Prof. Judith Welch Wegner

UNC School of Law

ABA Associate Deans’ Conf. 6/15/08

Some Key QuestionsSome Key QuestionsI. What do we mean when we talk about “change”?

II. What possibilities for change arise in connection with the Carnegie Report?

III. What are some top tips for change-makers?

Your ThoughtsSome TheorySome Lessons to Take Away

Talking About “Change” (1)Talking About “Change” (1)Take a moment and reflect: When I say the word “change” what

image comes to mind?

Talking about “Change” (2)Talking about “Change” (2)Take a moment and reflect:What forces or factors have you

observed that may drive change for your law school?

Talking about “Change” (3)Talking about “Change” (3)Take a moment and reflect:If you could bring about one change in

your law school in the next five years, what change would you choose and why?

Talking About “Change” Talking About “Change” Framing “change” is complicated

Image and narrative from past experienceObjective or perceived forces,

opportunities, threatsHopes for something different and better

But wait… there’s more… theory can help.

Theories of Change: Terms, DimensionsTheories of Change: Terms, Dimensions*o “First-order” (minor, among individuals). v. second-

order (thorough-going, paradigm shifts, transformational)

o Targets of change: process v. outcomeo Adaptive (responding to external environment) v.

“generative” (shaped by learning within the organization)

o Resulting from innovation (new, intentional, geared to producing benefits) v. dissemination (from elsewhere) or adaptation (response to environment)

• Kezar, Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century (ASHE, 2001)

Theories of Change: DriversTheories of Change: DriversEnvironmental theories (organization responds to

external stimuli)“Teleological” or purpose-driven (often driven by top

leaders)“Social cognition” (organizational learning, knowledge

developed based on past information, multifaceted, recognizes need for interpretation, recognizes that individuals may not have a shared reality of experience)

Mixed models (Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline): especially noted mental models (recognized and altered), need for shared vision, importance of systems thinking, crucial team learning

Theories of Change: ContextsTheories of Change: ContextsHigher education is especially challenging:

Independent organizations and relatively independent from environment

Conflicting organizational cultures: collegiums, political, organized anarchy, bureaucracy

Core values: complex: academic freedom, shared governance, belief in access, value in specialization

Authority structures: reliance on referent and expert power rather than coercion, rewards

Loosely coupled: limited linkage between programs, change tends to be local, improvisational, slow

Theories of Change: Striving for PrestigeTheories of Change: Striving for Prestige*Institutional types: prestige, prestige-seeking, reputation-

buildingForces compelling striving: competition, scarce resources,

environment, seeking legitimacy through mimicry, academic reward systems, disciplinary ties more important than institutional commitments

Effects: students (contact with, climate, engagement, who’s admitted), faculty (teaching load, satisfaction, time on research v. institutional activities, work-life climate, emphasis on “stars”), mission (less on teaching, service, governance), resource allocation (PR, amenities, admin.)

*O’Meara, “Striving for What? Exploring the Pursuit of Prestige,” in Higher Education: Handbook of Theory & Research (Vol. XXII, 2007, John Smart, ed.)

Change: Some Take AwaysChange: Some Take AwaysBe aware of your own premises/assumptionsWork with evidence and communicate itHave a reason, share it, remember itRecognize the complexity: no simple formulaAppreciate the interplay of individual and

institutional dimensions of changeRemember that it’s a journey, not an endpoint

ContextPremisesFindingsSimplicity, Complexity and Missing Pieces

Carnegie Foundation: ContextCarnegie Foundation: ContextHistory: Flexner Report and others in early 20th

century (www.carnegiefoundation.org) Present: Program on Preparation for the

ProfessionsTeaching and learning practicesIn diverse arenas: clergy, law, engineering, nursing,

medicineWith focus on connection between education and the

professions in the world at largeProviding mirrors and windows with both “insider” and

“outsider” perspectives

Cross-Professions Framework (1)Cross-Professions Framework (1) Defining Professions & Goals of Professional

Education– Fundamental knowledge & skills (academic base) – Capacity to make decisions under conditions of

uncertainty– Capacity to engage in complex practice– Capacity to learn from experience– Ability to create and participate in responsible

professional community– Ability and willingness to provide public service

Cross-Professions Framework (2)Cross-Professions Framework (2)Three “apprenticeships” and “professional formation”

Cognitive/knowledgeSkill/practiceIdentity/purposeBut “professional formation” is more than sum of these parts

“Signature pedagogies”: the power of teaching– characteristic approaches: visible, accountable, widespread– where theory/practice align– Surface, deep, tacit structure; but shadow

“Learning sciences”*: the power of learning– Novices to experts in contextualized settings– Tacit learning through observation, imitation, experiences– Thinking “like an apprentice” different from “like a student”*Bransford et al., How People Learn (2000) (National Academies

Press)

Key Observations: Law SchoolsKey Observations: Law Schools Provide rapid socialization into standards of legal

thinking (epistemology & construction of knowledge)

Rely heavily on one way of teaching to accomplish the socialization process

Use the case-dialogue method which has real strengths but unintended consequences

Are underdeveloped with regard to the apprenticeship of practice and the apprenticeship of identity and purpose

Are underdeveloped in assessment Approach improvement incrementally not

comprehensively

CFAT Recommendations: Integration as KeyCFAT Recommendations: Integration as Key Recognize a common purpose: formation of legal

professionals Operationalize that purpose

Offer an integrated curriculum Join “lawyering,” professionalism & legal analysis

from the start Weave together disparate kinds of knowledge &

skills Make better use of second and third years Make better use of assessment

Support faculty to work across the curriculum Work together within and across institutions

Carnegie, Simplicity & ComplexityCarnegie, Simplicity & ComplexityPower of Simplicity:

Deep insights from across fields and links between academy and profession

Deep insights from focusing on learning and teaching, opening the way for faculty to reassess

Opening the way for exploration, and re-examination in a way that should be relatively unthreatening….

Questions for Discussion (for example)Questions for Discussion (for example)Do the characteristics of professions ring true?Should legal educators prepare students for the

profession(s)? What challenges arise?Do the “three apprenticeships” ring true?What are the implications of the case-dialogue

method as “signature pedagogy”Is law school about developing expertise? If so,

expertise of what sort?

Risks of Simplicity in the Face of ComplexityRisks of Simplicity in the Face of ComplexityLimited “theory of change”Limited understanding of institutional realities

and differencesNo “user manual” for bringing about change

BUT… that’s where you come in…

Your Thoughts?Your Thoughts?Observations?Critiques?Questions?

Personal ObservationsResearch InsightsYour thoughts

Tips for Change-Makers1. Know your context: qualitative, quantitative

Your personal assumptions, blind spots, hopes Traditional narratives, sources of pride Faculty beliefs and experiences Student characteristics Expectations: profession and university External forces: e.g. competitors Past experiences with change Imperatives for changeImperatives for change

Tips for Change-Markers2. Build shared knowledge

What are faculty currently doing with classes? What frustrations do they currently have (may be an

imperative for change) What would they want to do if given the chance (e.g.

mid-life transitions, changing scholarship)? What are innovative possibilities happening elsewhere

(may need to bring in first-hand speakers with experience?)

Make space and time for conversations

Tips for Change-MakersTips for Change-Makers3. Give small collaborative clusters real questions

and ask for meaningful answers: What’s the point of the second year v. third year? How might “partnering” strategies be used to introduce

targeted skills training in range of courses? What options are there be for “modular” or “inter-session”

short courses? How do leading practitioners, key faculty and students see

the needs for education in a given substantive areas

Tips for Change-MakersTips for Change-Makers4. Use “systems thinking” to develop creative

answers: Do students with analytical and writing problems

know how to read? Could students taking ethics in a given semester be

given the option of a two unit supplemental course involving pro bono work to strengthen sense of identity and professional values?

Can problems with progression in student learning be addressed by new (non-faculty) forms of advising and optional “professional portfolio” awards?

Tips for Change-MakersTips for Change-Makers5. Keep your eyes on the prize

Take objections at face value, try to draw out and really understand the bases for disagreements

Foster alliances across many sectors (including students and staff)

Develop facilitation skills so you know how to deal with conflict smoothly

Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good; and remember that most of the time, it’s not “all or nothing”

Make peer contacts to help you learn and share

Tips for Change-Makers: Research Tips for Change-Makers: Research SuggestsSuggests*Promote organizational self-discoveryAttend to organizational culture and institutional typeBe aware of politicsLay groundworkUse interaction to develop new mental modelsArticulate and retain core characteristicsConnect change process to individual and institutional

beliefs*Kezar (supra)

Tips for Change-MakersTips for Change-MakersYour tips?Your doubts?Your questions?Your hopes?

Thanks and Good LuckThanks and Good LuckPlease keep me posted on your efforts!

Judith Wegner (judith_wegner@unc.edu)

UNC School of Law, CB 3380, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3380

(919) 962-4113