Asian law and society scholars, like their peers conducting research in other parts of the world, do not limit themselves to case law, legal codes, or statute books.

They adopt approaches widely accepted in sociolegal studies, as well as the social sciences at large.

These include quantitative and qualitative approaches, and data collection methods such as semi-structured interviews, ethnography, archival work, surveys, experiments, and discourse analysis.

The readings in this section illustrate how Asian law and society scholars chose their methods and data sources, formulated strategies to gain access and collect the data, and responded to difficulties in the field. The readings also capture the common feature of multi-methods in law and society research projects, the combining of different methodologies or methods, such as qualitative with quantitative analyses, or interviews with observations and archives. A researcher may undertake mixed methods to triangulate, supple­ment, or complement data derived from different sources and methods. To be sure, the methodological choice flows from the research question and the researcher's intellectual background and training, but it is also shaped by the feasibility of getting access to data. For example, government agencies or corporations may be unwilling to grant permission to use their databases or to speak with their personnel, and may treat with suspicion researchers whose findings might cast them in a negative light. As a result, the choice of research method is not purely an academic matter but additionally grounded in the research context.

9.1