February 20, 2013
Faculty Development, Faculty Incentives, and Law School Innovation
Stephen Daniels (American Bar Foundation), William M. Sullivan (Denver) & Martin Katz (Dean, Denver), Analyzing Carnegie's Reach: The Contingent Nature of Innovation, 62 J. Legal Educ. ___ (2013):
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.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Faculty Development, Faculty Incentives, and Law School Innovation: