When writing a law article with secondary data, begin with a clear research question and gather material from statutes, case law, journal articles, and policy reports. A doctrinal approach works well for analyzing legal rules and precedents, but you can also use a socio-legal or comparative approach to connect the law with real-world context and highlight differences across jurisdictions. The key is to move beyond description and provide critical analysis and evaluation of existing interpretations.

Actually, just for curiosity -- apparently the English terminology is a bit irritating for me in this context: What do you *mean* with "secondary data", and what is the matter with law, here?

Like Vira Gorelova kindly specified, there are several approaches that might be useful for different kinds of tasks. However, the task determines the strategy. And still, I cannot imagine, what "secondary data" means in combination with "law matter". If "law matter" is some "legislation matter", is "secondary data" some data of the field to regulate? Or is "secondary data" the interview of a victim, who told how he experienced the questioning in court in the criminal procedure? May "secondary data" be a law article about a regulation that is ambiguous and leads to different court decisions in comparable cases? These three options are just randomly picked. There are much more conceivable. And all could be treated differently with a different focus, still from a jurisprudential perspective.

Thus, in which concrete direction could we think to suggest something?

EDIT:

So, the question is already cleared right? You're August article is already published :-) Article ROLE OF THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN ACCESS TO JUST...

Joachim Heller Respected sir, Here, by secondary data in law, I mean existing material that has already been published or decided – such as statutes, case law, judgments, journal articles, government reports, and policy papers. I am not collecting primary field data (like interviews or surveys). My intention is to analyze a legal issue using these already-available sources.

Ah, I see. So, this is my misunderstanding. Thank you for the clarification, Pawan Kumar. I wouldn't call sources of law, reports, policy papers, bills, their documented reasonings, journal articles etc. as "secondary data" but as the primary material to engage with for writing a law article, primary and secondary sources of law, and scholarly reasonings about them. In general, I suppose this is international, even if the style differs -- and maybe the individual awareness -- a treatise on a legal issue, if not a legal expertise, or a report about the application of law in specific cases, is a normative, conceptual thesis — rigorously literature-based, and ultimately philosophical in character — through which you develop your convincing legal -- probably in your case, constitutional -- position.

The social scientific concept of "primary" and "secondary data" is at least less typical for legal scholarship in Germany. Therefore its use appeared odd to me in this context. Maybe this would be the same for your reviewers? But maybe, this is different in different academic traditions.