly suited to obtaining information about what a person knows, believes or expects, feels

3
B.N. Ghosh, Scientific Method and Social Research 190 (Sterling Publishers Private Limited, New Delhi, 1982).
4
P.V. Young, Scientific Social Surveys and Research 1060 (New York Prentice Hall, 3rd edn.,).
5
Claire Selltiz, Marie Jahoda, et al., Research Methods in Social Relations-Revised 238 (Holt, Rinehart and
Winston Inc, New York, 1964).
or wants, intends or does or has done, and about his explanations or reasons for any of the
preceding. It should be recognized, however, that questions do not always fall neatly into one or
another “content type”. The distinctions among types are a matter of custom and convenience
rather than theoretical rigor. The major types of question content are as follows.

Content aimed mainly at ascertaining “facts”:

The simplest and the most economical method of obtaining “facts” are to go directly to
the people who are in position to know them and to ask for the desired information. Questions
about the person’s age, education, religion, income, nationality, marital status, occupation etc.,
are of this type. So, too, are questions about the characteristics (behavior, beliefs, feelings,
desires, intentions, etc.) of persons who are known to the respondent, such as family, friends and
colleagues. Questions about events, circumstances, policies, etc., known to the respondent are
also of this nature. Reported facts must, of course, always be evaluated in terms of credibility.
The rules of evidence that have developed through the centuries in judicial procedure are a good
source of insight into factors affecting credibility. Thus, it always pertinent to raise such
questions as: how did the respondent obtain knowledge of the fact- through direct observation,
through inference, through hearsay, etc.? What motivates May the respondent have in reporting
the fact? When the focus is on description or understanding of an event, a situation, or a
community, rather than on information about the individual respondent, it is frequently possible
to check accuracy through comparison of the reports of several respondents.

Contents aimed at ascertaining beliefs about what the facts are:

Instead of asking questions to find out the objective facts from people in a position to
know, the investigator may wish to learn what people believe to be the facts. Before asking
questions about the nature of person’s belief, it is desirable to find out whether he has any beliefs
or relevant to the topic under investigation. The distinction between an inquiry into facts and an
inquiry into beliefs must be kept clearly in mind by the investigator. If, for example, he wishes to
know objectively how much delinquency there is in a community, he will interview people who
have been carefully selected for their knowledge about the topic- members of the police force,
for example, workers in settlement houses or recreation centers, group workers assigned to street
gangs (if there is such a program in the community) - and will consult court, police, and school
records, etc,. In addition to discovering the content of a person’s beliefs, an interview may
provide information about the characteristics and interrelationship or structure of beliefs.

Content aimed mainly at ascertaining the problem:

The main objective of the research is to find a solution for a problem that exists or tends
to exist in a society through a legal procedure. The questions asked in the interview to the
respondents should be in a manner to find out whether the particular community facing a
problem or not, the law relating to that community is useful to them or not, what are the effects
on the enforcement of a particular law in a particular community. The content of the interview
question should be in way to collect information regarding the problems facing by the society.

Types of Interviews:

Interviews may range all the way from the rigidly standardized, in which both the
questions and the alternative responses permitted the subject are predetermined, to the
completely unstructured, in which neither the questions to be asked nor the responses permitted
the subject are determined before the interview6.

Structured Interview:
Normally, structured interviews are done in a face-face format or via telephone using a
standard set of questions to obtain data that can be aggregated because identical questions have
been asked of each participant. In the structured interview, the interviewer is held to the specific
working in the interview question schedule; he is not free to adopt his questions to the specific
situation, to change the order of topics, or to ask questions7. In the standardized or structures
interview, questions are presented with exactly the same wording, and in the same order, to all
respondents. The reason for standardization, of course, is to ensure that all respondents are
replying to the same question. The structured interviews may differ, however, in the amount of
structuring of the questions used. They may present fixed alternative answers (closed-ended) or
they may leave the respondent free to answer in his own words (open-ended).
The closed-ended question is one in which the responses of the respondents are limited to
stated alternatives. These alternatives may be simply yes or no, or they may consist of a series of

6
supra footnote 6, p 255.
7
Bernard S. Phillips, Social Research- Strategy and Tactics 110 ( Mac Millan Company, Newyork, 1967).
replies of which the respondent picks one as being closet to his position. The open-ended
questions are designed to permit a free response from the respondent rather than one limited to
states alternatives. The distinguishing characteristic of open-ended question is that they merely
raise an issue but do not provide or suggest any structure for the respondent’s reply; the
respondent is given the opportunity to answer in his own terms and in his own frame. The
closed-ended questions have the advantage of being standardizable, simple to administer, quick
and relatively inexpensive to analyze. The analysis of open-ended questions is often difficult and
expensive. The major drawback of the closed-ended question is that it may force a statement of
opinion on an issue about which the respondent does not have any opinion. Even when a
respondent has a clear opinion, a closed-ended question may not give an adequate representation
of it because none of the choices corresponds exactly to his position, or because they do not
allow for qualification. But the open-ended question gives the opportunity to the respondents to
speak their opinion on the subject. Both the open and closed ended questions have their own
advantages and disadvantages. Closed-ended questions are more efficient where the possible
alternative replies are known, limited in number, and clear-cut. Open-ended questions are called
for when the issue is complex, when the relevant dimensions are not known, or when the interest
of research lies in the exploration of a process or of the individual’s formulation of an issue.
Aims of analysis is to aggregate the data across participants and hopefully be able to project data
from a sample to a target population. Open-ended data, which usually consists of phrases,
sentences and short paragraphs is usually subject to content analysis and notions of inter-rater
reliability are employed.

Semi-structured Interview:
In the Semi-structured interview, the interviewer may have to ask number of specific
major questions, but he may be free to probe beyond the answers to these questions. “More or
less open-ended questions are brought to the interview situation in the form of an interview
guide”. From the beginning the focus is on gaining an understanding based on textual
information obtained. The level of depth of understanding that the researcher pursues is used to
characterize this type of interview. The nature of questioning route in this type of interview is
flexible, but usually a given set of questions is covered, varying levels of standardization. In the
semi-standardized interviews mostly the open-ended style of questions are used, yet directed at
obtaining particular information (content, topic, aspects of theory, etc.) In some cases, closed-
ended format of questions are also used. This method starts with the assumption that flexibility is
needed in order that participants’ are not restricted by standardized questions and closed-ended
structured answering formats. Qualitative analysis can be focused on coding text to identify
ranges of responses often categorized according to themes, named code categories. It also can
focus on describing events, situations, people or providing information sought from asking a
particular question. Normally, the goal is not to aggregate data across respondents, but rather
explore things like similarities and differences of ranges across voices. Standard practices of
content analysis maybe employed as well as more qualitative approaches to data analysis such as
open and axial coding.

Unstructured Interview:
In Unstructured or un-standardized interview, the interviewer is free to develop each
situation in whatever ways he deems most appropriate for the purposes at hand. Normally,
unstructured interviews are done in a face-to-face format and some would say you are trying to
get participants to share stories. The researcher starts from a position of wanting to be sensitive
to how participants construct their views and perspectives of things. Therefore, a goal is to allow
the participant’s structure to dominate. The unstructured interview seems to have advantages
within the context of discovery. A skilled interviewer who is quite familiar with the broad
purposes of the study may stimulated by the answers of the respondent to develop new ideas
about the phenomena under investigation8. The flexibility of unstructured interview, if properly
used, helps to bring out the affective and value-laden aspects of the respondent’s responses and
to determine the personal significance of his attitudes. Not only does it permit the respondent’s
definition of interviewing situation to receive full and detailed expression; it should also elicit the
personal and social context of beliefs and feelings. This type of interview achieves its purpose to
the extent that the respondent’s responses are spontaneous rather that forced, are highly specific
and concrete rather that diffuse and general, are self revealing and personal rather than
superficial.
A standardized question might not be fully understood by respondent from different
social classes, and the interviewer can strive to alter the wording of the questions so as to achieve
some equivalence in meaning for different kinds of respondents. The flexibility frequently results

8
supra footnote 7, p 110.
in a lack of comparability of one interview with another. Moreover, the analysis part of the
unstructured interview is more difficult and time consuming that that of standardized interviews.
There can be little doubt of their usefulness, in the hands of a skilled investigator, as a source of
hypotheses. Of course, each type of interview can contribute within the context of justification
and within the context of discovery. New ideas may arise from an analysis of standardized
interviews. And it is also possible to develop quantitative analysis of the materials from
unstructured interviews and to test various kinds of hypotheses.

Emerging Approaches to Interviewing:

As we see, the technology has developed so much, and it becomes easier to communicate
with anyone in the world in a minute. Internet interviewing using computer mediated
communication(CMC), a new trend, direct ongoing interview via keyboards using Asynchronous
CMC(e.g. e-mail) or Synchronous CMC (e.g. service real time chats like yahoo messenger,
Google chat). This type of interview is also called as non-directive interview. It is also un-
standardized, but here the interviewer avoids channeling the interview in certain directions.
Instead, he attempts to develop a very permissible atmosphere in which the respondent will feel,
perfectly free to express his feelings without fear of disapproval. Of course, even the highly
skilled non-directive interviewer does influence the respondent in various ways, but the purpose
of non-directive interview is to minimize this influence.
Another method of interview in legal research id group interviewing using
guided/facilitated process varying in focus unstructured to structured. It is called as sociomatric
method in social sciences research. Sociometry is concerned with the social interactions among
any group of people. The data collection is geared to obtaining information about the interaction
or lack of interaction among the members of any group. Essentially sociometry is not so much a
data collection procedure as a focus on a certain type of subject matter and related method of
analysis.

Advantages of Interview:

In legal research qualitative phenomena are not amenable to statistical analysis. In cases
the interview is very useful tool to gain insight. It has been estimated that, for the purpose of
filling out even simple questionnaire, at least 40 percent of the adult population of our country is
illiterate. For complex questionnaires, the percentage would definitely be considerable higher.
Thus one of the major drawbacks of the usual questionnaire is that it is appropriate only for
respondents with a considerable amount of education. But the interviews can be used with almost
all segments of population; in fact, in contrast with the questionnaire, a frequent problem in
interviewing is that of limiting the responses of the verbose individual. The following are the
main advantages of interview method:
An interview is a means of getting direct knowledge personally, and therefore, the
information is reliable. It is possible to study those phenomena which are not open to
observation. It is possible to study the abstract factors like attitudes, feelings, opinions, reactions
and so on in the interview method of legal research. Through an interview one can learn the past,
present and likely future behavior of human beings. The secret motivations, hidden desires and
incentives working on human minds may be revealed by this method. In interview, the inflow
and outflow of information and knowledge may be mutually helpful to the interviewer as well as
to the interviewee, and barriers in the flow of information are easily eliminated. Further the
information given by the respondents may be tested through cross-examination and emotional
excesses and sentimental outbursts can be easily identified. Direct interview brings each other
very close, making the study more fruitful, thus giving an opportunity to study the immediate
reaction of the respondent. The interviewer acts as a catalyst and he must learn to successfully
handle delicate situations9.
The interview method has its own demerits too, the personal factors emotions and
sentiments are many in interview, and as such, the real issue cannot often be known. The data
may be unreliable and invalid. Even by this method, the correct information may not be elicited
by the interviewer. He may be biased, afraid, unwilling to reveal the truth, or may be emotionally
overridden. The main disadvantage in the interview method is that this method is time
consuming, costly and subjective.
Though the interview method has its demerits, an important advantage of it is its
flexibility. In an interview there is the possibility of repeating or rephrasing questions to make
sure that they are understood or of asking further questions in order to clarify the meaning of a
response. Its flexibility makes the interview a far superior technique for the exploration of areas
where there is little basis for knowing either what questions to ask or how to formulate them. In
addition, the interviewer is in a position to observe not only what the respondent says but also

9
supra footnote 3, p 469.
how he says it. If need be, the interviewer can directly challenge the subject’s report in order to
see how consistent his answers will be. The success of an interview depends to a great extent on
successful communication between the interviewer and the respondents. The establishment of a
rapport between them is a sine qua non for a successful interview. It has to be borne in mind that
an interview is an art.

Art of Interview:

Interview is a socio-psychological situation; the danger of distortions and biases arises in

getting and recording information. The quality of interviewing depends first upon proper study
design. The interviewer should not move with pre-conceived notions or pre-judgment issues. The
researcher should move with open mind to elicit the right information. Ideally the interview
schedule is an accurate record of each respondent’s uninfluenced answers at a given point of
time. Interviewers are supposed to collect data which are original. Obtained directly from the
respondent or through the respondent’s perceptions of the interviewers, and comparable, the
questions are posted in the same way to each respondent by the interviewer, so that different
responses of the same question are not due to different ways of asking the question. Intentionally
or not, interviewers tend to bring in bias of their own. Therefore, it is responsibility of the
interviewer to create such an atmosphere that bias is minimized10. Let us see the requisites for a
successful interviewing11.

Creating a friendly atmosphere:

The interviewer’s introduction should be brief, casual, and positive. The study’s interest
lies in the actual questions, and the interviewer should get into them as quickly as possible.
Lengthy introductions or explanations only arouse the respondent’s curiosity or suspicion. The
interviewer’s aim should be to interview everyone eligible for the sample. A small proportion of
respondents will be suspicious or hostile, and a larger number may require a little encouragement
or persuasion, but the good interviewer will find that hardly one person in twenty actually turns
him down. The interviewer’s manner should be friendly, courteous, conversational, and
unbiased. He should be neither too grim nor too effusive. The idea should be to put the

10
Kuldeep Mathur, “Interviewing: Art and Skill”, S.K.Verma and Afzal Wani, ed., Legal Research and
Methodology 370 (The Indian Law Institute, New Delhi, 2nd edn., 2001).
11
supra footnote 5, p 574.
respondent at ease, so that he will talk freely and fully. The interviewer’s job is fundamentally of
that a reporter, not an evangelist, a curiosity-seeker, or a debater. He should assume an interested
manner toward his respondent’s opinions and never divulge his own. If he should be asked for
his views, he should laugh off the request with the remark that his job at this moments is to get
opinions, not to have them. The interviewer must keep the direction of the interview in his own
hands, discouraging irrelevant conversation and endeavoring to keep the respondent on the point.

Asking the question:

The questions asked by the interviewer must be in a language known to the respondent.
In a legal research each question has been carefully pretested to express the precise meaning
desired in as simple a manner as possible. Interviewer must understand that even a slight
rewording of the question can so change the stimulus as to provoke answers in a different frame
of reference or bias the response. Unless the interview is unstructured or only partially structures,
interviewers must be impressed with the importance of asking each question exactly as it is
worded. Any improvised explanation of questions is similarly restricted. Such an explanation
again may change the frame of reference or bias the response. If any respondent gives evidence
of failing to understand a particular question, the interviewer can only repeat it slowly and with
proper emphasis, offering only such explanation as may be permissible(acceptable), if
understanding is still lacking, note this fact on the schedule.

Obtaining the response:

It might be thought a simple matter to ask a respondent the required questions and to
record his replies, but interviewers will soon find that obtaining a specific, complete response is
perhaps the most difficult part of their job. People often qualify or hedge their opinions, they
simply answer “don’t know” in order to avoid thinking about the question. They misinterpret the
meaning of the question. They lunch off on an irrelevant discussion. They contradict themselves
and in all these cases, the interviewer usually has to probe. When the first reply is inadequate, a
simple repetition of the question, with proper emphasis, will usually suffice to get a response in
satisfactory terms. This is particularly effective when the respondent has seemingly
misunderstood the question, or has answered it irrelevantly, or has responded only to a portion of
it. If the respondent’s answer is vague or too general or incomplete, an effective probe is:
“That’s interesting. Could you explain that a little more?” People sometimes find the questions
difficult, and sometimes they are not deeply interested in them. In either case, they will welcome
any least hint from the interviewer which will enable them to give a creditable response.
Interviewer must thoroughly impressed with the harm which results from a “leading probe,”
from any remark which “puts words in their mouth”. To be safe, the interviewer should always
content himself with mere repetition of all or part of the actual questions, or with such innocuous
nondirective probes as are suggested in the preceding paragraph.

Reporting the response:

There are two chief means of recoding opinions during the interview. If the question is
pre-coded, the interviewer need only check a box or circle a code, or otherwise indicate which
code comes closest to the respondent’s opinion. If the question has not been pre-coded, the
interviewer is expected to record the response verbatim. In reporting responses to free-answer
questions, interviewers should be aware of the importance of complete, verbatim reporting. It
will often be difficult to get down everything the respondent says in reply, but aside from
obvious irrelevancies and repetitions, this should be the goal. Interviewers should be given some
idea of the coding process, so that they can see the dangers of summarizing, abbreviating or
paraphrasing responses. Unless the coder can view the whole answer, just as the respondent said
it, he is likely to classify it improperly or lose some important distinctions that should be made.
The better interviewer, the fewer the mistakes he will make, but even the best interviewer will
occasionally be guilty. The unforgivable sin is to turn in the interview as complete when it
contains such errors and omissions. The only certain way for the interviewer to avoid this is to
make an automatic habit of inspecting each interview, immediately after its completion, before
he goes on to another respondent, to make sure that it has been filled in accurately and
completely.

Interview techniques:

The interaction involved in an interview is essentially a social one and is influenced, like
any other social relationship, by the psychological and the social attributes of the interviewer and
the respondent, as well as of the setting in which it is taking place. The investigator arouses as
much curiosity about himself in the respondent as does the respondent in the investigator. Being
social relationship between two roles, the interaction may be emotionally and intellectually
satisfying to either or both, or may terminate in mutual disappointment12. The interaction during
an interview may, in course of time, become a personalized relationship of deep friendship,
initially all interviews begin on an impersonal note. The interviewer is, by and large, a stranger
to the respondents. He has not only to establish his social and academic credentials but also that
of his investigation. Whereas the interviewer may able to put across his social credentials, since
he carries some of these in his pleasance, with relative case, his academic and institutional
credentials are more difficult to establish.
Interview ethics enjoin upon the interviewer to keep the contents of the interview
confidential and give assurance to the respondent to that effect at the very beginning. But this is
easier said than done in our country. Respondents who are familiar with sociological
investigations and in particular with interview technique, know what this confidentiality implies.
This understanding is further reinforced by the knowledge that the respondent is one of the many
being interviewed and that the interviewer is interested more in generalizing than in the
particular personal details of the respondent. However, the respondents ignorant of this, who are
having their first exposure to the technique, find it difficult to understand the import of this
assurance about confidentiality. Why should they be asked for confidential information by a
stranger? Why should their answers be kept confidential? The problem is aggravated by the
ignorance of the respondent as to how the information given by him will be used and what
purpose will it serve. When the research theme is such that it requires information on aspects
which individuals do not wish to talk about for whatever reason the interviewer has to devise
ways of eliciting it. It may be mentioned here that what is regarded as private or confidential is
culturally conditioned.
Conventional guidelines on the use of interview technique enjoin upon the investigator to
impress on his subject that there are no right or wrong answers. In our country, this is not an easy
task. The responses that the interviewer obtains, their intonation and accompanying gestures
suggest to him that the respondents are continually trying to access the expected answers,
depending upon their stereotyping the interviewer and their assessment of general theme running
through the questions. Some respondents may even counter-question to find out if their answers
are correct or not. Then there are stereotyped answers which the respondents may have come to

12
Aneeta A. Minocha, “The Interview Technique,” S.K.Verma and Afzal Wani, ed., Legal Research and
Methodology 374 (The Indian Law Institute, New Delhi, 2nd edn., 2001).
formulate on the basis of their past experiences and exposure to mass media.
There are problems in developing rapport with the respondents- the intensity of which
may depend upon the nature of the problem under investigation, the skills of the interviewer and
personality of the respondent not very uncommonly; problems crop up because of good rapport.
The respondent may not like to terminate the conversation with the interviewer which he may
find much to his liking and satisfaction. This is especially so if the theme of the interview relates
to vital concern, deeply felt emotions, sentiments and the respondent’s relationship with the
members of his reference group. This may be so because the interviewer appears receptive
enough, and in addition, may also appear to be the right person because of his education and
exposure. To modern institutions such as court of law, to seek his advice regarding solutions to
the problems. Research on law appears to be more prone to problems of this type. Since every
person has legal problems there are greater chances that on learning about the interviewer’s
interest in say, law and legal institution respondents will try to seek solutions to their problems
which in their own estimation justifiably fall within the purview of the interview. Needless to
say, tackling such a situation is time consuming for the interviewer who is keen on retaining the
respondent’s cooperation.

Conclusion:

In a Legal research the empirical or fact based research is more useful than that of the
doctrinal research, as the empirical research is on facts. In empirical research the researchers are
concerned with a problem which is immediately faced or demands answers. The face to face
interview is the most suitable method of data collection in the legal research. The major strength
of interviewing is that it is more effective in gaining information about a person’s perceptions,
belief, feelings, attitudes, motivations, anticipations or future plans. It gives insights into
individual reactions and attempts at finding out his own reasons for behaving in a particular way
rather than merely describing what actually happened. The interview serves as an instrument to
measure the behavioral reactions of the people. Interview can also serve as an excellent heuristic
device.
Collecting data through interviews has qualities that personal observation and objective
data and tests do not possess. Interview can obtain great deal of information. However, what
needs to be emphasized is that the strength and weakness of the interview method lies in the fact
that it gets at subjective data and depends on what the subject can and will report. Further
interview as a method must be integrated into the total design of data collection or used in
conjunction with other methods. Depending on the aims of research in law, interviews can be
used to validate the findings from other techniques. Thus interview is the most appropriate
technique for revealing information about complex, emotionally laden subjects or for probing the
sentiments that may underlie an expresses opinion.
 Bibliography

List of Books:

B.N. Ghosh, Scientific Method and Social Research 190 (Sterling Publishers Private
Limited, New Delhi, 1982).

P.V. Young, Scientific Social Surveys and Research 1060 (New York Prentice Hall, 3rd
edn.,).

Claire Selltiz, Marie Jahoda, et al., Research Methods in Social Relations-Revised 238
(Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc, New York, 1964).

Kuldeep Mathur, “Interviewing: Art and Skill”, S.K.Verma and Afzal Wani, ed., Legal
Research and Methodology 370 (The Indian Law Institute, New Delhi, 2nd edn., 2001).

Bernard S. Phillips, Social Research- Strategy and Tactics 110 (Mac Millan Company,
New York, 1967).

Aneeta A. Minocha, “The Interview Technique,” S.K.Verma and Afzal Wani, ed., Legal
Research and Methodology 374 (The Indian Law Institute, New Delhi, 2nd edn., 2001).

List of Articles:

 George D. Braden, “Legal Research: A variations on old Lament”, 24 JILI 190 (1982).
 Manju Koolwal, “Collection and Analysis of Data in Legal Research”, 38 Journal of the
Legal Studies 290 (2008).