Fear and Loathing in Legal Academia: Legal Academics’ Perceptions of Their Field and Their Curious Imaginaries of How ‘Outsiders’ Perceive It
Data publikacji: 29 maj 2020
Zakres stron: 17 - 80
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2020-0006
Słowa kluczowe
© 2020 Nicolette Priaulx et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
j.bjals-2020-0006.tab.004.w2aab3b7b9b1b6b1ab2b1b2b6Aa
| 1 | ||
| What kinds of research markers, outputs and activities do you think are most highly regarded in research prestige terms, for the career and promotional prospects of a legal academic (on a teaching and research, or research only contract)? | ||
| 2 | ||
| Are there any items on this list that you think do not belong here at all (please leave comments if you wish)? | Open Text Box. | |
j.bjals-2020-0006.tab.003.w2aab3b7b9b1b6b1ab2b1b2b5Aa
| 1 | ||
| Please select the frequency that you meet/talk/work with legal academics | Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently | |
| 2 | ||
| In which contexts, if any, have you met/interacted with legal academics (you may select all those that apply)? | Teaching (Joint supervision, joint teaching) Broader citizenship and external engagement activities (advisory boards, Government, Third sector activities etc.) Events largely aimed at academics in my field/discipline (research groups, workshops, conferences) Administrative (e.g. committee meetings, Senate meetings, interview panels, general training) Collaborative Research (e.g. joint publishing, research projects) Multidisciplinary Events aimed at no discipline in particular (e.g. Cardiff Futures, interdisciplinary workshops etc.). Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary Events that are law-specific (law-based workshops, law conferences or network events, with law as a primary focus etc.). Other (please state below). | |
| 3 | ||
| Please make a rough assessment of how many legal academics you know in any of the above contexts. | Box for individuals to provide number of their choice. | |
| 4 | ||
| Please select which of the statements that apply (you may select all those that apply). | I do not use any legal scholarship for my research/teaching I access and read work of legal scholars for my research/teaching I collaborate with legal scholars in the production of research/collaborative teaching I seek advice from legal academics in respect of my work Other [open box] | |
| 5 | ||
| What kinds of publications, markers and activities do you think are likely to be most highly regarded in research prestige terms, for the career and promotion prospects of a legal academic? | ||
| 6 | ||
| What kinds of publications, markers and activities are most highlight regarded in research prestige terms, for | ||
| 7 | ||
| We want to know what kinds of subjects and approaches you believe are likely to describe the research/research approaches of legal academics, and those that you believe would be poor descriptors. Please choose four or more items from the list below and place into the relevant groups. | ||
| 8 | ||
| 9 | ||
| Which statements best describe you (You may select all those that apply)? | ||
j.bjals-2020-0006.tab.002.w2aab3b7b9b1b6b1ab2b1b2b4Aa
| 1 | ||
| Please select the frequency that you meet/talk/work with academics from other disciplines (i.e. non-legal academics) | Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently | |
| 2 | ||
| In which contexts, if any, have you met/interacted with non-legal academics (you may select all those that apply)? | Research (research groups, workshops, conferences, reading groups, research projects) Private (social friendship) Citizenship (advisory boards, multidisciplinary ethics committees etc.) Teaching (joint supervision, joint teaching) Administrative (e.g. University committee meetings etc.) Other (please state) | |
| 3 | ||
| Please make a rough assessment of how many non-legal academics you know in a teaching or research context (e.g. joint supervision/teaching, interaction in research groups, reading groups etc.). | None 1 or 2 3–5 6.–9 10+ | |
| 4 | ||
| If you wish you can expand on the above in the text box below. We are interested in learning more about your interactions with non-legal academics (e.g. are these at Cardiff? Do you collaborate on funded/unfunded projects? How (if at all) does these interactions impact upon your research and teaching? We are also interested in learning about those that collaborate with others outside of academic (e.g. business, external bodies, third sector, government, professional societies, etc.). | Open text box. | |
| 5 | ||
| This question seeks to identify whether you use scholarship from disciplines other than law in your research/teaching. Please select statements that best represent you (you may select all those that apply). | I do not use any non-legal scholarship for my research/teaching I access and read work of non-legal scholars for my research/teaching I collaborate with scholars from other disciplines in the production of research/collaborative teaching I seek advice from non-legal academics in respect of my work Other | |
| 6 | ||
| How would you describe | Open text box. | |
| 7 | ||
| Please indicate, by clicking on the appropriate radio buttons, which of the following pre-attributes you believe best describe law as an academic discipline (you may choose as many as you wish). | Practical, Scientific, Creative, Innovative, Academic, Boring, Fragmented, Modern, Methodological, Vocational, Coherent, Interesting, Unapplied, Unscientific, Reliant on Documents, Empirical, Arcane, Dealing in pure ideas, theoretical, applied, uncreative. | |
| 8 | ||
| The following list of attributes has been given to non-legal academics in order to ascertain how they typify legal academia. Please indicate, by clicking on the appropriate radio buttons, which attributes you think academics from other disciplines would select when asked to describe law as an academic discipline (you may choose up to five attributes). | Practical, Scientific, Creative, Innovative, Academic, Boring, Fragmented, Modern, Methodological, Vocational, Coherent, Interesting, Unapplied, Unscientific, Reliant on Documents, Empirical, Arcane, Dealing in pure ideas, theoretical, applied, uncreative. | |
| 9 | ||
| 13 Personality factors are listed below, each is subdivided into 4 primary personality traits and individual qualities. Please select only 1 primary personality trait per factor that you believe best describes you (You might experience difficulties completing this question, but it has been included for comparative purposes by virtue of an earlier study on academics undertaken in the early 1980s). | ||
| 10 | ||
| Please rate the extent to which you think that the following items constitute research prestige markers (for career, promotion) for legal academics. | ||
| 11 | ||
| Please highlight on sliding scale how much you think these subjects and approaches best describe your research and scholarship. | ||
| 12 | ||
| Please highlight on sliding scale how you think academics from other disciplines would be likely to typify legal research. | ||
| 13 | ||
| How would you describe your approach to research in interdisciplinary terms? (You may select all those that apply) | ||
j.bjals-2020-0006.tab.001.w2aab3b7b9b1b6b1ab2b1b2b3Aa
| 1 | ||
| Please select the frequency that you meet/talk/work with legal academics | Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently | |
| 2 | ||
| In which contexts, if any, have you met/interacted with legal academics (you may select all those that apply)? | Research (research groups, workshops, conferences, reading groups, research projects) Private (social friendship) Citizenship (advisory boards, multidisciplinary ethics committees etc) Teaching (joint supervision, joint teaching) Administrative (e.g. University committee meetings etc) Other (please state) | |
| 3 | ||
| Please make a rough assessment of how many legal academics you know in a teaching or research context (e.g. joint supervision/teaching, interaction in research groups, reading groups etc.). | None 1 or 2 3–5 6.–9 10+ | |
| 4 | ||
| Please select statements below that best represent you (you may select all those that apply) | I do not use any legal scholarship for my research/teaching I access and read work of legal scholars for my research/teaching I collaborate with legal scholars in the production of research/collaborative teaching I seek advice from legal academics in respect of my work Other | |
| 5 | ||
| Please indicate, by clicking on the appropriate radio buttons, which attributes you believe best describe law as an academic discipline (you may choose as many as you wish). | Practical, Scientific, Creative, Innovative, Academic, Boring, Fragmented, Modern, Methodological, Vocational, Coherent, Interesting, Unapplied, Unscientific, Reliant on Documents, Empirical, Arcane, Dealing in pure ideas, theoretical, applied, uncreative. | |
| 6 | ||
| 13 Personality factors are listed below, each is subdivided into 4 primary personality traits and individual qualities. Please select only 1 primary personality trait per factor that you believe best describes legal academics (this may be on the basis of generalising about the legal academics you know, or in the absence of this, what kinds of personality traits you believe legal academics generally possess). | ||
| 7 | ||
| Please rate the extent to which you think that the following items constitute research prestige markers (for career, promotion) for legal academics. | ||
| 8 | ||
| Please highlight on sliding scale how much you think these subjects and approaches best describe the research and research approaches of legal academics. | ||
| 9 | ||
| 10 | ||
| How would you describe your approach to research in interdisciplinary terms? (You may select all those that apply) | ||