警惕而不警惕:回应帕克对法律福利奖学金的批评

IF 0.7 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Legal Education Review Pub Date : 2019-03-14 DOI:10.53300/001c.7672
C. Carroll
{"title":"警惕而不警惕:回应帕克对法律福利奖学金的批评","authors":"C. Carroll","doi":"10.53300/001c.7672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the wellbeing of law students. In Australia, empirical research has consistently indicated that law students experience elevated levels of psychological distress. Christine Parker has critiqued wellbeing scholarship, questioning empirical research methodologies, reporting style and data analysis. She contends that wellbeing scholars are facilitating a 'moral panic'. Her concern is that wellbeing is being individualised to the extent that important social, political and economic problems are being ignored. Consequently, she proposes that traditional legal ethics discourse, and the concept of 'sociological imagination', offer potential as universal wellbeing interventions.\n\nThis article contends that Parker has misinterpreted the position of wellbeing scholars. It argues that wellbeing scholars operate according to a more complex conceptual framework than she suggests. It proposes that Parker’s exploration of the empirical evidence is incomplete, and that her criticism of the research methodologies is unjustified. It suggests that theories regarding the cause of law student psychological distress are most potent when regarded as additive. It proposes that both wellbeing scholars and legal ethics scholars should explicitly promote a conception of a lawyer who is both psychologically healthy and supported by a community directed towards a meaningful public purpose.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alert but not Alarmed: A Response to Parker’s Critique of Wellbeing Scholarship in Law\",\"authors\":\"C. Carroll\",\"doi\":\"10.53300/001c.7672\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article explores the wellbeing of law students. In Australia, empirical research has consistently indicated that law students experience elevated levels of psychological distress. Christine Parker has critiqued wellbeing scholarship, questioning empirical research methodologies, reporting style and data analysis. She contends that wellbeing scholars are facilitating a 'moral panic'. Her concern is that wellbeing is being individualised to the extent that important social, political and economic problems are being ignored. Consequently, she proposes that traditional legal ethics discourse, and the concept of 'sociological imagination', offer potential as universal wellbeing interventions.\\n\\nThis article contends that Parker has misinterpreted the position of wellbeing scholars. It argues that wellbeing scholars operate according to a more complex conceptual framework than she suggests. It proposes that Parker’s exploration of the empirical evidence is incomplete, and that her criticism of the research methodologies is unjustified. It suggests that theories regarding the cause of law student psychological distress are most potent when regarded as additive. It proposes that both wellbeing scholars and legal ethics scholars should explicitly promote a conception of a lawyer who is both psychologically healthy and supported by a community directed towards a meaningful public purpose.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal Education Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legal Education Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.7672\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Education Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.7672","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章探讨了法律专业学生的福利。在澳大利亚,实证研究一致表明,法律系学生的心理困扰程度较高。克里斯汀·帕克(Christine Parker)批评了福利学术,质疑实证研究方法、报告风格和数据分析。她认为,福利学者正在助长一种“道德恐慌”。她担心的是,幸福感正在被个人化,以至于重要的社会、政治和经济问题被忽视。因此,她提出,传统的法律伦理话语和“社会学想象”的概念,提供了作为普遍福祉干预的潜力。这篇文章认为,帕克误解了福利学者的立场。它认为,幸福学者根据一个比她所建议的更复杂的概念框架来运作。它提出帕克对经验证据的探索是不完整的,她对研究方法的批评是不合理的。这表明,有关法律专业学生心理困扰原因的理论在被视为附加因素时是最有效的。它建议,福利学者和法律伦理学者都应该明确提倡一种概念,即律师既心理健康,又得到社区的支持,以实现有意义的公共目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Alert but not Alarmed: A Response to Parker’s Critique of Wellbeing Scholarship in Law
This article explores the wellbeing of law students. In Australia, empirical research has consistently indicated that law students experience elevated levels of psychological distress. Christine Parker has critiqued wellbeing scholarship, questioning empirical research methodologies, reporting style and data analysis. She contends that wellbeing scholars are facilitating a 'moral panic'. Her concern is that wellbeing is being individualised to the extent that important social, political and economic problems are being ignored. Consequently, she proposes that traditional legal ethics discourse, and the concept of 'sociological imagination', offer potential as universal wellbeing interventions. This article contends that Parker has misinterpreted the position of wellbeing scholars. It argues that wellbeing scholars operate according to a more complex conceptual framework than she suggests. It proposes that Parker’s exploration of the empirical evidence is incomplete, and that her criticism of the research methodologies is unjustified. It suggests that theories regarding the cause of law student psychological distress are most potent when regarded as additive. It proposes that both wellbeing scholars and legal ethics scholars should explicitly promote a conception of a lawyer who is both psychologically healthy and supported by a community directed towards a meaningful public purpose.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Legal Education Review
Legal Education Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
66.70%
发文量
7
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Computing Legal Analysis: A Guided Approach to Problem Solving in Contract Law Keep it Real: The Case for Introducing Authentic Tasks in the Undergraduate Law Degree Student Evaluations of Teaching: Understanding Limitations and Advocating for a Gold Standard for Measuring Teaching Effectiveness Trial Advocacy and Nitojutsu Legal Clinical Education in China: A Literature Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1