Review of Literature in Legal Research: A Critical Survey of Scholarly Contributions, Debates, and Research Gaps

Abstract

The literature review constitutes a fundamental methodological pillar in legal research, yet its application within the discipline remains contested and under-theorized. This paper critically examines the evolution, methodologies, and scholarly debates surrounding literature reviews in legal research. Through systematic analysis of recent contributions spanning 2018 to 2025, this review identifies three dominant approaches: traditional narrative reviews, systematic reviews adapted from evidence-based disciplines, and emerging hybrid methodologies that bridge doctrinal and empirical legal research. The analysis reveals persistent tensions between the discipline's hermeneutic foundations and the increasing demand for methodological transparency, replicability, and interdisciplinary integration. Key debates center on the appropriateness of systematic review methodologies for doctrinal legal research, the epistemological status of legal literature reviews, and the challenge of synthesizing heterogeneous legal sources. The paper identifies significant research gaps, including the lack of standardized quality assessment tools for legal literature reviews, insufficient engagement with computational methods for large-scale legal text analysis, and limited cross-jurisdictional comparative review methodologies. This critical survey argues that legal scholarship must develop context-specific review methodologies that preserve the interpretive richness of legal analysis while embracing the transparency standards demanded by contemporary interdisciplinary research.

Keywords: Legal Research Methodology, Literature Review, Systematic Review, Doctrinal Research, Empirical Legal Studies, Interdisciplinary Legal Research