Skip to main content

Changing the Narrative About Legal Research

I attended an interesting talk by a colleague and friend recently that has me thinking about re-writing narratives. Specifically, I've been considering how to re-write the narrative about the importance of legal research in legal education.

Legal research instruction has long taken a back seat in the legal academy.  It's even been described as the "stepchild in legal education."[1] As a skills course, it's traditionally been considered of less import than doctrinal courses, though thankfully this seems to be improving. Even within the first years skill course, the dedicated time for students to learn legal research, research often takes a backseat in time and emphasis to legal writing and oral arguments, despite being the foundation needed to be successful at both. This happens despite those hiring new attorneys commenting regularly about their discontent with students' research skills.

It's unlikely in most cases that more time is going to be formally allotted to legal research instruction. At many law schools, students have the opportunity to take advantage of an advanced or subject-specialty research course or to participate in a non-credit research certificate program. But in an already packed curriculum, many students are unable to take advantage of these options--even if they are on the bandwagon that research is a critical skill.

But what do we do about those students who come in with the perception that legal research is not a skill they need or at least want to spend time learning? Or who believe research is lesser than their doctrinal courses?  We need to figure out to reach them in the time we do have.

There are a few different misconceptions of legal research that seem common:
  • Legal research is easy.

    This is perhaps one of the easier misconceptions to overcome. Instructors can hand out a diagnostic on day one testing many of the skills the students will be learning over the course of the year and let the students see how they fare. If you don't want to take this approach--as it can also lead to overwhelmed or frustrated students (not an ideal situation for the first day of class), I find an upfront conversation about some of the similarities and differences to the research students may have encountered before may be helpful. I emphasize that the finding of sources can vary in its difficulty, the challenge of legal research is tying the gathering of sources with the analysis that is intrinsic to legal research. Students must be able do the analysis while they are locating relevant sources. We can help change the narrative by making research less about the bibliographic skills and more about analytical thinking. It ties research to what they are learning in their doctrinal classes.
  • Legal research is boring. 

    Students often enter our legal research classes believing that research is a humdrum activity that they have to survive to get to the interesting parts of lawyering. There are a few ways to help overcome this. First, use interesting hypotheticals as the prompt to your research questions. Even when you are first teaching certain concrete skills, for example, using an index to find a statute by subject, you can still wrap it up in a fun bow by choosing something from the recent news or from popular culture as the context for the problem. Second, we should re-frame research as a problem-solving endeavor; by talking about research as an active, investigative process, we can move away from the image of research as a passive task.
  • Legal research is unimportant.

    This is probably the most dangerous of the three misconceptions, but the one I believe re-framing the narrative can most help us to overcome. Students can receive this faulty message in a lot of ways. They can receive it implicitly in an LRW course because the emphasis in the first few weeks of class is on legal analysis and writing, sometimes with little mention of research. They can receive it because a doctrinal faculty member minimizes the importance of research. They can receive it because it's a librarian--not a "real" faculty member--teaching them research. They can receive it because LRW is pass-fail or only three credits compared to their four-credit doctrinal classes that semester. And so on.

    I used to try to fight back against this narrative using statistics--telling students that studies show that approximately 35% of their time in the first few years of practice will be spent conducting legal research. (Okay, I still tell them this--it's a third of their time! But I'm adding other tools to my arsenal, too.) The fact is, to take this back to my colleague's recent talk, statistics and facts don't usually do a very good job of reaching constituencies (see: climate change). In the last few days, I've made a more concerted effort to present new narratives--stories about how students from last year's class came back and said that all they did that summer was research, stories from students in our Excellence in Legal Research who returned from their internship to report that their research skills far surpassed their fellow interns, stories from students whose judges complimented them on how strong their research skills are. If you're lucky, those former students will even come share their stories with your class or write you a testimonial about their summer experiences.

    I tell them that they too can be legal research rock stars and that this is my mission for the semester--to help each one of them become confident, strong legal researchers so they can impress their summer employer, too. Legal research is no longer boring, or easy, or unimportant--it's a critical skill that can make them stand out from the masses of law students trying to get hired, and that's like catnip to law students.


[1] Robert C. Berring, A Sort of Response: Brutal Non-Choice, 4 Perspectives: Teaching Legal Res. & Writing 81, 81 (1996).

Popular posts from this blog

Letter to A First-Time (Legal Research) Instructor

Dear Friend,

Seven years ago this week, I was prepping madly to teach my first legal research class.  Three months earlier, I'd been a law student myself.  To say that I was nervous is an understatement; mildly terrified was probably a more apt description.  The truth is I didn't really know what I was getting myself into, but I knew that I wanted to teach legal research differently than I had been taught legal research, where at best it was viewed as a skill less important than everything else being taught at law school and at worst an afterthought, a skill that students should be able to do with very little training. 

There are many points I wish I knew then that I know now and that's what I want to share with you today. 


First and foremost, students will forgive many imperfections in the classroom if they know you care about their learning.  At the start of every semester, I re-read Kent Syverud's "Taking Students Seriously: A Guide for New Law Teachers,"…

16x16 Challenge, or How A Tweet Resulted in Building a Community of Law Librarians Thinking & Writing About Teaching

Twitter is a space in which I've made connections with so many Law Librarians and many others within legal academia--and strengthened connections with others--and learned so much from and been inspired by colleagues across the country.

This past weekend, Emily Barney, Technology Training & Marketing Librarian at Chicago-Kent College of Law, was live-tweeting a panel from the WP Campus (Where WordPress Meets Higher Education) Conference called "The Infamous 9x9x25 Challenge," by Todd Conaway, from the University of Washington--Bothell. Started in 2013 at a community college in Arizona, faculty members were challenged to write 25 sentences a week for 9 weeks about teaching and learning. It gave faculty members the chance to reflect on what they do, share experiences and ideas, and see what their colleagues are up to over the course of the semester. And the challenge has spread in various iterations to college campuses across the United States.

This seemed like a wonder…

Why Experts Can Struggle to Teach Novices

This week in our Slack group on teaching, there was an interesting discussion about expertise and the amount of time needed to prep for instruction. I mentioned something that I recalled reading: that experts can be less effective in teaching novices because often the expert skips cognitive steps that the novice learner needs to understand.  I thought I'd dig into this a little more today on the blog.

The fact is novices and experts learn very differently.  The major reason for this is that experts not only know a lot about their chosen discipline, but they understand how that discipline is organized. As such, what has a clear structure to the expert is a jumbled set of unorganized information to the novice.  The information presented to novices "are more or less random data points."[1]  In contrast, when the expert learns something new in her area of expertise, she just plugs it into the knowledge structure that already exists in her long-term memory. Because the new in…

Rethinking Formative Assessment

We've seen an increased significance placed on formative assessment in the legal academy. Standard 314 of the ABA Standards requires that law schools use both formative and summative assessment methods in their curriculum. Its rational for doing so is "to measure and improve student learning and provide meaningful feedback to students." The ABA defines formative assessment methods as "measurements at different points during a particular course or at different points over the span of a student's education that provide meaningful feedback to improve student learning."

Those of us in the legal research instruction business are no strangers to formative assessment. We are leaders in this in the law school curriculum, with rarely a class going by in which students do not practice their skills. Lately, though, I've been wondering whether I'm going about formative assessment in the way that will best provide meaningful feedback to students. In the mandator…

Elaborative Interrogation in the Legal Research Classroom

One type of activity legal skills professors can incorporate into their classrooms is elaboration. As described by Yana Weinstein and Megan Sumeracki in Understanding How We Learn: A Visual Guide, "[e]laboration describes the process of adding features to one's memories."[1]  It helps with organization of information within the knowledge structures in one's minds, making it easier to retrieve this information later. But what activities will help students to add features to their memories?

Weinstein and Sumeracki recommend three elaboration techniques that can all be applied to the legal research classroom: elaborative interrogation, concrete examples, and dual coding.[2] Studies of each has shown improvement in student learning and long-term retention. Today, we're going to look specifically elaborative interrogation.

With elaborative interrogation, students ask themselves questions about the reason and way things work.[3]  While it's easy to presume law stud…