the road not yet taken: how law student information ... · 605 law library journal vol. 103:4...

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256012114

How Law Student Information Literacy (LSIL) Standards

Address Deficits Identified by the MacCrate Report and the

Carnegie Report, and What They Mean for Legal Re....

Article · December 2010

CITATIONS

0

READS

19

1 author:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bilingual & Multilingual Legal Dictionaries (BLDs) View project

Dennis Kim-Prieto

Rutgers School of Law

6 PUBLICATIONS 13 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dennis Kim-Prieto on 22 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256012114_How_Law_Student_Information_Literacy_LSIL_Standards_Address_Deficits_Identified_by_the_MacCrate_Report_and_the_Carnegie_Report_and_What_They_Mean_for_Legal_Research_Education_Training?enrichId=rgreq-2887fb3a544547a01caa0be6fedea66b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1NjAxMjExNDtBUzo0OTY4MTI4NDAyOTY0NDlAMTQ5NTQ2MDgxOTk2OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Bilingual-Multilingual-Legal-Dictionaries-BLDs?enrichId=rgreq-2887fb3a544547a01caa0be6fedea66b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1NjAxMjExNDtBUzo0OTY4MTI4NDAyOTY0NDlAMTQ5NTQ2MDgxOTk2OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-2887fb3a544547a01caa0be6fedea66b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1NjAxMjExNDtBUzo0OTY4MTI4NDAyOTY0NDlAMTQ5NTQ2MDgxOTk2OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dennis_Kim-Prieto?enrichId=rgreq-2887fb3a544547a01caa0be6fedea66b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1NjAxMjExNDtBUzo0OTY4MTI4NDAyOTY0NDlAMTQ5NTQ2MDgxOTk2OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf




605

LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Vol. 103:4 [2011-37]

The Road Not Yet Taken: How Law Student Information Literacy Standards Address Identified Issues

in Legal Research Education and Training*

Dennis Kim-Prieto**

Legal research education has been slow to adopt information literacy as a framework, despite the demonstrated utility of this framework when applied to library instruction and assessment. This article defines law student information literacy (LSIL), analyzes how LSIL standards address existing and identified deficits in the current state of legal research education, and offers a copy of the draft LSIL standards. The recently approved AALL Law Student Research Competencies and Information Literacy Principles are appended to the article.

WhyLSIL? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606WhatIsInformationLiteracy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607WhatAretheLSILStandards?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609

TheMacCrateandCarnegieReports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611WhatCanBeDonewithLSILStandards? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615

StandardizedAssessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616MeasuringResearchPerformancebyInstitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617AppendixA:LSILStandards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619AppendixB:LawStudentResearchCompetencies

andInformationLiteracyPrinciples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627

* © Dennis Kim-Prieto, 2011. This article was presented at the Conference on LegalInformation:ScholarshipandTeaching,heldattheUniversityofColoradoLawSchoolonJuly8–10,2010, as part of its Boulder Summer Conference Series, and I am grateful to the conference par-ticipantsfortheirconstructivecriticismandencouragement.IowemuchtoLisaJanickeHinchliffe,CoordinatorforInformationLiteracyServicesattheUniversityofIllinoisatUrbana-Champaign,andPresidentofACRL2010–2011,forherguidanceandinsightsintothesubjectofinformationliteracy.IoweagooddealofgratitudetoJanetSinderforhercarefuleditorialeyeandhercontinuedinterestinmywriting.IamalsoindebtedtotheadministrationoftheRutgersLawSchoolfortheircontinuedsupportofmyresearch.Finally, thispaperwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithouttheindefatigableworkoftheJointSISCommittee,whoarenamedanddescribedbelow.See infra¶7andnote21.ThisarticleisdedicatedtothemembersoftheJointCommittee,forwhomIwillalwayshavedeeprespectandprofoundadmiration. ** ReferenceLibrarian,RutgersLawLibrary–Newark,Newark,NewJersey.

606 LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Vol. 103:4 [2011-37]

Why LSIL?

¶1 Library instruction has gone through numerous changes since Otis HallRobinson’s famous reply to Samuel Green’s paper,“Personal Relations BetweenLibrariansandReaders.”1Greenconceivedoflibraryreferenceserviceasatypeofpersonalizedinstruction,andinhispaper,hechargedreferencelibrariansto“give[patrons]asmuchassistanceastheyneed,buttryatthesametimetoteachthemtorelyuponthemselvesandbecomeindependent.”2Inhisreply,Robinsonopinedthat

a librarianshouldbemuchmorethanakeeperofbooks;heshouldbeaneducator. . . .Nosuch librarian is fit forhisplaceunlessheholdshimself to somedegree responsibleforthelibraryeducationofhisstudents....Itishisprovincetodirectverymuchoftheirgeneralreading;andespecially intheir investigationofsubjectsheshouldbetheirguideandfriend.. . .[S]tudentsgetthemostfrommewhentheyinquireaboutsubjectsthatIknowleastabout.Theylearnhowtochasedownasubjectinalibrary.Theygetsomefacts,butespeciallya method....Allthatistaughtincollegeamountstoverylittle;butifwecansendstudentsoutself-reliantintheirinvestigations,wehaveaccomplishedverymuch.3

Althoughwemayrolloureyesattheanachronisticuseofmalepronouns,thereismuchinRobinson’sobservationthatappliestothestudentsthatweteacheachdayin our law libraries. Indeed, the practice of law has been particularly eager forgraduatesoflawschoolstobemore“self-reliantintheirinvestigations”forsometime.

¶2Moststrikingly,theconversationbetweenGreenandRobinsonindicatesavitalscholarlydebateabouttheroleofinstructioninlibrariesthathadjustbeguntopercolate,andhascontinuedtobreweversince.Asthescholarly“[l]iteratureonbibliographic instruction has steadily grown since the 19th century,” the verynotionofbibliographicinstructionhasreflectedthedebatescontainedwithinthisliterature.4Knownthroughoutthecenturybyavarietyof labels, suchasBigSixandBI(BibliographicInstruction),5informationliteracy(IL)isthecurrentopera-tive heuristic intended to address this ongoing debate, as it is identified by theAmerican Library Association (ALA) through its Association of College andResearchLibraries(ACRL).

¶3InthetenyearssinceACRL’sformalapprovaloftheInformationLiteracyCompetencyStandardsforHigherEducation,6anumberofsubject-specificinter-

1. SamuelS.Green,Personal Relations Between Librarians and Readers,1am. Libr. J.74(1876). 2. Id.at80. 3. Proceedings: First Session,1am. Libr. J.123–24(1876)(commentsofOtisH.Robinson). 4. SeeMaryF.Salony,The History of Bibliographic Instruction: Changing Trends from Books to the Electronic World,reFereNce Libr.,no.51/52,1995,at31,foradetailedhistoryofbibliographicinstruction. 5. See id. at31;KimmoTuominenetal., Information Literacy as a Sociotechnical Practice,75Libr. q.329,331(2005). 6. ass’N oF coLL. & research Libraries, iNFormatioN Literacy competeNcy staNdards For higher educatioN5(2000),available athttp://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/standards.pdf [hereinafter acrL iNFormatioN Literacy staNdards]. The standards have been adapted byAustralia,NewZealand,Scotland,andtheUnitedKingdom,aswellasbytheInternationalFederationof LibraryAssociations (IFLA). Information Literacy Around the Globe,ass’N oF coLL. & research Libraries,http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/issues/infolit/resources/global/globalil.cfm(lastvis-itedJuly29,2011).

607LAW STUDENT INFORMATION LITERACY STANDARDSVol. 103:4 [2011-37]

estgroupswithinALAhavedraftedandgainedapprovalforavarietyofsubject-specific ILstandards.7However, law librarianshavebeenrelatively slowtoadoptourownsubject-specificILstandards,despitethesingularnatureoflegalresearchanditsimpactonthepracticeoflaw.Thisarticlepresentslawstudentinformationliteracy (LSIL) as a subject-specific iteration of theACRL’s IL initiatives, by firstarticulatingourcurrentunderstandingof ILandanalyzingLSIL standards, thendiscussingdeficitsinresearchinstructionidentifiedintheMacCrateandCarnegiereportsandhowLSILaddressesthesedeficitswithinthecontextoffutureusesforLSIL,andappendingthedraftLSILstandardsastheywerefirstarticulated.Finally,appendix B provides the Law Student Research Competencies and InformationLiteracy Principles. To understand exactly what LSIL is, however, we must firstunderstandthecoreconceptofIL.

What Is Information Literacy?

¶4InformationliteracyisanassessmentrubricdesignedbyACRLformeasur-ingtheinformationliteracyskillsofanindividual.8ACRLdefinesILas“thesetofskillsneededtofind,retrieve,analyze,anduseinformation,”9andarticulatedasetofstandardsforILin2000.10Therearefivetop-levelstandardsthatarestructuredaccordingtoalogicalhierarchy:know, access, evaluate, use,andethical/legal.11ACRLprovidesdetailedexplanationsofthesestandardsasfollows:

1. Know:“Theinformationliteratestudentdeterminesthenatureandextentoftheinformationneeded.”

2. Access:“Theinformationliteratestudentaccessesneededinformationeffec-tivelyandefficiently.”

3. Evaluate: “The information literate student evaluates information and itssources critically and incorporates selected information into his or herknowledgebaseandvaluesystem.”

4. Use: “The information literate student, individually or as a member of agroup,usesinformationeffectivelytoaccomplishaspecificpurpose.”

5. Ethical/Legal: “The information literate student understands many of theeconomic, legal, and social issues surrounding theuseof informationandaccessesandusesinformationethicallyandlegally.Thisstandardrecognizesthat studentsmustbe taught the social, economicandpolitical issues sur-roundinginformation,specificallytheethicalandlegalusesofinformationanditstechnology.”12

7. See Standards & Guidelines, ass’N oF coLL. & research Libraries, http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/standardsguidelinestopic.cfm(lastvisitedJuly29,2011). 8. acrL iNFormatioN Literacy staNdards,supranote6. 9. Introduction to Information Literacy,ass’N oF coLL. & research Libraries, http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/issues/infolit/overview/intro/index.cfm(lastvisitedJuly28,2011). 10. acrL iNFormatioN Literacy staNdards,supranote6. 11. “Each standard builds on and expands the previous one. In some cases . . . aspects of onestandardare touchedonbriefly inothers.”The Standards: Step-by-Step,ass’N oF coLL. & research Libraries,http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/issues/infolit/standards/steps/index.cfm(lastvisitedJuly28,2011). 12. Id.


¶5 These standards have been used in college and university libraries acrossNorthAmericaforthepurposesofassessment,curriculardevelopment,andpro-gramming.ACRL’sstandardshavealsoservedas thebasis forProjectSAILS, theStandardizedAssessmentofInformationLiteracySkills.13Furthermore,thesestan-dards have served as the framework for WASSAIL, an open source informationliteracy assessment instrument recently developed at the Augustana CampusLibraryoftheUniversityofAlberta.14Sincethedevelopmentofthestandards,ILhasbecomeubiquitouswithinthelibraryliterature.Indeed,sincethepublicationof Breivik and Gee’s seminal study of information education in the academy,15about19,000scholarlyworkshaveincorporated,analyzed,orotherwisereferencedthe term information literacy.16While it is true that the termhasnotbeencom-monlyfoundinthelegalandlawlibraryliteratures,thegeneraltrend(especiallysincetheACRLstandardswerepromulgated)hasbeentowardanarticulationofresearchskillsasasetoftheskillsencompassedbythemoreholisticterminforma-tion literacy,asfigure1,comparingtheuseofthattermagainstresearch skillsandbibliographic instruction,demonstrates.17

¶6Outsideofacademic libraries, ILhas reached theattentionofaccreditingbodies. For example, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education hasincorporated IL into their accreditation standards for higher education institu-tions.Theirstandard11explicitlymentionsILasan“essentialcomponentofanyeducationalprogramatthegraduateorundergraduatelevels.”18Additionally,sev-eralstateinitiativeshavecalledforincorporationofILstandardsintoeducationalprogrammingthatrequirescertification.19Giventhebreadthofacademic,assess-

13. See About Project SAILS, proJect saiLs, https://www.projectsails.org/AboutSAILS (lastvisitedAug.19,2011),formoredetailsonthedevelopmentandrolloutprocessoftheStandardizedAssessmentofInformationLiteracySkills.ProjectSAILSiscurrentlyusedtoassessILatmorethaneightydifferentinstitutionsofhighereducationintheUnitedStatesandCanada.Id. 14. “WASSAIL is a database-driven, web-based application employing PHP, MySQL, andJavascript/AJAX technologies. It was created to manage question and response data from theAugustanaLibrary’slibraryinstructionsessions,pre-andpost-testsfromcreditbearinginformationliteracy(IL)courses,andusersurveys.Ithasnowexpandedbeyonditsoriginalfunctionandisbeingusedtomanagequestionandresponsedatafromavarietyofsettings.”WASSAIL,uNiV. oF aLberta Libraries,http://www.library.ualberta.ca/augustana/infolit/wassail(lastvisitedJuly28,2011). 15. patricia seNN breiVik & e. gordoN gee, iNFormatioN Literacy: reVoLutioN iN the Library(1989). 16. GoogleScholar(scholar.google.com)wassearchedonJuly28,2011,forthephrase“informa-tionliteracy”withinquotationmarks,withinarticles,andwaslimitedtoresultsafter1989. 17. ThefigureistakenfromtheGoogleBooksNgramviewer(ngrams.googlelabs.com),whichquantitativelyexpressesthefrequencyoftermsfoundwithintheGoogleBookscorpus,andcomparestheirfrequency.Asthegraphmakesclear,thefrequencyofthetermbibliographic instructionappearstohavepeakedaround1985.Thefrequencyofthetermresearch skillsappearstohavepeakedshortlyafter2000,andthefrequencyoftheterminformation literacyappearstobeonanupwardtrend,albeittrendingmoreslowlysinceshortlybefore2005. 18. middLe states comm’N oN higher educatioN, characteristics oF exceLLeNce iN higher educatioN 42 (2009),available athttp://www.msche.org/publications/CHX06_Aug08REVMarch09.pdf.Standard11goesontosuggestthat“evidenceofinformationliteracy[be]incorporatedintothecurriculumwithsyllabi,orothermaterialappropriatetothemodeofteachingandlearning,describ-ingexpectationsforstudents’demonstrationofinformationliteracyskills....”Id.at46.ILisalsoreferencedasatouchstonethroughoutStandards12and13. 19. See, e.g.,N.J. admiN. code9A:1-1.9(k),mandatingthatanydegree-granting institution inthestateofNewJersey

shallhaveinplaceaplanthatarticulateshowstudentswillobtaininformationliteracyskillsas


ment,andregulatorymaterialonthis topic, therecanbe littledoubtthatILwillcontinuetoshapelibraryinstruction,ifnothighereducationasawhole,foryearstocome.

What Are the LSIL Standards?

¶7TheLSILstandardsareasetofstandardsandperformanceindicatorsthatarebasedontheACRLstandardsdiscussedabove,buttailoredtofittheskills,tools,andworkproductthatwetrainlawstudentstoacquire,use,andcreate.20Theyweredraftedin2009–2010bymembersoftheJointSpecialInterestSectionCommitteeon theArticulation of Law Student Information Literacy Standards.21While theACRL standards are a useful start, and critical to undergraduate education, thecommitteeoperatedwiththeunderstandingthattheparticularizednatureoflegalresearch,withrespecttocontent,researchstrategies,andtools,requiresasubject-specificarticulationofILstandardsandcompetencies.Usingthetop-levelACRLstandardsasaframework,thecommitteebegantheworkofarticulatingandhon-ingLSILstandardsandcompetenciesinNovember2009, inordertocreatestan-dardsforlawstudentILthatcouldbeusedbymemberlibrariesoftheAmericanAssociationofLawLibraries(AALL)andlegalresearchinstructors.Whilethecom-

theyprogressthroughthecurriculum.Theplanshallidentifyoutcomesforinformationliteracyskilldevelopment,andhowthoseoutcomesaremeasuredandassessed....Aninstitutionshallpro-videevidenceoffacultyandadministratorinvolvementinthedevelopment,implementationandoperationalizationoftheinformationliteracyplan.Theinstitutionhastheresponsibility,throughitslibraryorthroughotherappropriatemeans,tomaketheinformationliteracyplanavailabletothelearningcommunity.Withinthreeyearsofinitiallicensure,aninstitutionshalldocumenthowstudentsareachievinginformationliteracyoutcomes.

20. SeeappendixA,infra,forthecompletetextofthestandards. 21. TheJointSISCommitteewaschairedbytheauthor.MollyBrownfieldservedasvice-chair.Academic Law Library (ALL-SIS) representatives on the committee were Kumar Jayasuriya andLauraScott.TheForeign,Comparative,andInternationalLaw(FCIL-SIS)representativeswereMaryRumsey and Rachael Smith. Representatives from Private Law Libraries (PLL-SIS) were Jill L.K.BrooksandSusanvanBeek.RepresentativesfromResearch,Instruction,andPatronServices(RIPS-SIS)wereThomasMillsandKarenSchneiderman.

Figure 1. Comparison of frequency of terms information literacy, research skills, and bibliographic instruction across the Google Books English-language

corpus from 1940–2008.


mitteerealizedthatourinitialiterationofarticulatedLSILstandardswouldneces-sarily be limited to the subject area of U.S. law, the assumption was that thesestandards would need revision and reformulation, as both the tools of legalresearchandthepracticeoflawitselfalsochange.

¶8Subsequently,AALLchargedaLawStudentResearchCompetencyStandardsTaskForcewithreviewingandapplyingLSILstandardstoreflecttheever-changinglandscapeofpractice.22InMarch2011,theexecutiveboardofAALLapprovedtheLawStudentResearchCompetenciesandInformationLiteracyPrinciplesarticu-latedbythistaskforce,23aninitialstepthatwillfosterthedevelopmentsthatthisarticlecontemplates.

¶9 The shape of the LSIL standards mirrors the overall shape of the ACRLstandards: identify, access, evaluate, apply, and ethical & legal issues of use. Thesetop-levelstandardsaredetailedbelow:

1. Identify:Theinformation-literatelawstudentisabletoidentifythetypeandsourcesofinformationappropriatetotheproblemorissueathand.

2. Access:Thestudentknowshowtoaccesstheappropriateinformationeffec-tivelyandefficiently.

3. Evaluate:The studentalsoevaluates the informationand its sourcescriti-cally, in order to properly incorporate the appropriate information intoreliableworkproduct.

4. Apply:Thestudentapplies the informationeffectively toresolvea specificissueorneed.

5. Ethical & Legal Issues of Use:Thestudentdistinguishesbetweenethicalusesandunethicalusesofinformationandunderstandslegalissuesarisingfrominformationdiscovery,use,orapplication.

Whiletheresemblancetotheframeworkofthetop-levelACRLstandardsshouldbeapparent,onekeydistinctionbetweenACRL’sstandardsandtheLSILstandardsisthatthelatterareexplicitlytiedtotheproblem-solvingworkattheheartoflegalanalysisandresearch.ThispragmaticapproachisreinforcedinthecompetenciesandperformanceindicatorsthatexplicateeachLSILstandard.

¶10Bymeansofexample,LSILStandardIrecognizeslawstudentinformationliteracythroughthestudent’sability“toidentifythetypeandsourcesofinforma-tionappropriatetotheproblemorissueathand.”Thestandardliststhefollowingbehaviors as indicative of such ability: naming the jurisdiction(s) able to exertauthorityovertheissueathand;articulatingthelegislative,regulatory,andjudicial

22. AALL charged the Law Student Research Competency Standards Task Force with review-ingtheLSILStandardstorecommendwhetherornotAALLshouldadoptthem,andifso,toreviseand present them to the board for adoption. The Law Student Research Competency StandardsTaskForcewaschairedbySallyWiseandincludedthefollowinglawlibrarians:ElizabethAdelman,Beth DiFelice, Linda-Jean Schneider, Kay Moller Todd, and the author. See Law Student Research Competency Standards Task Force, am. ass’N oF Law Libraries, http://www.aallnet.org/committee/res_stds.asp(lastvisitedJuly29,2011).AppendixB,infra,containstheprinciplesdraftedbythetaskforce. 23. am. ass’N oF Law Libraries, summer meetiNg board book 3645 (July 21–22, 2011),available at http://www.aallnet.org/main-menu/Leadership-Governance/executiveboard/meetings/boardbooks/2011/20110721.pdf(availabletoAALLmembersonly).


processes;andexplainingthehierarchicalrelationshipsamongstatutes,regulations,andjudicialopinions.Eachstandardincludesasetofbehaviorsindicatingastu-dent’smasteryofthematerialthatthestandardmeasures.Buttheclearestmeasureof theutilityof thesestandardsbecomesapparentwhenweexamine thegaps inlegalresearcheducationthathavealreadybeennotedintheliterature.

The MacCrate and Carnegie Reports

¶11Oneaspectoflegalpracticethathasnotchanged,perhapsevensincethetime of Blackstone, is the perception that new practitioners lack critical skills inlegal research. In 2003, Paul Callister observed that“[e]ven before Westlaw andLexisNexis made‘free’ passwords (at least from the student’s point of view) andunlimited online access available to virtually all law students, complaints aboutattorneyandstudentresearchskillsaswellaslegalresearchinstructionwerecom-monthemesintheliterature....”24However,themultitudeofcomplaintsisnotlimitedtotherealmoflegalresearcheducationandtraining;thebar,judiciary,andprofessoriatehavebemoanednumerousaspectsoflegaleducation.Themostsig-nificant examples in recent literature are commonly known as the MacCrateReport,publishedin1992,25andtheCarnegieReport,whichfollowedmorethanadecadelater.26

¶12WemayseethedepthoftheMacCrateReport’sinfluenceonlegalresearchinstructionmoststrikinglyinitsattempttoanswertheoft-quotedquestion,“whatskills,whatattitudes,whatcharactertraits,whatqualitiesofmindarerequiredoflawyers?”27DuncanAlfordhasprovidedaconciseandaccuratesummaryofwhattheMacCrateReportsaidanddid:

The MacCrate Report emphasized the need, identified by practitioners, for additionalskills training in law school and explored the role law schools should play in producingpractitioners.Thereportidentifiedten“fundamental lawyeringskills.”Amongthemwerelegalresearchandfactualinvestigation.Thereportnotedthatlegalresearchis“inessenceaprocessofproblemsolving.”TheMacCrateReportpraisedthe“invaluablecontribution”ofclinicstolegaleducationandnotedfavorablythefundingprovidedbytheFordFoundationthroughtheCouncilonLegalEducationforProfessionalResponsibility(CLEPR)tosup-port clinical legal education. The MacCrate Report also recommended that skills facultyshouldbepermanent,full-timeteacherswithinthelegalacademy.28

24. PaulDouglasCallister,Beyond Training: Law Librarianship’s Quest for the Pedagogy of Legal Research Education,95Law Libr. J.7,9,2003Law Libr. J.1,¶6(footnoteomitted).Callistergoesontolistseveralcommentsontheinadequacyofresearchskillsamongnewpractitionersfromthebar,thejudiciary,theprofessoriate,andfromlawlibrarians,somedatingbackto1902. 25. am. bar ass’N, sectioN oF LegaL educ. & admissioNs to the bar, LegaL educatioN aNd proFessioNaL deVeLopmeNt—aN educatioNaL coNtiNuum: report oF the task Force oN Law schooLs aNd the proFessioN: NarrowiNg the gap(1992). 26. wiLLiam m. suLLiVaN et aL., educatiNg Lawyers: preparatioN For the proFessioN oF Law(2007). 27. RobertMacCrate,The Last Word on a New Beginning, inthe maccrate report: buiLdiNg the educatioNaL coNtiNuum145(1994)(quotingJusticeRosalieWahl). 28. DuncanAlford,The Development of the Skills Curriculum in Law Schools: Lessons for Directors of Academic Law Libraries,28LegaL reFereNce serVices q.301,305(2009)(footnotesomitted).


These recommendations were taken seriously by law schools, resulting in realchangestocurricula.AsBarbaraBintliffhasnoted,theMacCrateReportcatalyzedenormous changes in legal writing and clinical courses,“the programs throughwhichmostfundamentallawyeringskillsaretaught.”29

¶13TheheartoftherecommendationsthattheMacCrateReportputsforwardisfoundinthesecondpartofthereport,titled“AVisionoftheSkillsandValuesNewLawyersShouldAcquire.”Withinthissection,thereportfirstformulates“AStatementofSkillsandValues,”inchapter4,andsubsequentlypresentstheaspira-tional“Statement of Fundamental Lawyering Skills and Professional Values,” inchapter5.Thereportsummarizesitsemphasisonlegalresearch:“Inordertocon-duct legal researcheffectively, a lawyer shouldhaveaworkingknowledgeof thenatureoflegalrulesandlegalinstitutions,thefundamentaltoolsoflegalresearch,and theprocessofdevising and implementing a coherent andeffective researchdesign....”30Thereportgoesontoanalyzelegalresearchskillswithrespecttothefollowingcomponents,providingspecificexamplesthatdemonstratetheconceptsembeddedwithintheseskills:“Knowledgeofthenatureoflegalrulesandinstitu-tions; . . . knowledge of and ability to use the most fundamental tools of legalresearch;...[and]understandingoftheprocessofdevisingandimplementingacoherentandeffectiveresearchdesign.”31

¶14 Such analysis demonstrates the MacCrate Report’s emphasis on legalresearch as a fundamental skill; as noted in the report, “the ability to do legalresearchisoneoftheskillsthatanycompetentlegalpractitionermustpossess.”32ItisalsoworthnotingthatthestructureoftheanalysisMacCrateappliedtolegalresearchskillsprovedtobeveryinfluentialinthedraftingoftheLSILstandards—perhaps as influential as ACRL’s standards. Indeed, the skills identified in theMacCrateReportarerepresentedquitestronglythroughoutthestandards.

¶15WeseethisinfluenceclearlywhenwejuxtaposetheMacCrateStatementonLegalResearchwith theLSIL standards themselves.Section3.3of theMacCratestatement sets forth the need for lawyerly “Understanding of the Process ofDevisingandImplementingaCoherentandEffectiveResearchDesign,”whileLSILStandardsIIIandIVrequirethatstudentsdemonstrateIL,firstbycriticallyevalu-ating“theinformationanditssources,inordertoproperlyincorporatetheappro-priateinformationintoreliableworkproduct,”andthenbyapplying“informationeffectivelytoresolveaspecificissueorneed.”However,eachdocument’ssubpointsandperformance indicatorsexpressconcernwithverysimilarskillsandtasks in

29. BarbaraBintliff,Legal Research: MacCrate’s “Fundamental Lawyering Skill” Missing in Action,28 LegaL reFereNce serVices q. 1, 1 (2009) (noting that, in the post-MacCrate landscape,“mocktrialandmootcourtcompetitionsincreased,providingadditionaloutletsfortheapplicationofclientskillsandmultiplewritingopportunities;asoftenasnot,clinicalorwritingfacultysupervisedthesecompetitions. Law schools reallocated resources and invested significant funds in improving theirofferingsintheseareas.Forthemostpart,theseprogramstaughtthefundamentallawyeringskillsidentifiedintheMacCrateReport;legaleducationandlawgraduatesarethebetterforit.”). 30. am. bar ass’N, supra note 25, at 157. Note the similarity between this language and thedefinitionalphraseassociatedwiththeACRL’siterationofinformationliteracy:“theabilitytofind,retrieve,analyze,anduseinformation.”Introduction to Information Literacy,supranote9. 31. am. bar ass’N,supranote25,at157–60. 32. Id.at163.


language that is also strikingly similar. For comparison, the MacCrate Reportemphasizesthat

Alawyershouldbefamiliarwiththeskillsandconceptsinvolvedin:....(c)Evaluatingthevarioussearchstrategiesandsettlinguponaresearchdesignwhich

shouldtakeintoaccount:(i) The degree of thoroughness of research that would be necessary in order to

adequatelyresolvethelegalissues...;(ii)Thedegreeofthoroughnessthatisnecessaryinthelightoftheusestowhichthe

researchwillbeput...;(iii)Anestimationoftheamountoftimethatwillbenecessarytoconductresearch

ofthedesireddegreeofthoroughness;(iv)Anassessmentofthefeasibilityofconductingresearch...;

....(vi)Strategiesfordouble-checkingtheaccuracyoftheresearch....33

¶16Although the statement seems to bear a slightly different focus than theLSIL standards, the competency indicators that underlie these standards yield averysimilaroutcome.StudentsmayshowtheirmasteryofLSILStandardsIIIandIVthroughbehaviorsdescribedundertheperformanceindicatorsquotedbelow:

III.2.a. Evaluating the accuracy, authority, objectivity, currency, and coverage of legalandnonlegalinformationandinformationsources.

III.2.b.Describingthedifferentpurposesandrelativestrengthsandweaknessesofdif-ferentkindsofsources....

III.4.a.Verifyingfactualclaimswithinformationfromknowledgeableauthorities.III.5.a. Determining if original information need has been satisfied or if additional

informationisneeded.IV.4.a. Reflecting on the successes or failures of prior strategies for integrating new

informationintotheanalysis.IV.4.b.Recognizingwhenspecificquestionswithinalargerresearchproblemhavenot

beenansweredwiththeinformationcompiled.IV.4.c.Recognizingwhentheultimatequestionspresentedhavenotbeenfullyanswered

throughtheresearchalreadyobtained.IV.4.d.Recognizingwhensufficient researchhasbeendone toadequatelyaddress the

legalissueorinformationneed.

DespitethedifferenceinprecisetopicalfocibetweentheMacCrateReportandtheLSILstandardslistedabove,behaviorsthatdemonstratemasteryofthematerialinbothoftheseresourcesarequitesimilar:eachrequiresthatthelawstudentorlaw-yerbringamethodicalplanandarecursiveapproachtolegalresearch.

¶17Furthermore,whiletheMacCrateskillsareausefulbenchmark,theydonotofferparticularcompetenciestoassessperformance.Rather,thereportlinkstheseskillstogeneralizeddescriptionsofresearchsources,regardlessofparticularareasofpractice.Moreover,theMacCrateskillsarenottiedtoanyotherresearchinstruc-tionrubric,whichcomplicatesthedevelopmentofassessmenttoolsthatmightbebasedexclusivelyonitsskillslist.TheMacCrateReportpresentsausefulstart,butitmerelypointstogaps,withoutprovidinganymeansofbridgingthegapsbetweentherealityofandouraspirationsforlawstudentlegalresearchproficiency.Asnoted

33. Id.at160–62.


above,thereportindicatesdeficitsthatmanylawstudentspresentinclassandintheworkplace,butmerelyprovidesa framework,rather thanthemechanism,toremedy thesedeficits.TheLSILstandards,with their structureand theirperfor-manceindicators,canprovidesuchamechanism.

¶18UnliketheMacCrateReport,theCarnegieReportdidnotdevoteseparateattentionto legalresearchor legalresearchtraining.Rather, theCarnegiemodelemphasizesaholisticapproachtolegaleducationthatwillapprenticelawstudentsinto the community of legal practice. In particular, the report proposes threeapprenticeshiptypes:thecognitiveapprenticeship,theexpertpracticeapprentice-ship,and theapprenticeshipof identityandpurpose.34Of these three types, theCarnegie Report discusses the cognitive apprenticeship most thoroughly. Andwhilelawlibrariansmightfindaplaceforallthreetypesofapprenticeshipswhentraininglawlibrarystudents,itdoesseemthatthedomainofthecognitiveappren-ticeshipmostaptlyfitsthelegalresearchtrainingthatisourclassroomexpertise.Yet the authors of the report are careful not to allow these types to remainindividuated:

[An]adequateandproperlyformativelegaleducationrequiresabetterbalanceamongthecognitive,practical,andethical-socialapprenticeships.Toachievethisbalance,legaleduca-torswillhaveto....[carefullyrethink]boththeexistingcurriculumandthepedagogiesthat lawschoolsemploytoproduceamorecoherentandintegrated initiation intoa lifeinthelaw.35

¶19ThislanguagestronglyechoesthedescriptionsofILasageneralpracticethatareoffered in the literature.Tuominenetal.note that“[a]s ILskillsdonotevolveinavacuum,contentisneededfortheseskillstooccurandthusILshouldbe contextualized within the structures and modes of thought of particulardisciplines.”36Inshort,whiletheCarnegieReportdoesnotexplicitlyaddresslegalresearch or even contemplate IL, the report reads as if it is recommending anIL-supportedapproachtowardaholisticprogramoflegaltrainingandapprentice-ship that immerses students fully in the context and the community of legalpractice.

¶20Still,theCarnegieReporthasexertedapowerfulinfluenceacrosstheworldoflegalresearcheducation,andliketheMacCrateReport,ithasgeneratedmani-fold responses in print and within law schools. Taken together, both of thesereports stand for theproposition thatoursystemof legaleducationandprofes-sionaldevelopmenthasbeenunderservinglawstudentsforgenerationsnow,andinsomecases,catastrophically.37Focusinginstructionaleffortsonasetoflawyer-ingskillsandprofessionalvalues,astheMacCrateReportrecommends,canpro-videtheframeworktoaddressthisproposition.38TheLSILstandards,likewise,arereadytoserveasoneelementwithinthisframework.

34. suLLiVaN et aL.,supranote26,at28. 35. Id.at147. 36. Tuominenetal.,supranote5,at334. 37. Seeroy stuckey et aL., best practices For LegaL educatioN16–18(2007). 38. Seeam. bar ass’N,supranote25,at330–32.


What Can Be Done with LSIL Standards?

¶21TheLSILstandardsprovideabaselinearticulationofthesetofbehaviorsassociatedwithcompetencyinlegalresearch.Thisarticulationisvaluableinandofitselfasastatementoftheskillsthatthelegalresearchprofessoriateaspirestoincul-cateinourstudents.Butitisalsovaluablebecauseitprovidesuswithabaselinesetof skills that may be evaluated. The articulation or selection of standards is anessential step inevaluation, for it is these standards thatprovideevaluatorswithskillsthatmaybemeasured.Tothisend,theLSILstandardsrepresentthebeginningofamethodicalapproachtoevaluatinglegalresearchcompetency.

¶22 This approach may well take place within the curricular context.As lawschoolshavebeenrevisingcurriculainresponsetotheCarnegieReport,standardsthat enumerate and analyze the research skills that law students should haveacquiredbythetimetheygraduatecanbeusedtobenchmarkelementsofagivencurriculum,andcanalsobe revised to reflect changes that result from improve-ments instudentperformance.Furthermore,ananalytic focusonresearchskills,groundedinacommonsetofstandards,makesacomprehensiveapproachtowardincludingresearchskillsindoctrinalandclinicalclassesmuchmoreaccessible.AsBintliffhasnoted,

[L]awlibrarians,throughresponsiveservicestailoredtofacultyneeds,havesosuccessfullyinsulated law faculty from the realities of today’s research environment that the facultyarenotmakingtheircurriculardecisionsbasedonactualknowledgeofhowresearchhaschangedsincetheiryearsinlawschoolandhowitiscurrentlyconductedinlawfirms.Foratleastthelastfifteenyears,academiclawlibrarieshaveemphasized“facultyservices,”dedi-catingpersonneltoprovidingexpertresearchservicestofacultyondemandandassistingandsupervisingfacultyresearchassistantstoenablethemtodothesame.Manylawfacultymembersnolongerknowhowtoperformtheresearchthemselvesandhavelostsightoftheimportanceofbeingabletoresearchinbothlegaleducationandthedailypracticeoflaw.Theendresultisthatlawschoolshavedecreasedtheiremphasisonlegalresearchinstruc-tion,neglectingthiscriticalcomponentoflegaleducation.39

¶23Bintliffcogentlydemonstrateshowacademiclawlibrarianshavebeenabletousetheirresearchskillstoyieldlessresearchcapacityfromoneofthecommuni-tiesthatreliesonthemthemost:lawfaculty.Byreengagingwithresearchtrainingandscholarship,andawayfrommerelyprovidingresearchservicesandmaterials,wealso return toapositionwithin theacademy thatemphasizesanotherofourskills—instructional expertise.40 Redirecting our focus toward this instructionalexpertisewouldnotonlyreintroducetheacquisitionofresearchskillsintothecur-riculum,itwouldalsoprovidethedoctrinalandclinicalfacultywithasummaryofwhatresearchskillsentail,andhowtheycan identifystudentswhopresent theseskills.

¶24Finally,LSILcanalsobeusedwithintheoverallcontextofadministrativeand educational efficiency within individual universities. Because LSIL derives

39. Bintliff,supranote29,at3. 40. SeeCarolA.Parker,The Need for Faculty Status and Uniform Tenure Requirements for Law Librarians,103Law Libr. J.7,15–16,2011Law Libr. J.1,¶20(discussingwhylawlibrariansmightneedtoemphasizetheiracademicandinstructionalcontributions).


fromACRL’sworkinIL,adoptingLSILstandardscanprovidelawlibrariesaccessto theoverall trend towardIL.41AdoptingLSILstandardsallows law libraries toframetheircurriculardevelopmentintermsthatdovetailwithexistinglibrarycur-riculaandprogramming.ThisnotonlyallowsinstitutionstotackletheperennialproblemsofILacrossthecurriculumanddifferentiatedlevelsofhighereducation,italsoenablesacomprehensiveapproachtotrainingresearchers.

Standardized Assessment

¶25TheNationalCouncilofBarExaminers(NCBE)hasarticulatedplanstodevelopacomponentmeasuringlegalresearchskillstobeaddedtotheMultistateBar Exam.42 However, one of “the most challenging aspects of including legalresearchonthebarexam[is]definingminimalcompetencyanddetermininghowthatcompetencywillbemeasured.”43Tothisend,itisworthnotingthat“astate-ment of the specific assumptions about the legal research environment and thelegal research knowledge and competencies that would be evaluated on the barexamdoesnotyetexist.”44WhiletheMacCrateReportoffersabriefbutcompellingdiscussionoftheimportanceof legalresearch,andalthoughAALLhasofferedalengthy and highly detailed compendium of legal research skills based on theMacCrateReport,45theobservationaboutthelackofastatementoflegalresearchknowledgeandcompetenciesthatmightbetestableisstilltrue.

¶26ItiscriticalthatlawlibrariansarticulateourownLSILstandardsindepen-dentlyofNCBE,sothatwemightofferresponsiblecontributionstothedevelop-mentofNCBE’sassessmenttool.Afterall,withoutfoundationalknowledgeofthetypesoflegalauthorityandhoweachtypeisgenerated,lawstudentscannotbegintoresearchlegalissueseffectively.NCBEisrespondingpreciselytothisparticulargap,andAALLshouldalsocontributesignificantlytowardtheresolutionoftheseissues. LSIL standards are a foundational step toward such a contribution. LSILstandardsalsoprovideastatementoflegalresearchknowledgeandcompetenciesthatcansupportanexaminationconstructedaccording to itemresponse theory

41. AmongallU.S.academiclibraries,46.3%haveeitherdefinedILordefinedtheinformation-literate student. Among all Carnegie-classified “Doctoral/Research” libraries, 50.9% have definedIL,and38.9%have incorporatedIL intotheir institution’smission.LookingatCarnegie-classified“Master’sI&II”libraries,60.7%havedefinedIL,and38.8%haveincorporatedILintotheirinstitu-tion’smission.u.s. dep’t oF educ., academic Libraries 2008: First Look16tbl.13(2009),available athttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010348.pdf. 42. SeeStevenM.Barkanetal.,Testing for Research Competency on the Bar Exam: The Next Steps,28LegaL reFereNce serVices q.281,281(2009)(describingtheinclusionofalegalresearchtestonthebarexamas“anideawhosetimehascome”).See alsoStevenM.Barkan,Should Legal Research Be Included on the Bar Exam? An Exploration of the Question,99Law Libr. J.403,2007Law Libr. J.23(contemplating the inclusionofa legal researchcomponentonthemultistatebarexam);EricaMoeser,“LegalResearchQuestionsontheBarExam:PreparingOurStudents,”presentationat theAnnualMeetingoftheAm.Ass’nofLawLibraries,Washington,D.C.,July26,2009(notesonfilewithauthor). 43. Barkanetal.,supranote42,at284. 44. Id.at289n.4. 45. ResearchInstructionCaucus,Am.Ass’nofLawLibraries,Core Legal Research Competencies: A Compendium of Skills and Values as Defined in the ABA’s MacCrate Report(EllenM.Callinaned.,1997),available athttp://www.aallnet.org/sis/ripssis/PDFs/core.pdf.


(IRT).TestsconstructedaccordingtoIRTrelyonmathematicalmodels that linkperformanceonaparticulartestitemwiththecharacteristicsthatthetestmeasures.Althoughthisconceptdatesbacktothe1940s,ithasbeenthedominantmodeofconstructing tools that measure and evaluate performance only within the pastfortyyears,duetoadvancesinmathematicalmodelingthathavebeenfacilitatedbyincreasedaccesstocomputingpower.46SinceIRTiscurrentlythedominantmodeof constructing assessment measures, any assessment of legal research skills willnecessarily start fromsucha statementof standardized legal researchknowledgeandcompetencies.

Measuring Research Performance by Institution

¶27LSILstandardsarealsoessentialtothecreationofalibrary-focusedassess-menttoolsufficienttoprovidemeaningfuldataasacomplementtoNCBE’slegalresearchexam.LSILstandardswillprovideasetofbaselinecompetenciesthateachlegal research program can use as a curricular foundation. Moreover, an LSILassessment tool would allow the profession to identify best practices amongresearchcurricula,whichwouldinturnhelptheprofessionhoneitsreflective,criti-caldialogueonresearcheducationandtraining.

¶28Tobesure,theprospectofmeasuringstudentresearchaptitudebyinstitu-tion is daunting to many. The current system of ranking by U.S. News & World Reportisfamouslyproblematic,47anditisnotlikelythatlawschoolswillbeeagertoadoptanotherrankingsystemthatmightaddtothesecontroversies.Butbarpas-sageinformationisavailableandisusedasarankingcriterion;lawlibrariansmustnotignoretheopportunitytohaveaneffectonacriticalinputintostudentresearchskillsthatwillinevitablyaffecttheserankings.

Conclusion

¶29 From the perspective that hindsight offers, it seems that by paying onlyscantattentiontotheconceptofIL,lawlibrariansmayhaveoverlookedaveryuse-fulmodelforresearchaptitude,preciselywhenweareinparticularneedofsuchmodels. Indeed, as law schools seek to attract more students, curricular trendstowardpracticalskillsinstructionwillalsoincrease,andLSILstandardscanprovideausefultouchstoneforthelegalresearchinstructionthatisatthecoreofthelegalskills curricula.Asa conceptualmodel,LSILprovidesa common framework forlegalresearchinquiryandinstruction,aswellasaccesstothecurrentscholarshipinlibraryinstructionforlawlibrarians.Inshort,LSILnotonlyaddressescurricular

46. SeeFritzDrasgow&CharlesL.Hulin,Item Response Theory,in1haNdbook oF iNdustriaL aNd orgaNizatioNaL psychoLogy577,627–30(MarvinD.Dunnette&LeaettaM.Hougheds.,2ded.1990). 47. Theissuessurroundinglawschoolrankingsaremyriadandcomplexandbeyondthescopeofthisarticle.See,e.g.,JeffreyEvansStake,The Interplay Between Law School Rankings, Reputations, and Resource Allocation: Ways Rankings Mislead,81iNd. L.J.229(2006);KatherineMangan,Law Schools Disdain Rankings but Dare Not Ignore Them, Authors Say,chroN. higher educ.(Feb.3,2009),http://chronicle.com/article/Law-Schools-Disdain-Rankings/1496/, fora small sampleof responses to lawschoolrankings.


andscholarlyconcernsinlegalresearcheducation,italsoprovidesnewfieldsforassessment.

¶30 Of late, law schools are facing increased pressure for accountability andeducationalreformfromstates,fromstudents,andfromlawfacultyaswellasthelegalprofession;thetimeisrightformethodicalevaluationofhowstudentsper-formagainstastandardsetofresearchskills.ThefirststepinsuchevaluationistheformaladoptionoftheLSILstandardsbytheprofessionalassociationsrepresent-ingthelegalacademy,whichwouldnotonlyresultintheadditionofcriticalbase-line standards formeasuringstudent legal researchaptitude,butalsoopenupanewareaofscholarshipaddressingtheacquisitionoflegalresearchskills.

¶31However,thesuggestionspresentedherearebutinchoateideasfollowingonfromdevelopmentsinthelargerworldofacademiclibrarianship;theultimateuseandvalueofLSILstandardscannotbeknownuntilwechoosetoadoptandimplement them. Now that the Law Student Research Competencies andInformationLiteracyPrincipleshavebeenapprovedbyAALL,thegatewayaheadofushasbeenmerelyopened.Thereisstillmuchworktobedone,andtheroadtofully assessing LSIL among law students, recent graduates, and new associatesremainsatourfeet,readyforustoracealongittotheend.


Appendix A

Draft LSIL Standards

Standard I: Identify the type and sources of information appropriate to the problem or issue at hand.

What the student needs to do:

1. Identify whether the issue at hand requires application of statute, case law,regulation,orotherrelevantinformation.

Examples of behaviors that indicate mastery:

a.Identifyingresearchstrategiesappropriatetoanalyzingtheproblemathand.b.Namingthejurisdictionthatcontrolstheissueathand.Knowingwhether

theissueisgovernedbyjudicial,administrative,constitutional,orstatutoryauthority(orsomecombinationthereof).

c.Articulatingtheprocessesoflegislation,regulation,constitutions,andcaselaw,includingthetheoriesthatunderlietheauthorityofeachprocess.

d.Distinguishingbetweenofficialcasereportersandcommerciallypublishedcase reporters; and between official statutory codes or compilations andcommercially published statutory codes or compilations. Describing con-tentsnormallyfoundincaseandstatutoryannotations.

e.Explainingthehierarchicalrelationshipsbetweenstatutoryauthority,regu-latoryauthority,andjudicialopinions.Articulatinghowcaselaw,constitu-tions,statutes,regulations,orotherlegalauthoritywilladdresstheproblemthestudentisfacing.

f.Identifyingthesecondarysourcesthataid infindingtheinformationrele-vanttoanalyzingtheissueathand.

2. Determinewhichresearchtoolsaremostappropriatefortheproblemathand.


a.Findingauthoritativesourcesforlegalauthority:knowinghowandwhentorefertoconstitutions,knowingtofindcases inreportersorcase lawdata-bases,statutesinstatutorycompilations,andregulationsinadministrativecodes.

b.Distinguishingbetweenofficialandunofficialpublicationsforeachtypeoflegalauthority,anddescribingtheadvantagesofeachtypeofpublication.

3. Considerthecostsandbenefitsofacquiringtheneededinformation.


a.Demonstrating a basic familiarity with the costs of online or computer-assistedlegalresearch.

b.Startingaresearchtaskwiththemostcost-efficientsource;determiningcostefficiencybybalancingthecostofprintoronlineserviceagainstitseaseofuse.


c.Draftingarealisticoverallplanandtimelineforacquiringtheneededinfor-mation,analyzingtheproblem,andapplyingnewresourcesoranalysisasneeded.

Commentary on Standard I

StandardIrequiresthatthestudentdeterminewhetheranalysisoftheproblempresented requires applying constitutional authority, statutory authority, regula-toryauthority, common-lawauthority, scholarship,or somecombinationof theabove.Suchdeterminationrequiresdecidingif legislativehistory,regulatoryhis-tory,orjudicialposturewillbeusefulinanalyzingtheissueathand.Thestudentwho masters Competency 1 above will be familiar with recognized secondarysourcesoflegalinformation,suchastheAmerican Law Reports,legalencyclopediassuchasCorpus Juris SecundumandAmerican Jurisprudence,practiceguides,formbooks,andsubject-specifichornbooksandtreatises.

ThestudentwhomastersCompetency2aboveshouldbefamiliarwiththedif-ferencesbetweenresourcesthatcoveroverlappinginformation.Forexample,thisstudentshouldbeabletoexplainhowthecontentsoftheFederal&StateCases,Combined database in LexisNexis differ from LexisNexis’s Federal Court Cases,CombineddatabaseandtheStateCourtCases,Combineddatabase.

Standard II: Access the appropriate information effectively and efficiently.


1. Select the most appropriate sources for accessing and obtaining the neededinformation.


a.Identifying and selecting databases, library catalogs, print resources, andothersourcesmostappropriatetotheinformationneed.

b.Distinguishingbetweenthedifferenttypesofinformation-gatheringstrate-gies,suchasusingtablesofcontents,indices,anddigests,aswellasavarietyofprocessesforusingquery-drivendatabasesearches.Understandinghowtousesearchenginesappropriatelyandeffectively.

c.Seekingoutknowledgeableindividualsinthelibrary,lawschool,andcom-munityaspartof the researchplan,mindfulof theethicalobligationsasarticulatedinStandardV,infra.

2. Construct, implement, and refine well-designed search strategies that use avarietyofmethodstofindinformation.


a.Demonstratingknowledgeofcost-effectiveresearchbyappropriatelyusingprintresourcesandopenaccesswebsearchenginestosupplementresultsfromlegalandothersubject-specificdatabases.

b.Using terms of art and other appropriate legal terminology when askingresearchquestionsorconstructingsearchqueries,andrecognizingthedif-


ferenteffectsofusingkeywords,synonyms,andvocabularyfromthedata-base’sownparticularlistofsubjectkeywordterms.

c.Creatingandusingeffectivesearchstrategiesinmultiplelegalsourcesusingadvancedsearchfeatures;refiningsearchesasneededlaterintheprocesstoobtainadditionalormissinginformation.

d.Updating results through citators such as Shepard’s, KeyCite, and othersupplementalmaterials,aspartoftheresearchplan.

e.Reflectinguponinitialchoicesandstrategiesforsourcesofinformationasongoingresearchrevealsmoreabouttheproblemathand,andrevisingthesechoicesasnecessary.

3.Keeptrackofinformationanditssources.


a.Producing accurate citations and reference lists using professionally andjurisdictionallyappropriatedocumentationstyle.

b.Systematically recording all pertinent information for future reference.Understanding knowledge management systems (KMS) and using themappropriately.

c.Documentingsourcesandsearchstrategiesby,forexample,takingnotesoncontent and bibliographic information in order to cite the sourceappropriately.

Commentary on Standard II

ThestudentwhomastersCompetency1abovewillknowhowtousejurisdic-tion- and discipline-specific publications and databases such as state or federalpracticeguides,Westlaw,LexisNexis,HeinOnline,Thomas,GPOAccess,FDsys,andPACER; will know how to find state and local bar sites; federal, state, and locallibrarycatalogs;city,county,andzoningcodes;aswellasjurisdictionallyortopi-cally relevant legal research guides; may also know how to use subject-specificdatabases such those found through the Securities & Exchange Commission,CorporateCounsel.net,PropertyFinder,andAccountingStandards.

“Advancedsearch features”may includetheability touseBooleanoperators,truncation,andproximitysearches,aswellasnaturallanguagesearchfunctionality.ThestudentwhomastersCompetency2abovewillbefamiliarwiththedifferencesbetweenthesesearchcapabilitiesandwillknowwhentouseeachtypeofsearch.

Competency 3a above contemplates citation formats such as those found inThe Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, the ALWD Citation Manual, or thecitationguidelinesparticular to localrulesadopted in federalandstatecourtsascontaining“professionally and jurisdictionally appropriate documentation style.”Studentswilldemonstratemasteryofthiscompetencybyknowingwhichcitationformattoadoptwhenpreparingworkproduct.

KnowledgeManagementSystems,orKMSs,are increasinglycommon in lawschoolsandlegalclinics,aswellasfirms,andaremarketedundernamesandmarkssuchasCaseMap,WestKM,AmicusAttorney,Needles,andAbacusLaw,inter alia.StudentswhomasterCompetency3baboveneednotknowthedetailsofthevari-ousKMSsusedat large,but theyshouldknowhowtousetheKMStheyfind intheirofficeorclinic.


Standard III: Critically evaluate the information and its sources, in order to properly incorporate the appropriate information into reliable work product.


1.Identifyandsummarizethemainelementsofthegatheredresearchworkprod-uct, and synthesize these elements to construct new concepts applicable toresolvingtheproblemathand.


a.Describing the differences between and the relative importance of rules,holdings,anddictaincourtdecisions.

b.Distinguishingbetweenbindingandpersuasiveauthority.c.Distinguishingotherwisebindingcasesfromthefactsathand.d.Comparingtheresearchworkproductwithandapplyingittotheproblem

orissueathand.

2.Applyappropriatecriteriaforevaluatingboththeinformationanditssource.


a.Evaluating the accuracy, authority, objectivity, currency, and coverage oflegalandnonlegalinformationandinformationsources.

b.Describingthedifferentpurposesandrelativestrengthsandweaknessesofdifferentkindsofsources.Explainingthedifferencesamongtypesofpri-mary sources, such as statutes, cases, and regulations; or among types ofsecondary sources, such as Restatements, treatises, hornbooks, andnutshells.

c.Articulating the relationships between print and electronic sources.Demonstratingawarenessoftheavailabilityofcompleteorincompletever-sionsofsomesources,e.g.,byacknowledgingtheavailabilityoftabularorgraphic material from some vendor-supplied cases or law review articles.Describingtheaddedvalueandlimitationsofprintandelectronicsources.

3. Compare new knowledge with prior knowledge to determine value added,contradictions, or other unique characteristics of the information and takestepstoreconciledifferences.


a.Recognizingandaddressingcontraryauthority;incorporatingintoanalysisacasethatmaystandforapropositionatoddswiththeargumentathandwithoutcompletelycontradictingtheargument.

b.Incorporatingfactuallydissimilaryetlegallyrelevantcasesbydrawingpar-allelstothefactsathand.

c.Synthesizingrecentdecisionsintoanexistinglineofcase-lawdoctrine.

4. Validate understanding and interpretation of the information through dis-coursewithotherindividuals,subject-areaexperts,orpractitioners.



a.Verifyingfactualclaimswithinformationfromknowledgeableauthorities.b.Participatingactivelyandresponsiblyinliveorvirtualdiscussions.c.Seekingexpertopinionthroughdiscussionswithlawprofessorsorconsulta-

tionswithlawlibrarians.

5. Determinewhethertheinitialqueriesshouldberevised.


a.Determiningiforiginalinformationneedhasbeensatisfiedorifadditionalinformationisneeded.

b.Reviewing research strategies and incorporating additional concepts asnecessary.

c.After reviewing initial information retrieval sources and strategies used,expanding or narrowing the initial query to include or exclude terms ormethodsasneeded;e.g.,usinga“KeyNumber”or“TopicSearch”inplaceofa “Terms & Connectors” or “Natural Language” search which may haveexcludedrelevantresultsthatrelieduponslightlydifferenttermsofart.

Commentary on Standard III

StudentswhomasterCompetencies2and5aboveshouldunderstandthattheonline “Key Number,” “Topic Search,” or other indexical systems for electronicsourcesgenerallyreflectthesameorganizationalstrategiesaseachsystem’scorre-sponding print sources. Students who find print versions of particular materialseasier to use than their electronic counterparts (or vice versa) should be able todescribewhy.

Students who master these competencies will also know (and be able todescribe)theadvantagesandlimitationsofannotatedstatutorycompilationsandofficial statutorycompilations. Information-literate lawstudentswill incorporatethisunderstandingintotheirapproachtoresearchaccordingly.

Students who master Competency 4 above should be able to constructivelyengageinavarietyofdiscussionformats,includingacademicandprofessionalcol-loquia,continuingeducationseminars,andelectroniccommunicationsdesignedtoencouragediscourseonthe topic.Responsibleparticipation insuch fora isakeymeasureofastudent’smasteryandapplicationofthisparticularcompetency.

Standard IV: Apply information effectively to resolve a specific issue or need.


1.Applylegalinformationandresearchresultstotheplanning,creation,andrevi-sionofanargument,brief,oranalysis.


a.Describingthebindingauthorityoflegalinformationrelevanttothelegalquestionathandandasappliedtothespecificissueorneed.


b.Articulatingthehierarchyoflegalauthorityandincorporatingthisarticula-tionintoanalysisofthequestionathand.

c.Determiningwhenlegalinformationfromotherjurisdictionsisrelevantaspersuasiveauthorityinresolvingthequestionathand.

d.Identifying secondary sources thatarepersuasiveauthority to resolve thequestionathand,anddeterminingifatreatiseisawell-knownauthorityonatopic.

2.Seekbackgroundinformationtohelpunderstandthelegalissueathand.


a.Determiningbackgroundinformationtohelpansweralegalissueorneed;using records of constitutional conventions, legislative histories, congres-sionalreports,administrativehistories,ortrialorappellatebriefsfromcasesonpointwiththeissueathand.

b.Using background or historical information about given legal authoritywhenrelevanttoanalyzingtheissueathand.

3.Applyinformationfromdisciplinesotherthanthelaw,whenappropriate,totheplanning,creation,andrevisionofanargument,brief,oranalysis.


a.Identifyingscholarshipfromotherdisciplinesrelevanttoresolvingaspecificissue.

b.Demonstratingunderstandingofhowcourtsorotherlegaldecisionmakershaveappliedmaterialsfromotherdisciplinesinthepast,anddeterminingwhen material from these disciplines might be persuasive in resolving aparticularissue.

4.Knowwhentoconductmoreresearchtobetterresolveaspecificissueorneed.


a.Reflectingonthesuccessesorfailuresofpriorstrategiesforintegratingnewinformationintotheanalysis.

b.Recognizingwhenspecificquestionswithinalargerresearchproblemhavenotbeenansweredwiththeinformationcompiled.

c.Recognizing when the ultimate questions presented have not been fullyansweredthroughtheresearchalreadyobtained.

d.Recognizingwhensufficientresearchhasbeendonetoadequatelyaddressthelegalissueorinformationneed.

5.Communicatetheargument,brief,oranalysiseffectivelytoothers.


a.Organizingandintegratingcontent,quotations,andparaphrasinginaman-ner that supports the purposes and format of the argument, brief, oranalysis.


b.Choosingacommunicationmedium,format,andstylethatbestsupportsthepurposesoftheargument,brief,oranalysisfortheintendedaudienceandintegratingcharts,maps,orphotosintothisdocumentorpresentationformaximallypersuasiveeffect,whenappropriate.

c.CitingauthorityinthechosenmediumaccordingtoStandardII,Competency3,supra.

Commentary on Standard IV

StudentswhomasterCompetency1aboveshouldknowthatstatutoryauthor-ityhasmorebindingweightthanregulatoryauthority;theyshouldalsobeawarethatauthorizing statutes limit theweightofa regulationand that the regulationmaybeunenforceableifitexceedstheagency’sstatutoryauthority.Similarly,stu-dentsmastering thiscompetencyshouldalsoknowthatcourtsoradministrativeagencies can designate certain decisions as“nonbinding,” and should be able toincorporatesourcessodesignatedintotheiranalyses.Inshort,masteringthiscom-petencyrequiresmasteringthedistinctionsatthecoreofStandardIII,Competency1,andsubsequentlyapplying thehierarchicalorderofbinding legalauthority tothesedistinctions.

StudentswhomasterCompetency2aboveshouldbeabletodetermineifthehistorybehindagivenlegalauthoritycanhelpanalyzetheissueathand.Inparticu-lar,thestudentshouldbeabletoidentifywhenlegislativehistories,litigationbriefs,oradministrativehistoriescanbringrelevantinformationtobearupontheissueathand.Forexample,studentsshouldunderstandthatfederalregulationspublishedintheFederal Register includebackgroundinformationaboutwhytheagencycre-atedtheregulationsandhowtheagencyrespondedtothepubliccommentssub-mitted during the rule-making process. They should be able to find and uselegislativehistorywhenanalyzingstatutoryauthority, litigationdocumentswhenanalyzing case law, and most significantly, they should be able to synthesize therelevantresearchstrategiesabovewhenanalyzinganissuethatincorporatesacom-binationofstatutoryauthority,regulatoryauthority,andcaselaw.

StudentswhomasterCompetency4aboveshouldknowwhentostopresearch-ingatopicasamatterofefficiencywhenamemoorotherdocumentonthetopiccanprovideananswertotheissueathand,orwhenfurtherresearchwillnothelpanalyzetheissueathandbecauseallrelevant informationhasbeenincorporatedintoexistinganalysis.

Standard V: Distinguish between ethical uses and unethical uses of information, and understand legal issues arising from information

discovery, use, or application.


1.Articulatethefactorsthatdeterminetheethicsofinformationuse,aswellasthelegalityof informationuse, inorder touse information inconformitywithalawyer’sobligationstothecourt,thebar,andsociety.



a.Comprehendingandcomplyingwithlawsandorganizational(firm,school,court)rulesonaccesstoinformationresourcesandstorageanddissemina-tionofinformation.

b.Demonstrating an understanding of intellectual property, copyright, andfairuseofcopyrightedmaterial.

c.Articulating privacy, confidentiality, security, diligence, and other ethicalissuesrelatedtoresearchandpracticeinaccordancewiththeModelRulesofProfessionalConduct,theModelCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,ortheprevailinglocallawgoverninglegalethics.

2.Applylaws,rules,andotherlegalauthoritygoverningalawyer’suseofinforma-tioninthecourseofpractice.


a.Usingcitationofsourcestorespectauthors’intellectualpropertyrightsandaccuratelyindicatingwherethewordsandideasofothershavebeenused.

b.Comprehendingandcomplyingwithlicenseandsubscriptionagreements.

No commentary on Standard V


Appendix B

Law Student Research Competencies and Information Literacy Principles*

Introduction

TheLawStudentResearchCompetencyStandardsTaskForceoftheAmericanAssociation of Law Libraries (hereinafter Task Force) presents this paradigm ofgeneralresearchcompetencyprinciplestofosterthedevelopmentofdifferentmod-elsandeventuallybestpractices.1

Thereisagrowingbodyofliteratureandalivelydiscussionamongmembersofthelegalacademyandthepracticingbarabouttheresearchcompetencyskillsoflawschoolgraduates.Thisdialogueamongstakeholdersisessentialtoforgechange.Inourdiscussions,wedeterminedthatcontinuingcommunicationandcollabora-tionbetweenlawschools,legalemployers,andthelawschoolaccreditingbody2arefundamental to any efforts to address and improve the research skills of lawstudents.

Tothisend,lawschoolprogramsshouldreflecttherealitiesofthelegalfield.Inparticular,anunderstandingofthemanyvariedlegalpracticebusinessmodelsisvital.Intoday’senvironment,lawfirmsuccesshingesonbillabletime,effectivetimemanagement, effective communication, effective peer collaboration, and costrecovery.Similarly,efficientresearchhabitsingovernmentalandnonprofitsettingsultimately benefit those employees and the public. Highly competent researchskills,effectiveproblemsolvingskills,andcriticalthinkingskillsarekeystosuccessinallareasoflegalpracticesoftodayandthefuture.

TheTaskForceisconfidentthatthisparadigmofgeneralresearchcompetencyprincipleswillengagemorestakeholdersinthedialogueabouttheneedtoestablishbenchmarksinthisarea.Thesebenchmarksshouldincludethedevelopmentofadetailed list of required skills to reflect the needs of the legal employers of thetwenty-firstcentury.

WeofferourfiveLawStudentResearchCompetencyPrinciplesforconsider-ation,andforuseinthefollowingdiscussions:

• lawschoolcurriculumdevelopmentanddesign;• lawfirmplanning,training,andarticulationofcorecompetencies;• baradmissioncommitteeevaluationofresearchskillsofapplicants;• continuinglegaleducationprogramdevelopment;• lawschoolaccreditationstandardsreview.3

* DraftedbytheAALLLawStudentResearchCompetencyStandardsTaskForce;approvedbytheAALLExecutiveBoard,March2011. 1. The foundation of the task force’s principles are the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, endorsed both by theAmericanAssociation for Higher EducationandtheCouncilofIndependentColleges.InformationliteracyasdefinedbyACRListhesetofskillsneeded to find, retrieve, analyze, and use information. See http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/issues/infolit/overview/intro/index.cfm.A significantbodyof literatureon information literacyhasdevelopedovertheyears. 2. TheSectiononLegalEducationandAdmissionstotheBaroftheAmericanBarAssociationadministersthelawschoolaccreditationprocess. 3. The Section on Legal Education andAdmissions to the Bar is discussing student learningoutcomesinproposedStandard202.


Principle I: A successful researcher should possess fundamental research skills.

• Law students should have an understanding of the complexities of the legal system.Theyshouldknowtheprocessesandtheinterrelationshipsbetweenthethreebranchesofgovernmentandthelegislation,regulations,andcaselawtheyproduce.Theyshoulddistinguishbetweenofficialandunofficialsourcesoflawandshouldplaceissuesincontext.

• Law students should know how to effectively use secondary sources.Theyshoulddistinguishbetweenprimaryandsecondarysourcesof law.Theyshouldidentifyandusesecondarysourcesforbackgroundinforma-tion,togainfamiliaritywithtermsofart,andtoputprimarysourcesincontext.

• Law students should have an awareness of the cost of research. Theyshould understand the costs associated with research using all formats.Further, they should identify where cost and efficiency intersect in theselectionofformat.

Principle II: A successful researcher should implement effective, efficient research strategies.

• Law students should select appropriate sources for obtaining required information. Based on the authority governing the issue, law studentsshoulddeterminewhichresearchtoolsarebestsuitedtoanalyzetheissue,andthentheyshouldvalidatethecompletenessandappropriatenessoftheselectedsources.

• Law students should construct and implement efficient, cost-effective search strategies.Lawstudentsshouldfirstbreaktheproblemdownintoitscomponentsanddetermineanapproachtoeachofthem.Theyshoulddraftresearchplansandtimelinesthatincludeidentifyingthemostcost-efficient sources, appropriately using available resources to perform theresearch,andusingsupplementalmaterialstovalidateandupdateresults.

• Law students should confirm and validate research results, incorporat-ing existing work product and expertise. Law students should confirmthe validity of their results by consulting prior work product, whenappropriateandavailable.Theyshouldalsoseekoutknowledgeablelegalresearchersforguidance,whennecessary,consideringethicalobligations.

• Law students should document research strategies.Theyshouldrecordallpertinentinformation,suchasresourcesandmethodsused,forfuturereference.Theyshouldproduceaccuratecitationsandreferencelistsusingappropriatedocumentationstyle.

Principle III: A successful researcher should critically evaluate legal and nonle-gal information and information sources.

• Law students should critically evaluate the validity and credibility of information sources. They should know the different purposes andthe relative strengths and weaknesses of different types and formats ofinformationsources.Theyshouldbeabletotranslateskillsusedforfamiliar


informationsourcesinordertomasternewinformationresources.• Law students should critically evaluate retrieved information. They

shoulddistinguishbetweenbindingandpersuasiveauthorityanddistin-guishotherwisebindingauthorityfromthefactsathand.Theyshouldrec-ognizeandaddresscontraryauthorityandincorporatefactuallydissimilaryetlegallyrelevantauthoritybydrawingparallelstothefacts.

• Law students should synthesize the results of their research to construct new concepts applicable to resolving the problem at hand.Theyshoulddraw analogies between their situation and other areas of the law, whenappropriate.

Principle IV: A successful researcher should apply information effectively to resolve a specific issue or need.

• Law students should understand the context for the legal issue under analysis.Theyshouldresearchbackgroundorhistoricalinformation,suchaslegislativeoradministrativehistories,wherethatcontextcaninformtheanalysis.Theyshouldapplyscholarshipfromotherdisciplines,consistentwith the use made of nonlegal materials by courts and other decisionmakersinthepast.

• Law students should modify the initial research strategy as suggested by preliminary results. They should incorporate additional concepts whenimplicatedbypreliminaryresults,andexpandornarrowresearchquerieswhen they retrieve unanticipated results due to the coverage of researchtoolsortheoperationofsearchengines.

• Law students should determine when research has provided sufficient background to explain or support a conclusion.Theyshouldensurethatallquestionsposedareanswered.Theyshould identifyunresolved issuesandincorporateasappropriateanalogousbackgroundwhereresearchdidnotclearlyresolvetheissueposed.

• Law students should use the results of their research to formulate their legal analysis and to prepare their work product. Law students shouldapplyprinciplesofrelevanceandprioritytotheauthoritycited,takingcaretochooseaformatandstylethatareappropriatefortheaudienceandthatbestsupporttheiranalysis.Theyshouldorganizeandintegratetheresultsof research into a persuasive document. They should also cite authorityconsistentwithlocallyacceptedrules,ensuringthatcitedreferencescanbelocatedbythereader.

Principle V: A successful researcher should be able to distinguish between ethical and unethical uses of information and understand the legal issues arising from discovery, use, and application of information.

• Law students should have a mastery of information ethics and should be able to articulate the factors that determine whether an information use is ethical. They should understand that the analysis of informationethics includes determining the lawyer’s ethical obligations to the court,


thebar,andsociety.Theyshouldalsounderstandtheorganization’s(firm,school,court,corporation)rulesonaccess,storage,anddisseminationofinformation.

• Law students should apply laws, rules, and other legal authority that govern a lawyer’s use of information in the course of practice. Theyshouldunderstandtheprinciplesof intellectualproperty,copyright,andfair use. They should also use source citations properly, to accuratelyindicatewherethewordsandideasofothershavebeenfound,andtheyshouldunderstandandcomplywithlicenseandsubscriptionagreementsandotherlimitations.

View publication statsView publication stats

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256012114

the road not yet taken: how law student information ... · 605 law library journal vol. 103:4...

Documents