This is in fact, the ‘Title Proposal’. One just can’t obtain a title without knowing the ‘subject matter’ one wish to research. So, intrinsically, one would have a preferred area of law to research upon. Thereon, it is surface reading of the LR from all journals one can lay its hand upon. Group them according to ‘Topic’, which ultimately, forms one’s research objectives. ‘Seaming’ these objectives, forms the ‘Research Aims’, which is your ‘Research Title’ itself. This can be a daunting task of combing the internet/library, downloading, printing and classifying them into ‘boxes’. Very time consuming.

A special chapter dedicated to LR. While one continue to build up the collection of ‘library’, now, one has to also read the entire collection in detail, among other, in a systematic way, i.e.:

For each literature keep a ‘Summary Log’ comprising among other, the ‘topic’; title; author(s); abstract; OSCOLA referencing; summary and reference. This is a ‘second reading’.  

Keep a ‘register of all the literature’ you had referred to in a matrix comprising of the author; title; and the topic it ought to address your objectives.

Revisit all the literature again, and add up another item, the ‘research gap’ as in the ‘Summary Log’, highlighting what these literatures failed to address or its limitations. This is a ‘third reading’. One has to read critically to draw out these ‘knowledge gaps’.

Finally, connecting the dots, by building up a narration of how an issue is addressed in one literature, to be ‘defeated’ or ‘supported’ by another literature. This is what is known as ‘Structuring the Chapters’. It should sufficiently provide a mind map as to how one would write the chapter.

​This is even more daunting as the saying goes, ‘it is a lonely journey, and LR takes 3-times of reading, not just one.’ Some spent years, just building on this part of the journey.

​This chapter is dedicated to the entire deliberation of the Research Methodology, in quantitative research. However, for qualitative legal research, this chapter, one can go straight into addressing the second objective, as the first objective would have been addressed in chapter 2. In attempting to write the ‘body of the thesis’, the following may be applicable, pour over the LR for the respective topic and narrate the matrixes in accordance to:

​This chapter 5 is dedicated to the findings of the ‘fieldworks’ for quantitative research. While this chapter 6 is dedicated to analysing the findings of the ‘fieldworks’ against other ‘available models’ for quantitative research. 

For qualitative, both chapters are dedicated to addressing the other objectives or topics. In addressing such the same, Bloom’s taxonomy approach is applicable. Thus, the LR for the respective topic is heavily relied upon to build up the narration.

​Chapter 06 – Conclusion
This chapter is dedicated to:

1. Foremost, recalled the summary of the ‘creations’ of ‘findings’ or your conclusions regarding the various topics;
2. How these conclusions of the various topics interconnected with one another;
3. To draw upon a complete conclusion of your research, whether has the research problem, resolved or otherwise; and
4. To draw upon the limitation for future research, as if it is not resolved, why? If it is resolved, what else can be done to it?  

The findings become the sole LR for others.

In conclusion, one’s research is all about LR, where before you can create, you ought to research what others had done in a systematic way, through the hierarchy of Bloom’s taxonomy, not the other way around. So, my ‘zen-master’ Sv is correct when he says:

[O]ne of the reasons why you are required to use academic or legal sources is that those works have been peer reviewed before publishing and include a section describing the method of research and its limitations. This is science and must be supported by tried and tested work. This does not mean that the published work is correct. Quite the opposite, it if often incorrect and therefore it is often discredited and dismissed.
​
[Y]ou must aim at presenting ‘critical analysis’ and ‘evaluation’ in every paragraph you write. You cannot present originality (or create) unless you complete this process of analysis and evaluation. 

Congratulation if you had passed the first hurdle. The Sv may lay the following ground-rules:

• Upon research proposal accepted, a Sv will be allocated;
• You shall make initial contact and inform him of any major problems;
• Sv will not specify research materials nor will he direct your work;
• Sv is to offer guidance and comments;
• Queries on topics, methodology, referencing be directed to your Sv no more than two chapters; and
• Sv will not read a full draft.

​Remember, your Sv may sometimes acted like a ‘zen master’, very little word and it is priceless when he instruct you and you have to come out with the rest of the ‘instruction’, as though you are an ‘enlightened researcher’. It is too often to hear:
​
[I] think my powers are very limited in terms of teaching LLM students how to write. This is a challenge across the board […].

Contemplate this opening statement:
[I]t is not immaterial what you think, there are ways in academia we ask you to present it.
Therefore, take note of the followings:

1. Consider ‘neutral tone’;  
2. Avoid putting your position, i.e. your opinion unless it is a published opinion;  
3. Weight ‘published materials’ from both sides of the fence. In fact, most published opinions are ‘lopsided’. Only state which sides had heavier ‘balance of probability’. Then conclude with such opinion.
4. Academic writing is not about your opinion. The entire LR is about you serving enough time of immersing yourself to others’ ‘informed opinions’ to finally come to a conclusion of whether:
   1. Is there a ‘gap of knowledge’ that the academic fraternity has not addressed?
   2. Which ‘informed opinions’ remained to be valid and should be upheld?
5. Adhering to ‘Bloom Taxonomy’, you must aim at presenting ‘critical analysis’ and ‘evaluation’ in every paragraph you write.[1] You cannot present originality (or create) unless you complete this process of analysis and evaluation; and
   
6. Every word, sentence and paragraph must be ‘justified’ if one seeks perfection.

---------------------------------------
[1] Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Handbook One 1956) pp.201-207: Outlined Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Creative.

Strangely but truly, LR is your ‘passport’ to be ‘accepted’ in the academia. I am struggling with this issue initially, for what is the point, am I writing but to repeat what others had said and I am just ‘going round circles’? Acknowledging this to be academia, my Sv has this to say:
​
[O]ne of the reasons why you are required to use academic or legal sources is that those works have been peer reviewed before publishing and include a section describing the method of research and its limitations. This is science and must be supported by tried and tested work. This does not mean that the published work is correct. Quite the opposite, it if often incorrect and therefore it is often discredited and dismissed.

To have a good grasp on the literature that is available, nothing short of getting:

1. Up-to-date case law/legislation/other sources (i.e., journal article/conference papers/books) [depth of research];
2. Books by authoritative authors [depth of research];
3. Review and systematically records on the issues/ arguments/ source/ themes relevant to your objectives [depth of research];
4. Always have a road-map to point those sources to the objectives you are presenting [depth of structure];
5. Conclude each point by either acknowledging the ‘accepted informed opinion’ or ‘knowledge gaps’ [depth of arguments];  
6. Must show critical analysis and evaluation at each paragraph [depth of arguments]. 

From the onset the RGU has provided ample resources on OSCOLA referencing.[1] Yet, one may overlooked and assumed that most of the LR provided the same style of referencing, when discussing construction law. It is not. My Sv is quick to identify this:

[T]hat said you don't appear to follow some of the guides provided […] i.e., why are you referencing is a bespoke half Harvard half OSCOLA style?

I took notice of this shortcoming and found my inclination of ‘Harvard style’ vs. OSCOLA, more of practicality, as the followings:

• In OSCOLA, we just write, ‘[…] Powell-Smith and others contended, […]’ as compared to ‘Power-Smith et.al (2020) contended, […]’ or ‘[…] (Power-Smith et.al, 2020)’ as in Harvard. Apparently, the Harvard style seems less-wordy.
• As footnotes, the OSCOLA required the annotation of ‘Powell-Smith [n.2] at [no.]’ as compared to ‘Powell-Smith et.al (2020) para. [no.] which is much straight forward.

Generally, the RGU required strict adherence to OSCOLA. I find the following to be useful:
​

• Citation of a book n, ‘n V. Powell-Smith, Construction Arbitrations (2nd edition Blackwell 2020) 123’; in the following footnotes, ibid 123 can be used but these ‘Latin-gadgets’ can be replaced with ‘n Powell-Smith [n 2] 123’; One quotation, one author, one reference, unless this is not a quotation (in which case there must not be quotation marks).
• Citation of a case law within the book, i.e. ‘n Powell-Smith [n 2] 123: cited A v B [1999] MLJ 123’;
• Citation of a case law, ‘n A v B [1999] MLJ 123’ or ‘A v Bn’, ‘n [1999] MLJ 123’; alternatively, ‘n A [n 2] 123’;
• Quoting, ‘The House of Lord […]’n or [T]he House of Lords […]n , ‘n Powell-Smith [n 2] 123: citing A v B [1999] MLJ 123’; or ‘n Powell-Smith [n 2] 123: emphasis given’;
• Citation of articles, i.e. ‘n Powell-Smith ‘PAM 69’ (1999) 1 MLJ 123’;
• Citation of thesis, i.e. ‘n Powell-Smith ‘Construction Law of Malaysia’ (LLM RGU 1999)’; and
• Citation from webpage, i.e. ‘n Powell-Smith ‘Virtual Construction Law’ (Star, 3 May 2020) <www.star.com/2020/06/index.html> accessed 19 Nov 2021’.

--------------------------------------
[1] OSCOLA (4th edition Oxford 2012)

​Embarking LLM Dissertation is a steep learning curve. Foremost, one has to deal with ‘research methodology’, a subject warrant an independent study by itself. Second, your supervisor (‘Sv’) who sometimes acted like a ‘zen master’, very little word and it is priceless when he instruct you and you have to come out with the rest of the ‘instruction’. Third, your school preferences, as different level of dissertation required different things and don’t pretend you are writing a PhD research when you are actually dealing with only the LLM. Fourth, your materials, something that I will write about as I move on.

This is the first step that the school require you to submit. Each school has its format, so stick with that. In the RGU, this RP constitute the Chapter-01 of your dissertation. Generally, it requires you to submit the following items for the school’s consideration:

• Provisional Title of Research
• Background to the Conducting such Research
• Research Problem(s)
• Aims and Objective(s)
• Methodology
• Proposed Chapters
• Proposed Literature Reviews
• Proposed Bibliography

​Nobody would jump straight to proposed a title. More importantly is to:

• Intuitively know which area of law you would prefer to write;
• Collect articles, journals and books relating to such an area of law you which to write
• Read through each of these articles, journals and books, decipher its content that related to such an area of law you which to write; and
• Ponder again and restructure […].

For example, in my case:

• Area of law: Alternative Dispute Resolution (‘ADR’), but there are many kinds of ADR. I had chosen Arbitration, as there are plenty of literature available on this topic;
• Too many, in fact that I have to narrow down to, Arbitration in the Construction Industry of Malaysia;
• Having said that it is still too wide and RGU required students to compare and critically analyse or review, so there must be a subject for comparison;
• Thus I had taken to critically compared, review and analyse, collectively known as ‘investigating’, the subject of Malaysia Institute of Architects (‘PAM’) as an arbitral appointing body for the Construction Industry of Malaysia;
• Having considered two-subject matters as comparison, the next issues were, in which area must I investigate?
• So, I have to lay-out the matrix, Arbitration > Construction Industry > Malaysia > PAM > [‘the area of concerns which make PAM function as an arbitral appointing body’]; and
• Having considered these matrix, the ‘area of concerns’ are:
  • The Legal Framework
  • The Arbitration Agreement [Dispute Clause]
  • The Arbitration-Rules
  • The Qualification, Ethics, Conducts and Administration

At this point I will temporary halt my discussion of LR and jump to another consideration.

The ‘area of concerns’ are actually my ‘objectives’. These 4-objectives are my ‘pillars’ to support my ‘research aim’. What is my ‘research-aim’ then? Taking the same act of investigating, I rephrased my aim to also include my objectives as:
​
[T]his research aims to investigate the legal framework and the object of formation of the arbitral appointing body, dispute clause, arbitration rules, the arbitrator’s ethics and professional conduct and the administration of arbitration in the context of construction dispute arbitration in Malaysia taking PAM as a study.

Needless to say, my research title will be called:
​
[I]nvestigation into the legal framework and the object of formation of the arbitral appointing body, dispute clause, arbitration rules, the arbitrator’s ethics and professional conduct and the administration of arbitration in the context of construction dispute arbitration in Malaysia taking PAM as a study. 

​The RGU imposed a methodology for Legal Research limited to only ‘doctrinal approach’, meaning qualitative-research based on secondary sources are to be conducted and such ‘doctrinal approach’ forms the basis of limitation in this research.[1] Therefore, the supposing Chapter-03 on Research Methodology is now being irrelevant.

----------------------------------
[1] RGU law School, ‘BSM587 PG Dissertation Handbook 2021-22’ (RGU 2021) p.4: not permitted to undertake any fieldworks or data collection of your own.

Chapters in dissertation are commonly comprise of Introduction, literature review, methodology, results and discussion, conclusions and outcomes (recommendations).[1] However, in view of the limitation set from the onset by the RGU, the chapters are comprised of Introduction, literature review, discussion and conclusions.[2] Since there is a word-limit set at 15,000 words threshold, all Chapters from Chapter-02 onwards shall contain at least one objective. These chapters are the bed-rocks for the objectives and in return, these objectives are the columns upholding the pediment of the research aims or the title of your research.

-------------------------------
[1] All Answers Ltd, 'Writing a Law Dissertation - what is expected?' (Lawteacher.net, November 2021) <https://www.lawteacher.net/law-help/dissertation/writing-a-dissertation-what-is-expected.php?vref=1> accessed 1 November 2021.
[2] RGU law School, ‘BSM587 PG (Law) Dissertation Guidance Notes’ (RGU 2021) p.7-10.

Formerly I kept a blog-page on my journey studying LLM[1] from the RGU[2]. Arising from the contents of my blog-pages revealing some of ‘proprietary-materials’, I decided to remove it. Having completed most of the journey, I decided to tell, my side of the story for the benefits of students whom like me, I naively attempted this ‘expensive-venture’ without a legal-background, thinking that it is a ‘part-time’ effort. I erred entirely, for the expectation of the Law-School at RGU, is for you to produce ‘academic-work’ on par of ‘full-time’ law students in the UK. In a nutshell, the experience is not easy, as the saying go, ‘no-pain, no-gain’. Reflecting again my ‘foolish’ decision, deciding doing a Diploma in International Arbitration versus the LLM from RGU on construction law and arbitration, I must admit that I am fully satisfy with the ‘depth and breadth’ of both ‘legal-skills’ and ‘knowledge of the law’ pertaining to common-law principles of UK and civil-law of Scotland. No regret about it. How I wished someone would have given me this piece of advice before …
 
Year-01/Sem-01, was ‘technically-nightmare’, almost unheard of OSCOLA[3]; IRAC[4]; and how to ‘package-it’ in a ‘presentable’ manner. Such a year is all about exam. The law of evidence, obligation and tort was presented in ‘skeleton’ … I failed to appreciate the nuance of the notes, authoritative-textbook[5] and the sort. It is true, Architect don’t read. Until some lawyer friends came along to ‘teach’ me the ‘foundation of reading law’ … You just cannot read it the ‘normal-way’. By then, it is ‘too-late’ exam was around the corner. RGU require exam in the following mode, MCQ[6] (with many-many sub-sub questions); time-paper (like short essays with limited time-frame); and coursework (academic writing).
 
Year-01/Sem-02, was all about arbitration, broken down into 2-parts, practice and procedure (P&P) and arbitration law (specifically UK Arbitration Act 1996 AA). Lecturers in RGU are proud to state that the AA is so complete that you don’t need the arbitration rules to administer the entire arbitration. By this time, I am ‘a little wiser’.
 
For AA, I synthesize the ‘mandatory-textbook’[7] in accordance to the ‘notes’ as write-ups, complete with footnotes in a ‘dense-format’. I even, seamlessly ‘juxtapose’ with UNCITRAL[8] model-law. Further, applying Rules, i.e. UNCITRAL and the LCIA[9] rules. Again, not forgetting ‘soft-laws’, i.e. IBA[10]-Guidelines. Unfortunately, collating all these require ‘monumental-efforts’ and ‘keeping up with the joneses’ on current issues pertaining to the questions of seat, substantive-law and law governing arbitration agreement; conflicts of laws; ambush; and others, via constantly researching Kluwer-Blog[11] and Westlaw[12], require time. I spent my entire ‘Lock-Down’ period due to Covid-19 pandemic on this. Came exam, MCQ was bearable, but coursework came with another surprise … understand what the questions require was another ‘nightmare’. It was drafted so vaguely and confusing, requiring you to take both-sides to contemplate on some issues of arbitration law that surprisingly mirrored those from the ‘Vis Moot’s problems’[13], that has ‘no definitive answer’, i.e. the question of impartiality when the experts in conflict with the arbitrator and a matter of ‘sanction’ and non-recognition of arbitral award. Another form of examination, in the form of ‘advocacy’ taking either respondent or claimant, was challenging when your audience is your camera and the monitor. I took 8-takes to ‘perfect-it’. 
 
For P&P, I had not much time to ponder on the notes. I rely on a very old-book on construction arbitration that contains all kinds of samples or procedural-orders; awards; correspondences; preliminary-meeting; and notes that I ‘painstaking-ly’ reformat for my immediate use. Together with the synthesized arbitration-law, especially all the CIArb-practice notes, I practically ‘wrote a book’ during the lock-down. Came exam, I practically ‘cut and paste’ from these notes that I pre-prepared.
 
Year-01/Sem-03, I am a little enlightened. It is also a time for me to improve on my grading for CIArb[14] purposes. I need at least 55% minimum for all my exams. For these coursework(s), I synthesized the entire text-books[15] from the few hundreds of pages into less than a 100 pages complete with all its footnotes on case-laws and citation, the OSCOLA way. I analyzed both ‘Grade-A’ examples provided by the school as guidance of the coursework, to distil the IRAC structure that I religiously followed and applied. The same strategy was applied to Time-Paper.
 
Summer-School, I enrolled into ‘Award-Writing’. I would not say much about passing the ‘Award-Writing’. It requires another write-up, for such a matter. The format of the exam mirrors those of CIArb Module-3. Two parts, foremost Format and Interlocutory part can be pre-prepared and follow by the second, Hearing and Execution part of the Award has to be completed within 4-hours timeframe. The nasty thing is, unlike any challenge on jurisdiction, the wild-card is ‘Rome Re-cast’[16] that I rarely familiar with. I spent ‘valuable-time’ researching online on this ‘species’ leaving very little time for me to wrap up. I am therefore, a casualty of ‘time’ due to my slow typing-skill and having to work in compliance to UK’s time.
 
Year-02, as I had been informed, should be ‘lighter’ as it is no longer annex to CIArb. Instead of exam orientated, this time around is fully coursework. Apparently, the strategy I discovered, i.e. synthesizing text-books into ‘personal-notes’ work as a ‘time-saver’. The same was applied to all the construction-law modules 1, 2 and 3, that were based on the JCT[17] and to the international-contract module, based on the FIDIC[18] and NEC[19]. Again, understanding what the questions require was another ‘nightmare’. It was drafted so vaguely and confusing, on areas covering obligations, extension of time, CDM, procurements, antiquities, practical-completion, damages, third-party collateral warranties, pay-less notices, non-payment, variations and the sorts. As I have yet to acquire skills of ‘deciphering ambiguities into clarities’, it is still a daunting task. This, after spending a larger part of my 17-years of my professional career in contract administration as an Architect, could only fathom that such is apparently how ‘lawyers’ look at contractual issues as in contract-administration. The good part of this year is that it forces me to be acquainted with JCT, FIDIC and NEC conditions in detail; enabling me to decipher the common framework, shared by all these standard forms, as per the text-book[20]; and how these international approaches were later adopted in our local forms, i.e. PAM[21], JKR/PWD[22] and the CIDB[23] forms of contract.
 
Year-03, the final year is solely dedicated to the production of the master thesis. I shall reserve this part of the story for some other time. The journey through this LLM via RGU is not entirely a ‘bed of roses’, but the knowledge I gained is ‘very-expensive’ especially with the conversion of Ringgit to Pound-Sterling. Notwithstanding such, it is really all about preparation. Preparation means not only ‘hard work’ but a workable strategy that enable you to acquire, organize and reproduce the ‘knowledge’ within shortest time for exam purposes. Failing, the first-round, is thus, only the pathway to success.
 
 ---------------------------------------------

[1] Master in Law
[2] Robert Gordon University
[3] OSCOLA is a footnote style adopted in law-school via Oxford System Citation On Legal Authority
[4] Structure of Legal-writing based on Issues; Rules; Application; and Conclusion
[5] McKendrick E, Contract Law (12th edition, Palgrave Macmillan 2017); Lunney M & Oliphant K, Tort Law: Texts and Materials (5th edition, Oxford, 2013)
[6] Multiple Choice Question
[7] Blackaby N, Partasides C, Redfern A, Hunter M, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (6th edition, Oxford University Press 2015); Harris B, Planterose R, Tecks J, The Arbitration Act 1996: A Commentary (5th edition John Wiley & Sons Inc 2014)
[8] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
[9] London Court of International Arbitration
[10] International Bar Association
[11] <http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/>
[12] <https://westlaw.com/>
[13] <https://vismoot.pace.edu/Messages>
[14] Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
[15] Vincent Powell-Smith et al, Construction Arbitrations (2nd edition, Blackwell 1989)
[16] Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)
[17] Joint Contract Tribunal
[18] International Federation of Consulting Engineers
[19] New Engineering Contract
[20] John Uff, Construction Law (12th edition, Sweet & Maxwell 2017)
[21] Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia (Malaysia Institute of Architects)
[22] Jabatan Kerja Raya / Power Work Department
[23] Construction Industry Development Board