<![CDATA[This study examines the implications of the paradigm shift in legal research from a legalistic-positivist orientation toward post-positivist and progressive-critical approaches within doctoral legal scholarship. The research is motivated by the increasing recognition that legal positivism, while contributing to legal certainty and systematic legal reasoning, is limited in addressing complex social realities and substantive justice. Employing a normative legal research method with conceptual and philosophical approaches, this study analyzes paradigms of legal thought based on ontological, epistemological, and axiological dimensions as formulated in the framework of Guba and Lincoln. The analysis further engages with major legal theories, including legal positivism, legal realism, critical legal theory, constructivism, and progressive legal thought. The findings indicate that positivism emphasizes legal certainty and objectivity through formal normative structures, while post-positivism introduces epistemological reflexivity and methodological pluralism by acknowledging the limitations of knowledge. Critical legal theory challenges the neutrality of law by revealing its embedded power relations and transformative potential, whereas progressive legal thought advances a human-centered paradigm that prioritizes substantive justice and social welfare. The study concludes that the paradigm shift in legal research reflects a broader transformation in legal philosophy from formal legality toward substantive justice. This shift repositions law as a dynamic social institution that must respond to human needs, social context, and moral responsibility. Ultimately, the progressive paradigm reinforces the role of law as an instrument for social transformation and the advancement of human dignity.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
