Flexible Pedagogies for Inclusive Learning: Balancing Pliancy and Structure and Cultivating Cultures of Care

In this essay, I reflect on flexibility as a concept and as a practice that has informed my teaching, in particular since adapting to online library instruction in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and how flexible pedagogy principles and practices can be catalysts for reflective and inclusive teaching and a culture of care in all teaching contexts

The And Article: Collage as research method

In the first edition of Qualitative Research Handbook, Denzin and Lincoln suggest an immediate future for qualitative research that is very akin to collage. This article begins by examining a seminal early collage work of art by Kurt Schwitters (1919) and ends with a critical account of an example of the author’s own meta-collage (de Rijke, 2023) as a means of exploring the model of collage as both an artform and a research practice. Claims for collage’s potential for rich data generation and collection plus situated, iterative, critical practice with inclusive, interdisciplinary cultural critique are made, as with that of bringing the ‘unthought known’ (Bollas, 1981) via metaphor to the surface for opening up qualitative, arts-based methods to meet the new demands of future research

Without Precedent: Legal Analysis in the Age of Non-Judicial Dispute Resolution

For more than a century, the American system of legal education has predominantly emphasized the role of cases and judge-made law, but with the understanding that the craft of the lawmaking judge is constrained by the doctrine of stare decisis. This case-oriented approach to teaching law extends to statutes: students learn of the role of courts in interpreting and explaining statutes, making judicial construction of statutes part-and-parcel of statutory law. Thus, pervading the formative first year of law school is the assumption that the role of lawyers is principally to analyze what courts have done in the past in order to predict what stare decisis-constrained courts will likely do in the future. Even outside of pure common law, statutory interpretation is principally a judicial function. This article describes the extent to which these assumptions are incorrect and suggests steps that we in law teaching should take to adapt our classroom approach accordingly. Two areas best illustrate the growing falsity of these assumptions about stare decisis and statutory interpretation that law students are taught in their first year of law school. The first such area is when administrative agencies engage in non-judicial adjudication of cases and promulgating regulations. The second area is that in which contracting parties have their disputes determined by an arbitrator instead of a judge. The government agency and private arbitrator have one thing in common: the broad swath of their interpretations and applications of prior law tends to be unassailable and will likely be the last word on the matter, even if their actions are at gross variance with what a court would have been obligated to do as a matter of law. Our teaching of legal analysis should better reflect this reality of law practice. In a sense, practitioners today are likely to appear before some judge who will grapple with fixed statutes but who is not necessarily bound by stare decisis. Put another way, many cases now should be approached by prudent practitioners as though they are questions of first impression, even when they are not. Part II of this article considers the ubiquitous role of stare decisis as an underlying paradigm in the first year of law school, with a particular focus on the interrelation of that common law doctrine and statutory interpretation. Next, Part III describes the increasing displacement of stare decisis as a controlling limitation in American law, most notably in administrative law and arbitration. Part IV evaluates the value of the traditional judicial framework for legal instruction in light of its substantial inaccuracy, concluding that stare decisis must remain prominent but that changing realities of law practice require it to play a lesser role. Our students must learn the ability to think outside the stare decisis box while maintaining the ability to be constrained by it. This article concludes that the precedent-oriented methodology we typically employ for teaching legal analysis in first-year courses—especially in the first-year legal writing course—is, despite being well-meaning and pedagogically sound, increasingly dishonest. Stepping away from the myopic focus on stare decisis and incorporating a more robust concept of non-judicial statutory interpretation into our first-year courses are ultimately the best remedies for this problem

2015 Program

A university is more than an amalgamation of several colleges. It also is an organization which celebrates the full richness of faculty contributions including those vital and exciting contributions in research, scholarship and creative activity within their disciplines. These contributions come in many forms: journal articles, book chapters, monographs, art works, music compositions, performances of many varieties and a host of others. Funded research contributions are similarly varied. Through such activities, faculty members stay at the growing edges of their fields, and in so doing, they enrich their intellectual lives as well as those of their students. Once again, I invite each participant at this event today to browse the contributions of your colleagues, ask questions, and celebrate the intellectual vitality of our university community. Each year as this event grows and widens its reach and audience, it continues to inspire and impress me. I am sure it will do the same for you. Provost Dr. Blair Lordhttps://thekeep.eiu.edu/scholars_programs/1002/thumbnail.jp

Faculty Publications and Creative Works 1998

One of the ways in which we recognize our faculty at the University of New Mexico is through Faculty Publications & Creative Works. An annual publication, it highlights our faculty\u27s scholarly and creative activities and achievements and serves as a compendium of UNM faculty efforts during the 1998 calendar year. Faculty Publications & Creative Works strives to illustrate the depth and breadth of research activities performed throughout our University\u27s laboratories, studios and classrooms. We believe that the communication of individual research is a significant method of sharing concepts and thoughts and ultimately inspiring the birth of new ideas. In support of this, UNM faculty during 1998 produced over 2,457 works, including 1,990 scholarly papers and articles, 69 books, 98 book chapters, 119 reviews, 165 creative works and 16 patents. We are proud of the accomplishments of our faculty which are in part reflected in this book, which illustrates the diversity of intellectual pursuits in support of research and education at the University of New Mexico. Nasir Ahmed, Ph.D. Interim Associate Provost for Research and Dean of Graduate Studie

Without Precedent: Legal Analysis in the Age of Non-Judicial Dispute Resolution

For more than a century, the American system of legal education has predominantly emphasized the role of cases and judge-made law, but with the understanding that the craft of the lawmaking judge is constrained by the doctrine of stare decisis. This case-oriented approach to teaching law extends to statutes: students learn of the role of courts in interpreting and explaining statutes, making judicial construction of statutes part-and-parcel of statutory law. Thus, pervading the formative first year of law school is the assumption that the role of lawyers is principally to analyze what courts have done in the past in order to predict what stare decisis-constrained courts will likely do in the future. Even outside of pure common law, statutory interpretation is principally a judicial function. This article describes the extent to which these assumptions are incorrect and suggests steps that we in law teaching should take to adapt our classroom approach accordingly. Two areas best illustrate the growing falsity of these assumptions about stare decisis and statutory interpretation that law students are taught in their first year of law school. The first such area is when administrative agencies engage in non-judicial adjudication of cases and promulgating regulations. The second area is that in which contracting parties have their disputes determined by an arbitrator instead of a judge. The government agency and private arbitrator have one thing in common: the broad swath of their interpretations and applications of prior law tends to be unassailable and will likely be the last word on the matter, even if their actions are at gross variance with what a court would have been obligated to do as a matter of law. Our teaching of legal analysis should better reflect this reality of law practice. In a sense, practitioners today are likely to appear before some judge who will grapple with fixed statutes but who is not necessarily bound by stare decisis. Put another way, many cases now should be approached by prudent practitioners as though they are questions of first impression, even when they are not. Part II of this article considers the ubiquitous role of stare decisis as an underlying paradigm in the first year of law school, with a particular focus on the interrelation of that common law doctrine and statutory interpretation. Next, Part III describes the increasing displacement of stare decisis as a controlling limitation in American law, most notably in administrative law and arbitration. Part IV evaluates the value of the traditional judicial framework for legal instruction in light of its substantial inaccuracy, concluding that stare decisis must remain prominent but that changing realities of law practice require it to play a lesser role. Our students must learn the ability to think outside the stare decisis box while maintaining the ability to be constrained by it. This article concludes that the precedent-oriented methodology we typically employ for teaching legal analysis in first-year courses—especially in the first-year legal writing course—is, despite being well-meaning and pedagogically sound, increasingly dishonest. Stepping away from the myopic focus on stare decisis and incorporating a more robust concept of non-judicial statutory interpretation into our first-year courses are ultimately the best remedies for this problem

Creating Knowledge, volume 7, 2014

Dear Students, Faculty Colleagues and Friends, It is my great pleasure to introduce the seventh volume of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences’ Creating Knowledge—our undergraduate student scholarship and research journal. First published in 2008, the journal is the outcome of an initiative to enhance and enrich the academic quality of the student experience within the college. Through this publication, the college seeks to encourage students to become actively engaged in creating scholarship and research and gives them a venue for the publication of their essays. Beginning with the sixth volume of the journal, we instituted a major change in the manner in which the papers for the journal were selected for inclusion and a decision about the best way to more fully represent the considerable breadth of subject matter that reflect the many different departments and programs that we have in the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. Each major undergraduate department and program was challenged to develop a system whereby the single best scholarly essay written by a student during the academic year would be decided by faculty within that academic unit and awarded a publication slot in the current annual issue. This necessitated the cooperation and hard work of many within the undergraduate units in our college. The resulting collection of papers representing the efforts of our best students and the collaboration of faculty reviewers in 20 of our programs is certainly ample testimony to not only the creativity, hard work and sophistication of our undergraduate scholars, but of the dedication of our programs to the quality of the educational experiences and opportunities offered by them to students. It is through the continuing annual publication of this undergraduate student journal that we aim to underscore that leadership within their disciplines requires students to not only be familiar with the knowledge base of the discipline, but also to have the experience of being actively engaged in sustaining an intellectual community—understanding how their creative work and the work of others also depends on its dissemination and on the sharing of that knowledge within a community of scholars. I want to congratulate, first and foremost, the many student scholars whose work is featured in this seventh volume of the journal. They truly represent the best of the best. I also want to thank the faculty who served to make this publication possible—those who served on the editorial committees in each department and program that had the difficult task of selecting the best submissions their respective programs could make for this edition of the journal. I want to particularly thank Warren Schultz, PhD, associate dean for Undergraduate Studies, who spearheaded this year’s efforts—no small undertaking. To the students who are featured in this edition, it is my fondest hope that this will lead you to make similar contributions beyond the department and program, the college and DePaul University. To one and all, I extend my most sincere congratulations and gratitude. Chuck Suchar Deanhttps://via.library.depaul.edu/ckgallery/1006/thumbnail.jp

Making Connections: Transforming General Education at the College of St. Benedict and St. John\u27s University

We propose to move from a cafeteria-style general education distribution system that emphasizes the “collection of courses,” to an integrated, purposeful, and reflective general education program that places emphasis on “making connections.” Implementing this vision for general education will require a significant paradigm shift in the way we design and deliver the Common Curriculum. This paradigm shift has at least five different features: First, it implies a shift away from an emphasis on course content to a paradigm that also stresses student learning and the fulfillment of essential learning outcomes. While course content will still be important, this report assumes a shift from “what is taught” to a pedagogy that also includes emphasis on “what is learned” (Gaston 2015, p. 8). Second, the report envisions moving from a general education program where learning goals are delivered in separate, individual courses to a program where courses are scaffolded in a developmentally appropriate sequence, assuring that students encounter, practice and refine key proficiencies and capabilities in multiple settings and in progressively challenging ways. Third, it suggests rejecting the assumption that the general education program and the major are separate programs. The paradigm assumed in this report emphasizes the integration of the general education program and the major. Students should not perceive general education as something to “get out of the way,” but rather as a foundation of liberal learning that is reinforced by work in a specific discipline. Fourth, this report assumes the need for a shift in the way faculty and departments perceive themselves in relation to other colleagues and disciplines. Instead of working in isolation from other departments and in possible competition with other colleagues, this report envisions faculty working collaboratively to create thematic course clusters that allow students to address significant problems from a variety of interdisciplinary perspectives. Finally, this report assumes that a variety of campus and external audiences have a stake in a rigorous, integrative, and coherent program of general education at CSB/SJU. In particular, this report rejects the assumption that the curricular and co-curricular should be viewed as separate entities with unrelated missions and functions. While faculty retain the sole authority to revise the undergraduate curriculum, it must do so in conversation with other key campus stakeholders

Faculty Publications and Creative Works 1997

One of the ways we recognize our faculty at the University of New Mexico is through this annual publication which highlights our faculty\u27s scholarly and creative activities and achievements and serves as a compendium of UNM faculty efforts during the 1997 calendar year. Faculty Publications and Creative Works strives to illustrate the depth and breadth of research activities performed throughout our University\u27s laboratories, studios and classrooms. We believe that the communication of individual research is a significant method of sharing concepts and thoughts and ultimately inspiring the birth of new of ideas. In support of this, UNM faculty during 1997 produced over 2,770 works, including 2,398 scholarly papers and articles, 72 books, 63 book chapters, 82 reviews, 151 creative works and 4 patents. We are proud of the accomplishments of our faculty which are in part reflected in this book, which illustrates the diversity of intellectual pursuits in support of research and education at the University of New Mexico. Nasir Ahmed Interim Associate Provost for Research and Dean of Graduate Studie