In the quest for truth

  

Science and legal science

As part of my PhD training at the University of Bergen my colleagues and I are attending a “Research School” in which we are taught how to be better researchers and to discuss our ideas concerning the different PhD projects.

As part of this excellent seminar, organized by Linda Gröning and Jørn Jacobsen, we had yesterday a lecture by Prof. Dr. Marie Sandström, vice dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Stockholm.  The main topic of the lecture was to address the matter of Law as a scientific discipline.

In a very engaging and active discussion the topic was approached in a very original manner tracing the different similarities between law and natural sciences. Also, a historical-comprehensive basis was used to explain the points of view elaborated and to provide with scientific ground for the assertions.

"Furu"

©Yngvild Beathe Olsen

Prof. Dr. Sandström emphasized that the expression legal science, in English, is a bad translation of different expressions used to denominate what is known as Rechtswissenschaften, Science de la Droite and Jurisprudence. Hence, this has to be kept in mind when comparing legal science to natural sciences as they are different but interconnected concepts.

Prof. Dr. Sandström commented that in her view a PhD student in law must base his/her research on a methodology. Also, it is important to creatively combine different methods to produce an original work. There is a risk, however, when combining different methods as it might not be self-evident that they will answer in the same direction the posed question(s).

Additionally, it was mentioned that legal research has two main characteristics:

1.- It is based on coherence. Law is a systematic structure of norms that solves problems from general principles to particular cases (at least in the Continental Law system!).

2.- The PhD dissertation must be based on a general hypothesis. In her view, the work must retain some generality and even though it is tempting to choose a very narrow and limited topic to “control it”, there should be a drive towards also obtaining generalized knowledge.

Another aspect that was discussed was that the work of the PhD researcher/legal scholar should aim towards the improvement of the current legal system providing with better founded, more convincing and closer to the truth answers.

Lastly, in what became the most discussed and debated part of the conversation, Prof. Dr. Sandström encouraged us, the PhD researches, to look for the truth in legal research. In her view, there should be less fear of using the words truth, right decision, and right answer when writing our dissertations.

"Passing by the trees"

©Yngvild Beathe Olsen