Collaboration: A Crucible for Cultivating Common Understanding in Professional Legal Education

2016 ◽  
pp. 145-164
Author(s):  
Craig Collins ◽  
Suzanne Webbey
Keyword(s):  
Legal Education ◽  
Common Understanding

scholarly journals The Diverging Dictionaries of Science and Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Chin
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Learning Algorithm ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Legal Education ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithm ◽  
Scientific Communities ◽  
Scientific Education ◽  
Scientific Experts ◽  
Common Understanding

Scientific evidence is easily misunderstood. One of the most insidious instances of misunderstanding arises when scientific experts and those receiving their evidence assign different meanings to the same words. We expect scientific evidence to be difficult to understand. What is unexpected, and often far more difficult to detect, is the incorrect understanding of terms and phrases that appear familiar. In these circumstances, misunderstandings easily escape notice. We applied an evidence-based approach to investigating this phenomenon, asking two groups, one with legal education and one with scientific education, to define five commonly-used phrases with both lay and scientific connotations. We hypothesized that the groups would significantly diverge in the definitions they provided. Employing a machine learning algorithm and the ratings of trained coders, we found that lawyers and scientists indeed disagreed over the meanings of certain terms. Notably, we trained a machine learning algorithm to reliably classify the authorship of the definitions as scientific or legal, demonstrating that these groups rely on predictably different lexicons. Our findings have implications for recommending avoidance of some of these particular words and phrases in favour of terminology that promotes common understanding. And methodologically, we suggest a new way for governmental and quasi-governmental bodies to study and thereby prevent misunderstandings between the legal and scientific communities.

The diverging dictionaries of science and law

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-44
Author(s):  
Helena Likwornik ◽  
Jason Chin ◽  
Maya Bielinski
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Learning Algorithm ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Legal Education ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithm ◽  
Scientific Communities ◽  
Scientific Education ◽  
Scientific Experts ◽  
Common Understanding

Scientific evidence is easily misunderstood. One of the most insidious instances of misunderstanding arises when scientific experts and those receiving their evidence assign different meanings to the same words. We expect scientific evidence to be difficult to understand. What is unexpected, and often far more difficult to detect, is the incorrect understanding of terms and phrases that appear familiar. In these circumstances, misunderstandings easily escape notice. We applied an evidence-based approach to investigating this phenomenon, asking two groups, one with legal education and one with scientific education, to define five commonly-used phrases with both lay and scientific connotations. We hypothesised that the groups would significantly diverge in the definitions they provided. Employing a machine learning algorithm and the ratings of trained coders, we found that lawyers and scientists indeed disagreed over the meanings of certain terms. Notably, we trained a machine learning algorithm to reliably classify the authorship of the definitions as scientific or legal, demonstrating that these groups rely on predictably different lexicons. Our findings have implications for recommending avoidance of some of these particular words and phrases in favour of terminology that promotes common understanding. And methodologically, we suggest a new way for governmental and quasi-governmental bodies to study and thereby prevent misunderstandings between the legal and scientific communities.

The Embittered Mind

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 213-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hansjörg Znoj ◽  
Sandra Abegglen ◽  
Ulrike Buchkremer ◽  
Michael Linden
Keyword(s):  
Emotional Reaction ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Roc Curve Analysis ◽  
Confirmatory Factor Analyses ◽  
Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
Different Dimensions ◽  
First Time ◽  
Common Understanding

Abstract. There is a growing interest in embitterment as psychological concept. However, little systematic research has been conducted to characterize this emotional reaction. Still, there is an ongoing debate about the distinctiveness of embitterment and its dimensions. Additionally, a categorical and a dimensional perspective on embitterment have been developed independently over the last decade. The present study investigates the dimensions of embitterment by bringing these two different approaches together, for the first time. The Bern Embitterment Inventory (BEI) was given to 49 patients diagnosed with “Posttraumatic Embitterment Disorder (PTED)” and a matched control group of 49 patients with psychological disorders with other dominant emotional dysregulations. The ability to discriminate between the two groups was assessed by t-tests and Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves (ROC curve analysis). PTED patients scored significantly higher on the BEI than the patients of the control group. ROC analyses indicated diagnostic accuracy of the inventory. Further, we conducted Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) to examine the different dimensions of embitterment and their relations. As a result, we found four characteristic dimensions of embitterment, namely disappointment, lack of acknowledge, pessimism, and misanthropy. In general, our findings showed a common understanding of embitterment as a unique but multidimensional emotional reaction to distressful life-events.

Academic Feud, Bloodfeud, and William Welwood: Legal Education in St Andrews, 1560–1611-Part I

1998 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 158-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W Cairns
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Legal History ◽  
Legal Education ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Culture ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Joint Meeting ◽  
Academic Education

This article, in earlier versions presented as a paper to the Edinburgh Roman Law Group on 10 December 1993 and to the joint meeting of the London Roman Law Group and London Legal History Seminar on 7 February 1997, addresses the puzzle of the end of law teaching in the Scottish universities at the start of the seventeenth century at the very time when there was strong pressure for the advocates of the Scots bar to have an academic education in Civil Law. It demonstrates that the answer is to be found in the life of William Welwood, the last Professor of Law in St Andrews, while making some general points about bloodfeud in Scotland, the legal culture of the sixteenth century, and the implications of this for Scottish legal history. It is in two parts, the second of which will appear in the next issue of the Edinburgh Law Review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document