From the Ground Up

As a teacher, it’s important to keep trying new things. If you don’t find your lessons fresh and exciting, you’ll have a hard time getting students to engage with them. Usually, this experimentation occurs at the margins, but come this fall, I’ll be ripping up the rulebook and teaching an entirely new version of the 1L Research Methods in Law course that I’ve taught for the past five years.

For the past few semesters, a few of my colleagues have teamed up to teach Research Methods in an innovative, experientially-focused format with a shared curriculum. They designed the format to immerse students into the underrated learning activity of actually doing legal research, using longer (but less frequent) class sessions and shifting all “lecture” content to instructional videos that students watch independently. This allowed my colleagues to devote the entirety of these longer class sessions to realistic legal research “simulations” that students work through with occasional assistance from the instructor.

When I heard about this format, it immediately struck a chord with me. This type of real-time, over-the-shoulder instruction can be incredibly effective, but it can be tough to shoehorn it into my limited class time. Despite the appeal, I had been hesitant to sign up. I’ve put an incredible amount of time and energy into developing a version of the course that is (not to brag) excellent, and the prospect of throwing all of that work in favor of such a different approach is intimidating.

The idea of collaborating with my librarian colleagues really helped to win me over to the experiential format. Whenever I discuss teaching with the other librarians, I get new ideas about how to approach the materials. Plus, we all have blind spots, and these serendipitous conversations have helped me mitigate some of mine. But with all of us teaching our own independently developed curriculums, these discussions are not as common as I would like. Because the team will be moving through the same syllabus in lockstep, we will be able to discuss our experiences after most of the classroom sessions.

The collaboration also extends to the planning process. Switching to this new framework has also given us the chance to rethink the syllabus and materials. This is an especially valuable benefit for Research Methods, since the lower number of credit hours always entails hard choices about what to cover. Accordingly, we have been meeting to plan the syllabus using backwards design, with each of us weighing in on the different skills we want students to have learned at the end of the course. 

This methodology is a particularly good fit for a skills-based course like ours, and I think it’s even more important when experimenting with the course format. I had used backwards design to develop my syllabus when I started teaching RMIL, but I didn’t necessarily apply it with as much rigor when I made tweaks to the materials in the intervening years, resulting in a somewhat less focused course. Revisiting the entire syllabus with my colleagues should result in a set of materials that work well together.

One strength of our approach is that we all bring something different to the table. All of the librarians on the team are at different stages of their career. As a result, some of us are more in tune with how students experience the course, while others are more aware of how the course fits into broader institutional priorities. And although we are all oriented towards teaching practical skills in a hands-on format, our teaching philosophies do sometimes diverge. So far, this diversity has led to productive and illuminating conversations, but it could be an obstacle in some situations. An outcome-focused planning process should mitigate these problems in the long run. If all of the librarians are on the same page about what we are trying to achieve, the means of getting there should be less controversial.

Trauma-Informed Law

Trauma-Informed Law

According to the authors of Trauma-Informed Law: A Primer for Lawyers Resilience and Healing,  “a key concept for trauma-informed lawyering is the shift that has occurred, both in trauma-informed care and in psychological perspectives, which is generally referred to as the shift from “what’s wrong with you?” to “what happened to you?””  

I need to pause here for a moment to take that in and ask, what decade exactly was, “what’s wrong with you?”  a preferred method of interacting with people?  

The book on trauma-informed law is a collection of essays by lawyers, professors, therapists and space holders and offers tools and insights from several perspectives on the practice of trauma-informed law.  

Trauma and Legal Education

As an example of trauma-informed law in legal education, the writer introduces concepts by reminding the reader of the law school standard, The Paper Chase. Do you remember the Paper Chase?  It is a movie about law school where a professor questions a student about a case until the student stress-pukes.  Teaching students in a law school classroom until they puke is one variation of “the Socratic Method,” which is famously applied in law school instruction as a way to teach reasoning and critical thinking skills.  The author used the plot of the Paper Chase as an example of the physical impact of long term stress on law students.  

How is Trauma Defined?

Trauma is a term that can be used too casually today to describe general feelings of stress and anxiety in the population. But to experience trauma is more than stress, it is a deep reaction to events often out of one’s control. Neal Brennan, in his latest comedy special on Netflix, used a definition of trauma for a joke in his monologue, by comparing it to a trend in girls’ algorithm as, “The T word.”  I thought he did a good job of describing trauma and differentiating it from general anxiety or stress.

Apparently, Neal discovered that women on social media platforms are making videos where they talk about their traumatic experiences.  Girl trauma isn’t part of my algorithm, mine is gardening and animals doing cute things, so I have never seen these videos, but I appreciated that Brennan provided a memorable definition of trauma by contrasting it with a social media trend: 

“…ladies, if you can talk about it on social media, probably not trauma! Just letting you know. Trauma’s a physical thing. Physical thing. Not a vibe, a physical thing that happened to you that’s so jarring to your body and spirit that you don’t know how to process it, let alone post about it on social media with captions and music.”

As the comedian describes it, having people announce their Trauma with a capital T when what they experience is stress or anxiety or hurt feelings probably feels similar to cultural appropriation or trauma tourism to those who have experienced and suffered from real trauma. Individuals impacted by a traumatic event may require healing from the experience and sympathy from others. That takes time and compassion, not a camera.  

To Be Trauma-Informed

In the chapter, “legal education and trauma” the author describes trauma and the trauma-informed law school classroom as, “one in which professors and students have a basic understanding of how trauma impacts the body, emotions, and cognition.”  Awareness of the effects of trauma on an individual’s well being can lead to improved communication between lawyer and client, student and teacher.  

Trauma is often baked into lawyering, which is why understanding how trauma might be affecting a client’s ability to communicate without being retraumatized will improve the relationship and outcome for both client and lawyer. 

Is Stress Trauma?

Normal stress is certainly not trauma, and even exposure to high levels of long term stress might not be defined as trauma, but high levels of stress over the long term are harmful both mentally and physically and should be addressed.  

When I worked as a law librarian at a law firm, the first thing I noticed was the stress level of my colleagues.  During high levels of activity, a looming court appearance or a corporate deal, the anxiety was palpable.  Attorneys and their staff often exhibited physical symptoms of distress, from tired, crackling voices, to shouting matches between co-workers. I even heard about an attorney caught sitting in the hallway comfort body rocking.  Was he experiencing stress or something deeper?  I honestly don’t know.  But it made me worry that his coping skills needed addressing. 

The essays on trauma-informed law provide tools for healing trauma, but stress wellness tools can also be employed. These tools can be used by attorneys and for those exposed to stressed individuals. A highly stressed person is like a disease vector and everyone needs down time to rest and re-energize.  I witnessed a lot of empathy burnout when I worked in the firms.  

As an example, I once suggested to a legal assistant, “Your attorney is going to have a heart attack if he keeps that up.  You should learn CPR.”  Her fingers hovered over her keyboard as she said, “But would I use it?”  

I knew then that she needed a break.  I hope she found it. 

Library Karma

Librarians create collective Karma.  It’s what we do. We are places of quiet study, appreciated by students, attorneys and the general public. In the firm, lawyers used to visit me personally to give me an assignment and sometimes told me that they were in my office for a small boost of cheer.  As a natural extension of that cheer, librarians have created some excellent wellness guides. They are ubiquitous in libraries across the country, which suggests to me that everyone is seeking a little peace in this crazy world. 

Research Guides on Wellness:

Home – Law Student Wellness – Research Guides at University of Wisconsin-Madison

Home – Wellness – Guides at University of Michigan Law Library

Law Student Wellness & Life Balance Guide

Student Wellness, Student Services, Student Life: Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Wellness Resources for Law Students: Books

I am also able to share a link to Neal Brennan’s comedy special transcript, you can view his comedy special on Netflix:  https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/comedy/neal-brennan-crazy-good-transcript/#google_vignette

We Are All Subject Matter Experts and Collection Strategists

Are you either a subject matter expert (SME) or a collections strategist? Think for a moment before you say no. First, you might need to think about what these terms mean in relation to what you do. Second, there is the thought that we have set job descriptions without room for growth beyond “other duties as necessary.” I believe that every law librarian is actually both.  Here is my reasoning.

As to being a subject matter specialist, I am currently working with two other AALL colleagues on the AALL Continuing Education Committee’s next web-based class dealing with collection development. There was an application process to be selected as a subject matter expert in this area and help develop the online class. The call for experts touted the experience as allowing SMEs to “contribute substantially to the future of education in law librarianship” and “play an important role in supporting AALL’s mission” among other benefits. Being selected by the committee to serve in this role is exciting and an honor, but after three solid months of working on this project, I have concluded that we are all SMEs of some type based on our positions. The goal of SMEs is to instill in our future students (hopefully some of you readers) the basic knowledge concerning collection development as it relates to law libraries. While our final product is going through reviewing and editing, I believe that we are on the right track to deliver a self-paced course that does justice to the goal. Our experience runs deep on this topic and we are two academic librarians and a government/court librarian who have had a total of over fifty years dealing with collection development of some sort. But this is only a portion of what the three of us do in our daily work lives. The result is the same. We need people to work as collection development librarians in at least a portion of their positions.

My take on being a collections strategist comes from my never-ending fascination with job descriptions. I have seen roles containing the collections strategist in the title becoming more common including two on the same day. They were from Texas A&M and Notre Dame University which are very different types of schools. What happened to the term collection development? The word development doesn’t exist in either job description. While I think they are the same type of job, they are described differently. One wants someone who can “empower users with extensive and diverse collections, deep expertise, and innovative programs.” The other is looking to fill the position with someone who has “the primary responsibility of holistically assessing library collections for their relevance to the university curriculum and research priorities.” In either case, they are positions dealing with collection development. Sometimes the job descriptions are an issue of semantics. The result is the same. We need people to work as collection development librarians.

What does this all mean concerning our work and the approach to it? We are all experts of some sort whether we are called SMEs or strategists or some other currently trending term. Be proud of the expertise you have developed and take advantage of using your knowledge to be successful in your work as a librarian. Seize the opportunity to showcase your skills and be the professional authority that you are. 

For additional reading and information:

https://elearningindustry.com/breaking-into-the-industry-become-a-subject-matter-expert (a detailed article about becoming a collection strategist)

Or

https://www.indeed.com/q-collection-strategist-jobs.html?vjk=3088ae055f86b6b7 (for job postings with collection strategist as part of the position)

Teaching Free and Low-Cost Legal Research

Teaching librarians are routinely tasked with instructing on how to use subscription databases. This is true in both undergraduate and graduate settings, but something I try to keep in mind when I’m teaching legal research is what will my students actually have access to post gradation? 

It’s true that Lexis, Westlaw, and Bloomberg are common tools at this point that students need to be familiar with. Electronic legal research has drastically impacted the landscape of how lawyers work. It is not guaranteed that they will have access to all or even one of these products, however. That’s why teaching librarians often emphasize that students be comfortable with both Lexis and Westlaw at a minimum because we do not know their future employer’s preference. 

For students entering public interest careers or solo practitioner law firms, however, they are even less likely to have access to expensive research databases. Offering law library workshops or instruction sessions specifically on how to proceed when you do not have any access to major databases can thus prove necessary. There are several things a librarian can highlight at a session like this such as:

• How to use Fastcase which lawyers receive access to as of now through state bar associations https://www.fastcase.com/bar-associations/ 
• Using Google Scholar for case law research https://guides.loc.gov/free-case-law/google-scholar
• How to visit a public law library post graduation and what questions would be relevant to ask. For example, in New York public law libraries are listed here https://ww2.nycourts.gov/lawlibraries/publicaccess.shtml
• If there are resources students get through being an alumni of your institution

I enjoy teaching these kinds of sessions because they provide a good opportunity to highlight for students that they can be the future change makers in this space. Legal information is not easily accessible if you are not well resourced. How can the future lawyers we are teaching make legal information more accessible not only for lawyers but for the public broadly? For example, in the recent past lawmakers almost made PACER free https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/no-free-pacer-us-lawmakers-exclude-proposal-spending-bill-2022-12-20/. There are many opportunities for students to get involved in this topic and we are well positioned to empower them to do so. 

I’m Not-Not a Luddite

Brian Merchant, a technology columnist at the LA Times, recently wrote a piece in the Atlantic titled “The New Luddites Aren’t Backing Down,” discussing the historical movement borne during the Industrial Revolution in England and the “New Luddite” movement surging now against what feels like an invincible wave of generative AI. 

His book, Blood in the Machine (2023), goes into greater detail about the history of the Luddites and draws parallels between them and the current tech-driven gig economy. For a quick summary, the popular understanding of Luddites is that they were a group of English textile workers who hated new technology and would destroy these new tools before their livelihoods were destroyed. Luddite is now a derogatory word to describe those opposed to new technology. But in reality, Luddites were not technophobes who irrationally feared and detested new technology. They were highly skilled textile workers who embraced new technology but recognized that the factory owners used the new machines to exploit lower-wage and less-skilled laborers, often children. These factory workers were subjected to longer hours, meager meals, and harsh punishments, while the products produced were cheaper but of much lower quality. 

The Luddites understood that the real beneficiaries of the new technology were not the workers or the consumers, but the owner-class. And so, during a time when labor organizing was illegal, the Luddites organized to destroy the machines of factory owners using the new technology to destroy their livelihoods, but only after giving prior warning to the owners so that they could change their practices. But ultimately, the British government stepped in and forcibly crushed the movement. The central claim of his argument is that individuals possess agency over their lives and that technological advancement is not inevitable. And that “we must consider whether a technology is “hurtful to commonality”–whether it causes many to suffer for the benefit of a few—and oppose it when necessary.” 

And I’m left with more questions than before. As skilled workers, where do law librarians fit in this schema? I can’t help but draw parallels, however imperfect, between librarians and skilled textile workers—like the workers who came before, many librarians also embrace new technologies that can make our work easier and more efficient. And I believe that we do have a professional obligation to continually learn about, if not use, emerging technologies and tools. But at the same time, there are ethical issues to consider as we use these generative AI tools, including the environmental impact, the exploitation of global-south workers, and the perpetuation of built-in biases and the status quo. And we can ask ourselves, is this technology more beneficial or harmful to the commonality? And if it isn’t, what can we do? 

Merchant ends his article on a hopeful note. The Machines are neither necessarily nor inherently an enemy to be fought against. And being a Luddite, now and before, does not mean opposing technology or new ways of working. Rather, it is “a movement seeking to widen the scope of who gets to participate in technological development… to not merely be consumers or users of technology, but shapers.” For my final question: What would we do if we became shapers?