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}
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.
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.