Bashi, S; Iskander, M --- "Methodology Matters" [2004] LegEdDig 41; (2004) 13(1) Legal Education Digest 11

Methodology Matters

S Bashi & M Iskander

[2004] LegEdDig 41; (2004) 13(1) Legal Education Digest 11

53 J Legal Educ 4, 2003, pp 505–514

The author’s class at Yale Law School, the class of 2003, was the first to include more women than men, consistent with a national trend toward numerical parity between female and male JD students. When they began law school, their female and male classmates appeared to be similarly and impressively credentialled, and they assumed that all would compete on an equal footing.

The equality of numbers made these differences all the more unexpected. Women’s demands for access to law school have been fulfilled – but what happens once they arrive? A number of scholars have designed studies to investigate this question. They have found that, on average, women speak less in class, receive lower grades, are less likely to participate in traditionally prestigious student activities, and feel a greater sense of alienation from law school.

In this essay the authors propose a model for studying gender questions in law schools. They focus specifically on how to ask those questions in a climate where faculty and students are mostly well meaning and generally committed to equality. Some differences in the way female and male students experience law school and are treated by faculty are subtle, and they require the insights of study participants to uncover and understand. At the same time, objective data about student credentials, performance, and participation in law school are necessary to ground respondents’ perceptions in fact and call to their attention dynamics they would otherwise fail to see or acknowledge.

The authors begin with a description of the research design for the Yale Law School study, discussing the elements that helped facilitate an open, candid discussion among faculty and students. In a separate article in progress, they move from the role of data collectors to data analysers to interpret the findings and to discuss their implications for legal education. The present essay is confined to discussing how the data were collected and used as a catalyst for conversations and change.

The study had three major components: (1) open-ended interviews with faculty, conducted by students; (2) class participation assessment in which observers recorded the gender of students who spoke in class; (3) an online questionnaire in which students responded to multiple-choice and open-ended questions about their interactions with faculty inside and outside the classroom.

The project focused on faculty-student relations because, in a small, informal setting like Yale Law School, those relationships can form a significant part of a student’s education and may enhance professional opportunities.

The authors consulted previous research on gender questions at Yale Law School. Nearly 80 students interviewed faculty, recorded class participation by gender, and compiled student responses to the online questionnaire. They chose to start by interviewing members of the faculty, in recognition of the power that faculty hold in determining the character of a law school.

The questions had no predetermined answers. Other questions addressed class participation, mentoring, and letters of recommendation. Interviewers also solicited ideas about how teachers and students could improve these dynamics. Following each interview, the students sent their typed notes to interviewees, so that they might correct any inaccuracies.

To supplement and provide context for respondents’ perceptions about class dynamics, student observers collected data on class participation over a two-week period. Most of the data collection took place before the faculty interviews. All observers were enrolled in the classes they assessed. The final data were subjected to regression analysis to assess the impact on the relative male/female participation rates of factors like class size, gender of the teacher, and overall level of student participation.

The observations provided context for participants and perceptions about what took place in the classroom. They also provided faculty with information about what was taking place in their own classrooms. The observation component was limited in scope.

Students were asked to complete a Web-based questionnaire consisting of 36 questions — some multiple-choice, some open-ended — exploring issues similar to those raised in the faculty interviews. Making the student response available online facilitated access by allowing students to fill it out at any time during a two-week window. The question asked about faculty-student relations overall, not just gender.

Using this model to study gender questions has several advantages. Comprehensive data collection uncovered subtle but important dynamics that might not have surfaced in a study focused solely on differences in objective performance between female and male students. The process of asking and answering questions about faculty-student relations led some teachers and students to realise their roles in shaping certain kinds of interactions and to change their behaviour, even before recommendations were formulated.

A small but growing number of scholars have devoted particular attention to the way research on gender in law school should be designed. This methodology is effective because so many different sources of data inform and enrich the findings. Those data lend legitimacy to ensuing interpretations and recommendations that are by nature more subjective.

The methodology solicited four sets of recommendations to improve faculty-student interactions: faculty recommendations to their colleagues, faculty recommendations to students, student recommendations to faculty, and student recommendations to their peers. The study thus created a mechanism for exchange. Faculty benefited from learning of their colleagues’ best teaching practices; students learned what faculty considered to be appropriate ways for students to approach them outside class; and faculty discovered that students preferred a managed form of class participation, even if it required students to spend more time preparing for class.

The study identified two obstacles that aspiring female academics face: their lack of understanding about how to enter the teaching market, and a lack of guidance or mentoring from faculty. Yale Law Women established a workshop in which female students present papers to faculty and to their peers for feedback in a forum mimicking the job talk that an aspiring academic gives as part of the interview process for a faculty position. During the workshop, faculty share advice on how to find a job in legal academia. Another faculty-student workshop offers tips to students about writing and publishing articles. These programs connect students to faculty who can offer specific feedback and guidance in their fields of interest. They create a space for female students to present themselves frankly as being interested in academia by discussing their scholarship with faculty members.

This article describes a model that can facilitate open candid dialogue leading to real change. The principles are general; the specific design will vary with the needs and peculiarities of each institution. It is time to include more voices in this conversation by bringing it into the hallways of laws schools.