Baldwin and Davis define ‘empirical research’ both positively and negatively, as being

not purely theoretical or doctrinal; it does not rest on an analysis of statute and decided cases; and it does not rely on secondary sources. What empiricists do, in one way or another, is to study the operations and the effects of the law. … [E]mpirical research in law involves the study, through direct methods rather than secondary sources, of the institutions, rules, procedures, and personnel of the law, with a view to understanding how they operate and what effects they have. 

For Genn and others, empirical research benefits our understanding of law, and of the society in which it operates:

Empirical legal research helps to build our theoretical understanding of law as a social and political phenomenon and contributes to the development of social theory. Put simply, empirical research helps us to understand the law better and an empirical understanding of the law in action helps us to understand society better. 

Despite the growing demand and desire for empirical legal research, there are concerns that there is insufficient empirical capacity in the legal discipline. There is concern that there are too few empirical legal scholars to meet the growing demand for empirical legal research, and empirical legal research is largely absent from the law school curricula. It is these challenges we are aiming to address, through a holistic focus on teaching, research, and professional development.