分析卡内基的影响范围:创新的偶然性

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 Q2 Social Sciences
Stephen Daniels, William M. Sullivan, Martin J. Katz
{"title":"分析卡内基的影响范围:创新的偶然性","authors":"Stephen Daniels, William M. Sullivan, Martin J. Katz","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2209278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our interest is curricular innovation, with a focus on the recommendations of the 2007 Carnegie report – Educating Lawyers. Recognizing that meaningful reform requires an institutional commitment, our interest also includes initiatives in the areas of faculty development and faculty incentive structure that would support curricular innovation. Additionally, we are curious as to what might explain change and whether certain school characteristics will do so or whether external factors that challenge legal education offer an explanation. To explore these issues we surveyed law schools (a 60.5% response rate). The results show that while there is much activity in the area of curriculum – including the key matters of lawyering, professionalism, and especially integration – there is much less in the important areas of faculty development and faculty incentive structure. School characteristics, including rank, do not provide a sufficient explanation for the patterns emerging from the survey’s results. Additionally, activity by law schools with regard to curriculum, faculty development, and faculty professional activity is not simply a response to external challenges either. However, it appears that those pressures are providing a potential window of opportunity for innovation, reinforcing the need for change, and accelerating its pace.","PeriodicalId":39591,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Education","volume":"63 1","pages":"585"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2209278","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analyzing Carnegie's Reach: The Contingent Nature of Innovation\",\"authors\":\"Stephen Daniels, William M. Sullivan, Martin J. Katz\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2209278\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Our interest is curricular innovation, with a focus on the recommendations of the 2007 Carnegie report – Educating Lawyers. Recognizing that meaningful reform requires an institutional commitment, our interest also includes initiatives in the areas of faculty development and faculty incentive structure that would support curricular innovation. Additionally, we are curious as to what might explain change and whether certain school characteristics will do so or whether external factors that challenge legal education offer an explanation. To explore these issues we surveyed law schools (a 60.5% response rate). The results show that while there is much activity in the area of curriculum – including the key matters of lawyering, professionalism, and especially integration – there is much less in the important areas of faculty development and faculty incentive structure. School characteristics, including rank, do not provide a sufficient explanation for the patterns emerging from the survey’s results. Additionally, activity by law schools with regard to curriculum, faculty development, and faculty professional activity is not simply a response to external challenges either. However, it appears that those pressures are providing a potential window of opportunity for innovation, reinforcing the need for change, and accelerating its pace.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39591,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Legal Education\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"585\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2209278\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Legal Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2209278\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Education","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2209278","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

我们的兴趣是课程创新,重点是2007年卡内基报告-教育律师的建议。认识到有意义的改革需要制度的承诺,我们的兴趣还包括在教师发展和教师激励结构方面的倡议,以支持课程创新。此外,我们很好奇是什么可以解释变化,某些学校的特点是否会这样做,或者是否挑战法律教育的外部因素提供了解释。为了探讨这些问题,我们调查了法学院(60.5%的回复率)。结果表明,虽然在课程领域有很多活动,包括律师、专业精神,特别是整合等关键问题,但在教师发展和教师激励结构等重要领域却少得多。学校的特点,包括排名,并不能充分解释调查结果中出现的模式。此外,法学院在课程设置、教师发展和教师专业活动方面的活动也不仅仅是对外部挑战的回应。然而,这些压力似乎为创新提供了一个潜在的机会窗口,加强了变革的需要,并加快了变革的步伐。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analyzing Carnegie's Reach: The Contingent Nature of Innovation
Our interest is curricular innovation, with a focus on the recommendations of the 2007 Carnegie report – Educating Lawyers. Recognizing that meaningful reform requires an institutional commitment, our interest also includes initiatives in the areas of faculty development and faculty incentive structure that would support curricular innovation. Additionally, we are curious as to what might explain change and whether certain school characteristics will do so or whether external factors that challenge legal education offer an explanation. To explore these issues we surveyed law schools (a 60.5% response rate). The results show that while there is much activity in the area of curriculum – including the key matters of lawyering, professionalism, and especially integration – there is much less in the important areas of faculty development and faculty incentive structure. School characteristics, including rank, do not provide a sufficient explanation for the patterns emerging from the survey’s results. Additionally, activity by law schools with regard to curriculum, faculty development, and faculty professional activity is not simply a response to external challenges either. However, it appears that those pressures are providing a potential window of opportunity for innovation, reinforcing the need for change, and accelerating its pace.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Legal Education
Journal of Legal Education Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: The Journal of Legal Education (ISSN 0022-2208) is a quarterly publication of the Association of American Law Schools. The primary purpose of the Journal is to foster a rich interchange of ideas and information about legal education and related matters, including but not limited to the legal profession, legal theory, and legal scholarship. With a readership of more than 10,000 law teachers and about 500 subscribers, the Journal offers an unusually effective medium for communication to the law school world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信