LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE MTE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/90 clam-mu

 

 

CLADU

CLAIMING STATUS IN AN EMERGING OCCUPATION: A STUDY OF STATE
JUDICIAL EDUCATION IN AMERICA

By

Maureen Elise Conner

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

1998

qflMP

wilds 2
325315 re
min ele:
and discus
mm‘

W 6

min

(rt)

’0
-—1

K“

3:3th '

t tune

a? 3
He work

{a

:3?» § ’
«fling 1n

ABSTRACT

CLAIMING STATUS IN AN EMERGING OCCUPATION: A STUDY OF STATE
JUDICIAL EDUCATION IN AMERICA

By

Maureen Elise Conner

This study examines how an emerging occupation, judicial education, claims
professional status. The study also provides insight into how professional status can be
difficult to acquire without formalized training that connotes universally accepted
standards and definitions and unchallenged application of expert knowledge. The
analysis relies on the sociology of the professions, which assumes that acquisition of
certain elements will bestow or deny professional status. Eight elements are identified
and discussed: (1) the importance of a specialized knowledge base acquired through
extensive education and training, (2) maintaining power and control over the problem-
solving process by diagnosing and treating problems using the expert knowledge in a
nonroutine way, (3) ensuring autonomy by claiming and holding jurisdictional boundaries
of the work, (4) the importance of serving high-status clients, (5) organizational prestige

affecting individual prestige, (6) gaining job promotions through networking,

[in mint
professions:
mfessionai
tie Value of

occupation l

(7) receiving recognition, and (8) receiving increased monetary rewards for engaging in
professional work. Each element demonstrates the importance of defining the
professional work, establishing its knowledge base, determining its boundaries, knowing
the value of the work to others, and identifying what obstacles and strengths an
occupation has as it strives to acquire professional status in contemporary organizational
cultures. This study concludes with an analysis of whether judicial education exhibits the
characteristics of the traditional service model of the professions or the Marxian model of
power and control.

The study employed qualitative research methods. The data were collected
through telephone interviews, using an interview guide. The data were coded, and the
codes became the descriptive terms used to define the work of judicial education and
determine its status. Analysis of the terms comprised the findings of this study, which
indicated that judicial education has not yet fully attained the eight professional-status

elements established in previous sociological research.

Copyright by
Maureen Elise Conner
1998

T0 lht
ED manifest {1

Tim ."0U fc

To the three people in my life who encouraged me from the time I was a little girl
to manifest my dreams: my mother, Darlene; my father, Dean; and my brother, Eric.

Thank you for always believing in me.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I extend my heartfelt appreciation to the 50 state judicial educators who spoke
with me about their work and its meaning and value. They shared their thoughts and
beliefs with openness and intense feeling. I am honored by the experience we shared.

Next, I wish to express my gratitude to those who guided my academic work: Dr.
Thomas Conner, my dissertation committee chair, who shepherded me through the final
stages of my graduate work; Dr. William Ewens, my academic advisor, who so aptly led
me through my course work and comprehensive examinations; Dr. Kevin Kelly, who
inspired me to think about everyday life in a different way; and Dr. John Hudzik, who has
been my mentor and friend for many years. The wise counsel of these four men kept me
focused and committed when both my focus and commitment were thoroughly
challenged.

I am blessed to have had a strong support network comprised of beings of the
highest order. The following individuals never failed to embrace me or my work: Kay
Palmer and the Arkansas Prayer Chain, Karen Thorson, Larry Stone, June Cicero, Louise
Sause, Anne Hudzik, Murlene McKinnon, Ted Kowalski, Cathy Lowe, Lynn Hecht
Schfran, Dennis Catlin, Georgia Wright, and Andrea Pierre-Pierre.

Last to the dear ones in my life who traveled this journey with me: Jim Porter,

Sharon George, Joanne Ziembo-Vogl, Reneé Bockes, Deborah Moser, and Phil Stevens.

has held me

and unconditic

They held me in their hearts and prayers daily. Their support of me is an example of pure

and unconditional love.

vi

llSl OF TAL
HST OF FlC

NRODL'C'
Reasons 1'
Statemen
Research
Research
Position (
Ol'i‘n‘ieu

CH‘wPTER 1
A REVIEW t
STUDY OF ;
Histofica
The Impc
Two App
TWO C0”

Status in

PT“! :3
“ cram“

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xv
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
Reasons for This Study .................................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................... 2
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 3
Research Design ............................................................................................................. 6
Position of the Researcher ............................................................................................. 7
Overview .................................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 1
A REVIEW OF THE TWO DOMINANT APPROACHES AND MODELS IN THE
STUDY OF PROFESSIONS ............................................................................................. 12
Historical Summary ..................................................................................................... 13
The Importance of Studying Professions ..................................................................... 16
Two Approaches to Studying the Professions: An Overview .................................... 17
Two Competing Models of the Professions ................................................................. 19
Traditional Service Model .......................................................................... 19
The Power-Control Model ........................................................................... 21
Status in the Two Models ............................................................................................ 24
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF JUDICIAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES ................... 28
Historical Background: Origin, Affiliation, and Authorization .................................. 29
Structural Characteristics of Judicial Education .......................................................... 3O
Boards and Committees ............................................................................... 3O
Staffing ........................................................................................................ 31
Salaries ........................................................................................................ 32
Faculty ......................................................................................................... 33
Budgets ........................................................................................................ 34
Organization Design .................................................................................... 35
Programming Characteristics of Judicial Education .................................................... 35
Policies and Procedures ............................................................................... 36
Mandatory Education Provisions ................................................................ 36
New-Judge Orientation and Judicial Mentoring .......................................... 38

vii

Dfiscriplix‘

Gal‘s Bet

CHIPIER 3
RESEARCH
“16 R336
Data Coll

Tuition and Fees .......................................................................................... 38

Training Leave-Days ................................................................................... 39

Reimbursement Policies .............................................................................. 39

Minority and Female Participation Rates .................................................... 39

Program Planning Information Sources ...................................................... 4O

Present and Future Priority Target Groups .................................................. 41

The Planning Horizon ................................................................................. 42

Program Enrollments ................................................................................... 43

Programming ............................................................................................... 43

Length of Programming .............................................................................. 44

Size of Programs ......................................................................................... 45

Program Faculty .......................................................................................... 45

Program Calendars and Instructional Methods ........................................... 46

Description of NASJE .................................................................................................. 47

Purpose of NASJE ....................................................................................... 47

NASJE Board Structure ............................................................................... 47

NASJE Committees ..................................................................................... 48

NASJE Membership .................................................................................... 48

Projects and Services of NASJE ................................................................. 49

Gaps Between What Is Known and Not Known About Judicial Education ................ 51
CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................................................. 53

The Research Population ............................................................................................. 53

Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 54

Interview Guide and Format ........................................................................ 54

The Interview Environment ......................................................................... 57

The Interview Questions ............................................................................. 60

Revisions to the Interview Questions .......................................................... 66

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 68

Units of Analysis .......................................................................................................... 71

Sex of the Judicial Educator ...................................................................... 72

Educational Background ............................................................................ 72

Organizational Size .................................................................................... 73

Career Stage ............................................................................................... 75

Comparative Analysis Between the Judicial Education Status

Elements and the Status Elements in the Literature ..................................................... 77
CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 79

Research Question 1: What is the Work of Judicial Educators? ...................................... 80

Job Responsibilities in Judicial-Education Work ........................................................ 80

Job Responsibilities in Non-Judicial-Education Work ................................................ 83

Research Question 2: What Do Judicial Educators Value About Their Work? ............... 86

viii

Research QUCSlll
About lltcir W01

Research Questi
ludlcial Educate
lltrl”
Research Questi
Judicial Educatc
inThcir Work.

E
E
E
E

R _ E

fimh Questi
lflfl'Ctal Educati
I)rl: Change 0\'
search Questi
Ric: Judicial Er
SSW Questi
Lilli£31101] 35 11 C
CHtPTER 5
DISC ‘ .

;. lSSlOX .1

Motion of H

r, t. .
lhh“

z;
a.
a.‘
I:
('3
E". mmmN’lH‘”
:' m “7

5-75
s’z’
2:.
5m
G.
(LC
(7
,9:
2H”,

en alior

Research Question 3: What Do Judicial Educators Perceive That Others Value

About Their Work? ............................................................................................................ 88
Significant Others ...................................................................................... 89
Friends ........................................................................................................ 90
Organizational Peers .................................................................................. 92
Judicial Educator Colleagues ..................................................................... 93
Supervisors ................................................................................................. 94
Audiences ................................................................................................... 95
State Legislators and the Public ................................................................. 97

Research Question 4: What are the Differences and/or Similarities Between What
Judicial Educators Value and What Others Value About Judicial Education

Work? ............................................................................................................................... 101
Research Question 5: What are the Differences and/or Similarities Between

Judicial Educators with Regard to Their Perceptions About What is Valuable

in Their Work, and What Accounts for These Differences and Similarities? ................ 101
Effect of Gender ....................................................................................... 103
Effect of Educational Background ........................................................... 107
Effect of Length of Experience ................................................................ 108
Effect of Organizational Placement ......................................................... 109
Effect of Audience Composition ............................................................. 110

Research Question 6: Do Judicial Educators Believe That the Value Attributed to
Judicial Education Has Changed Over the Past Ten Years (1986), and Do They Think It

Will Change Over the Next Ten Years (2006)? ............................................................... 112
Research Question 7: How Many of the Elements of Professional Status
Does Judicial Education Possess? .................................................................................... 1 14
Research Question 8: What are the Strengths of and Obstacles Faced by Judicial
Education as it Strives to Achieve Professional Standing? ............................................. 118
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 122
Discussion of Findings ..................................................................................................... 122
Element 1 ................................................................................................. 122
Element 2 ................................................................................................. 126
Element 3 ................................................................................................. 127
Element 4 ................................................................................................. 130
Element 5 ................................................................................................. 131
Element 6 ................................................................................................. 134
Element 7 ................................................................................................. 135
Element 8 ................................................................................................. 135
Judicial Education and Models of Profession .................................................................. 137
The Traditional Service Model ................................................................ 137
The Power and Control Model ................................................................. 138
Judicial Education and the Models .................................................................................. 138
Recommendations for Further Study ............................................................................... 139

ix

quENDIX A:
“judicial-E

gm Work .......

.tPPEXDlX C l
o'lrers‘pamers-
sate legislators

APPENDIX D:
Colleagues Val

APPENDIX E:
Judicial Educat

APPENDIX E:
Background

APPENDIX G

Erperierice ......

APPENDIX H.
.guizational

APPENDIX I:
llzide a Di

t‘fere

.uttxorx K
Ecucation 11m
APP ' '

r ENDLX -

~dllcall0n‘g AC
33 .
~ PBDIX .\l

llSlOFREFl

APPENDIX A: Descriptors and Explanations of Judicial Education and
Non-Judicial-Education Job Responsibilities .................................................................. 144

APPENDIX B: Descriptors and Explanations of What Judicial Educators Valued About
their Work ........................................................................................................................ 153

APPENDIX C: Descriptors and Explanations of What Others (i.e., significant
others/partners, organizational peers, colleagues, supervisors, audiences/client groups,

state legislators, and the public) Valued About the Judicial Education Work ................. 158

APPENDIX D: Descriptors and Explanations of What the Respondents Perceived Their
Colleagues Valued About their Own Work ..................................................................... 170

APPENDIX E: Descriptors and Explanations Regarding Gender Differences in What
Judicial Educators Valued ................................................................................................ 173

APPENDIX F: Descriptors and Explanations of Differences Based on Educational
Background ...................................................................................................................... 178

APPENDIX G: Descriptors and Explanations Regarding the Effect of Length of
Experience ........................................................................................................................ 181

APPENDIX H: Descriptors and Explanations Regarding Value Differences Based on
Organizational Placement ................................................................................................ 183

APPENDIX 1: Descriptors and Explanations Regarding Whether Audience Composition
Made a Difference in What Judicial Educators Valued ................................................... 186

APPENDIX J: Descriptors and Explanations Regarding the Value of Judicial Education
Ten Years into the Future ................................................................................................ 187

APPENDIX K: Descriptors and Explanations Regarding the Strengths of Judicial
Education That Promote Achievement of Professional Status ........................................ 189

APPENDIX L: Descriptors and Explanations Regarding the Obstacles to Judicial

Education’s Achieving Professional Status ..................................................................... 192
APPENDIX M: Tables 18-92 ......................................................................................... 195
LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 273

Table 1 -
Table 2 -
Table 3 -
Table 4 -
Table 5 -
Table 6 -
Table 7 -

Table 8 -
Table 9 -
Table 10 -

Table 1 l -

Table 12 -
Table 13 -
Table 14 -
Table 15 -
Table 16 -

Table 17 -

Table 18 -
Table 19 -
Table 20 -
Table 21 -
Table 22 -

LIST OF TABLES

Judicial Education Job Responsibilities ..................................................... 82
Non-Judicial-Education Job Responsibilities ............................................ 85
What Judicial Educators Valued About Their Work ................................. 87
What Significant Others Valued About Judicial Education ...................... 90
What Friends Valued About Judicial Education ........................................ 91
What Organizational Peers Valued About Judicial Education .................. 93
What Other Judicial Educators Valued About the Respondent’s Judicial
Education Work ......................................................................................... 94
What Supervisors Valued About Judicial Education ................................. 95
What Audiences Valued About Judicial Education ................................... 96
What Judicial Educators’ Colleagues Valued About Their Own

Work ........................................................................................................ 102
Perceptions on Whether Audience Made a Difference in What Judicial
Educators Valued About Their Work ...................................................... 111
Value of Judicial Education Ten Years Ago ( 1986) ................................ 112
Perceived Value of Judicial Education Ten Years From Now (2006) ..... 113
Acquisition of Professional Status Elements ........................................... 115
Indicators of Professional Status Not Held by Judicial Education .......... 116
Strengths of Judicial Education That Promote Achievement of
Professional Status ................................................................................... 118
Obstacles to Judicial Education That Prevent Achievement of

Professional Status ................................................................................... 119
Judicial Education Job Responsibilities by Sex ....................................... 195
Judicial Education Job Responsibilities by Educational Background ...... 196
Judicial Education Job Responsibilities by Organizational Size ............. 197
Judicial Education Job Responsibilities by Career Stage ........................ 199
Non-Judicial-Education Job Responsibilities by Sex .............................. 201

xi

 

IDPB-

IDEN-
recs.
ifieX-

Ire?-

PEER-

hk29-
IEEBO-

TEEN.

Table 23 -

Table 24 -
Table 25 -
Table 26 -
Table 27 -

Table 28 -

Table 29 -
Table 30 -
Table 31 -
Table 32 -

Table 33 -

Table 34 -

Table 35 -
Table 36 -
Table 37 -

Table 38 -

Table 39 -
Table 40 -
Table 41 -
Table 42 -

Table 43 -

Table 44 -

Table 45 -
Table 46 -

Non-Judicial-Education Job Responsibilities by Educational

Background .............................................................................................. 202
Non-Judicial-Education Job Responsibilities by Organizational Size ..... 203
Non-Judicial-Education Job Responsibilities by Career Stage ................ 205
What Judicial Educators Valued About Their Work by Sex ................... 207
What Judicial Educators Valued About Their Work by Educational
Background .............................................................................................. 208
What Judicial Educators Valued About Their Work by Organizational

Size ........................................................................................................... 209
What Judicial Educators Valued About Their Work by Career Stage ..... 210
Value of Work to Judicial Educators ....................................................... 211
What Significant Others Valued About Judicial Education by Sex ........ 212
What Significant Others Valued About Judicial Education by Educational
Background .............................................................................................. 213
What Significant Others Valued About Judicial Education by
Organizational Size .................................................................................. 214
What Significant Others Valued About Judicial Education by

Career Stage ............................................................................................. 215
Value of Work to Significant Other ......................................................... 216
What Friends Valued About Judicial Education by Sex .......................... 217
What Friends Valued About Judicial Education by Educational
Background .............................................................................................. 218
What Friends Valued About Judicial Education by Organizational

Size ........................................................................................................... 219
What Friends Valued About Judicial Education by Career Stage ........... 220
Value of Work to Friends ........................................................................ 221

What Organizational Peers Valued About Judicial Education by Sex ....221
What Organizational Peers Valued About Judicial Education by

Educational Background .......................................................................... 222
What Organizational Peers Valued About Judicial Education by
Organizational Size .................................................................................. 223
What Organizational Peers Valued About Judicial Education by Career
Stage ......................................................................................................... 224
Value of Work to Organizational Peers ................................................... 225
What Other Judicial Educators Valued About the Respondent’s Judicial
Education Work by Sex ........................................................................... 226

xii

Table 47 -
Table 48 -
Table 49 -

Table 50 -

Table SI -
Table 52 -

Table 53 -
Table 54 .
Table 55 .
Table 56 .

Table 57 .

Table 53 .
Table S9 .
Table 60 .

Tal‘le 61 .
Table 62 .

Table 63 .

Table 47 -

Table 48 -

Table 49 -

Table 50 -
Table 51 -

Table 52 -

Table 53 -
Table 54 -
Table 55 -
Table 56 -

Table 57 -

Table 58 -
Table 59 -
Table 60 -

Table 61 -

Table 62 -

Table 63 -

Table 64 -

Table 65 -

Table 66 -

What Other Judicial Educators Valued About the Respondent’s Judicial

Education Work by Educational Background .......................................... 226
What Other Judicial Educators Valued About the Respondent’s Judicial
Education Work by Organizational Size .................................................. 227
What Other Judicial Educators Valued About the Respondent’s Judicial
Education Work by Career Stage ............................................................. 228
What Supervisors Valued About Judicial Education by Sex ................... 229
What Supervisors Valued About Judicial Education by Educational
Background .............................................................................................. 230
What Supervisors Valued About Judicial Education by Organizational
Size ........................................................................................................... 231
What Supervisors Valued About Judicial Education by Career Stage ....232
Value of Work to Supervisors .................................................................. 233
What Audiences Valued About Judicial Education by Sex ..................... 234
What Audiences Valued About Judicial Education by Educational
Background .............................................................................................. 235
What Audiences Valued About Judicial Education by

Organizational Size .................................................................................. 236
What Audiences Valued About Judicial Education by Career Stage ...... 238
Value of Work to Audience ..................................................................... 240
What Judicial Educators’ Colleagues Valued About Their Own Work

by Sex ....................................................................................................... 241
What Judicial Educators’ Colleagues Valued About Their Own Work by
Educational Background .......................................................................... 242
What Judicial Educators’ Colleagues Valued About Their Own Work by
Organizational Size .................................................................................. 243
What Judicial Educators’ Colleagues Valued About Their Own Work by
Career Stage ............................................................................................. 244
Perceptions on Whether the Gender of the Judicial Educators Made a
Difference in What They Valued About Their Own Work by Sex ......... 245

Perceptions on Whether the Education of the Judicial Educators Made a
Difference in What They Valued About Their Own Work by Educational
Background .............................................................................................. 247

Perceptions on Whether the Length of Experience of the Judicial
Educators Made a Difference in What They Valued About Their Work by
Career Stage ............................................................................................. 249

xiii

Table 68 -

Table 69 -
Table 70 -
Table 71 -

Table 72 .
Table 73 .
Table 74 .
Table 75 .
Table 76 .
Table 77 .
Table 78 .
Table 79 .
Table 80 .

Table 81 .
Table 82 .

Table 33 ~

Table 67 -

Table 68 —

Table 69 -

Table 70 -

Table 71 -

Table 72 -
Table 73 -
Table 74 -
Table 75 -
Table 76 -
Table 77 -
Table 78 -
Table 79 -
Table 80 -

Table 81 -

Table 82 -

Table 83 -

Table 84 -

Table 85 -

Table 86 -

Table 87 -

Table 88 -

Perceptions on Whether Organizational Placement of the Judicial
Educators Made a Difference in What They Valued About Their Work by

Organizational Placement ........................................................................ 250
Value of Judicial Education Ten Years From Now (2006) by Sex ......... 251
Value of Judicial Education Ten Years From Now (2006) by Educational
Background .............................................................................................. 251
Value of Judicial Education Ten Years From Now (2006) by
Organizational Size .................................................................................. 252
Value of Judicial Education Ten Years From Now (2006) by

Career Stage ............................................................................................. 253
Obtaining Abstract Knowledge ................................................................ 254
Applying Abstract Knowledge ................................................................ 254
Ensuring Autonomy ................................................................................. 255
Serving High-Status Clients ..................................................................... 255
Professional and Organizational Prestige ................................................ 256
Connections and Promotional Sponsorship ............................................. 256
Peer Recognition ...................................................................................... 257
Increased Earning Potential ..................................................................... 257
Indicators of Professional Status Not Held by Judicial Education

by Sex ....................................................................................................... 258
Indicators of Professional Status Not Held by Judicial Education by
Educational Background .......................................................................... 259
Indicators of Professional Status Not Held by Judicial Education by
Organizational Size .................................................................................. 260
Indicators of Professional Status Not Held by Judicial Education by Career
Stage ......................................................................................................... 262
Extent to Which Judicial Education Has Obtained

Professional Standing ............................................................................... 264
Strengths of Judicial Education That Promote Achievement of
Professional Status by Sex ....................................................................... 265
Strengths of Judicial Education That Promote Achievement of
Professional Status by Educational Background ..................................... 266
Strengths of Judicial Education That Promote Achievement of
Professional Status by Organizational Size ............................................. 267
Strengths of Judicial Education That Promote Achievement of
Professional Status by Career Stage ........................................................ 268

xiv

 

Table 89 -

Table 90 -

Table 91 -

Table 93 -

Table 89 -

Table 90 -

Table 91 -

Table 92 -

Obstacles to Judicial Education’s Achieving Professional Status

by Sex ....................................................................................................... 269
Obstacles to Judicial Education’s Achieving Professional Status by
Educational Background .......................................................................... 270

Obstacles to Judicial Education’s Achieving Professional Status by
Organizational Size .................................................................................. 271

Obstacles to Judicial Education’s Achieving Professional Status by Career
Stage ......................................................................................................... 272

XV

Figure 1 -
Figure 2 -
Figure 3 -
Figure 4 -
Figure 5 -
Figure 6 -

LIST OF FIGURES

State Judicial Educators’ Job Responsibilities in Judicial Education ........ 81
State Judicial Educator Job Responsibilities in State Judicial Branch ...... 84

Groups That Value Judicial Educators’ Work, from Most to Least .......... 99
Unknown Value of Judicial Education, in Descending Order ................. 100
Characteristics Commonly Attributed to Women .................................... 106
Characteristics Commonly Attributed to Men ......................................... 107

xvi

The pUJPO'
muanOH. judicl
mimiewed 50 5“
they perceived otl
could claim mee

Judicial ei
doeloping and 9
Tree are some n
judicial educator
study packages. 2
lllfidzil I995). '
elthe problem. r

orcrciew of the r

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this research was to study how members of an emergent
occupation, judicial education, identify and claim status. During the summer of 1996, I
interviewed 50 state judicial educators about what they valued about their work, what
they perceived others valued, and the extent to which they believed their occupation
could claim professional status.

Judicial educators are in the state court systems and have responsibility for
developing and directing continuing education programs for judges and court personnel.
There are some minimal differences across states; however, the primary function of
judicial educators is to develop and administer conferences, seminars, workshops, self-
study packages, and distance education programs for state court judges and personnel
(Hudzik 1995). This introduction includes six sections: reasons for this study, statement
of the problem, research questions, research design, position of the researcher, and an

overview of the remainder of the dissertation.

Reasons for This Study

Studying the occupation of judicial education provides a unique opportunity in

several respects. First, the occupation is young-~the field of judicial education emerged

mm: mid Ii
Hf“. occupall

the timing 0f

after having 0
judicial eduCa
timbers have
DTTJOIIT neWCOL

airs amonfi 1'

Occupat
elationship. sec
another Occupati
PlPerjor ltnou'let
Status confers air.

In the cas.

mLolished the ex

Do
or 7 '
. er a provide

in the mid 19703 (Hudzik 1995). Consequently, this is an opportunity to investigate a
new occupation as it struggles to establish itself and achieve professional status. Second,
the timing of this study is important. Although the occupation of judicial education is
fairly young, the people in it are not. Many judicial educators came to this occupation
after having other careers (Conner 1996). Consequently, those individuals who founded
judicial education are quickly approaching retirement; in fact, some of the founding
members have already retired. By conducting this study now, I can capture the thoughts
of both newcomers and founders. Third, I am aware of no other research that has studied

status among judicial educators or any other state court system occupational group.

Statement of the Problem

 

Occupational status is important if practitioners are to control the expert-client
relationship, secure the jurisdictional boundaries of the occupation from invasion by
another occupation, and convince the public that the occupation can be trusted to apply its
superior knowledge and special skills to solving human problems (Abbott 1988). In sum,
status confers authority, control, and positive recognition.

In the case of judicial education, no previous research has been conducted that has
established the extent to which judicial education has acquired professional status.
Chapter 2 provides an abbreviated report on structural and firnctional characteristics of
judicial education. It also provides demographic characteristics of judicial educators.
This study strives to explain more fully what is involved in the day-to-day functions of

judicial education by asking judicial educators to describe what they do in their jobs. The

intention is tc
rest The ans
ofjudicial edi
beinitiated. l

P_ro_bl_e

Problei

Proble
\

M

Elghl TESe“

a,“
r’iubl

9." a.

intention is to determine what the work is and where the boundaries of this occupation
rest. The answer to this question may well determine how weak or strong the boundaries
of judicial education are and whether the boundaries can withstand an attack should one
be initiated. Therefore, this study addresses four problems related to professional status:

Problem 1: Define the work of judicial education.

Problem 2: Determine what judicial educators value about their work and the
extent to which they find value in their work.

Problem 3: Determine what others value about judicial educators’ work and the
extent to which they value judicial education. The others are
significant others/partners, fiiends, organizational peers, supervisors,
judicial-educator colleagues, education and training audiences/client
groups, state legislators, and the public.

Problem 4: Determine the extent to which judicial education has achieved
professional status and ascertain the primary strengths of and
obstacles faced by judicial education as it strives for

professional status.

Research Questions

 

Eight research questions were formulated to address the aforementioned

problems. They are as follows.

 

Research QPPSIIOI

mission: This

exec
the \
Resea'ch Questio

Discretion: This
abor

51811

Research Questit

boil?

Ditcnssion: Thi:
org.
and
Will

COT]

Research Question 1: What is the work of judicial educators?
Discussion: This question seeks to describe the work of judicial education as it is

executed by judicial educators. It will provide a functional description of

the work.

Research Question 2: What do judicial educators value about their work?
Discussion: This question seeks to find out what judicial educators perceive as valuable
about the work they do. It also seeks to build a list of factors that confer

status on or take status away from individual judicial educators.

Research Question 3: What do judicial educators perceive that others value about their

work?

Discussion: This question strives to determine what significant others/partners, friends,
organizational peers, supervisors, judicial-educator colleagues, education
and training audiences/client groups, state legislators, and the public think is
valuable about judicial education. It also seeks to build a list of factors that

confer status on or take status away from individual judicial educators.

Research Question 4: What are the differences and/or similarities between what judicial

educators value and what others value about the judicial education work?

Discussion: This question seeks to determine whether there is any difference between
what judicial educators and others value about the judicial education work.

This question also seeks to determine whether the sex, educational

Research On
educators or
accounts for

lbscussion:

Rachel Qu
fellatio“ i121

DLPCUSSIOI]

March On

MESSion a

DSCLESlOn:

background, and experience of the judicial educator make a difference in

how their work is valued by others.

Research Question 5: What are the differences and/or similarities between judicial

educators with regard to their perceptions about what is valuable in their work, and what

accounts for these differences and similarities?

Discussion: This question seeks to discover whether certain factors like sex, educational
background, length of service, organizational placement of the judicial
education operation, and composition of the client groups make a difference

in what is valued.

Research Question 6: Do judicial educators believe that the value attributed to judicial

education has changed over the past ten years, and do they think it will change over the

next ten years?

Discussion: This question seeks to discover whether judicial educators perceive that the
value of judicial education is different now from what is was is 1986, and

whether they perceive its value will be different in 2006.

Research Question 7: What are the elements that judicial educators perceive make a
profession, and how many of those elements does judicial education already possess?
Discussion: This question seeks to determine the extent to which judicial education has

achieved professional standing. It also seeks to consider common aspects of

 

prt

the

Research Quest
as it strives to a

Discussion: TI

"3

professional status and whether those aspects are present in or absent from

the occupation of judicial education.

Research Question 8: What are the strengths of and obstacles faced by judicial education

as it strives to achieve professional standing?

Discussion: This question seeks to illuminate the process that an emerging occupation
goes through when it is seeking to achieve professional standing. In
particular, it seeks to identify what may facilitate or impede judicial

education’s obtaining professional standing.

Research Design

 

In this study I used qualitative research methods. During July and August 1996, I
held telephone interviews with all 50 state judicial educators. Each interview lasted
approximately one and one-half hours. The interview questions were primarily open
ended, but some close ended questions also were used. The respondents were encouraged
to speak freely about the issues. I used an interview guide, which ensured that the same
questions were posed to each judicial educator. However, if a judicial educator declined
to answer a certain question, I simply proceeded to the next question.

Each response was coded. As similarities and differences appeared, I refined the
coding until I arrived at the descriptors that appear in the text, tables, and figures

throughout this document. The descriptors allow me to describe what is involved in the

soil OlludlCiel
derermine \i‘hic

Last. thi
resembles The t
Pecans I939:

dominance lllri‘

lam a
negatites con:
in Chapter 4.

I hate
administrator
education am

From 1988 th

C9911 Admir

work of judicial education, identify what is valued about judicial education, and
determine which status indicators are present or absent.

Last, through the results, I will determine whether judicial education more closely
resembles the traditional service model (Carr-Saunders and Wilson 1933; Marshall 1939;
Parsons 1939; Naegle 1956; Goode 1957; Braude 1961) or the Marxist model of client

dominance through structural power and control (Berlant 1975; Larson 1977).

Position of the Researcher

 

I am a known investigator to this population. Being known has both positive and
negatives consequences. These consequences are discussed in the introduction and again
in Chapter 4. So that the reader is familiar with my background, I offer it here.

I have worked in the field of judicial education since 1984. I started as an
administrator of judicial education for the Michigan Judicial Institute, the training and
education arm of the Michigan Supreme Court. I held that position from 1984 until 1988.
From 1988 through 1991, I was the director of judicial education for the Illinois Supreme
Court, Administrative Office of the Court. From 1991 through 1996, I was senior
associate and later director for the Judicial Education Research, Information and
Technical Transfer (JERITT) Project. The JERITT Project is the national clearinghouse
on judicial education in the United States. It is co-sponsored by the National Association
of State Judicial Educators (N ASJE) and the Department of Criminal Justice at Michigan
State University. Since 1988, I have worked as a consultant on judicial education

projects and programs across the country.

Since 1'
for judicial edu
education comr
member of the t

Througl
been insulted i:
inteniews with

[have 31
Publications on
needs “WSSmer
Pffin aconsuh;1r

There an
Pflcem Panlcip;
memo“ beca
factor in ”Seam
Tscific lens is
W‘iewer and r

Cabinet: 1994 :3 7

“News. In ad

Since 1988 I have been a member of NASJE, which is the professional association
for judicial educators. I have held several positions in NASJE: chair of the conference
education committee for six years, mentor for new judicial educators for two years, and
member of the education committee for one year.

Through NASJE and during my tenure at the JERITT Project, I have directed or
been involved in three written surveys of this population. I conducted telephone
interviews with judicial educators on two other occasions before this research.

I have authored or co-authored many monographs, articles, and chapters in
publications on judicial education and have written several unpublished reports related to
needs assessments and evaluations of judicial education programs and projects. I have
been a consultant on more than a dozen state and national judicial education endeavors.

There are several benefits to being a known investigator. First, I obtained 100
percent participation. Second, the terms that the respondents and I used were mutually
understood because we shared the same occupational language. This is an important
factor in research, as the following statement indicates: "The use of language and
specific terms is very important for creating a 'sharedness of meanings' in which both
interviewer and respondent understand the contextual nature of the interview” (Miller and
Crabtree 1994:371). Therefore, language and terms were not a problem during the
interviews. In addition, because of the open interview format, judicial educators had the
opportunity to talk freely. This type of interviewing usually increases rapport and allows
for the collection of tacit knowledge (Miller and Crabtree 1994). This is the third benefit
to be a known investigator--obtaining information not typically available to outside

investigators using more rigid data-collection methods.

indit
prob
alua;
go al.
T3563:
erpia
in the

labour

Being a known investigator also has limitations. Lofland and Lofland (1995)
indicated that when qualitative studies are undertaken by a known investigator, the
problems are strategic rather than ethical, even though the self and other are entangled
(Fine 1994). Roth (1970) explained the strategic issues this way: (1) researchers do not
always know everything that they are after, so they continue to structure the study as they
go along; (2) researchers do not want the subjects' behaviors to be influenced by what the
researchers are interested in; and (3) even if the subjects have been given a detailed
explanation of the purpose and procedure of the study, the subjects will not understand it
in the same way that the researcher does. Therefore, even though the researcher is
known, the research is not necessarily known. Consequently, there is a degree of distance
or secrecy that disallows prejudgment of answers, either when they are given by the
respondent or when they are received by the researcher (Lofland and Lofland 1995).

Qualitative studies allow the data to emerge freely, which likely reduces the
tendency to prejudge what emerges. Conducting structured interviews using a close
ended survey would have presumed that I knew how the interviewees would respond. I
chose not to make that presumption. I wanted to hear from them in their own words. For
this reason, I chose to employ qualitative research methods. I wanted to guard against
using my knowledge in place of the respondents’. Also, I wanted to disavow the
respondents of any notion that I was looking for a particular response. This approach was
different from past survey or interview experiences that the judicial educators and I had
shared. In the past, I queried them about structural or functional aspects of judicial
education. Usually, the response options were close ended. The questions did not require

them to think about their personal attachments to their work. I was primarily collecting

 

clamor

resend

lT‘Clls 0n
Serene and
clear (Der
exi‘li’ined

i0 “filtrate

10

data to describe the work. By changing my approach, I hoped to further disassociate the
respondents from past experiences with me as the investigator. And, last, I hoped to
create an environment that would encourage them to speak from their hearts and not just
from their heads. The nature of these interviews was primarily personal, which required
long and intimate unstructured conversations about values, meanings, commitments,
struggles, failures, and successes. The interview process also required vulnerability on
both of our parts.

Although the arguments between positivist and postpositivist researchers often
focus on the position of the researcher, the researcher presents a unique self that claims
some authority over the subject matter, and the rules of this presentation are no longer
clear (Denzin 1994). Consequently, I have articulated my known investigator status here,
explained what I did to neutralize any negative effect of that status, and leave it to others

to evaluate.

Overview

In addition to this introductory chapter, the dissertation contains five other
chapters. Chapter 1 contains the literature review, which focuses on the two dominant
models of professions and the role of status. Chapter 2 provides historical information on
judicial education. It also describes what is known about the structure, process, and
content of judicial education. Chapter 3 contains a description of the methods used in
this study. Described are the interview instrument and format, the interview

environment, the interview questions and revisions to the questions, and the data-analysis

methods.

findings.

methods. The findings are reported in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 includes a discussion of the

findings, as well as conclusions and recommendations.

CHAPTER 1

A REVIEW OF THE TWO DOMINANT APPROACHES AND
MODELS IN THE STUDY OF PROF ESSIONS

Chapter 1 contains a focused review of the literature, addressing the key features
of the functional-structural approach and the Marxian market-control approach to the
analysis of professions. These are the two major approaches that dominate the literature.
The functional-structural approach, which was in use before 1960, focuses on defining
professions and identifying universal characteristics and traits of professional work. The
foundation for this early work was based on the archetype professions of law and
medicine. The fimctional-structural approach also studies the paths that occupations take
as they become professionalized. The findings of the early studies continue to be used to
evaluate whether emerging occupations warrant professional status and whether status
can be maintained if granted. Characteristics and traits set forth in the functional-
structural approach continue to be valid and are also part of the market-control approach.

The market-control approach is a critical analysis of the professions. It is based in
Marxist theory and analysis. This approach takes the characteristics of professions and

situates them within market forces to determine the extent to which clients are dominated

12

and cool!
professio.

E:
in the has
in mice
approach
for client
earning p

Tl
uncemlre
crofessior
education

control m-

l3

and controlled by the professions. The market-control approach to studying the
professions began in the 19603 and continues to this day.

Each approach gave birth to a model. The functional-structural approach resulted
in the traditional service model of professions, which focuses on using expert knowledge
in service of a higher good. Thus, at its center is a service ideal. The market-control
approach resulted in the power-control model, which focuses on using expert knowledge
for client dominance. In both models, the professions enjoy status, prestige, increased
earning potential, and varying levels of autonomy, power, and control.

These approaches and models are reviewed in Chapter 1, because this study was
undertaken to discover how the emerging occupation of judicial education claims
professional status. In addition, an attempt is made to determine whether judicial
education more closely matches the traditional service model or the Marxian power-

control model.

Historical Summary

 

Professions originated in the nineteenth century as a new form of occupation: the
merging of apothecaries with surgeons and physicians; the rise of the legal profession;
and the advent of surveyors, architects, and accountants signaled that a new age was
dawning (Abbott 1988). The rise of professions in both England and the United States
paralleled the rise of capitalism as it needed both laborers and schooled experts to grow

and survive (Larson 197 7).

Oi
r-aneo' 0T
thenxn‘
Habensteii

Ah
irons vary
1995). So:
application
mcuolote
cdhgulm

Naegle ( l9

14

Over the years, professions and professionalization have been studied using a
variety of approaches. The functional approach addresses the characteristics present in
the expert-client relationship that allow the expert to maintain control over the client.
Habenstein (1995) referred to this as a constellation of characteristics.

Although this approach has great currency, it also has great variability because the
items vary, as does their emphasis, based on who is conducting the research (Habenstein
1995). Some of the most well-known items are altruism, service, possession and
application of abstract knowledge, jurisdictional claim, autonomy, ethics codes, licenses,
control over work, perceived status in the community, elite clientele, public trust, and
collegial affiliation. Carr-Saunders and Wilson (1933), Marshall (1939), Parsons (1939),
Naegle (1956), Goode (1957), and Braude (1961) identified these items and made major
contributions to the functionalist school. At the time, the functionalists were trying to
determine what means professions used to ensure clients’ trust in and compliance with
their expert service. The most interesting thing to note about this early research is that the
characteristics have become foundational and remain relatively intact even to this day
(Abbott 1988).

The structuralist approach is similar to the functionalist approach. It looks at the
steps occupations take on the road to professionalization. The difference between the two
approaches is that the functionalists look at control in the expert-client relationship,
whereas the structuralists look at and try to explain the differences in the
professionalization process. The locus of analysis for the functionalists is at the

individual level. The structuralists take a societal approach in which the structural

 

gig-335:" 1
in ,ibbott (
Hat
appmath. “
and applies 2
has to trust [I
seamed that
someone: ('5) c
predicting beh:
operation and s;
The nets
dispensing exper
dominance and CI
Ptolessions are ii.

an organizational

15

guarantees of control can be won or lost. Examples of the structural approach are found
in Abbott (1988), Wilensky (1964), Caplow (1954), and Millerson (1964).

Habenstein (1995) combined the two approaches into the functional-structural
approach, which he concluded had the following elements: (1) the professional develops
and applies abstract knowledge and technical expertise to solving problems; (2) the client
has to trust the professional, and the professional has to respect the client; (3) it is
assumed that the image of the system fits reality; (4) function can be inferred from
structure; (5) objectifiable aspects of action are significant for understanding and
predicting behavior; and (6) certain forms of social organization are critical to the
operation and survival of society.

The new political climate of the 19605 reshaped the study of professions from
dispensing expert service for the purpose of curing social problems to amassing
dominance and control over atomized clients (Abbott 1988). In this approach,
professions are viewed as economic monopolies whose sole goal is to gain intellectual
and organizational dominion over social problems. Monopoly theorists like Berlant
(1975) and Larson (1977) looked at how professions organize themselves to gain market
control for their expertise. Monopolists focus on how professions work to become
exclusionary so that they can increase power, control, and status.

The last approach combines the monopoly theory of ensuring upward mobility
with the need to protect other professionals from rigid employment conditions resulting
from capitalism. This is referred to as the cultural approach and was set forth by

Bledstein (1976) and Haskell (1984). According to this approach, the professions seek to

docoot

status. 2

thwso
pup“
homap
exclusit
achiei'in
lhhdm
altruism.

hemai

,‘n

met? 50 1
US$310]
me the p
TPWfi:

Helm

thawS

16

do good while simultaneously trying to obtain structural support that will result in power,
status, and money.

Regardless of the differences among theorists, there is relative consistency in their
views of what makes a profession. Their opinion is that a profession is an occupational
group with special skill; usually the skill is abstract, requiring extensive training; the skill
is not applied in a routine way, but is constantly revised as needed; and a profession is
exclusive and strives for power and control (Abbott, 1988). The mechanisms of
achieving power, control, and exclusion may differ in form and effect, but all seem to be
the hallmarks of the professions. Whether the control and exclusion are motivated by
altruism, a service ethic, money, or status does not change the fact that professions seem

to remain viable only when they can hold their own or expand.

The Importance of Studying Professions

 

What makes the study of professions important is that professional practitioners
affect so much of contemporary society in advanced capitalism. At an individual level,
professionals are called upon to apply their expert knowledge to everyday decisions that
have the potential to affect the length and quality of life. These same professionals, using
their specialized knowledge, also shape and/or control both private and public institutions
that determine social and economic structures.

Because of their knowledge and strategic importance, professionals are often
beneficiaries of high levels of individual and societal trust. The professions depend upon

a kind of social compact of reciprocal trust and good faith between the practitioners and

the pu

and
econor
deb
ado.

untstl

Th

Tlf‘

(D

5011111111
. n; 1
ill-sailor

’tmn

Doctor:
Town
Pic-ownI
if: lime
fill] all .

19405 all

the public they serve, which is why malfeasance on the part of professionals can excite
moral outrage (Sullivan 1995).

The codependency between lay people and professions will continue as advanced
capitalism relies heavily on technological and scientific experts’ knowledge in the
economic arena; such experts handle the complicated institutional machinery that was
developed to cope with a technical environment (Mills 1951). In both perception and
reality, the old professional middle class had less influence. They were small working
units that managed themselves and were influenced by market conditions (Mills 1951).
The new professional middle class work in large institutions and often set market
conditions (Mills 1951). The capacity new professions have to shape individual life and
societal structures is enormous; thus, professions should not be considered benign nor

unworthy of rigorous study.

Two Approaches to Studying the Professions: An Overview

 

The two major scholarly approaches to the study of professions are functional-
structural and Marxian market-control. The functional-structural approach, from post-
World War 11 until the 19605, attempted to create a positive concept of professions and is
preoccupied with debating traits, attributes, and characteristics (Freidson 1984). During
that time, there was a preoccupation with definition, which sought to separate professions
from all other occupations and provide them with honorific labels. Scholars from the

19405 and 19505 stressed complex knowledge, skill, and high ethical standards, which

 

——-e

 

lllSlllTCr

(Treats:

aid. dis
attentio1
concept
lZ-SOIIIeC
ideolog}

39841.

18

justified the institutional forms and the high-prestige characteristic of professional work
(Freidson 1984).

During the 19605, a shift in conceptualization resulted in viewing professions
with disapproval. The focus was on their failures rather than their virtues. More
attention was paid to the social and economic costs of professional privilege. This new
conceptualization emphasized unusually effective protective institutional forms,
knowledge, skill, and ethical orientation, not as objective characteristics but as an
ideology that allowed professions to gain and preserve status and prestige (Freidson
1984)

Conceptualizing professions in this way implies either implicitly or explicitly that
expert knowledge will supersede other formally dominant factors of power. Larson
(1984) argued that expertise increasingly provides a base for attaining and exercising
power by the people who claim the expert knowledge. Larson further indicated that the
reason this issue is so important is that experts enjoy great autonomy in advanced
capitalistic societies. And, in advanced capitalism, social conflict does not take place
between capitalists and industrial workers; rather, conflict occurs between capitalists and
their highly professionalized employees, whom they cannot afford to antagonize. The
Marxian market-control approach turns the positive attributes of professions emanating
fi'om the functional-structural approach into powerful and potentially dangerous forces
that can change the balance of power.

Although there are variations in these two approaches, as explained in the
historical summary, it is the functional-structural and power-control approaches that

define much of the scholarly debate involving professions. There is little common

around bet
already arti
on meCSSi
it is fair to ’
To the Uni“
Present amC
‘NO maner ?
knowledge 2
O“pedantial
to rank order

credentialism

The fit

and the power-

r r-
.raunonal Sen
The trad.
l1" ~ '
tutorers the
an

Pin

filthESSed

ottoman an a

l9

ground between the two except for the agreed-upon characteristics of professional work
already articulated. This lack of common ground influences the research in and dialogue
on professions. Freidson (1984) summarized the study of professions this way: “ I think
it is fair to say that scholarship concerned with the professions is in intellectual shambles.
In the United States there is little broad consensus on the mode of discourse that was
present among sociologists before the 19605” (p. 5). However, F reidson pointed out that
“No matter the writer, all agree the hallmarks of professions are: full-time specialists,
knowledge and skill called expertise, credentials with formal training, and a small portion
of credentialed occupations are self-governing or autonomous” (p.10). Freidson went on
to rank order the professional hallmarks from most to least important: expertise,

credentialism, and autonomy.

Two Competing Models of the Professions

 

The two predominant models of the professions are the traditional service model

and the power-control model. Each model is discussed in the following pages.

Traditional Service Model

 

The traditional service model is a product of the functional-structural approach.
At its core is the service ideal. Roscoe Pound (1949) referred to this service ideal as a
calling expressed through the practice of a learned art in public service. This gives
professionals an air of mystery and a quality of the sacred as they apply their knowledge

in nonmundane ways (Jackson 1970). Although others agree that the service ideal is key

to professions.
more intereste
by social conc
talue or define

In the 1
human problei
faults in elev;
adistinctire o.
Polessiona] p
cl"lllllelencyq'
the lengthy tr;
adhere to a p“
the Commi[me
lftl lo‘fllt} f0

CUTICS
sandardiZe d r
and Sfilf‘Prese
Pltlli‘sgims fl]
IRIS 13am and
mffi‘SSlQnal P
ht 1110111 mm

hUDa
ti menLies

Thee: ,.
' if"? to

20

to professions, they also insist that there is no reason to believe that professionals are
more interested in humanity than others, but rather that their occupational niche is defined
by social concerns (Jackson 1970). Regardless of whether service is held as an individual
value or defines the occupation, it is the cornerstone of this model.

In the service model, the application of abstract, specialized knowledge to solving
human problems is accompanied by the necessary autonomy to apply knowledge that
results in elevated status, prestige, increased earning potential, client trust, and entry into
a distinctive occupation with normative and behavioral expectations. This means that
professional practitioners can diagnose problems and treat clients based on their
competency, judgment, and authority (Moore 1970). Inherent in the service model are
the lengthy training required to join the profession, the willingness to become part of and
adhere to a professional collective, the willingness to work long hours in client service,
the commitment to norms and standards, and the necessity to identify strongly with and
feel loyalty for professional peers (Moore 1970).

Critics of the service model point out that loyalty to peers, commitment to
standardized norms and practices, and working long hours are more consistent with greed
and self-preservation than they are with effective client service (Moore 1970).
Professions function in a commercial society where their skills are marketed; therefore,
this factor and its effect on the service ideal cannot be disregarded. As stated before, 5010
professional practitioners are being replaced by bureaucratic organizations that operate on
the profit motive and support the service ideal and high standards only if each generates
huge revenues. This reality creates a potential conflict in individuals and professions if

they desire to put service over money. It also provides a reason to give the power-control

model more tl
laborers in rap
HOWCVCT. in a
machinery the
Consequently
Value profit or

Nonetl
P995. First 1
to 33171 a ll\1nl

“Plan (199:

The cc
TOY SOr
sOrnetl
Pufpos
pu’POs
me£11111
are als
these a
EtchjEV
settler
IDOUg}
a191051
gainin
ebCeHe

19D

 

21

model more than a passing nod. Previously, labor market analysis focused on exploited
laborers in rapidly expanding, highly technological information and service economies.
However, in advanced capitalism, it is professional work that runs the organizational
machinery that must be controlled and marketed if it is to serve the profit motive.
Consequently, the labor market puts pressure on professionals to be competitive and to
value profit over excellence (Sullivan 1995).

Nonetheless, the lure of professional work has long been associated with two
things. First is the desire to do meaningful work that has public value. Second is the goal
to earn a living that has the potential for achieving upward mobility and recognition.

Sullivan (1995) articulated this as follows:

The continuing appeal of professionalism shows that it articulates a hunger
for something which is ofien missing or suppressed in work. That
something is a sense of engagement, through one's work, with shared
purposes which give point and value to individual effort. These
purposes—dignity, justice, fellowship—make possible a civil and
meaningful public realm. They are the promise of professionalism. They
are also the goods which engaged professionals have in abundance. But
these are not goods which individuals can possess or enjoy alone, or even
achieve entirely by their own efforts. We can see these as the goods of
self-discovery and purpose, even a satisfying kind of self-fulfillment,
though this self-fulfillment is not what often goes by that name. It comes,
almost paradoxically, through a kind of transcendence and change of self,
gaining a wider sense of identity through engagement with technical
excellence while taking responsibility for shared ends. (pp. 15-16)

The Power-Control Model

 

The power-control model is a Marxian approach that strives to show that the

professions are not interested in service, but rather they are interested in client

dominance.
interpretatit

may:

The
may
The
tech

COVI
whi
eta]
OCCr
autc

UIIC
shai

Spet

In 1
p"’53‘31'21110
Simclure‘ 1

PM to

(IE?
(5

new,“
$15 1an [ll
Them 111%
57a

one’ and

Lar

”men \r

22

dominance. In this model the same characteristics of professions are present, but their
interpretation is very different. Larson ( 1977) described the attributes in the following
way:
The list of specific attributes which compose the ideal-type of profession
may vary, but there is substantial agreement about its general dimensions.
The cognitive dimension is centered on the body of knowledge and
techniques which the professionals apply in their work, and on the training
necessary to master such knowledge and skills; the normative dimension
covers the service orientation of professionals, and their distinctive ethics,
which justify the privilege of self-regulation granted them by society; the
evaluative dimension implicitly compares professions to other
occupations, underscoring the professions' singular characteristics of
autonomy and prestige. The distinctiveness of the professions appears to
be founded on the combination of these general dimensions. These
uncommon occupations tend to become real communities, whose members

share a relatively permanent affiliation, an identity, personal commitment,
specific interests, and general loyalties. (p. x)

In Larson's (1977) analysis, these sociological ideal-types and the self-
preservation of professions imply that they are independent from or neutral in class
structure. However, Larson believed that professionals are a class in and of themselves,
bound together by education, given the seal of traditional intellectuality, and situated with
the power elite. This is an important distinction because when professions are defined
this way they attain market power just as other elite classes before them have done.

Often these professionals are referred to as the new class, which is motivated by money,
status, and power (Ehrenreich 1989).

Larson (1977) argued that modern professions are organized around cash, create

markets within which they work, and the public pays based on what the professional

demands.
this mono1
Se1

according

A 1
53111628. The
T11
bill the 1110'
along TTlOTlt

millet [he

23

demands. Therefore, professionals have a monopoly, and they dominate clients through
this monopoly.
Several conditions must be present for a professional monopoly to emerge

according to Larson (1977):

A Marketed Service: The more salient, the more universal, and the less visible the
service, the more favorable the situation is for the profession.

Type of Market: The less competitive the market the more favorable the situation,
but the more competitive the market the more the profession is compelled to organize
along monopolistic lines. The more independent the market from the capital and goods
market, the more favorable the situation is for the profession.

Type of Clientele: The more universal and the less organized the clientele, the
more favorable the situation is for the profession.

The Cognitive Basis: The more standardized and better defined the cognitive
basis, the more it permits the attainment of visibly good results. The more esoteric the
body of knowledge and the more it approaches a new paradigm, the more favorable the
situation is for the profession.

The Production of Producers: The more institutionalized its forms, the more
standardized the process, and the more it is under the profession's control, the more
favorable the situation is for the profession.

The Power Relations: The more independent the professional market is from
other markets and the more the state is compelled to protect the public by eliminating the

incompetent professionals, the more favorable the situation is for the profession.

The A
ideology coin

situation is fo

The si
profession ha:
controlling ac
he power-cor
hold the knou

Can CXpIoit the

Suite 1

$011115 (Larsor

milled "771.18

PIES“ 51:
honor};
and the
Occupai

1 ma
SISTER]
which r
Pals, a
"Idle-1m

24

The Affinity with the Dominant Ideology: The more a profession's particular
ideology coincides with the dominant ideological structures, the more favorable the

situation is for the profession.

The single most important characteristic of professional power is that the
profession has the exclusive privilege of defining the content of its knowledge,
controlling access to that knowledge, and controlling who practices the knowledge. In
the power-control model, unequal distribution of knowledge gives power to those who
hold the knowledge (Larson 1997). And that is how professionals dominate clients and

can exploit them for individual and group gains.

Status in the Two Models

 

Since the nineteenth century, having an occupation has been the new way to
achieve status, and, in some ways, it has surpassed class as a mechanism to stratify
groups (Larson 1977). C. Wright Mills wrote the following about status in his 1951 book

entitled White Collar:

Prestige involves at least two persons: one to claim it and another to
honor the claim. The bases on which various people raise prestige claims,
and the reasons others honor these claims, include property and birth,
occupation and education, income and power—in fact almost anything
that may invidiously distinguish one person from another. In the status
system of a society these claims are organized as rules and expectations
which regulate who successfirlly claims prestige, from whom, in what
ways, and on what basis. The level of self-esteem enjoyed by given
individuals is more or less set by this status system. (p. 239)

Tl
moron
monopoli-

iactors. w

.I‘J

treating. a1

0"?! probl

L’J

25

This passage from Mills closely parallels Weber's (1978) assessment of status as a
group of people in association who claim a special evaluation of their status and special
monopolies on the grounds of their status. Occupational status is claimed on a variety of
factors, which follow:

1. Obtaining abstract knowledge through extensive specialized education and
training for the purpose of solving human problems (Abbott 1988).

2. Applying abstract knowledge to the problem-solving process of diagnosing,
treating, and inferring in a way that is not routine, thus maintaining power and control
over problem solving (Abbott 198 8).

3. Ensuring autonomy by claiming and holding jurisdiction through means such
as obtaining expert knowledge, skilled application of expert knowledge, licensure, ethics
codes, statutes, case law, media manipulation, and public relations (Abbott 1988).

4. Serving high-status clients; or not being involved in client service at all, but
rather serving other professionals (Abbott 198 8).

5. Status of the organization in which the professional works becomes tied to the
status the individual professional enjoys. Larson (197 7) pointed out that professional
prestige is almost equivalent to organizational prestige with the resulting effect being that
the elite have a larger stake in the fate of the organization.

6. Connection to the right networks that ensure sponsorship to the top of the
organizational hierarchy (Larson 1977).

7. Recognition by peers (Abbott 1988).

8. Increased earning potential (Abbott 1988).

In sum.
tnoon and agr
existence. Stat
model. as the f
models. Home
the service moi
lhmugh public
contribution to

BecauSe
5711(1); The pur
ludicial EdUCall

“‘6 arr

findings are dis

26

In sum, for status to be important in occupations, the status sources must be
known and agreed upon by those who are seeking status and those who are evaluating its
existence. Status is present in both the traditional service model and the power-control
model, as the factors that bestow status are accepted as fundamental in both of the
models. However, the utility of status is somewhat different depending on the model. In
the service model, status is gained through the eight factors just listed; however, it is kept
through public service. In the power-control model, status is maintained through its
contribution to market controls and resulting client dominance.

Because status is present in both models of professions, it is the subject of this
study. The purpose is to determine whether the emerging occupation being studied—
judicial education—follows the traditional service model or the power-control model.

The approaches and models described in this chapter will be revisited when the
findings are discussed to determine which model judicial education most closely
resembles. As Freidson (1984) stated, the study of professions is in shambles. This is an
unfortunate situation as our contemporary service and information society is driven by
highly specialized knowledge, which will likely continue to give rise to new professional
and occupational groups. Judicial education is a new occupation. Determining
placement in either of the existing models is one of the goals of this study. However, the
conclusion may be that it fits neither model. Geison (1983) pondered the possibility that
the existing models are insufficient for understanding new emerging professions and
occupations; therefore, to address the possibility that the results of this study may be left
without an intellectual home is within the realm of possibilities. I offer Geison's

impressions in closing Chapter 1:

27

There is good reason to suspect that all existing models of professions and
professionalization are inadequate to some degree. Whether they conceive
of professionalization as the emergence of benign, apolitical, noneconomic
homogenous communities of the competent—or whether they see it as a
conspiratorial, stratifying, and exploitive process in tune with the needs of
capitalism, the existing models are unable to account for the richly diverse
forms of distribution of professional groups as we meet them in actual
historical experience. (p. 6)

DE

C
Emmmr
ill-3101?. 5

201m 1‘10

h

Dig 3111231

CHAPTER 2

DESCRIPTION OF JUDICIAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Chapter 2 contains a discussion of the background and operation of state judicial
education in the United States. The sections and subsections of this chapter related to the
history, structural characteristics, and programming characteristics of judicial education
come from Issues and Trends in Judicial Education (Hudzik 1995).I

The rest of Chapter 2 describes NASJE. The description includes its structure,
membership classifications, and projects. This information comes from unpublished
materials distributed to NASJE members.

Judicial education takes place in all fifty states. In addition, a handful of national

organizations provide programming for judges and court personnel. Eight are non-profits,

 

’ Issues and Trends (Hudzik 1995) was published by the JERITT Project and contains findings from
judicial education surveys conducted in 1990, 1992, and 1994. I was a member of the research team that
conducted the surveys, reported the findings, and wrote Issues and Trends. Permission to report this
information here was granted by the JERITT Project. The JERITT Project is co-sponsored by NASJE and
the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. It is funded by the State Justice Institute (SJI)
for the purpose of collecting, maintaining, and disseminating data on the structure, content, process, and
volume of judicial education in the United States. The JERITT Project maintains eight databases and has
issued more than sixty publications on judicial education. The project is the only organization that collects
such data.

28

three are
National

not part

milabili
970mm .
Assign-me
10%] and

i "m: ‘

29

three are associated with judges’ conferences, and three are associated with universities.
National organizations are not affiliated with the state court systems; therefore, they are

not part of this study.

Historical Background: Origin, Affiliation, and Authorization

Four state judicial education organizations existed before 1961. By 1970, there
were 12 state organizations. The greatest activity was between 1971 and 1980, when the
total number of state judicial education organizations increased to 38. Between 1981 and
1993, 19 new state programs came into existence.

The 19703 was the greatest period of creation of state organizations due to the
availability of federal training funds provided by the Law Enforcement Education
Program (LEEP) through the state capacity-building objectives of the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration (LEAA). One form of capacity building was the creation of
local and state organizations, which provided on-going support systems for criminal
justice agencies. This included the creation of local education and training organizations.

State-based judicial education organizations are continuing to expand due to the
existence of the State Justice Institute (SJI). SJI is a federally fimded organization whose
mission is to improve of the state court systems and to enhance relationships between
state and federal courts. Funding for education and training initiatives is one of the ways
that SJI accomplishes its mission.

Most judicial education organizations, whether started with state or federal funds,

are affiliated with their state supreme court, state court administrator’s office, or both.

The rer

confers

SIEIUIOI'
incorpo
rule. ad.

no Spec

5?

ailing,

and PTOQ

MES {ht

(mic. E

m‘ilded

in ha.

“0

30

The remainder of the state organizations are affiliated with universities, judges’
conferences, nonprofit corporations, or a combination thereof.

Nearly one-third of the state judicial education organizations exist by way of
statutory provision, another third by court order or court rule, three by way of articles of
incorporation, and the remainder by “other” means. “Other” includes judicial council

rule, administrative decision of the supreme court, constitutional provisions, or through

no specific action.

Structural Characteristics of Judicial Education

This section contains information on judicial education boards, committees,

staffing, salaries, faculty, budgets, and organizational designs.

Boards and Committees

Three-quarters of judicial education organizations have some type of policy-
making boards. All of these boards provide information, advice, and ideas for curriculum
and programming. There is variance in the apparent powers of these boards. In some
states the boards have broad policy-making authority. In other states, the boards are
advisory to the judicial educator, the supreme court, or the state court administrator’s
office. Based on an analysis of narrative descriptions from 36 state organizations
provided in 1990, one-quarter of the boards are only advisory and a little more than one-
third have policy-making authority to shape curricula, allocate education budgets, and set

programming priorities. The remaining boards appear to have policy “recommending”

3]

powers. Their recommendations are made to the supreme court, judicial councils, or the
state court administrator.

Policy and advisory boards are not the only vehicle through which judicial
educators receive guidance from their constituents. More than 80 percent of the judicial
education organizations had program planning committees in 1992. Such committees
provide advice and feedback on specific programming endeavors. The reality in most
states is that decisions about programming priorities, budgets, and policies are the result
of a joint consultation among the boards and/or committees, the judicial educator, the
supreme court, the state court administrator, and the education and training recipients.

In nearly 95 percent of the reporting states, members of the policy boards are
appointed. The median-size board has 13 members. More than one-half of the boards
have 11 to 15 members. Ten percent of the boards have 21 or more members. Another
10 percent are small, with five or fewer members.

Board composition varies widely from state to state. However, there emerge two
types: (1) judges only or judges and quasi-judicial officers, and (2) judges and other court

personnel.

Staffmg

As of 1994, 80 percent of the state judicial education organizations had a full-time
director, and 40 percent had one or more full-time deputy directors. Slightly less than 20

percent had one or more full-time program attorneys. Nearly half had one or more

llOllEiili

supp-or

judicial

percent

and mar

FEW are

lflSchti

32

nonattorney program professionals. A little more than one-half had one or more full-time
support staff members. Twenty percent of the total number of employees were part time.

Personnel levels have been fairly stable 1990. More than three-quarters of the
judicial education organizations reported no change in the number of personnel since
1988. Nearly 20 percent reported slight increases (one or two positions), and only 4
percent reported decreases of one or two positions.

The vast majority of the judicial education personnel have planning, development,
and management responsibilities necessary to execute judicial education programming.
Few are responsible for direct instruction. They typically supervise and evaluate the

instruction of those who teach for them as pro bono or paid instructors.

Salaries

There is a great deal of variance in the pay of individuals involved in judicial
education from state to state. The median salary for directors of judicial education
organizations (e. g., state judicial educators) is $58,000 per year. The median salary for
deputy directors is $36,000, whereas the median salary for program attorneys is $38,000.
Nonattorney program staff and support staff have median salaries of $33,000 and
$22,500, respectively.

The range for each of the job categories demonstrates the vast differences that
exist in salaries. The range for directors is from $25,834 to $118,300. The deputy

director salaries range from $23,000 to $90,348. Program attorneys have a similar range,

33

which spans from $26,000 to $90,348. Nonattorney program staff salaries range from

$13,520 to $61,500. For support staff, the salary range is from $10,000 to $52,308.

Faculty

The use of pro bono or paid consultants as faculty from outside of the judicial
education organization is a critical component of state judicial education organization
staffing. Judicial education organizations could not offer relevant and contemporary
programming without contract faculty. Faculty come from a broad range of backgrounds;
however, attorneys, judges, and university faculty are the most often used. Subject matter
experts from other fields are also used as required by the topics and objectives of the
programming. It is not unusual to have faculty from an array of fields such as mental
health, law enforcement, forensic and biological sciences, political science, philosophy,
architecture, medicine, and journalism.

The policies regarding paying for faculty vary greatly from state to state. Based
on data from the 1990 and 1994 surveys, about two-thirds of the judicial education
organizations did not pay judges, nonjudicial court personnel, or attorneys. About 40
percent did not pay law school professors or other university faculty. However, more
than 80 percent of the judicial education organizations paid private consultants. The
average amounts paid ranged from $95 to $147 per contact hour. These figures suggest

that the typical amount paid for a day session ranged from $650 to about $1,050.

Budeets

For
expenditure
satejudici;
more. The
W35 33 per:
We relate
5+1le infirm

Pro
841% and 0
on iIl-State

miner 0f 1

34

Budgets

For state judicial education organizations, the median amount of total annual
expenditure was $474,000 and the mean amount was $521,000. The total expenditures of
state judicial education organizations ranged from below $100,000 to $1,000,000 or
more. The median percentage of total expenditures allocated to staff salaries and fringes
was 33 percent. Making allowances for other fixed costs, the majority of expenditures
were related directly to providing educational programs rather than to supporting the
basic infrastructure.

Proportions of state judicial education organization program budgets spent for in-
state and out-of-state programming varied from state to state. The median amount spent
on in-state programming was 85 percent of the programming budget. Roughly one-
quarter of the states spent 100 percent on in-state programming. Only 13 percent spent
less than half of their programming budgets in-state. Nearly half spent 90 percent or
more of their budgets in-state, whereas more than two-thirds spent at least 70 percent of
their budgets in-state.

In every state, the money that supported a little more than half of the total
revenues for state organizations nationwide came from the general fund. There were
substantial variations from state to state in the mix of handing sources. In nearly 60
percent of the reporting state organizations, general fund revenues accounted for 80
percent or more of total revenues. In seven states, more than half of the funding came

from state training funds. In two states, tuition provided a substantial contribution to

Nl'fi‘l‘lUE

3€C0lllli

Orzanlz
—_¥

Operatic
FfSCarch
”Emu
research
bar ofu
Raining

”Prion s

35

revenues. In about one-quarter of the reporting states, federal and foundation grants

accounted for more than 10 percent of total revenues.

Organization Design

 

There is a great variety in organizational designs across judicial education
operations. The larger organizations have educational responsibilities, as well as allied
research, legislative analysis, publication, and consultation functions. The mid-sized
organizations concentrate on education and training and focus less on legislative analysis,
research, and publications. The smaller and less complex organizations represent nearly
half of the state judicial education organizations and focus solely on education and
training. The smaller organizations have only a full- or part-time director and one or two
support staff.

More than 70 percent of the smaller organizations came into existence since 1975;
nearly 40 percent originated since 1981. Sixty percent of the larger organizations predate

1975, and 90 percent of these larger organizations predate 1981.

Programming Characteristics of Judicial Education

Unlike the previous sections, which described the history and structure of judicial
education, this section concerns the programming that state judicial education
organizations offer. Unless otherwise indicated, the description of judicial education
programming that follows uses information from March 1990 through December 1994.

Two aspects are presented. The first aspect relates to policies and procedures that are

used intl

$001801 0

, i'.‘ ,
Pea-ties.
~§

madam]
393$. trair

Program:

36

used in the delivery of judicial education programs. The second aspect relates to the

content of the programs and how they are delivered.

Policies and Procedures

 

What is known about the policies and procedures in judicial education centers on
mandatory education provisions, new-judge orientation and judicial mentoring, tuition
fees, training leave-days, reimbursement, allocations to in-state and out-of-state
programming, minority and female participation rates, methods and scope of program
planning and evaluation, present and future priority target groups, planning cycles,

lending libraries, and program enrollments.

Mandatory Education Provisions

 

The percentage of judicial education organizations (71 percent) reporting that
their states have some mandatory judicial education provisions has remained relatively
unchanged since 1990. However, what qualifies as mandatory education across states
differs greatly. Mandatory could mean that judges or other court audiences must attend
an educational offering as set forth by statute or court rule. Mandatory attendance could
also mean that the local legal and judicial culture sets an expectation concerning
attendance. However, often the authority for mandating education in the judicial branch
is established through court rule, but it can come through an administrative order or an
order by the chief justice. Less than 30 percent of the reporting states indicated that

provisions were mandated by statute.

 

Ell

reqr

The

mos

37

Mandatory education usually falls into two categories: requirements for (1) new
employees and (2) continuing annual education. The median number of hours of
mandatory education required is highest for new probation officers and non-law-trained
quasi-judicial officers (40 hours) and for non-law-trained general jurisdiction judges (30
hours). All other groups (court support staff, court reporters, court administrators, law-
trained quasi-judicial personnel, non-law-trained limited jurisdiction judges, law-trained
limited jurisdiction judges, law-trained general jurisdiction judges, and appellate judges)
have a median requirement of between 15 and 20 hours. The median annual education
requirement for all groups is from 15 to 18 hours.

Besides mandating hours, there is also the issue of mandating subject matter.
There is great variance across the states. However, whenever education is mandated, the
most frequently mandated subject matter is judicial ethics.

Administrative responsibility for mandatory education requirements also varies
from state to state. Most often the judicial education organization and the administrative
office of the court have this responsibility. In some states the supreme court or the
judicial education committee will assume administrative authority over monitoring
compliance. Two-thirds of the respondents reported that sanctions and penalties can be
imposed for lack of compliance. However, there is a great deal of discretion in this area.

Although the word “mandatory” suggests compulsory attendance complete with
enforcement requirements, that is not necessarily the case in judicial education. In the
great majority of states, mandatory only means mandatory attendance, with no systematic

assurance of learning, job-behavior change, or change in court functioning.

Sew
mandaton‘ c
groups are l
jurisdiction
trained judg

personnel.

New 0
\nds

An i.
Or require 01
We deliver
itdltla] men

Wided me

nan‘lalt‘.trai

38

Seventy-one percent of the reporting judicial education organizations have
mandatory education provisions in one form or another. The most frequently targeted
groups are law-trained general jurisdiction judges, appellate judges, and limited
jurisdiction judges. Some states have mandatory education requirements for non-law-
trained judges, law-trained quasi-judicial officers, court administrators, and other court

personnel.

New-Judge Orientation and Judicial Mentoring

An issue closely allied to mandatory education concerns what states either offer to
or require of new judges. From 1992 through 1994, 2,052 new-judge orientation topics
were delivered. Data on judicial mentoring from 1992 indicated that 27 states had
judicial mentoring programs for law-trained general jurisdiction judges. Nineteen states
provided mentoring for new law-trained limited-jurisdiction judges, eight states had it for
non-law-trained judges, and only a few had it available for quasi-judges, appellate judges,

and administrative judges.

Tuition and Fees

Charging tuition and fees is not the norm for state judicial education programs.
Fewer than one-quarter of the states charge either tuition or fees. When either is charged,
it is a relatively small amount. The median tuition charge is approximately $50 per

program day. The medium registration fee is $60 per program.

Tannin

personn
and “Ill

mferrnaQ

39
Training Leave-Days

Training leave-days refers to the number of leave-days that judges and court
personnel are allowed to take for education and training. There is great variation across
and within states in this regard. In addition, training leave-day policies are usually

informal. The average number of days permitted is approximately five per year.

Reimbursement Policies

As of the 1994 survey, 27 of the reporting state judicial education organizations

reimbursed all travel expenses for all programs or at least for priority programs. Nine

reported reimbursing some expenses, and eight reported offering no reimbursement.

Minority and Female Participation Rates

As of 1994, only 10 percent of the state judicial education organizations
systematically collected race and sex data on their audiences. This figure was unchanged
from 1990, which was the last time the information was collected. However, 40 percent
of the judicial educator respondents estimated that 4 percent of their participants were
minorities. Minority was defined as African-American, Hispanic, Native American,
Pacific Islander, and Asian origin or descent. Female participation was estimated to be
27 percent in state judicial education programs. States who have programming for court
clerks, court administrators, and other support personnel are the ones with the largest

representation of female participants.

hem!

ellSlll‘C
groups
proud:
lelB. :

are COI'.

Educari

comm

mm

333631

40

Program Planning Information Sources

Several methods of program planning are employed by judicial educators to
ensure that the education they are providing is connected to the work environment of the
groups being served. Ad hoc or program-specific advisory committees are formed to
provide judicial educators and program faculty with advice in planning the objectives,
focus, and subject-matter scope and orientation for specific programs. These committees
are composed primarily of members from the participant groups for which the
educational program is being designed.

Advisory committees or education boards are another information source. These
committees or boards are permanent fixtures that provide guidance for regularly
occurring programming. The members are usually from the groups being served.

Another way that information is collected is through formal survey or needs
assessments. These information-collection efforts go directly to the groups who will
receive the education, in contrast to the other two methods, which use representatives and
not the full participant group. This data-collection method ranges from relatively simple
surveys that ask potential participants what topics, issues, or subject matter they would
like addressed in future educational programming, to more sophisticated methods,
including job-analysis instruments, which measure job-task content knowledge and skill
deficiencies.

Participant evaluations is another means of collecting information directly from

the participant group. Participant evaluations not only collect feedback on the quality of

the educational e1
subject matter.
External :
otierings. Such
changes in court
Of all of
frequently. This
169 percent). ad
influences (44 F
Particip:
feedback. impai
Witipams‘ Sel

m0“ frequentlt

“W

A centr;
trgeted for Edi
recent LaW-u
of this 3011 “E

moss [he c0111“

.

t' ‘ -
Mm Officers

1
44 .

41

the educational experience itself, but they also can assess the importance of certain
subject matter.

External influences also provide data that can be valuable in shaping educational
offerings. Such influences would likely include new legislation, court decisions, and/or
changes in court procedures that require the learning of new knowledge and skills.

Of all of these methods, participant evaluations (76 percent) were used most
frequently. This was followed by permanent advisory committees or education boards
(69 percent), ad hoc or program-specific advisory committees (47 percent), external
influences (44 percent), and formal surveys and needs assessments (35 percent).

Participant evaluations in judicial education fall in to three categories: participant
feedback, impact on participants, and impact on courts. Participant feedback (e. g.,
participants’ self-report of knowledge gained or perceived usefulness of the program) is

most frequently used (95.6 percent) in judicial education.

Present and Future Priority Target Groups

A central policy question for judicial education organizations is who will be
targeted for education and training and what priority the various target groups will
receive. Law-trained judges have been the dominant group of attendees since information
of this sort was first collected in 1990. They accounted for 58 percent of the participants
across the country; an additional 8 percent of participants were other kinds of law-trained
judicial officers, 9 percent were non-law-trained judges and judicial officers, and about

24 percent were all other types of nonjudicial court employees. For twenty-nine state

onnnz
camel;
particle

majorit

the stat:
1
vi WC:

011316 1:

42

organizations (55 percent), law-trained judges comprised the majority of their
participants. For ten of the state organizations (19 percent), a majority of their
participants were court support personnel. The remaining organizations targeted a
majority of their programming at other law-trained and non-law-trained judicial officers.

In the 1990 judicial education organization survey, judicial educators identified
trial court judges, particularly new judges, as being of primary or central importance in
their programming goals and efforts. Appellate court judges and chief or presiding
judges had a less dominant presence, but a clearly important one nevertheless, for the vast
majority of the state organizations. The other participant groups receiving moderate
importance ratings were professional court staff (of primary importance to 37 percent of
the state organizations) and clerical-technical support personnel (primary and central to
24 percent of state organizations). The training of court teams was also rated fairly high
on the importance scale by most state organizations.

Future programming priorities identified by state judicial educators indicated little
change. The groups that were targeted for additional programming were new judges,
general jurisdiction judges, chief or presiding judges, limited-jurisdiction judges, special

judges, court administrators, deputy administrators, and clerks of the court.

The Planning Horizon

Survey respondents were asked to assess the degree to which their program
planning was divided into short (0-6 months), medium (7-18 months), and long-range

(19 months or more) time perspectives. More than 40 percent of state respondents

 

indicated that
indicated that
reporting stat
activities l9t
by state organ

M8111 was 5

Then

and1.115 in
iUHnerofthp

maiiilie m0

Eton (to u i

had mOdQSI E

43

indicated that none of their program planning was long range. Another 30 percent

indicated that less than 10 percent of their planning was long range. The average for all
reporting state organizations was that about 6 percent of their program planning was for
activities 19 or more months in the future. On average, 55 percent of the planning done
by state organizations was characterized as medium-range planning. Approximately 43

percent was short-term planning.

Program Enrollments

The median annual enrollment for reporting state organizations was 1,160 in 1992
and 1 , l 15 in the 1994 survey. In both reporting years, annual enrollments for about one-
quarter of the reporting organizations were between 1,500 and 2,500 participants. Also,
in a little more than one-quarter of the reporting states, annual enrollments exceeded
2,000 (to as high as 3,200). A little less than 25 percent of the reporting organizations

had modest annual enrollments of 500 or fewer participants.

W

In addition to the numbers and types of participants served by a judicial education
organization, it is the subject matter content and the instructional delivery methods used
by these organizations that best define continuing judicial education in practice. The
primiipal source of data for this part of the chapter is the JERITT programs database,
whiCh is assembled from the program reports and agendas provided monthly to JERITT

by Judicial educators and judicial education organizations.

 

 

Th
judicial ed
300 contin
programs i
through De

included th

44

Through December 1994, JERITT received agendas and related information from
judicial educators for a total of 3,797 educational programs. This represents just under
800 continuing judicial education programs being reported per year. On average, these
programs included more than 47,000 topical presentations annually. From March 1990

through December 1994, the frequency of program subject matter and topical entries

included the following:

Total Civil Law and Procedure 1,803
Total Communication Skills 1,174
Total Crimes and Offenses 2,362
Total Criminal Procedure 2,454
Total Discipline and Ethics 1,204
Total Domestic Relations 2,346
Total Evidence 2,024
Total Jury 754
Total Juvenile 3 , l 63
Total Organizational Management 6,583
Total Personnel Management 1 ,01 5
Total Probate 621
Total Probation and Parole 742
Total Sentencing 1,228
Total Settlements 906
Total Social and Humanities 2,697
Total Substantive Law 1,929
Total Miscellaneous 14,189

Lfl‘fll of Programming

 

Programs vary in length from a few hours to one or more weeks. Nearly three-
quarters of all programming is between one and three days in length. About one-quarter
of the programming is one day in length, and about one-third is two days in length.

Programs of a week or longer comprise less than 12 percent of the sample. This relative

 

 

distribution Ofprog]
large prop0m0“ of]
length is HOI only a

certainty related [0 C

W
Most progral
seminar size. admitt.
n50 participants. P
i’a‘rout 7 percent) are

he 7 percent of largt

Program Faculty

Types of facu
and judges are the m
the nearly 3.800 prog
University faculty “'61
Consultants in 27 perc

21
Percent of the time

it '
J ucral educator each

taeratrons of thesr

hocnced in the law

45

distribution of programming based on length has remained stable from year to year. The
large proportion of programming (more than 60 percent) that is either one or two days in
length is not only a function of the subject matter and its packaging, but also is almost

certainly related to cost control and the availability of key personnel.

Size of Programs

Most programs are relatively small in size. A little less than one-third of them are
seminar size, admitting 25 or fewer participants. A little more than one-quarter admit 25
to 50 participants. Proportionately speaking, very few of the programs in the database
(about 7 percent) are large-enrollment affairs with 200 or more participants. A number of

the 7 percent of large-enrollment programs mix class-size formats.

Progam Faculty

Types of faculty and their subject matter expertise are varied, although lawyers
and Indges are the most frequent presenters. Judges were used in more than 60 percent of
the nearly 3,800 programs, and lawyers in 44 percent of the programs. Various kinds of
uniVel‘sity faculty were used as presenters in 36 percent of the programs, and private
conSultants in 27 percent of the programs. Non-judicial court personnel were used about
21 Percent of the time, and personnel from the state court administrator’s office and the
j“(Heir—.11 educator each were used in about 16 percent of the programs. The subject matter
Spefi‘vializations of these faculty reflect their parent professions. Most are educated and

experienced in the law and in adjudication. After this, the most frequently used

46

specializations are from the management and administrative sciences. They are followed
by communications, psychiatry/psychology, caseflow, computers, criminology, social

work, humanities, and biology/medicine.

Pro gram Calendars and Instructional Methods

The most popular months for judicial education programming vary somewhat, but
the most heavily booked period is April through June, followed by September through
November. However, programming occurs throughout the year.

Eighty percent of the 3,800 programs delivered between March 1990 and
December 1994 used lecture and discussion and question and answer formats in almost
tWO-thirds of the programs. Problem-solving exercises were used in almost one-third of
the programs, and small-group work in nearly 40 percent. Various other forms of group

and individual exercises were used in one-fifth to one-third of the programs.

Several overarching conclusions about judicial education in the United States can
be drawn from the data. Among the more obvious, yet important, of these is that
Continuing judicial education is a large, pervasive, relatively stable, and substantively
diver Se undertaking. A wide variety of organizational structures have been designed to

prOdUCe this programming, and an equally wide variety of instructional methods are

employed.

47

Description of NASJE

 

The NASJE is the professional association that represents the interest of state
judicial educators and the occupation of judicial education. The first meeting of state
judicial educators took place in 1973, when six individuals met. From that meeting,
NASJE was formed. The information about the structure of NASJE is set forth in its

constitution and bylaws (revised October 1994).

Purpose of NASJE

 

Article 1, Section 4, indicates the purpose of NASJE: (a.) improve the
quality of judicial education through the development and implementation
of professional standards, (b.) promote research and development in the
field of judicial education, (0.) provide a forum for the development of
progressive theories of judicial education, (d.) increase the awareness and
utilization of adult education concepts and techniques, (e.) establish a
mechanism for the exchange of judicial education information, (f.)
cooperate with other organizations in the field of judicial and justice
system education, (g.) promote and represent the interest of the state and
local judicial education programs, and (h.) meet the changing needs of the
members. (NASJE, 1994)

m Board Structure

The NASJE Board of Directors is elected by the full and associate members and
couSists of the president, president-elect, vice president, secretary, treasurer, four regional
direCtors, and the immediate past president. The president, president-elect, and vice
president serve one-year terms, with automatic succession from vice-president to

president-elect to president. The secretary and treasurer serve two-year terms. The

48

immediate past president serves a one-year term as a nonvoting member. The regional
directors serve two-year terms, and their terms are staggered. The regions are as follows:
Northeastern: Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
and Vermont; Southeastern: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virgin Islands,
Virginia, and West Virginia; Midwestern: Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin; and Western: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming. The board of directors, terms of office, and regional

designations are specified in Article III, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4.

gm Committees

Under Article VI, Section 1, the association has three standing committees: The
membership committee, standards committee, and education committee. Other

Committees may be established as deemed necessary.

WE Membership

NASJE has three membership designations: full, general, and associate. NASJ E

membership is defined in Article 11, Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5, as follows:

 

49

Full: ( a.) Any full-time administrator or director of a statewide or local
nonprofit program of education whose primary duties include the
education and training of judges and/or court support personnel; or ( b.)
Any assistant administrator, assistant director, or staff member who is
employed by a statewide or local, nonprofit program of education whose
primary duties include the education and training of judges and/or court
personnel and whose full membership is consistent with the provisions of
Section 5 (no statewide or local nonprofit organization or program for the
education and training of judges and/or court personnel shall have more
than three firll members) of this article. Associate: Any person who meets
the eligibility requirements under Section 2 of this Article for full
membership but is ineligible for full membership by the provisions of
Section 5 of this Article will be eligible for full membership under Section
2 of this Article but may choose to apply for associate rather than full
membership with the Association. General: Any person involved with or
interested in judicial education who is not eligible for full or associate
membership is eligible for general membership in the Association.
(NASJE 1994)

Projects and Services of NASJE

NASJE provides its membership with several benefits through its projects and
services. The biggest benefit is its annual conference, which is developed by the standing
committee on education. NASJE has had an annual conference since its inception. At
the annual conference it addresses issues, concerns, and new developments in court
system education and training.

Four other on-going services are provided to the NASJE membership, which
have been funded in full or part by SJI. They are the Principles and Standards of
Continuing Judicial Education (1991), the NASJE NEWS, the JERITT Project, and the
new judicial educator mentoring program.

The NASJE Committee on Standards developed the Principles and Standards of

Continuing Judicial Education, which were published in 1991. The principles and

50

standards were not established for the occupation of judicial education, but rather were
established to guide judge education. The principles and standards are as follows:

Principle 1: The Need for Continuing Judicial Education
Standard 1.1 Responsibility
Standard 1.2 Availability
Standard 1.3 Integral Part of Judicial Duties
Standard 1.4 Educational Leave

Principle 1]: Organization and Resources
Standard 2.1 Mission Statement
Standard 2.2 Staff
Standard 2.3 Staff Development
Standard 2.4 Advisory Committee
Standard 2.5 Fairness
Standard 2.6 Adequate Resources

Principle 111: Education to Meet Career Needs of Judges
Standard 3.1 Orientation
Standard 3.2 Continuing Education
Standard 3.3 Curricula
Standard 3.4 Regional and National Education

Principle IV: Use of Adult Education Methods
Standard 4.1 Needs Assessment
Standard 4.2 Learning Objectives
Standard 4.3 Learning Activities
Standard 4.4 Learning Environment
Standard 4.5 Evaluation

Principle V: Faculty
Standard 5.1 Qualifications
Standard 5.2 Selection and Development
Standard 5.3 Educational Leave

Principle VI: Resource Materials
Standard 6.1 Written Materials
Standard 6.2 Program Materials
Standard 6.3 Lending Library

NASJE News, another service of the association, is a quarterly publication devoted

to the advancement of judicial education. It contains articles pertaining to the activity of

51

judicial education in the United States and the emergence of judicial education in other
countries. The publication also profiles judicial educators and/or judicial education
organizations.

The JERITT Project is co-sponsored by NASJE. It is the only national
clearinghouse on judicial education information, publications, and references. It
maintains eight databases pertaining to the people, organizations, activities, and programs
in judicial education. The JERITT Project issues approximately 15 publications annually
dedicated to expanding the knowledge-base of judicial education.

The NASJE mentoring program was established in 1995 to assist new judicial
educators through sponsorship by an experienced judicial educator. The formal

mentoring period is one year and takes place primarily over the telephone or through

electronic means.

Gaps Between What Is Known and Not Known About Judicial Education

As indicated in Chapter 2, what is known about judicial education encompasses
the Structures, processes, and products of judicial education. That information is fairly
eXtensive. However, several aspects of judicial education are not known. First, there is
no Comprehensive information on the value of judicial education as perceived and/or
measured by those who receive it; those who interact in the state court systems, whether
they be employees, litigants, defendants, prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurors, or court
users;

the general public; and other public figures and officials. Second, there is no

information about what state judicial educators value about their work. Third, there is no

 

52

information about the emergence and growth of judicial education as a contemporary
occupation. If these issues were known, the status of judicial education and the progress

it has made toward achieving professional recognition could likely be determined.

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODS

The methods employed in this study are described in this chapter. First, I explain
how the research population was identified and how participation was secured. Second,
data collection is discussed. Next, data analysis and the units of analysis are explained.
Last, a comparative analysis of the elements of professional status in judicial education

and those found in the literature is presented.

The Research Population

 

A population rather than a sample was used in this study, as described in Chapter
1- The designated judicial educators from every state comprised the population. There
are 50 state judicial educators. Three states—Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming—have no
State judicial educator. Texas has three, each of whom is responsible for three separate

judicial groups.

53

54

Data Collection

I telephoned each judicial educator in July 1996 to explain the study and to seek
their participation. All 50 judicial educators agreed to participate. The interviews took
place from July 29 to August 30. Data collection was conducted by telephone interview.
Each interview was audio-taped, and written notes were taken. The interview instrument

and format, interview environment, interview questions, and revisions to the interview

questions are discussed in this section.

Interview Guide and Format

An interview guide, which contained a list of questions, was used. Because an
interview guide was used, instead of a tightly constructed survey instrument, the
respondents could speak freely about the issues I raised and whatever else they wanted to
discuss. Lofland and Lofland (1995) referred to this as a guided conversation. A guided
cOnversation allows for differences in how individuals express themselves.

Framing the interview as a guided conversation allowed the judicial educators to
Converse in their own style rather than forcing them to conform to some other
Predetermined style. I chose this approach for two reasons. First, I wanted to gain as
m“Ch knowledge and insight as I could into the thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of
judicial educators. Uncovering what individuals’ work means to them and what they
Perceive it means to others is a personal matter. Therefore, I determined that asking
CIlleStions of this nature required an interview process that maximized comfort and

allowed the judicial educator great latitude in responding. Because time and money

55

precluded face-to-face visits, the guided conversation format was the next best
alternative. The second reason for choosing guided conversations was that the bulk of the
data collection already done in judicial education had been through survey instruments
that focused on activities, descriptions, and numbers. Consequently, what is known about
judicial educators and their work has not gone beyond the activities of judicial education.
This information can be captured on paper. Engaging in conversations held the most
promise for broadening and deepening the knowledge base of judicial education.
Although interviewing was chosen as the data-collection method for this study, it
does have some limitations. The limitations are those most often associated with the
nonpositivist approach. The limitations and how I guarded against their effect follow.
Field interviews are frequently unstructured. The researcher talks to respondents
in a nondirected way, collecting data that may or may not reveal information that
addresses the researcher’s purpose for the researcher entering the field. The researcher
may or may not record the answers given by the respondents. If the researcher
Paraphrases the responses, the data may reflect what the researcher thought was said,
rather than what was actually said.
I addressed these pitfalls in the following ways. The interviews were conducted
Via telephone at prescheduled interview times. By the time the interviews took place, I
had Spoken to each judicial educator, explaining the purpose of the research, gaining his
91‘ her cooperation, and scheduling an interview time. Following this conversation, I
mailcd each judicial educator a consent form that contained a description of the study; his
or her rights to withdraw from the study; and my responsibilities pertaining to

interviewing, confidentiality, and reporting the findings.

56

I started each interview by restating the purpose of the study. I told the judicial
educators that the interviews would be taped and that I would also take notes. They were
instructed that they could stop the taping or the entire interview anytime they desired. I
told them I had several questions to ask with no prestructured answers, except for those
questions where I wanted them to give their answers a numerical value. I instructed them
to answer freely and said that if I needed clarification I would ask for it, as should they. I
explained that the interview format was like a conversation.

In this research, each interview had a preset time frame, the purpose was known, a
list of questions were used, the interviews were taped, and notes were taken. Data
collection involved what the respondents said and not what I thought they said. These
precautions eliminated the criticisms about field research resulting in data that does not
meet the purpose of the study or data that are constructed by the researcher.

The second limitation with interviews is that the researcher becomes an active
participant in the study. When human subjects research does not involve interaction
between respondent and researcher, the researcher is not a visible participant.

Consequently, the data go directly from the respondent to paper or some other collection
medium. This ensures that the researcher cannot influence answers given by the

r eSpondent. As a known researcher, I had concerns about the possibility that my
familiarity with the respondents could influence how they answered.

To reduce any influence 1 might have had on the answers, I did the following:

aSked questions, provided explanation when needed, and asked for clarification if I did
not understand the answer. When situations arose in which judicial educators indicated I

knfifw what was meant by the answer, I would say that perhaps that might be true, but to

57

avoid my interpretation 1 would rather hear their explanation. I always received an
explanation. So, although I was an active and known participant in the study, I always
sought to reduce any influence my presence might have had on the answers. As stated in
the introduction, I chose the interview format with open-ended questions so that the
respondents would be less likely to give me answers that they thought I wanted to hear, as
opposed to sharing their honest opinions and feelings. I also chose this format because I
did not want to prejudge their answers based on my familiarity with them or the
occupation. By encouraging judicial educators to speak freely, I could not assume their
answers and they could not assume I wanted a particular answer. In addition, the
presence or absence of status in judicial education was not a topic that I had previously
researched. Therefore, I had no knowledge or established opinions about this issue.

As each interview was completed, I thanked the judicial educator for participating
and asked what he or she felt about the interview. By continuing with the guided
conversation format until the end, the judicial educators had an opportunity not only to
express themselves in their own way, but also to comment about the process they had just
engaged in. This method of data collection established an environment of openness,

which is discussed next.

The Interview Environment

To establish a comfortable interview environment, I told the judicial educators
that this study was qualitative and that I was interested in the content of their responses

rather than the number of questions they could answer. I indicated that I hoped they

58

would share their thoughts, feelings, and opinions and that at any time they felt
uncomfortable they could say so, and we would stop. I assured them that all responses
were confidential and that no findings would be reported that could be attributed to any
one judicial educator. No judicial educator withdrew from participation

All of the judicial educators spoke in depth about their work and what they
valued. They sought to explain what they thought others valued about their work or
whether others even knew about the true nature of what they did. They pondered factors
related to judicial education’s achieving professional status. The judicial educators told
me that they enjoyed the opportunity to talk about their work and how they valued it.
They said it was the first time they had been asked to tell their stories.

At the end of the interviews, I asked the judicial educators what they thought
about the interview format. The purpose of asking what the respondents thought about
the interview format was (1) to obtain anecdotal feedback on whether the depth and
breadth of the information received was associated with this method of data collection;
(2) to determine the level of comfort the respondents had during the interviews; (3) to
determine what, if any, research advantages were associated with this form of data
collection; and (4) to ascertain whether the respondents preferred the interview format
over other forms of data collection.

All of the respondents favored the interview format. The judicial educators
reported that they had given the depth and amount of information they had because (1)
they had a scheduled interview time; (2) they did not have to write their answers, which
made them feel freer to respond; (3) they were not forced to provide an artificial answer

by checking a box or circling a number; (4) the questions were thought provoking and

59

they could tell their stories rather than recite facts and figures about the activity of
judicial education; and (5) they could talk to me because they knew me and knew that I
understood their work. Many reported that they simply would not have completed a
survey about such matters because they could not have expressed themselves adequately
in writing. Others said that they would have completed a survey because of their
relationship with me, but that it would not have contained the depth of information
provided during our conversation. They reported that I made it "comfortable" for them to
talk about their feelings, perceptions, and opinions. And, because the interviews were
described as guided conversations, they did not have to conform to a rigid format. For all
of these reasons, the length of the interviews varied from 45 minutes to 3 1/2 hours. The
average interview lasted 1 1/2 hours. The following quotations illuminate my comments
and conclusions about the interview environment.

Interviewee 2: “This discussion made me think about things I haven’t thought about in a
long time. You made it easy to be honest about what I value and dislike about this work.
I’m glad you did this. I feel recommitted.”

Interviewee 36: “I’m glad you are engaging in these interviews. The results will be
important to us. I am happy to be a participant in this research.”

Interviewee 6: “You would never have gotten the quality of answers you received from
me if I would have had to write out my answers. This was fun and I could answer fully.”

Interviewee 27: “I can be honest with you because I know you. I suspect the others feel
the same way. This is the first time anyone has asked me to tell my story.”

Interviewee 39: “I liked that you called and scheduled the interview in advance. So
many people don’t respect my time commitments. I could plan for this. You got better
responses from me because of this.”

Interviewee 24: “We are surveyed to death. I would not have answered these questions
on a survey. Well, maybe I would have because of you. It means so much more that you
took the time to just talk to us. I know you got a hell of a lot more info this way.”

60

The Interview Questions

 

The first set of questions were identification questions: date, name, sex, title,
name of organization, educational level, years of service in judicial education, number of
employees (including self), budget size, and size and type of education audiences. The
answers related to their sex, educational level, years of service, and number of employees
were operationalized and became the independent variables. The questions related to
budget size and audience type and size were not operationalized because the judicial
educators (1) did not have that information readily available or (2) could not answer with
accuracy. In particular, the answers related to budget varied drastically from state to state
because what was included in the budgets in each state was different. Some included
staff, some included programs, and some included both staff and programs. In other
states, budgets included staff, programs, special projects, grants, line-item transfers, and
money for activities that had nothing to do with judicial education. Therefore, using
budget as an independent variable proved unreliable because of these differences.

The rest of the interview questions were developed to answer the eight research
questions. The interview questions follow. They are listed with each applicable research

question.

Research Question 1: What is the work of judicial educators?

Interview Questions:

1. What are the responsibilities or functions of your job?
2. Probes: personnel? budgeting? boards and committees? legislature?

3. Describe the organizational structure within which you work and where
judicial education is placed.

61

Do you have organizational peers? If yes, what is your role and relationship
with them?

Do you have an administrator? If yes, what is your role and relationship
with that person?

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which you enjoy your work.

Explain what brings you joy about your work.

Explain what challenges or disappoints you about your work.

Research Question 2: What do judicial educators value about their work?

Interview Questions:

1.
2.

What do you value or think is important about your work?

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which you value your work.

Research Question 3: What do judicial educators perceive that others value about their

work?

Interview Questions:

1.

What does your significant other or family think is valuable about your
work?

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which they think those things are valuable.

What do your friends think is valuable about your work?

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which they think those things are valuable.

What do your organizational peers think is valuable about your work?

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which they think those things are valuable.

What do your judicial education colleagues think is valuable about your
work?

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which they think those things are valuable.

10.

11.
l2.

13.
14.

15.
16.

62

What does your supervisor think is valuable about your work?

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which your supervisor thinks those things are valuable

What do your training and education audiences value about your work?

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which you think your audiences value your work.

What do your state legislators value about your work?

On a scale from 1 to 5 with one being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which they value your work.

What does the public value about your work?

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which you think the public values your work.

Research Question 4: What are the differences and/or similarities between what judicial

educators value and what others value about the judicial education work?

Interview Questions:

1.

You identified that you valued about your work; and, you
thought that others valued about your work. Explain to me
why you think the values are either similar or different.

 

Do you think that your gender makes a difference?
Do you think that your educational background makes a difference?

Do you think that your experience in judicial education makes a difference?

Research Question 5: What are the differences and/or similarities between judicial

educators with regard to their perceptions about what is valuable in their work, and what

accounts for these differences and similarities? (Note: Judicial educators are in regular

contact with each other. Consequently, they have some basis from which they can form

such perceptions.)

63

Interview Questions:

1.

What do you perceive other judicial educators value about their work and
why?

Do you think that the gender of the judicial educator makes a difference?

Do you think that the educational background of the judicial educator makes
a difference?

Do you think that the experience of the judicial educator makes a difference?

Do you think that the organizational structure and the placement of the
judicial education operation makes a difference?

Do you think the audience types make a difference?

Research Question 6: Do judicial educators believe that the value attributed to judicial

education has changed over the past ten years, and do they think it will change over the

next ten years?

Interview Questions:

1.
2.

What value do you think judicial education had ten years ago?

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me what value you think judicial education had ten years ago.

What value do you think judicial education has now?

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me what value you think judicial education has now.

What value do you think judicial education will have ten years from now?

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me what value you think judicial education will have ten years from now.

Research Question 7: What are the elements that judicial educators perceive make a

profession, and how many of those elements does judicial education already possess?

(Note: These questions were very difficult for the judicial educators to answer because

the elements of professional status were not necessarily known to them; and, if known,

64

they often did not intuitively make the connection between the elements and judicial

education. Therefore, I explained each and gave examples from judicial education. Each

interview question is followed by my examples or explanations.)

Interview Questions:

1.

Obtaining abstract knowledge through extensive specialized education and
training for the purpose of solving human problems (Abbott 1988).

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which judicial education possesses this element.
Comment: What this element refers to is that some professions require a
practitioner to be educated and trained in specific knowledge and skills that
are particular to that profession or field. The specialized preparation is
required so that the expert knowledge is applied when serving the client. A
familiar example for you is the profession of law or lawyering. To what
extent does the practice of judicial education require specialized education
and training that results in obtaining expert knowledge? Please comment on
your answer.

Applying abstract knowledge to the problem-solving process of diagnosing,
treating, and inferring in a way that is not routine, thus maintaining power
and control over problem solving (Abbott 1988).

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which judicial education possesses this element.

Comment: This element speaks to applying expert knowledge in a way that
you are accepted as the expert in judicial education so that you maintain
power and control over the work. For example, when you are developing
new curriculum you have to complete an assessment about the extent and
degree of the education or training needed. Armed with this information,
you have to develop a plan specifically to meet that need. Then, you present
the plan to your audience groups in a way that demonstrates you used a
combination of standard, approved approaches in your specialized field
along with your expert knowledge to address this particular need. Thus,
because you are an expert your audience groups allow you to take charge
over the work. To what extent does judicial education apply expert
knowledge so that it has power and control over the work? Feel free to
comment on your answer.

Ensuring autonomy by claiming and holding jurisdiction through means
such as obtaining expert knowledge, skilled application of expert
knowledge, licensure, ethics codes, statutes, case law, media manipulation,
and public relations (Abbott 1988).

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell

65

me the extent to which judicial education possesses this element.

Comment: This element refers to ensuring autonomy so that you identify
what the work is, what it is not, and who can do it. In some professions or
occupations, such recognition of the jurisdictional boundaries and who can
practice within those boundaries is established through some or all of the
means just mentioned. To what extent has the judicial education occupation
ensured autonomy for its practitioners through identifiable means like
establishing expert knowledge criteria, standards, codes of ethics, licensure,
statutes, case law, and media and public relations efforts? Please comment
on your answer.

Serving high-status clients; or, not being involved in client service at all, but
rather serving other professionals (Abbott 1988).

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which judicial education possesses this element.

Comment: As an example, this element strives to distinguish between the
specialized training and expert knowledge required for plumbers,
electricians, and mechanics as opposed to doctors, lawyers, and accountants.
Whereas plumbers, electricians, and mechanics may serve high-status
clients, they typically cannot or do not select whose plumbing, wiring, and
motors they will repair based on what the client does for a living. Therefore,
they serve a client group driven by repair need and not by the client’s
profession or occupation. And they have direct client contact regardless of
the client’s station in life. On the other hand, doctors, lawyers, and
accountants can select their clients by choosing to serve only certain client
groups. They may do so through specialization. Or they may choose to
serve each other, thus never having contact with clients outside of their own
group. To what extent does judicial education serve high-status clients? Or
to what extent does judicial education not get involved in client service?
Please comment on your response.

Status of the organization in which the professional works becoming tied to
the status the individual professional enjoys. Larson (1977) pointed out that
professional prestige is almost equivalent to organizational prestige.

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which judicial education possesses this element.

Comment: This means to what extent does the status of your parent
organization influence your own status? Please comment on your answer.

Connection to the right networks that ensure sponsorship to the top of the
organizational hierarchy (Larson 1977).

On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which judicial education possess this element.

Comment: This question refers to the extent to which judicial education
places you in contact with individuals or groups who can mentor, sponsor,

66

or help you get recognized so that you can be promoted. To what extent
does judicial education make this happen? Please comment on your answer.

7. Recognition by peers (Abbott 1988).
On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which judicial education possesses this element.
Comment: Before answering to what extent the judicial education
occupation brings you recognition among your peers, tell me who you think
of as your peers. And please provide additional comment.

8. Increased earning potential (Abbott 1988).
On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, tell
me the extent to which judicial education possesses this element.
Comment: In this question, please assess the extent to which the occupation
of judicial education provides increased earning potential for you. Please
comment on your answer.

9. What other elements do you think make up a profession?

10. How many of these elements do you think judicial education possesses?

11. On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, how
close do you think judicial education is to obtaining professional standing?

Research Question 8: What are the strengths of and obstacles faced by judicial education

as it strives to achieve professional standing?

Interview Questions:

1. What do you think are the strengths of judicial education that will help it
obtain professional standing?

2. What do you think are the obstacles facing judicial education in obtaining
professional standing?

Rexvisions to the Interview Questions

 

Several revisions were necessitated by the interview process. Time was the

biggest factor. The list of interview questions was lengthy for one and one and a half

67

hour interviews. Therefore, I dropped interview questions 5, 6, and 7 for Research
Question 1; because I determined they were not essential to answering that research
question.

Other questions were dropped if they could not be answered by any of the judicial
educators. Consequently, all four interview questions for Research Question 4 were
dropped. The ten judicial educators to whom I posed those questions said that the
closeness to the work likely changes its perceived value. And, they said that they simply
did not know whether their own sex, educational background, or experience had any
effect on how others value judicial education. However, issues related to sex, educational
background, and experience are raised in Research Question 5 and will be addressed in
the discussion of that question. As a result, Research Question 4 will not be part of this
study.

The interview questions under Research Question 6 were redesigned.

Three discrete questions were posed to determine (1) what judicial educators perceived
the value of judicial education was ten years ago, (2) what value they perceived it has
today, and (3) what value they thought it would have ten years from now. Also, the
judicial educators were asked to give each a numerical value. All of the judicial
educators answered the questions relating to the value of judicial education ten years ago
and ten years in the future, but no respondent answered the numerical-value questions. I
attempted to get the answers, with no success.
The most problematic and the most time—consuming questions for the judicial

educators were those for Research Question 3, which pertains to what others value about

judicial education. Every respondent struggled with those questions, especially as it

68

related to assigning numerical-value to their answers. The judicial educators said that
the numerical-value questions demanded meaningful answers that could be articulated
only after considering multiple factors. They suggested that the variance in the work, the
degree to which people knew about the work, the extent to which they knew what others
knew and valued, and the depth to which they had previously considered such questions
as meaning and status precluded their assigning a numerical value to their responses with
any accuracy. Therefore, when looking at these findings in the next chapter, it must be
remembered that the judicial educators gave their answers tentatively and said their

answers were speculative, at best.

Data Analysis

 

In qualitative field studies, analysis is conceived as an emergent product of
a process of gradual induction. Guided by the data being gathered and the
topics, questions, and evaluative criteria that provide focus, analysis is the
fieldworker's derivative ordering of the data. (Lofland and Lofland

1995: 1 81)

Consequently, this form of analysis is open-ended and creative, which requires a process
of working at the analysis (Lofland and Lofland 1995). Three analysis strategies were
employed in this study. They are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Strategy 1: Code the data. Coding the data is the most basic and concrete way of
deVeloping the analysis.
Coding follows upon and leads to generative questions; fractures the data,
thus freeing the researcher from description and forcing interpretation to

higher levels of abstraction; is the pivotal operation for moving toward the
discovery of a core category or categories; and so moves toward ultimate

69

integration of the entire analysis; as well as yields the desired conceptual

density. (Strauss 1987:55)

Therefore, coding data begins by asking two fundamental questions: "Of what
category is the item before me an instance? What can we think of this being about?”
(Lofland and Lofland 1995:186).

The questions I asked for coding were: What is this? What does it represent?
What is this an example of? How is it similar or different from like data? Answering
these questions resulted in placing labels or tags on the data, which assigned the data
units of meaning (Miles and Huberman 1994). This resulted in sorting, organizing, and
compiling the interview data into analytical codes.

Two stages of analytical coding were employed in this study: initial and focused
coding. Initial coding is the first step of discovering and defining the data (Charmez

1983). It is where emergent induction of analysis begins (Strauss and Corbin 1990).
Initial coding was conducted throughout and immediately following data collection.

Focused coding is a process whereby the initial codes are analyzed for frequency
of use and applicability (Lofland and Lofland 1995). The resulting effect of focused
coding is that fewer codes are applied to a broader range of data. In this stage, coding
moves from individual labels to more global themes, which become overarching ideas,
elements, or propositions.

In this research, codes were collapsed or eliminated on three separate occasions
after data collection had been completed. The remaining codes became the descriptors or

terrns that are found in the appendices and throughout Chapter 4.

70

Strategy 2: Data diagrams. Diagrams are "visual representations of relationships
between concepts” (Strauss and Corbin 1990:197). Diagramming in this study provides
visual displays of the elements and/or variables that will be used to answer the research
questions. Tables and figures are used.

Strategy 3: Answer the research questions. Answering the research questions is
accomplished through determining and describing the variables and through exploring the
relationships between the variables. Frequencies, percentages, and means are reported as
each applies to the findings. I used this information to look for central and recurring
tendencies, and to discover what homogeneity and variances existed. These relationships
were not explored in quantitative terms but were investigated in qualitative terms.

Although the three strategies provide the analytical framework for this qualitative
study, they do not describe the analytical process. The process throughout was flexible,
creative, and open. Comparisons were constant so that nothing would be overlooked.
Diagramming was done and redone to ensure clear and descriptive visuals. Plunging into
detail and withdrawing from it was ongoing until both the detail and overarching themes
were uncovered. Finally, judgment was withheld until all of the analytical pieces fell into
place.

This analytical framework and process are about making sense out of what has

been learned. Denzin (1994) referred to this as the art of interpretation.

71

Units of Analysis

 

Many dependent variables emerged from the data as a result of the coding. They
are the descriptors or terms previously referred to, and they are fully listed and explained
in the appendices. The independent variables, which represent the units of analysis, are
sex, educational background, organizational size, and career stage.

These variables were chosen for several reasons. Sex was chosen as an
independent variable as it is a basic human identifier. A wealth of research has been
conducted on women and men in the workplace, suggesting that differences do exist
(Kanter 1977;Seymour 1987; Reskin 1991; Acker 1991; Almquist 1991; Brenner 1991).

Educational background was chosen because it is a common identifier in
research. The law and nonlaw distinction is a topic of discussion among judicial
educators as it pertains to how the work is approached and executed. Organizational size
was selected as an independent variable because number of employees is an important
factor that often changes the work of judicial educators. This difference has the potential
for influencing the value of the work to the judicial educator and to others.

Career stage, as determined by years of service, was selected because researchers
have indicated that people approach their work differently based on their life experiences
(Havighurst 1961; Neugarten 1968; Gould 1972; 1975; McCoy 1977; Lehman and Lester
1978; Chickering and Havighurst 1981).

Two common variables that often are used in research but were not employed in
this study are race and age. Race was not used because there was no racial diversity in

this population. All of the judicial educators are white. Age was not employed because

72

recent research on this population showed little diversity in age—the vast majority of

judicial educators are from 45 to 55 years old (Conner 1995).

Sex of the Judicial Educator

 

The first independent variable was sex. Eighteen male judicial educators and 32

female judicial educators participated in this study.

Educational Background

 

The judicial educators were asked to provide their educational background. The

breakdown of highest degree obtained was as follows:

bachelor’s (n = 6)
master’s (n = 17)
law (11 = 21)
doctorate (n = 6)

However, the judicial educators did not describe their educational background in
this way. Rather, they defined educational background using two terms: law-trained
(n = 23) and non-law-trained (n = 27). The judicial educators raised this distinction as
being an important factor in how the work of j udicial education was conceptualized and
executed. Therefore, the variable category for educational background was defined as

law-trained and non-law-trained.

employ
were in

breakdc

73

Oganizational Size

 

The third category was organizational size, as determined by number of
employees. Judicial educators were asked how many employees, including themselves,
were in their judicial education organizations. Their responses ranged from 1 to 50. The

breakdown is as follows:

1 employee (n = 11) 9 employees (n = 2)
2 employees (n = 7) 10 employees (n = 1)
3 employees (n = 8) 13 employees (n = 1)
4 employees (11 = 1) 15 employees (11 = 1)
5 employees (n = 8) 16 employees (n = 1)
6 employees (11 = 3) 17 employees (n = 1)
7 employees (n = 3) 50 employees (n = 1)
8 employees (n = 1)

Ninety percent of the respondents’ organizations had ten or fewer employees, and
98 percent had 17 or fewer employees. To determine the units of analysis for
organizational size, several factors were considered. I consulted the organizational
management, industrial psychology, and labor and industrial relations literature to
determine what, if any, research had been done on whether the work in small
organizations is managed or valued differently from the work in larger organizations. I
did this as a way of informing the decision-making criteria for establishing the units of

analysis. The literature review did not result in any information on this subject. I then

em

Iii:

um
Per:
doir

163p

inCh
€0.11

3hr
1.

Y
t

74

turned to the interview data and anecdotal comments made during the interviews to help
establish the units of analysis.

One-person operations differed from multi-person operations in that one person
had to do all of the program development, administration, and support functions. In
addition, one-person operations had no personnel management functions. Therefore, one-
person organizations (n = 11) became the first unit of analysis.

The second unit of analysis, small organizations (n = 15), had two to three
employees. In this case, the judicial educator now had personnel functions. He or she
likely had a support person or professional on staff. Although in the small organization
the judicial educator had personnel, he or she still had to be a working manager
responsible for tasks that would be assigned to lower professional, technical, or clerical
job classifications in a much larger organization.

The third unit of analysis, medium organizations (11 = 12), included organizations
with four to six employees. This signified more management responsibilities in
personnel, budget, and organizational activities. However, with only four to six people
doing the work, the judicial educator still had some hands-on management
responsibilities.

Medium-to-large organizations (11 = 6) was the fourth unit of analysis and
included operations with seven to nine employees. Having this number of employees
continued to increase the judicial educator’s people, money, process, and product
management responsibilities, but it eliminated many nonmanagement tasks from the

range of responsibilities.

ofana
large (
standa

judicia

Career

Fears,

educatl

1.8] U6 th

75

Large organizations of ten or more employees (n = 6) was the fifth and final unit
of analysis. Only 12 percent of the state judicial education operations fell within this
large organization unit. Although this size of organization may be small by other
standards, for judicial education it is large and somewhat of a rarity. The work for

judicial educators in large organizations was dedicated almost totally to management.

Career Stage

 

The years of service for judicial educators ranged from less than one year to 23
years. Each judicial educator was asked how long he or she had been involved in judicial

education. Sixty-eight percent had been in judicial education ten or fewer years.

<1 year (n =1) 11 years (n = 2)
1 year (n = 2) 12 years (n = 1)
2 years (n = 6) 13 years (n = 1)
3years (n=1) 15 years (n=1)
4 years (n = 3) 16 years (n == 1)
5 years (n = 6) 17 years (n = 2)
6 years (n = 3) 20 years (n = 2)
7 years (n = 2) 21 years (n = 1)
8 years (n = 5) 22 years (n == 4)
10 years (n = 5) 23 years (n = 1)

In determining the units of analysis for years of service, I again consulted the
management literature from organizational development, industrial psychology, and labor
and industrial relations to determine whether there had been research on how people

value their work based on years of service. The literature search uncovered nothing. I

then turned my atte

data by years of sen

if any. patterns migl

Theft I reviewed un

research (Hudzik l9

quantitative, and the

to allow for higher 16
analysis based on cor
through my previous
Many judicial

They said this is so bl
through two or three :
orhiahnual budget. 15
leadership changes or.
hadachahge in chief
“film Which would 1
urolred in executing

l. .
Film the first three \'

76

then turned my attention to comparing the dependent variables that emerged from the
data by years of service. This comparison was conducted year by year to determine what,
if any, patterns might emerge to assist in defining the units of analysis. None emerged.
Then, I reviewed units of analysis for years of service that had been employed in previous
research (Hudzik 1995; Conner 1996) on judicial education. That research was primarily
quantitative, and the units of analysis were established based on frequency distributions
to allow for higher levels of statistical analysis. Therefore, I determined the units of
analysis based on comments made by the judicial educators during the interviews and
through my previous work with them.
Many judicial educators reported that it takes at least three years to learn the job.
They said this is so because within three years judicial educators will typically have been
through two or three state budget cycles, depending on whether their state has an annual
or biannual budget. Also, within a three-year period they would have likely gone through
leadership changes on their boards and committees. Further, they would have probably
had a change in chief justices. Last, they would have gone through one or two program
cycles, which would have introduced them to the development and administration issues
involved in executing continuing education programs in the court environment. Also,
within the first three years, they typically would have had experience in grant writing,
and, if successful, they would also have gained grant-administration experience.
Many judicial educators commented that solid recognition of their work and the
contributions of judicial education came only after they had been in their jobs for awhile,

successfully weathered the changes in leadership, and established a reputation for

excellent progr
recognition.
lhe last
out factor becat
demands remaii
educators forte
that there is no .
means moving r
Based or
established the 1

“We. Each ir

hetero.“
mid‘[0-a
The 1381 I
hi .
it: er Judie} l
Wu ‘
SON 1933; Mc
[belt ‘.
“1%on
l97:.

77

excellent programming. Five years was the time many said it took to achieve this
recognition.

The last comment made by judicial educators was that their jobs have a high burn-
out factor because they are chronically underfunded and understaffed while performance
demands remain high. Consequently, many said that individuals who have been judicial
educators for ten or more years are "old-timers." The judicial educators also commented
that there is no career path in judicial education for them to follow. Therefore, moving up
means moving out, which results in short tenure.

Based on these comments and the lack of any other definitive criteria, I
established the following units of analysis for career stage, determined by years of

service. Each includes the pivotal years identified by the judicial educators.

new-career judicial educators (n = 10): <1 to 3 years
new-to-mid-career judicial educators (n = 14): 4 to 7 years
mid-to-advanced-career judicial educators (n = 13): 8 to 12 years
advanced-career judicial educators (n = l3): 13 or more years

Comparative Analysis Between the Judicial Education Status
Elements and the Status Elements in the Literature

 

 

The last research method used in this study was comparative analysis to determine
whether judicial education follows the traditional service model (Carr-Saunders and
Wilson 1933; Marshall 1939; Parsons 1939; Naegle 1956; Goode 1957; Braude 1961) or
the Marxist model of client dominance through structural power and control (Berlant

1975; Larson 1977). The eight elements of professional status are key in this analysis.

ii

The responses to \
perceived status 01
compared with the
as it attempts to ac

In summar
judicial education.
how it is valued. (E
occupation with th
judicial education 1

client dominance tl

78

The responses to what judicial educators and others value are used in describing the
perceived status of judicial education. Once described, these status indicators are
compared with the literature. The strengths of and obstacles faced by judicial education
as it attempts to achieve professional status will further illuminate the comparison.

In summary, using these research methods allowed me to (1) describe the work of
judicial education, (2) describe status in judicial education and what it means through
how it is valued, (3) compare perceived status elements of the judicial education
occupation with the identified status elements of professions, and (4) determine whether
judicial education fits the traditional service model of professions or the Marxist model of

client dominance through structural power and control.

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

In Chapter 4, the research questions are posed and the findings presented. The
items and/or terms that emerged during the interviews are described in the appendices.
Many of the descriptions include quotations from respondents. These quotations are
included to add further illumination by offering comments or explanations given by
judicial educators. Some quotes contain blanks because information that could identify
the respondents was deleted.

Even though none of the research questions directly addressed how the responses
might vary based on the independent variables of gender, education, organizational size,
and career stage of the respondents, the intention was to collect the information and look
for any similarities or variations. The information was collected and placed into tables,
which may be found in the appendices. The tables provide additional information but are
difficult to interpret. The population size of judicial educators was only 50, and when the
responses were broken down by the aforementioned independent variables, the

frequencies in the table cells were too low to conduct a sound analysis.

79

 

the

it

Be

80

This chapter is organized around the eight research questions. Comments on the

findings are provided in Chapter 5, along with the conclusions and recommendations.

RESEARCH QUESTION 1: What is the Work of Judicial Educators?

The purpose of Research Question 1 was to uncover what judicial educators do in
their jobs. Through conversation with judicial educators, a description of judicial
education emerged.

Judicial education involves management and administration of the judicial
education organization and its programming. It also involves the development and
implementation of education programs and projects. In addition, judicial educators lend
their knowledge and skills to state court projects and initiatives.

As the judicial educators described their work, 42 job responsibilities emerged.
Of those, 23 related directly to judicial education. Nineteen were associated with
supreme court directives or state court administrative office projects or initiatives.
Because these responsibilities are not directly related to the work of judicial education, I
refer to them as non-judicial-education duties, responsibilities, or work. Eighteen judicial

educators reported having these additional responsibilities.

MSponsibilities in Judicial-Education Work

Figure 1 shows the judicial education job responsibilities under two categories.

The categories are:

81

Management and/or Administration. This category includes matters affecting the
goals, objectives, policies, procedures, and priorities of the judicial education
organization.

Educational Programming. This category is directly related to the educational
process of developing, implementing, and executing continuing judicial education

programs and projects.

 

STATE JUDICIAL EDUCATOR

 

 

 

 

JUDICIAL EDUCATION DUTIES

 

 

 

 

Management/administration

 

Budgeting

Direct/advise policy board
Direct advisory committee
Direct program committees
Legislative input on judicial education
Local training network
Out-of-state travel
Personnel

Planning

Policy development
Publications

Resource enhancement
Staff policy board

 

 

 

Educational mogramming

 

Approving invoices

Contracting facilities

Contracting faculty

Delivery technologies

Evaluation

Needs assessment

On-site program management

Oversight of mandatory/certificate
credits

Program and curriculum development

Teaching

 

Figure 1: State Judicial Educators’ Job Responsibilities in Judicial Education

 

82

All 50 judicial educators reported a myriad of judicial education responsibilities,
as seen in Table 1. They most often reported that they were involved in budgeting (68
percent or 34), program/curriculum development (66 percent or 33), and personnel (60
percent or 30). This means that most of their work involved responsibilities from both
categories and was not dominated by just managing or just educating. Ten percent or less
of the respondents reported being responsible for overseeing mandatory and/or certificate
credits, educational delivery technologies, staffing policy boards, and managing local
training networks. The rest of the responsibilities were reported by 46 percent to 20

percent of the respondents. See Table 1 for the full list of judicial-education-related job

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

responsibilities.

Table 1. Judicial Education Job Responsibilities
Responsibilities Frequency Percent
Budgeting 34 68
Program/curriculum development 33 66
Personnel 30 60
Direct advisory committee 23 46
Contracting faculty 22 44
Needs assessment 21 42
Planning 20 40
Evaluation 1 9 3 8
Approving invoices 18 36
On-site program management 18 36
Direct program committees 18 36
Direct/advise policy board 18 36
Policy development 17 34
Contracting facilities 17 34
Resource enhancement 16 32
Out-of-state travel 11 22
Publications 1 l 22
Legislative input on judicial
education matters 10 20
Teaching 10 20
Oversight of mandatory and/or
certificate credits 5 10

 

 

 

 

83

Table 1. Judicial Education Job Responsibilities (con’t)

Responsibilities Frequency Percent
De techno ' 3 6

Staff board 3 6
Local network 2 4

 

Valid Cases=50

Job Responsibilities in Non-Judicial-Education Work

 

Figure 2 shows the non-judicial-education responsibilities. As previously stated,
non-judicial-education responsibilities is the label I placed on the work judicial educators
do that is not directly related to the management of the judicial education organization or

judicial education programming. The responsibilities appear under four categories:

State Court Management and/or Administration. This category includes
responsibilities related to the management and/or administration of the state court
system.

Technical/Clerical. This category contains judicial educators’ responsibilities for
technical operations or monitoring compliance associated with a court rule,
statute, or administrative order.

Legal. This category includes responsibilities in which the judicial educator uses
his/her law-training or legal expertise in assisting or advising the supreme

court and/or state court administrative office.

Reporting. Responsibilities in this category involve writing reports or other types
of publications related to the activities of the

state judicial branch.

W

Aning SC A‘

A0 management 1
Gem Procedure

Judicial branch bu
Judicial branch pe
Judicial branch plz
llldlCla] branch p0.
VCiOpmem

lClai Pedoman
CEiSlative input 0]

Ch matters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

84

 

STATE JUDICIAL EDUCATOR

 

 

 

NON-JUDICIAL EDUCATION DUTIES

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| l 1
State court management Technical/clerical Egg]
administration
Electronic technology Judicial branch
Acting SCA“ legal counsel
AO management team‘ "‘ Judge financial
Clerks procedure statements Law library

Judicial branch budgeting
Judicial branch personnel
Judicial branch planning
Judicial branch policy
development
Judicial performance review
Legislative input on judicial
branch matters
Negotiate court contracts
Public information/media
Study committees/task
forces/special projects
Trial court performance
reporting

 

 

 

 

 

"‘ Acting State Court Administrator

"Administrative Office Management Team

 

|

 

 

 

 

Reporting

Judicial
branch
newsletter

Judicial
branch
reports

 

Figure 2. State Judicial Educator Job Responsibilities in State Judicial Branch

As shown in Table 2, 32 of the 50 respondents (64 percent) reported that they had

no non-judicial-education job responsibilities. The remaining 18 respondents reported

being a member of the administrative office management team. Seventeen of the 18

respondents (94.5 percent) were involved in study committees, task forces, or special

 

85

projects. Ten of the 18 respondents (55.6 percent) had input on legislative matters
pertaining to the judicial branch. The remainder of the items were reported by 6 or fewer

of the 18 respondents.

Table 2. Non-Judicial-Education Job Responsibilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Responsibilities Frequency Percent
AO management team“ 18 100
Study committees/task

forces/special projects 17 94.5
Legislative input on

judicial branch matters 10 55.6
Public information/media 6 33.3
Judicial branch legal counsel 5 27.8
Judicial branch personnel 5 27.8
Judicial branch policy development 4 22.2
Judicial branch budgeting 3 16.7
Judicial branch newsletters 3 16.7
Judicial branch planning 2 1 1.1
Law library 2 11.1
Judicial performance review 2 1 1.1
Judicial branch reports 2 11.1
Negotiate court contracts 1 5.5
Trial court performance reporting 1 5.5
Judge financial statements 1 5.5
Electronic technology 1 5.5
Acting SCA" 1 5.5
Clerk procedures 1 5.5

 

 

 

" Administrative Office Management Team
"Acting State Court Administrator

Valid Cases=l 8

In sum, the goal of Research Question 1 was to determine what judicial educators
do in their jobs so that a description of judicial education could be formulated. Based on

the judicial educators’ responses, it is now known that:

 

 

110

bill

11115

C011

IE?

3‘but
{0qu

{her .

.‘ l"

86

1. The judicial educators had both judicial education and non-judicial-education
responsibilities. However, only 18 of the 50 respondents (36 percent) reported having
non-judicial-education duties.

2. Twenty-three judicial education responsibilities emerged. Of the 23,
budgeting, program/curriculum development, and personnel were reported the most often.

3. Nineteen non-judicial-education responsibilities surfaced during the
interviews. Judicial educators were most often involved in the following non-judicial-
education activities or assignments: administrative office management team, study
committees/task forces/special projects, and legislative input for the judicial branch.

4. The judicial educators’ work, as described, showed variation. However, the
majority of the work involved management and administration. Work that did not fall
within the management and administration category involved direct educational
programming and activities, legal research or advice, reporting studies or activities of the
judicial branch, and technical or clerical services.

5. Because of the variations that surfaced in this study, one can conclude that the

job description of judicial educator varies from state to state.

RESEARCH QUESTION 2: What Do Judicial Educators Value About Their Work?

The purpose of Research Question 2 was to discover what judicial educators value
about their work and to ascertain whether what they value relates to elements that are
found in professions and professional status. Judicial educators reported 18 things that

they valued. Far above anything else, judicial educators reported that they valued being

 

change agents
change agent \
potential. The
making a diffe

[Hm-jewee 13
participants."

interviewee 23
of the most P10

inteniewee 6:
administration .

lnteniewee 103
“hateter effort
their isolation."

The item
ralue in the esta
power, success.
these items was

Table 3.

«r:
E.
g

E

777

ge agent
ttorture
Lcation

Rid“ Of the C0

S

hu an p
655

 

[male 1
Elba-It n

ht .
Aflonom ,
iltt '

l

. uence

mouth
PFOduct
n

 

5.: g; 5.“ f ‘
:5; r I w
5.

87

change agents. Eighty-eight percent or 44 of the SO judicial educators said being a
change agent was what they valued most. A distant second was developing human
potential. The respondents made several comments reflecting the value they held about

making a difference.

Interviewee 1: “I don’t need attribution as long as I can see I have made an impact on my
participants.”

Interviewee 2: “Sometimes I struggle to find value in my work. But then I am reminded
of the most profound aspect of my work—the ethical and moral development of judges.”

Interviewee 6: “I came to the courts because they are about human rights. The
administration of justice is about human rights.”

Interviewee 10: “I would like to think that I contribute to the quality of justice.
Whatever effort we make boosts the morale of employees. They get few rewards. It ends
their isolation.”

The items that held little value for these judicial educators, but that have great
value in the establishment of professional status, were financial compensation, visibility,
power, success, appreciation, status, respect, ability to influence, and autonomy. Each of
these items was valued by five or fewer judicial educators. The findings are shown in

Table 3.

Table 3. What Judicial Educators Valued About Their Work

Value Percent
88
human 36
Education 26
Role of the court in 26
Re 22

Intellectual l 6
Education 12
in work 10

1 0

to influence 8

6

 

 

Table .'

 

Value
‘
Status

Appreciation
Mmhw
Success

Power

Visibility

l H

 

Valid Cases=50

After the .
about their work.
(low) to five (hig
they did or thoug

In sum. tl
Valued most beir.
PTOfessiong, “hit
in 1eSS esteem 1h.

profeSSional Stat

88

Table 3. What Judicial Educators Valued About Their Work (con’t)

Value Frequency Percent
Status 2 4

Do not know
Success
Power

V' .
Financial

 

Valid Cases=50

After the judicial educators identified what they valued or thought was important
about their work, they rated the extent to which they valued their work on a scale of one
(low) to five (high). The mean response was 4.79. This indicates that, regardless of what
they did or thought was important about their work, they valued it highly.

In sum, the judicial educators believed their work was very important, and they
valued most being change agents. This is a fundamental value held by traditional
professions, which hold in high regard being of service to others. Judicial educators held
in less esteem those items that traditionally are viewed by others as important to gaining

professional status and recognition.

RESEARCH QUESTION 3: What Do Judicial Educators Perceive That
Others Value About Their Work?

 

 

The purpose of Research Question 3 was to determine what others value about
judicial education, as professional recognition and status are gained largely through the
value the occupation has to others. The respondents were asked to consider how the

fOUOWing individuals or groups valued their work in judicial education: significant

others’partners.

audiences"client

Si ficant Othe

Twelve it
their significant 1
Emitting else. the
though this was r
18 of the 50 judic

Interviewee 17; '~

v

might not othenv:
Inlm’iewee 24:

Next, judi.
because the)" Valu
110 linponance on

Iflit-’rviewee 14.
e my Work

89

others/partners, friends, organizational peers, judicial education colleagues, supervisors,

audiences/client groups, state legislators, and the general public.

Significant Others

 

Twelve items emerged when judicial educators talked about what they thought
their significant others valued about their work. The respondents believed that, more than
anything else, their significant others valued their role as a change agent. However,
though this was the response most frequently given, it was reported by only 36 percent or
18 of the 50 judicial educators. Two quotations further illuminate this value.

Interviewee 17: “My spouse values that I sensitize judges to societal issues that they
might not otherwise think about.”

Interviewee 24: “My knows I make a difference.”

 

Next, judicial educators indicated that their significant others valued their work
because they valued the judicial educators themselves. Therefore, judicial education held

no importance on its own. Judicial educators made several comments about this.

 

Interviewee 14: “ values that I am happy. cares about me, so if I
like my work thinks it is important.”
Interviewee 25: “Because it is valuable to me it is valuable to . I went from being

8. college professor to teaching judges. I think judicial education makes for a better
indiciary; consequently, so does .”

Interviewee 33: “ thinks I’m important. He likes my work.”

Twelve of the 50 (24 percent) judicial educators indicated either that they did not
know what their significant others valued about judicial education, or that their
Significant others did not know enough about judicial education to place any value on it.

TWO additional respondents reported that their significant others did not value judicial

educatit

respond

others v

numeric

Nfik with

01

we w :e

iflild Cfisr

90

education at all. Each of the rest of the responses was given by less than 10 percent of the
respondents. The findings are in Table 4.

When I asked the judicial educators to tell me the extent to which their significant
others valued their work, 28 percent or 14 of the 50 said that they could not give it a

numerical value. The mean for the 36 who did respond was 4.59.

Table 4. What Significant Others Valued About Judicial Education

Value Frequency Percent
l 8 36

Values me

Role of court in soc

Does not know

Does not know work

Values all education

Does not value
izational skills

Financial

——_—Nwm\r\roo;

Court education

 

Valid Cases=50

Friends

Fourteen items emerged when judicial educators talked about what their fiiends
Valued about their work. Sixty-eight percent or 34 of the 50 respondents reported that
their fiiends did not know what their work was about, or they did not know what their
fl'iends valued about their work. Some of the judicial educators had some insight into

What their friends valued. Most believed that their friends valued the change agent role or

 

the prestig
identified 1
“h
friends valt
rating as th.
mean respo
Provide fun

Interviewee

Interviewee
about it.”

luten'iewee

(1
8..

5‘

ages

7/fi777
a?
e

e 338m

0 con” 111
eflee

lle all eduCat

3
:r
6

('7
g:
5:?

.

.
u"

. Val Skills

(a
£2.

/”77‘

EL
50
//
v:
O

91

the prestige of working in the court and with judges. Each of the remaining items was
identified by three or fewer respondents. The findings are in Table 5.

When I asked the respondents to reflect on the extent to which they thought their
friends valued their work, 40 out of 50 (80 percent) said they could not give a numerical
rating as they had no idea of the degree to which their friends valued their work. The
mean response for the remaining ten respondents was 4.09. The following comments
provide further insight into the two most frequently given responses.

Interviewee 28: “My friends don’t know about my work.”

Interviewee 30: “My fiiends outside of work know nothing about what I do. I don’t talk
about it.”

Interviewee 32: “My fiiends don’t know enough about it to value it.”

Table 5. What Friends Valued About Judicial Education

Value Frequency Percent
Does not know work 22 44
Does not know 24
12
12

N

Women value women
Role of court in soc
Influence
Personal enhancement
Status
Value all education

0\

Survival skills
Ethics

 

NNNNNN-bbb

Valid Cases=50

Organization;

Organ
Thirty-three 0
what their org
their organ i 231
Organizational
rcponed. Twe
are some of the

Interviewee 41
UndefStaffed W

totem-paWe e 4 6
division is all t]

Each of the rest

Table 6.

92

Organizational Peers

 

Organizational peers was the next group that was discussed; nine items emerged.
Thirty-three of the 50 of the respondents (66 percent) reported that they did not know
what their organizational peers valued, their organizational peers did not value the work,
their organizational peers did not know what the work was, or they did not have any
organizational peers. Of the remaining items, improving the system was most frequently
reported. Twelve of the 50 judicial educators (24 percent) discussed this attribute. Here
are some of their comments:

Interviewee 41: “I would love to say they value it, but we are all so overworked and
understaffed we have little contact with each other unless they have a need to interact.”

Interviewee 46: “They don’t value it highly. They don’t think the training and education
division is all that important.”

Each of the rest of the items was identified by fewer than five people. The findings are in
Table 6.

The mean response to the question regarding the extent to which organizational
peers valued the judicial education work was 3.87. Twenty-four of the 50 judicial

educators (48 percent) responded to the numerical-value question.

Table

I Value
‘ lupmves system
Does not know

\-

m
Doesn

at value
Their involvement

Does not have pee
m

“flunng
Value all educatio

Z

 

Valid Cases=50

W

Judicia
of the 50 IESpQ
coneElgues vah
about their W0
discussiOHS 0n

None c
lhtlr Colleag11G
reSpoudems di
diScuSSiOnS ab

“that We haVe

93

Table 6. What Organizational Peers Valued About Judicial Education

Value Percent
24
24
l 8
1 6

u—ou—o
NN

Does not know
Does not know work
Does not value
Their involvement
Does not have
Product

9
8
4
4
3
2
1

Value all education

 

Valid Cases=50

Judicial Educator Colleagues

 

Judicial educator colleagues was the next group of people discussed. Thirty-seven
of the 50 respondents (74 percent) said either that they did not know what their
colleagues valued about what they did, or that their colleagues did not know enough
about their work to value it. Those two terms and seven others emerged during the
discussions on this issue. The findings are in Table 7.

None of the judicial educators could provide a numerical rating for the value that
their colleagues held for their work. Interviewee 1 provided insight into why the
respondents did not think they could provide a numerical rating: “We don’t have

discussions about such things. Our conversations are always about doing and not about

What we have done. Maybe it is time to have more reflective communications.”

 

Table 7

 

Value
Does not know
\
Does not know woi
hm
My effort
W
ovemmenta ;
W
Change agent
Longevity

94

Table 7. What Other Judicial Educators Valued About the Respondent’s
Judicial Education Work

Value Frequency Percent

Does not know 24 48
1 3 26

5 10
effort 4 8

Does not know work

Application of adult education
theories, and
relations

Product

 

Valid Cases=50

Supervisors

Judicial educators believed that their supervisors valued their work very highly.
The mean response was 4.69. Only 6 of the 50 judicial educators (12 percent) could not
rate the extent to which their supervisors valued their work.

Seventeen items emerged when judicial educators discussed what their
supervisors valued about their work. Twenty of the 50 judicial educators (40 percent)
reported that their supervisors did not value judicial education, they did not know enough
about the work to value it, the judicial educators did not know what their supervisors
Valued, or they did not have a supervisor. The only other individual item that was
1' eported by more than ten respondents was that their supervisors valued education

because it improves the system. The findings are in Table 8. Comments about judicial

education supervisors follow.

Interview
judges. I

Interview

Interview

Val
‘ 116
Does not kn
improves sy
Relations wi
Change age;
Consistent p
KDOWledge
NO problems
C0Ttttttunicat
not val
N0 S“lr‘ervisc
Adi”! educat
Candor
D033 not kn

 

95

Interviewee 46: “ values that I have a good working relationship with the
judges. But doesn’t know what I know about this job.”

Interviewee 50: “The administrative office places a premium on education.”

Interviewee 6: “ doesn’t see judicial education as having any currency.”

Table 8. What Supervisors Valued About Judicial Education

Value Frequency Percent
Does not know 15 30

Relations with courts

Consistent

Know

No lems
Commun skills

Does not value
No '
Adult education lication to law

Candor
Does not know work

Positive attitude
Public relations
T

NNNNNNN&A&OOOO

 

Valid Cases=50

Audiences

Next, judicial educators talked about their judicial education audiences. Only 7 of
the 50 respondents (14 percent) said they did not know what their audiences valued. The
majority said that they perceived that their audiences valued the increased knowledge,
Skills, and abilities gained as a result of being a recipient of educational programming.

TWenty-eight percent or 14 of the 50 respondents identified that their audiences valued

"10311 the opportunity to meet with their colleagues. Another 28% believed that their

audienc

identifn

their au

audienc

add totl

lntervie

improve

lntervie

knowlec

Intervier

deve10p

\m. it

Simona

w
m.

...1.i..rm .amt um Mimw
n.1ri\ .Mnl

96

audiences valued the quality of the educational experience. The rest of the items were
identified by nine or fewer individuals. The findings are in Table 9.

Five judicial educators said they could not provide a numerical value for what
their audiences thought was important about their work. The other 45 perceived that their
audiences valued their work highly--4.74. Comments made by the respondents further
add to the findings:

Interviewee 9: “They value the end product. They are pleased with the work and how it
improves the system.”

Interviewee 3: “They value the opportunity to converse with their colleagues and gain
knowledge they don’t have access to in their everyday office life.”

Interviewee 4: “On the whole, the majority have come to see education as a means to
develop and stay out of trouble.”

Table 9. What Audiences Valued About Judicial Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Frequency Percent
Increased knowledge, skill, and
abilities 26 52
Collegiality 14 28
Quality learning experience 14 28
Safe learning environment 9 18
Does not know 7 14
Quality service 6 12
Attention they receive 6 12
Judicial educator hard work 2 4
Judicial educator knowledge 2 4
Judicial educator candor 1 2
Judicial educator confidentiality 1 2
Location 1 2
Adandatory CLE/CJE" 1 2
Obtaining financial resources 1 2
Supreme court commitment l 2

 

*Mandatory Continuing Legal Education/Continuing Judicial Education

Valid Cases=50

 

W

The jud
and the public ‘
unanimous. Tl
education. The
work if they we
it existed and th
interviewees 40.
legislators in rel
Interviewee 40:
. on a year in d

DISSod the judge:
expediency. Otl

Inteniewee l8:

Interviewee 38;
Ihem to have am

As for the

Work in judicial e

In sum, rh
‘hjs midi. Value j
1. Judiciz

groups in desc

97

State Legislators and the Public

The judicial educators also were asked to consider the value that state legislators
and the public would give to their work in judicial education. The answers were
unanimous. The respondents said that legislators do not know about the work of judicial
education. They indicated, however, that a handful of legislators might have heard of the
work if they were on judicial subcommittees. And, even then, they would only know that
it existed and that it could possibly be used to achieve a political end. Comments from
interviewees 40, 18, and 38 further illuminate the respondents’ perceptions of their state
legislators in relationship to judicial education or the courts.

Interviewee 40: “They are a disaster. They mandated my constituency to have eight
hours a year in domestic violence. The total required for the whole year is 16 hours. This

pissed the judges off and ended in resistance. They used judicial education for political
expediency. Otherwise, they know nothing about it.”

Interviewee 18: “Only a handful even know they fund it.”

Interviewee 38: “We tell them as little as possible. They hate the courts and don’t want
them to have any money.”

As for the public, the respondents indicated that they had no knowledge of the

work in judicial education. Therefore, judicial education has no value to the public.

In sum, the following is now known about how others, as they were defined in
this study, value judicial education:
1. Judicial educators valued their work more than anyone else did. Figure 3 lists

the groups in descending order of the value attributed to judicial education.

 

2. Fre
work. Or. the)
itavalue. Fig

3. The
Perceived to v:

4. Jud
education. if or
organizational
supervisors did

5. No

become recogn

98

2. Frequently, judicial educators did not know what others valued about their
work. Or, they indicated that others did not know enough about judicial education to give
it a value. Figure 4 displays this information.

3. The groups that had the most exposure to the judicial educators’ work were
perceived to value it more than those who did not have such exposure.

4. Judicial educators perceived that very few of the others did not value judicial
education, if they knew about it. They reported that only 16 percent of their
organizational peers, 4 percent of their significant others, and 4 percent of their
supervisors did not value their work in judicial education.

5. No dominant characteristic emerged for which judicial education could

become recognized or valued.

.Rcspondems COUl(

Figllre 3.

99

 

The Judicial Educator
mean = 4.79

1

Educational Audiences
mean = 4.74

Judicial Educator’s
Supervisor
mean = 4.69

Judicial Educator’s
Significant Others
mean = 4.59

Judicial Educator’s
Friends
mean = 4.09

1

Judicial Educator’s
Organizational Peers
mean = 3.87
T
Judicial Educator’s
Colleagues, State Legislators,
and Public
mean = 0*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

" Respondents could not provide a numerical value for what these three groups valued about the work they do.

Figure 3. Groups That Value Judicial Educators’ Work, from Most to Least

100

 

 

STATE

JUDICIAL EDUCATOR

 

l

 

 

 

 

JUDICIAL EDUCATOR DOES NOT
KNOW WHAT OTHERS VALUE
ABOUT HIS/HER WORK

 

 

l

 

Judicial educator’s colleagues

 

48%
l

 

Judicial educator’s supervisor

 

30%
l

 

Judicial educator’s organizational peers

 

24%
l

 

 

Judicial educator’s friends

 

 

24%
I

 

 

Judicial educator’s significant others
14%

 

l

 

 

Judicial educator’s audiences

 

 

14%
l

 

 

State legislature
0%

 

 

_ 1

Public
0%

 

 

 

 

JUDICIAL EDUCATOR
PERCEIVES OTHERS DO NOT
KNOW ENOUGH TO DETERMINE
VALUE

 

l

 

State legislature
100%

 

 

Public
100%

 

l

 

Judicial educator’s fiiends

 

44%
l

 

 

Judicial educator’s colleagues

 

26%
I

 

Judicial educator’s organizational
peers
1 8%

 

l

 

 

Judicial educator’s significant others

 

10%
T

 

 

Judicial educator’s supervisor

 

2%
|

 

 

Judicial educator’s audiences
0%

 

Figure 4. Unknown Value of Judicial Education, in Descending Order

 

 

 

 

 

 

I pose
first 15 inten
interview que
manuscript, ]

SUTIEICC In the

Asam

follow.

Interviewee 1;
Imen-‘iewee 4:
Certain WISOng
Intcri’ltftt'ee 6:
1311103, I dOn’t
Immiewee 7.
quesllon.“

[We‘re 14:

101

RESEARCH QUESTION 4: What are the Differences and/or Similarities
Between What Judicial Educators Value and What Others Value
About Judicial Education Work?

 

I posed the interview questions developed to answer Research Question 4 to the
first 15 interviewees; none of the respondents answered. Therefore, I dropped the
interview questions for this research question, and it will not be addressed in this
manuscript. However, insights into gender, educational background, and experience will
surface in the findings reported for Research Question 5.

A sample of the responses I received that led me to drop the interview questions
follow.

Interviewee 1: “I can’t answer this question for the same reason I couldn’t answer the
others. Judicial education is so discrete. Most people have no exposure. So, their
opinions are global and superficial. There are too many others in my life to know.”

Interviewee 4: “You know, I don’t think about whether people value my work based on
certain personal characteristics. I just do my job.”

Interviewee 6: “I do it, and they observe it. How can they really know? These other
factors, I don’t think about.”

Interviewee 7: “My life is too complex, with too many people in it, to answer this
question.”

Interviewee 8: “I have no idea.”

Interviewee 14: “This is hard. Idon’t know.”

RESEARCH QUESTION 5: What are the Differences and/or Similarities Between
Judicial Educators with Regard to Their Perceptions About What is
Valuable in Their Work, and What Accounts for These

Differences and Similarities?

 

 

 

 

The purpose of this research question was to determine whether certain factors

make a difference in what judicial educators value. The factors are gender, educational

WI

th:

ed

pen

oftl

Valli

influ

tobe

one C;

collea

.lamur
IT
MUt
rill
«with

ht. . C at. [I I
. 1 9|. . r .. a“ m 0 m m: m . m
e 0 p «1 fill. r\ a . 0 ...\
e nix n 0 m - \“x a IRIS k 1.114 hptk
u _ 9. .1.. a. - mu .51 -mu. Hts D.
m I! at . .II \1 .1. 9!... n I. i IltL. "r U
a mwtr & .1... Dumb .Vro .LU. K... C re. tn.
with!

102

background, length of experience, organizational structure, and composition of education
audiences. The respondents were first asked what their colleagues valued about their
work. Then, they were asked whether the four factors would change what they perceived
their colleagues valued.

Consistent with previous comments made during the interviews, the judicial
educators perceived that their colleagues most valued being change agents. F iffy-eight
percent or 29 of the 50 respondents identified change agent. However, 24 percent or 12
of the 50 respondents indicated that they did not know what their colleagues valued. A
variety of other terms were used. In fact, developing human potential and having
influence were terms used by 28 percent of the respondents. These two terms are similar
to being a change agent in that both, as indicated by the respondents, have the element of
making a difference or changing people or things. Therefore, being in a position in which
one can lead or influence positive change is what most judicial educators believed their

colleagues valued about their work. The findings are in Table 10.

Table 10. What Judicial Educators’ Colleagues Valued About Their Own Work

Value Frequency Percent
29 58
Does not know 12

Deve human

Influence
Re

Status
Eduwtion
Intellectual

\l

Fl‘eedom to create
A

Do not value

__wwh.bmm\r

 

Table 10. W

I_
Value.
$3723.22?”
W
Recognition
:m&
ole of the court

 

The nex
lUdicial educato
“m that the ans
men and VI’Omer.
educator Valued.
Used to desCribe
have a blend Ofr
Percent or 14 0ft
13 of the 50 “SIN

103

Table 10. What Judicial Educators’ Colleagues Valued About Their Own Work (con’t)

Value Frequency Percent

Education 1 2
fulfillment
Power

 

l
l
1
l
1

Role of the court in

Valid Cases=50

Effect of Gender

 

The next question I asked was whether the respondents thought the gender of the
judicial educator made a difference in what he or she valued. The most interesting thing
was that the answers were more akin to a list of characteristics commonly attributed to
men and women rather than an articulation of how gender might affect what the judicial
educator valued. Twenty-two items emerged to describe women, whereas 15 items were
used to describe men. Two items, the role of gender socialization and the necessity to
have a blend of masculine and feminine traits, were also spoken about. Twenty-eight
percent or 14 of the 50 respondents said gender made no difference; another 26 percent or
13 of the 50 respondents said they did not know whether gender made a difference.

The answer most frequently given was that gender made no difference; however,
for those who thought it did, the terms reflected some commonly held beliefs about the
differences between women and men. Men used seven terms to describe women and four
terms to describe themselves. Women used 18 terms to describe themselves and 13 terms

to describe men.

Men i

Men id

Women

v V

Women .

hfihhh

104

Men identified the following about women:

Women value communication and are better at it than men.

Women are process oriented.

Women are more self-actualized than men.

Women act according to their priorities and values.

Women judicial educators are more interested in gender-related and social
issue topics than are men.

Women value relationships more than men.

Men identified the following about themselves:

Men value quantitative products more than women do.
Men value change more than women.

Men work with blinders on, oblivious to their environment.
Men value success more than women.

Women used the following terms to describe themselves:

Women are content oriented.

Women value change.

Women are brighter than men.

Women are more politically astute than men.
Women share power and knowledge and men do not.
Women are detail oriented.

Women are nurturers.

Women are change agents.

Women collaborate more than men.

Women value being appreciated.

Women are service oriented.

Women are better communicators than men.
Women accommodate more than men.
Women are process oriented.

Women have higher rates of burnout than men.
Women act by their priorities and values.
Women extend themselves more than men.
Women do a better job than men.

Women used the following terms to describe men:

Men, more than women, care about where their jobs will take them in the
future.

Men want more independence in their work than women.

Men must be in control.

Men are less willing to collaborate than women.

F igur
figures also d
certain gende

peICCde \al I

I0 men and “it

Ifllm’iewee 1:
career track. "1-
ImmieWee 2;
mote SUPPOIIii

use they 5.
mmIeWee 9:

g5 We}; 'n

l

totemewe 19

105

Men have no process skills.

Men value quantitative products more than women.

Men use a critical or business approach to their work and women do not.
Men use the law-trained, analytical model more than women.

Men are change oriented.

Men must have influence.

Men are more interested in power than women.

Men always get more compensation for their work than women.

Men are more combative than women.

Figures 5 and 6 provide a visual depiction of the above-mentioned terms. The
figures also display the terms according to whether they were commonly attributed to a
certain gender. The figures reinforce an earlier statement I made when reporting that
perceived value differences by gender were more akin to traditional stereotypes attached
to men and women. Here are some comments that further illustrate the point:

Interviewee 1: “I don’t really think it makes a difference. But men with families want a
career track. They must have a future.”

Interviewee 2: “Women value more content of their work and not prestige. They are far
more supportive of change. You can have a substantive conversation with women
because they share power and control.”

Interviewee 9: “They value it the same, but they are different. Women can smooth
things over. They are constantly communicating and accommodating.”

Interviewee 19: “We have different personalities, and we value different things. Women
value interactions with others; men are more forceful change agents.”

.1 _ C _s_- .1 _i .t .1.-.. 777. Janis? a his. h\s\h\w\um\m\w\

106

 

Characteristics Commonly Attributed
To Women

 

Characteristics

Identified Identified I Identified
by men by women by both

 

Stereotypical

 

Collaborate

 

Detail-oriented

 

Nurturer

X
X
X

 

Priorities/value

 

Process-oriented

><><

 

Accommodate

 

Communications

 

Content-oriented

 

Extend
themselves

><><

 

Relationships

 

Appreciation

 

Burnout

><><

 

Gender-related
issues

 

Service oriented

 

Share power/
knowledge

><><

 

Social issues

 

 

 

Not stereotypical

 

Better job

 

Brighter

 

Change agents

 

Politically astute

><><><><

 

 

Self-actualized

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. Characteristics Commonly Attributed to Women

 

107

 

Characteristics Commonly Attributed
To Men

 

. . Identified Identified Identified
CharacterIstIcs by men by women by both

 

Stereotypical

 

Control X

 

Quantitative
products X

 

Power

 

Future

 

Independence

 

Collaborate less

 

Critical/business

 

Law-trained/
analytical

 

Influence

>< ><><><><><><

 

Success X

 

 

 

 

Change agents X

 

Not stereotypical

 

No Process I I X I

 

 

Blinders I X I I

 

Figure 6. Characteristics Commonly Attributed to Men

Effect of Educational Background

 

Next, the respondents considered educational background. Nine terms emerged
for law-trained judicial educators and six for non-law trained judicial educators. Five
additional items emerged that were not related to either type of educational background.
Similar to gender, the educational background question elicited descriptors that were not
directly related to whether education affects how judicial educators value their work.

The answer respondents most frequently gave was that they did not know whether

educational backgron made a difference in what their colleagues valued about their

 

 

work. Others
only determir
indicated that
only importan
educational be

Howex
difference. E i:
cOncrete law is
educators Erljo;
\lCWed as p] ac j
deveiOping hm
Iiews 0n the e f
IIimlewee 14;
Fm. law'traine
education bring]

quality When I};
Imm'iewee 6: ‘
do. but that is be
dllfrsity is gOOC
telVieWee 3: n
Ckground help

108

work. Others indicated that educational background made no difference. They said it
only determined perspective and approach and had nothing to do with value. Still others
indicated that competency and familiarity with the court system and legal issues were the
only important things to consider. Three others unequivocally said that any separation by
educational background was a phony issue.

However, some of the respondents thought that educational background made a
difference. Eight respondents thought that law-trained judicial educators favored
concrete law issues over other topics. In addition, they thought law-trained judicial
educators enjoyed high constituent recognition. Non-law-trained judicial educators were
viewed as placing more emphasis on both the educational process and product and
developing human potential. What follows are comments pertaining to the respondents’
views on the effect of educational background.

Interviewee 14: “I think it is a huge mistake to have a law-trained person in this position.
First, law-trained people learn adversarial skills and minimize process. A background in

education brings better programs and better human dynamics. Programs are of higher
quality when there is a comprehensive understanding of adult learning.”

Interviewee 6: “Law-trained and non-law-trained people may be different in what they
do, but that is based on structure and not on the work itself. This is a phony issue. I think
diversity is good. One is not more qualified than another.”

Interviewee 8: “Yes, it makes a difference. A law degree gives you a head start. A law
background helps you value the work more. It gives you experience with power people.”

Effect of Length of Experience

 

Judicial educators considered the effect of length of experience on the value of the
work. Again, the most frequently given answer was that judicial educators did not know

the effect of length of experience. However, of those who did have an opinion on this

question, 2.

experience.

Effect of O!

The
Work, based
education Of
administrath
even Smaller
inCOIPOratiol
thought the s

The t:
characteristic
re5l30I18e “’35
education ma
highGSt ViSlbi]
for continuing
educators did ;
valued about ll
Organizational

bin it did 68%

109

question, 28 percent indicated that judicial educators become more self-directed with

experience.

Effect of Organizational Placement

 

The fifth item judicial educators considered was how their colleagues valued their
work, based on where their organizations were housed. The vast majority of the judicial
education organizations are situated within the supreme court structure, usually within the
administrative office. However, a handful are placed in law schools or universities. An
even smaller number are independent organizations established by articles of
incorporation. Because of the differences, I asked judicial educators about whether they
thought the structural placement affected how the work was valued by their colleagues.

The terms that emerged, like the others in this section, are more akin to a list of
characteristics attributable to the three organizational types. The most frequently given
response was that of administrative office division. This term implied that judicial
education managed from a division of the state court administrative office offered the
highest visibility and credibility, and it signaled a commitment from the supreme court
for continuing education. The next most frequently given answer was that the judicial
educators did not know whether organizational placement made a difference in what they
valued about their work. The answers did not directly address the question of whether
organizational structure made a difference in how judicial educators valued their work,

but it did establish that judicial educators thought that judicial education should be

prominent ll
the findings

Interviewee
much more 1
courts. .llldlt
organization

Interviewee
persuasion an

Interviewee 1
independent

interviewee ;
budgfis lake

Interviewee 3
mm give dir
school, you at
SChOOlS take I

Interviewee 4.

W

The 135
commsitiOn m

audience Comm

llO

prominent in the state court structure. The following comments are offered to illustrate

the findings.

Interviewee 1: “It’s critically important that it be in the administrative office. We can be
much more responsive when we are more closely involved with what is going on in the
courts. Judicial education must be integrally involved with the courts as a learning
organization. Judicial education can transform the courts and society.”

Interviewee 19: “It must be high profile within the court. Then it has the force of
persuasion and formal and informal authority.”

Interviewee 22: “The ideal is to be able to solicit outside financial support, thus being
independent while still under the court umbrella.”

Interviewee 26: “Yes, it is better for it to be in a university or law school. Because when
budgets take a hit, it is the first thing to go. It is seen as a noncritical function.”

Interviewee 36: “I am in favor of law schools. The administrative office and supreme
court give directions on what to do and what not to do without any vision. In the law
school, you are encouraged to use all of your resources to enrich judicial education. Law
schools take pride in public service.”

Interviewee 44: “They value the same things, but administrative offices are inherently
unstable, you never know which end is up.”

Effect of Audience Composition

 

The last item I asked judicial educators to consider was whether audience
composition made a difference in what judicial educators valued about their work. Fifty-
four percent or 27 of the 50 respondents reported that judges were most important.
Twenty-eight percent or 14 of the 50 respondents said they did not know whether
audience composition made a difference in what judicial educators valued. Eighteen
percent or 9 of the 50 respondents said that all audiences are important. The findings are

shown in Table 11.

 

Value

Judges ungortai
:e I 0*

r
. au IenceSI

 

Valid Cases=50

lhe f(
l.
or 27 of the re
the value 0ij
all Of the audit
2.
whether Value
Organjmional
3.
abovemEmiOm
indicated “’heth

Place on their Vt.

111

Table 11. Perceptions on Whether Audience Made a Difference
in What Judicial Educators Valued About Their Work

Value Frequency Percent
27 54

Does not know 14 28
All audiences 9 l8

 

Valid Cases=50

The following summarizes the findings for this research question.

1. Just one individual item received a high response rate. Fifty-four percent
or 27 of the respondents believe that judges are the most important audience. In addition,
the value of judicial education was believed to be more important when judges are part or
all of the audience composition.

2. The response “does not know” was the most frequently given answer for
whether value is affected by gender, educational background, experience, or
organizational placement.

3. Many judicial educators believed that differences exist based on the
above-mentioned four factors. They gave a variety of reasons; however, they never
indicated whether the differences they identified affected the value judicial educators

place on their work. None of the items had high response rates.

The

the value 0
educators t
eieht petce
ten years ag
education i1
they did not
not PTOVIde
The .

the 50 mm
Skills and ab
fill-Cl“ Dem

lt'allleS whEre

The reSPODSe

V
. lnj
tea .
LOW ya
0n

E

udlCIaI e(
\0

57.5
£75:

E
{/3
z-

 

er
allOna]

/7

112

RESEARCH QUESTION 6: Do Judicial Educators Believe That the Value
Attributed to Judicial Education Has Changed Over the Past Ten
Years (1986), and Do They Think It Will Change Over the Next

Ten Years (2006)?

 

The purpose of this question was to determine whether there was a perception that
the value of judicial education has changed over time. First, I asked the judicial
educators to talk about the value of judicial education in their state ten years ago. F ifty-
eight percent or 29 of the 50 respondents reported that they were not in judicial education
ten years ago. Four percent or 2 of the 50 respondents said there was no judicial
education in their state ten years ago. Another 6 percent or 3 of the 50 respondents said
they did not know what the value of it was. Consequently, most of the respondents could
not provide any insight into the value of judicial education in 1986.

The remaining respondents provided some information. Fourteen percent or 7 of
the 50 respondents indicated that judicial education programming provided fundamental
skills and abilities. Eight percent or 4 of the 50 respondents said it was informational.
Twelve percent or 6 of the 50 respondents perceived that judicial education had a low
value, whereas 4 percent or 2 of the 50 respondents indicated that it had a high value.

The responses are shown in Table 12.

Table 12. Value of Judicial Education Ten Years Ago (1986)

Value Percent

Not in judicial education
ten 58

Fundamental skills and abilities 14
Low value 12
Informational 8

 

 

Value

Does not kn
' xis
DId not le
e
ngh va u
No value
‘ lizatior
a
. Socr

 

Valid Cases

M c
judicial ed

\lh
Would have
hlghest res}
distant thirc
improve the

Interviewee
.al’ailable elt

tJudge
commWIIty.

 

113

Table 12. Value of Judicial Education Ten Years Ago (1986) (con’t)

Value Frequency

Does not know 3
Did not exist

value
No value
Socialization

 

Valid Cases=50

Most of the respondents went directly into their perceptions about what value
judicial education would have in 2006. Nine terms surfaced.

What the judicial educators reported most often was that technological change
would have the biggest effect on the value of judicial education in 2006. The next
highest response was that they did not know what value judicial education would have. A
distant third was the belief that judicial education would be valued for its ability to
improve the court system. The following comments provide further insight.

Interviewee 45: “Technology will make the biggest changes. Information will be made
available electronically and they can get it continually. That is a positive. The negative

is that judges and court people will be more isolated and will need to come to a retreat
community.”

Interviewee 46: “I don’t have a handle on this.”

Interviewee 50: “Quality creates its own demand. Make things better and you become
more important.”

Table 13. Perceived Value of Judicial Education Ten Years From Now (2006)

Value Percent

Techno 36
Does not know 32

l 8
Public 14
Leamer-directed education 8

 

Tabl

SOClalICt
Value pr
Global Cl
l Professro

 

Valid Ca:

35 more I
quite ever
and those

Education.

RE

In th.

t1Killing for lb

and control We

114

Table 13. Perceived Value of Judicial Education Ten Years From Now (2006) (con’t)

Value
Social/cultural

Value education
Global
Professional status

 

Valid Cases=50

In sum, not much was known about the value of judicial education ten years ago,
as more than half of the respondents were not in the occupation then. The responses were
quite evenly split between those who could not project a value ten years into the future
and those who firmly believed that technology would increase the value of judicial

education.

RESEARCH QUESTION 7: How Many of the Elements of Professional
Status Does Judicial Education Possess?

 

 

In the literature on occupations and professions, eight elements have been
identified that must be present for an occupation to obtain professional status. These
elements were fully described earlier. They are:

1. Obtaining abstract knowledge through extensive specialized education and
training for the purpose of solving human problems (Abbott 1988).

2. Applying abstract knowledge to the problem-solving process of
diagnosing, treating, and inferring in a way that is not routine, thus maintaining power

and control over problem solving (Abbott 198 8).

such as
ethics Ct
4

but rathe
(Larson 1

organizatit

l asl
whichJUdici
were “'lthin
With highsm
to judicial ed

‘ ell Stat

De
[Us

e lOna] Sta

 

,1»
”O
E

’5???”
gu’a’ggé’
3- 3e
3 53':
-C

m
{-2

115

3. Ensuring autonomy by claiming and holding jurisdiction through means
such as obtaining expert knowledge, skilled application of expert knowledge, licensure,
ethics codes, statutes, case law, media manipulation, and public relations (Abbott 1988).

4. Serving high-status clients; or, not being involved in client service at all,
but rather serving other professionals (Abbott 198 8).

5. Professional prestige is almost equivalent to organizational prestige
(Larson 1977).

6. Connection to the right networks that ensure sponsorship to the top of the
organizational hierarchy (Larson 1977).

7. Recognition by peers (Abbott 1988).

8. Increased earning potential (Abbott 1988).

I asked the judicial educators to tell me, on a scale of one to five, the extent to
which judicial education possessed each of the eight elements. All of the mean responses
were within the 3.00 range except for elements 4 and 8. Element 4 referred to working
with high-status clients. The mean response to that element was 4.39. Element 8 referred
to judicial education’s providing increased earning potential. The mean response for that

element was 2.52. The responses are shown in Table 14.

Table 14. Acquisition of Professional Status Elements

Status Elements Mean
clients 4.39

3 .9 1
Professional status influenced 3.86
know 3.66

 

C

«J\ Fl. fill» .. N. i at» . e . .P.

0 . W m HM NM emu- who . ..t he the

mu. 0 D Act I AM . .ltu .U n...
[x h»..r R.» inn... ll. R . KM.“ ll. kl

ft ~\. W .511“. .n.\ Bk .xtiw. .at.

t] v k \~ WA

0. w .m ant. .m .flt met .H .
lm. .HL C ml» C S l. R a

mat
edtit
edut
Cdllt
lfSp
Shov-

Incr
Vali

_

Fflrn._w;m_.

116

Table 14. Acquisition of Professional Status Elements (con’t)

Status Elements Mean
Connection to ° networks 3.55

abstract know 3.30
autonom 3.09
Increased 2.52

 

Valid Cases=50

I asked the judicial educators to think about what other elements they thought
made an occupation a profession. They were also asked to consider whether judicial
education had those elements. They provided a list of 15 elements they thought judicial
education needed in order to gain professional status. In their estimation, judicial
education did not possess the additional elements. Forty-eight percent or 14 of the 50
respondents did not have any professional elements to add to the list. The findings are
shown in Table 15.

Table 15. Indicators of Professional Status Not Held by Judicial Education

Indicators Percent
Does not know 48
l 4
l 2
I 2

N
A

definition of educator

Certification
standards of the work
Code of ethics
of know
definition of the work

education
association
Believe it is a

education
Self

NNNNNNJXGOO

 

value to

 

Valid Cases=50

how c]

point 3

one elei
at the m
achievin

slightly I

117

The final question I asked the respondents on this subject was their opinion of
how close they thought judicial education was to obtaining professional status. On a five-
point scale, the mean response was 3.16.

In sum, judicial educators believed that, to a great extent, they already possessed
one element of professional status—serving high-status clients. Six of the other items fell
at the mid-point, which indicates that they believed they were about half-way to fully
achieving the professional status elements. One item, increased earning potential, was
slightly below mid-point on the five-point scale.

Some of the judicial educators thought that judicial education lacked certain
elements that would grant it professional status. Nearly all of the items they discussed
have been deemed important by researchers if an occupation is to achieve professional
status. Judicial educators offered the following comments about status and judicial
education.

Interviewee 2: “This group needs an association that promotes growth. NASJE doesn’t
do that. NASJE is not worth a big investment in time or money. We need an
organization that is dedicated to professional growth. It should be promoting professional
development.”

Interviewee 4: “Standardization for judicial educators. Because someone is good doesn’t
mean they are good educators. Most professions have a sense of oneness. Judicial
education doesn’t have this. I’m not sure we are capable of it. There is no common
groun .”

Interviewee 6: “It needs a specific body of knowledge and a place to get it. There is no
prerequisite background and no place to get it. It doesn’t have a code of ethics. To this
point, judicial education has developed in an ad hoc way. NASJE is the single reason
why judicial education has progressed at all.”

Interviewee 15: “Judicial education needs a continuing education requirement for us.”

Interviewee 16: “I can’t answer what judicial education needs to become a profession. I
don’t know.”

IE

I a
it in obtai
facing jud
terms surf

Se
education.
Percent or
cOlllflllime
OCCllpattiOn
resPOIldent;
know Vthat

“1e findlng

(I?

tifngths

is"
3.?

O
i

kn

It): p r 08F 3!

tee-”TE

0

9o

ES

53.0
{‘5’
=8
0::
“7:1
93,-.

ge agent

poi
rT'

Egggno
2::de
“Omaoo
”-02.52%:
gxom—‘J'
Egarmra
('3._.( —.
C
g-hfi! (m

D

 

118

RESEARCH QUESTION 8: What are the Strengths of and Obstacles Faced
by Judicial Education as it Strives to Achieve Professional Standing?

I asked the respondents to consider strengths judicial education has that will assist
it in obtaining professional standing. Also, I asked them to think about what obstacles are
facing judicial education that might prevent it from achieving that standing. Several
terms surfaced that describe both.

Seventeen terms emerged when respondents discussed the strengths of judicial
education. Commitment to professionalism surfaced most frequently. Twenty-eight
percent or 14 of the 50 respondents believe that judicial educators have a strong
commitment to professionalism and that this commitment is what will elevate the
occupation. Quality programming was talked about by 18 percent or 9 of the 50
respondents, and another 18 percent or 9 of the 50 respondents indicated that they did not
know what strengths judicial education has that will help it achieve professional status.
The findings are shown in Table 16.

Table 16. Strengths of Judicial Education That Promote
Achievement of Professional Status

Strengths Percent

Commitment to 28
Does not know 18

A

Address court
advocates

Role of the

National advocates
International education
Public

size

9
9
6
6
5
5
4
3
2
2
2

 

 

\o. \u\u\.n\n n nfimfinnfixnax

119

Table 16. Strengths of Judicial Education That Promote
Achievement of Professional Status (con’t)

Strengths Frequency Percent
Value of fessional education 2 4
Distance education

1
Judicial education institutionalized 1
education I

l

 

Valid Cases=50

The last issue I discussed with the respondents was the obstacles faced by judicial
education in achieving professional status. Seventeen terms were used to describe the
obstacles.

The four most frequently mentioned obstacles were unstable support (32 percent
or 16 of the 50 respondents), lack of clear identity (26 percent or 13 of the 50
respondents), too small to become recognized (24 percent or 12 of the 50 respondents),
and the perception that judicial education is hidden work (22 percent or 1 l of the 50
respondents). The findings are shown in Table 17.

Table 17. Obstacles to Judicial Education That Prevent
Achievement of Professional Status

Obstacles - Percent
Unstable 32
Lack of clear 26
Too small 24

work 22
No certification or required

cl'edentials 14
N0 lic re 12
Lack of 10
Does not know 8
Lack of ' 8
of 8

 

120

Table 17. Obstacles to Judicial Education That Prevent
Achievement of Professional Status (con’t)

Obstacles Percent

Limited to definition of judicial
education

education

No
No standards
effort

 

Valid Cases=50

In sum, several strengths and obstacles surfaced during the interviews. No one
item had a high frequency. The identified strengths were varied; none was directly
related to the elements of professional status addressed earlier. However, many of the
obstacles identified by the respondents included or related to elements that must be
present if an occupation is going to become a profession. Some comments related to the
identified strengths are offered here.

Interviewee 3: “It can prove to be a major factor in creating change.”

Interviewee 19: “An increased incidence of professional degrees—more law degrees and
doctorate degrees are important. An increased reliance on education to make courts
prepared for change. That is a strength.”

Interviewee 36: “It has a unique service mission. It needs to be better articulated.”

Interviewee 43: “Judicial educators network and are committed to professionalism.”
Comments related to the obstacles faced by judicial education follow:

Interviewee 3: “It’s not viewed as an essential function.”

Interviewee 44: “There needs to be a universal recognition, qualitative control over the
work, and fiscal stability. Judicial education has none of these.”

Interviewee 47: “There is no place to go. All career ladders lead out.”

Interviewee 48: “People don’t recognize the expertise. Everyone thinks they are
teachers. Look at the status of education in the country.”

lntervier
Must rec

I

are in CI

121

Interviewee 1: “The profession is narrowly defined. Fifty people will never make it.
Must recognize all who contribute so we can expand our boundaries.”

Discussion of these results, conclusions, and recommendations for future research

are in Chapter 5.

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this study, I identified the duties of judicial educators, explored the value
placed on judicial education, and determined the extent to which judicial education has
achieved professional status. A discussion of the findings and conclusions drawn from
the findings are presented in the chapter. The chapter closes with recommendations for
further study.

What is the extent to which judicial education has achieved professional status at
this moment in its history? To answer this question, I revisit the professional-status
elements by discussing the findings related to each element. In so doing, all of the

findings are presented and discussed.

Discussion of Findings

 

Element 1: Obtaining Abstract Knowledge Through Specialized Education and Training
for the Purpose of Solving Human Problems (Abbott 1988)

Specialized knowledge obtained through extensive education and training is a

fundamental element of professional status. It relates directly to how professions

122

establis
this stuc
law, or t
extensiv
identifie.
aChievin;
requirem
fiEld, no t
Upon.

Th
primiarily 1
following
intenjewe
What were
these and 0
Interviewefi
are gr Wins

Oledge
' 0w What

123

establish jurisdiction and maintain power and control. Although the judicial educators in
this study were highly educated (i.e., 88% or 44 of the 50 respondents possessed master’s,
law, or doctorate degrees), they did not have specialized knowledge acquired through
extensive training in judicial education because neither exists. The judicial educators
identified this as a problem. They reported that hindrances to judicial education’s
achieving professional recognition are due to the following: no prerequisite educational
requirement for entering the field, lack of certification in judicial education once in the
field, no continuing education requirements, and no specific body of knowledge to draw
upon.

The judicial educators relied on other knowledge bases to do their work. They
primarily used the theories and practices of education, management, and the law. The
following comments provide further explanation.

Interviewee 1: “We use plenty of expert knowledge, but it’s not our own. Depending on

what we’re doing, we will use the law or management or adult education. We integrate
these and others to meet our needs.”

Interviewee 23: “Knowledge and the use of it is what makes us experts at our work. We
are growing our own knowledge base. However, I believe we will always use other
knowledge bases because we have to know a lot about a whole range of subjects. I don’t
know what this means for us.”

The description of judicial education arrived at through this study further explains
why multiple knowledge bases are used. Judicial education is primarily involved with
the administration of the judicial education organization and the development and
delivery of educational programs and products. Much of the work is managerial in

nature. It focuses on personnel, budgets, policy making, planning, evaluating, and other

related activities. The rest of the work is dedicated to developing, implementing, and

 

evaluat
educati:
develop
Judicial
the clien
entire jut
relations
Only 18 j
this furthc
JUI

ability in ,
requireme,
emends 0U
“)1
manageme]
knowledge

asl>€cific m

124

evaluating continuing education for judges and court personnel. The continuing
education duties include such activities as needs assessments, program and curriculum
development, determining faculty and delivery technologies, and evaluating results.
Judicial education often involves working with boards and committees, which represent
the client groups being served. Also, included in judicial education are duties for the
entire judicial branch. This work involves management, legal, regulatory, and public
relations responsibilities for the state court administrative office and the supreme court.
Only 18 judicial educators reported having these extra job responsibilities. Nonetheless,
this further demonstrates an additional facet of the work included in this occupation.

Judicial education is a hybrid occupation in that it requires knowledge, skill, and
ability in management, professional continuing education, and the law. These
requirements are needed just to execute the duties in judicial education. When the work
extends outside of judicial education, this further reinforces its hybrid status.

Whether judicial education can integrate the theories and practices of
management, education, and law in such a way that it develops a new specialized
knowledge base, or whether it can solidify its position and protect its jurisdiction without
a specific and specialized knowledge base, is an issue to monitor. Given the fundamental
importance of specialized knowledge to professional status, judicial education rests on a
weak foundation.

Another issue related to the lack of extensive education and training in an area of
specialized knowledge is that there are no universally agreed upon educational
qualifications for entry into the occupation. Consequently, judicial education loses one of

the necessary control mechanisms that professions have—control over who enters and

practil

judiciz

creden‘
occupa
at 001151:
reasonir
position
responsi
and chalj
T

UIIIICd S]
judge_ Tl
POSltion‘ t
Seminars.

rechVe [he

125

practices the profession. This is an important control and has the potential to affect
judicial education’s acquisition of the rest of the status elements.

Without agreed upon educational requirements, how does a person gain
credentials to enter judicial education? Judicial education is probably like other
occupations without formalized education and training. Those who do the hiring look for
a constellation of (1) educational degrees that ensure the ability to engage in critical
reasoning, analytical thinking, problem solving, and the like; (2) experience in a similar
position; (3) experience in the same organization, but not necessarily with the same
responsibilities; and/or (4) demonstrated ability to take on progressively more difficult
and challenging responsibilities.

The judicial environment provides examples of this situation. Judges in the
United States obtain their positions without specialized education or training in being a
judge. They come to the bench through election or appointment. Once they are in the
position, they receive training through pre-bench orientation programs, new-judge
seminars, and/or judicial mentoring. The same is true of court administrators. They
receive their specialized education and training after they are in their positions.

Perhaps the judicial system itself is a hybrid, calling upon several professions,
occupations, and disciplines to function. Other organizations are likely in the same
situation. This is what Larson (1977) referred to when discussing large organizations in
advanced capitalism being beholden to many professionals with diverse backgrounds who
keep the organizations operating. New sociological studies on professional work are

needed to determine how contemporary organizations select and train employees when

the wc

educat

Elemer

Diagnc

Power .-

iS applie
Process
educator
J 1
makes it
Judicial e
“niVersan
are. A130
Standards.
does it mu
these Pr0bi
Ihe‘lliuuic
nteidem
Jun
10 maintain

Standards! a]

126

the work requires specialization in several disciplines and no prerequisite formalized

education is available.

Element 2: Applying Abstract Knowledge to the Problem-Solving Process of
Diagnosing, Treating, and Inferring in a Way That Is Not Routine, Thus Maintaining
Power and Control Over Problem Solving (Abbott 1988)

 

 

 

Judicial educators apply abstract knowledge. However, what, when, and how it
is applied is not known because there is not a singular knowledge base that guides the
process of diagnosing, treating, and inferring. Therefore, the extent to which judicial
educators can maintain power and control over problem solving is not known.

Judicial educators reported some basic problems with judicial education that
makes it very difficult to maintain power and control. According to the respondents,
judicial education lacks definition. They indicated that judicial education lacks a
universally accepted definition of what judicial education is and who judicial educators
are. Also, they reported that the practice of judicial education has no universally accepted
standards. This lack of clarity about what judicial education is, how it is done, and who
does it must be settled before it can ever become recognized as a profession. Perhaps
these problems are not insurmountable, but they must be addressed. Without addressing
them, judicial education is likely to have identity problems into the foreseeable future.
These identity problems will certainty interfere with all aspects of professional status.

Judicial educators through their professional association, NASJE, have attempted
to maintain power and control over judicial education by issuing definitions, principles,

standards, and guidelines. This study indicated that what the association has done has not

resulte.
judicial
foundat

control 1

to
be empIOy<

ObSlaCles ID a‘

ETOUD ls [00 SI]

127

resulted in universal acceptance. However, it is more than likely that the extent to which
judicial education can diagnose, treat, and infer in a nonroutine way is a result of to the
foundation built by the association. Whether that foundation is strong enough to maintain

control over the work as time passes is yet to be seen.

Element 3: Ensuring Autonomy by Claiming and Holding Jurisdiction Through Means
Such as Obtaining Expert Knowledge, Skilled Application of Expert Knowledge,
Licensure, Ethics Codes, Statutes, Case Law, Media Manipulation, and Public Relations
(Abbott 1988)

 

Ensuring autonomy by claiming and holding jurisdiction is a critically important
element to professional status. If an occupation cannot claim and hold jurisdiction, it has
nothing. The means through which this is accomplished is problematic for judicial
education. Judicial education does not rest on its own expert knowledge, even though it
does apply expert knowledge from other professions or occupations. Therefore, judicial
education starts from a place of weakness.

The rest of the means for ensuring autonomy are equally difficult for judicial
education. No license is required to practice judicial education in any of the 50 states.

Judicial education does not have a code of ethics. Not having a code of ethics was
identified by the respondents as a hindrance to achieving professional status.

For several reasons, media manipulation and public relations efforts are not likely
to be employed in the near future. First, judicial educators identified that one of the
obstacles to achieving professional status is the fact that judicial education is hidden work
inside of a little-known and little-understood organization. Second, the occupational

group is too small to gain widespread societal recognition and support. Third, judicial

ed

inf

and

128

educators indicated that occupations gain professional status when they have a noticeable
influence on society. And even though some see national funding sources and advocates
and the spread of the American model of judicial education to other developing countries
as a promising sign, it is not enough to off set what judicial education does not have in
terms of public exposure.

Fourth, the distance that judicial education extends itself from its center is very
short. When the judicial educators were asked to identify what others value about
judicial education, their answers were interesting. The most interesting and troubling
aspect is that they did not know very much about how others value judicial education. If
value equates to status and status is critical in obtaining professional recognition, judicial
educators have neglected important aspect of the development of their occupation.
Without knowledge about or understanding of the value of judicial education and its
sphere of influence, judicial educators cannot develop a strategy that will enable them to
achieve professional status.

The “others” that judicial educators were asked to consider were their partners,
friends, judicial educator colleagues, organizational peers, supervisors, client groups,
legislators, and the public. The results of this study suggest that judicial education is
virtually an unknown. Judicial educators reported that the public knows nothing about
judicial education and that state legislators know only slightly more than nothing about it.
Even friends of judicial educators know very little about what they do. Therefore,
judicial educators cannot expect to obtain great support from outside of the judiciary.
Within the judiciary, the respondents reported that their audiences--their client groups--

valued their work the most. All but seven judicial educators were able to identify what

their c
supen
reporte
organiz
the wor
judicial
educatic
educator
hBVC a st

edUCators

129

their clients valued and how much they valued it. The findings with regard to peers and
supervisors were less impressive. Thirty-three out of the 50 respondents (66 percent)
reported that they did not know what their organizational peers valued, their
organizational peers did not value the work, their organizational peers did not know what
the work was, or they did not have any organizational peers. Twenty out of the 50
judicial educators (40 percent) reported that their supervisors did not value judicial
education, their supervisors did not know enough about the work to value it, the judicial
educators did not know what their supervisors valued, or the judicial educators did not
have a supervisor. When queried about significant others or partners, the judicial
educators most frequently responded that they believed their partners valued their role as
change agents. Although support from intimates may be personally important, it will not
cause judicial education to gain professional status.

As for the role of case law and statutes in gaining power and control over problem
solving, some progress has been made. In many states, there is mandatory education for
some court groups. In Issues and Trends in Judicial Education, Hudzik (1995) addressed
mandatory education and found that it varies widely from state to state; it does not have a
consistent meaning; there is disparity in the degree to which the requirements are
compulsory; and the authority that makes judicial education mandatory usually comes
from court rule or court order, and thus it is mandated as internal rather than external to
the system. However, some states do mandate continuing education through statutes
enacted by the legislature. This may signal the beginnings of public recognition and

accountability, which may eventually extend to judicial educators.

all of th
educatic
professi.
jurisdict
the varia
more ant
branch. t
depletion
tfiducators

the Other

Elelhent 4

Th
JUdges are
role in a dr
to the educ
indicial ed
Co

Howler, t

Consequen

I30

Judicial education may have a difficult time claiming and holding jurisdiction for
all of the reasons just mentioned. Further, the respondents reported that judicial
education must become independent and be self-regulating if it ever hopes to gain
professional status. Certainly, these two items are important to claiming and holding
jurisdictional boundaries. However, there is an even greater threat to the jurisdiction—
the variation in what is considered judicial education work. As previously discussed, if
more and more judicial educators devote time to doing work for the entire judicial
branch, the jurisdictional boundaries of judicial education become more blurred, and
depletion of human and fiscal resources may result. This variation in what judicial
educators do has both positive and negative implications, which will be discussed under

the other applicable elements.

Element 4: Serving High-Status Clients or Not Being Involved in Client Service At All,
But Rather Serving Other Professionals (Abbott 1988)

The two client groups of judicial education are judges and court personnel.
Judges are considered the most important client group because of their status and their
role in administering and dispensing justice. In addition, training judges extends prestige
to the educational programs and projects. This is an important factor and one that helps
judicial education achieve this professional status element.

Court personnel are also viewed by judicial educators as important clients.

However, they have less internal and external status and importance than judges.

Consequently, they receive less attention.

as a pr
$13qu 1
judicia.
judicial

serious]

Elemem
W

J.
lUdicial t
also iInpl
eduCaIIOn

Or

Struggles f

l3l

High-status clients can lend credibility to an occupation wishing to establish itself
as a profession. In the case of judicial education, the primary client group has greater
status than those serving the client. As long as judges support judicial educators and
judicial education, it is likely that the occupation will survive through the extension of
judicial status. Should judges withdraw their support, judicial education could be

seriously wounded or face extinction.

Element 5: Professional Prestige Being Equivalent to Organizational Prestige (Larson
m

Judicial education is placed in or associated with a prestigious organization—the
judicial branch. This placement has both positive and negative implications. There are
also implications that cannot yet be evaluated in terms of their effect on judicial
education’s gaining professional status.

One implication of this placement is that it can trigger identity and/or survival
struggles for judicial education. Judicial education is a continuing education enterprise,
which is usually not an academic-outreach initiative housed in an educational institution.
Rather, it is a specialized activity situated within a legal institution. Consequently, the
court has one identity and judicial education has another. The court identity is one of
administering and dispensing justice, whereas the judicial education identity is defined by
its educational responsibilities. The resulting effect is that judicial education resides
within a culture that does not necessarily strengthen or expand its continuing education
identity. This situation can inhibit judicial education’s ever establishing a strong identity

that can solidify its jurisdictional boundaries and exert control over the work. In addition,

the

and

educ

instit

132

the court, as a legal institution, is identified with the profession of law—a long-standing
and well-recognized profession. This factor compounds the problem for judicial
education in that it resides within a powerful institution with a separate identity, and that
institution is already aligned with an equally powerful profession.

Because of these two factors, judicial education functions within a power
imbalance. This suggests that judicial education exists because the organizational power
structure allows it to exist. That is not to say that judicial education does not provide an
important service. But it does raise the question of whether judicial education can resist
changes imposed by the state court organization, or whether it can protect itself against a
take-over bid by the legal profession.

Although this power imbalance can have grave implications, another factor is
present that may ameliorate its effects. Increasingly, judicial educators are called upon to
do work for the state court administrative office or the supreme court. The positive
aspect of judicial education involving work of the larger judicial branch is that it makes
judicial education and judicial educators more important, more visible, and more
intimately involved with the people and issues confronting the third branch of
government. This increased presence means that it avoids the hazards of being relegated
to the margins of the judicial branch. By residing more closely to the center, judicial
education receives more visibility and more importance. This increased exposure has the
likely benefits of strengthening, expanding, and promoting the jurisdictional boundaries
of judicial education.

This situation also has the potential to more closely align and make invaluable

the judicial educator within the larger court structure, thus elevating the prestige and

impc
great
imprc
syster
netwo
elemer

long-re

133

importance of the judicial educator. In this case, the prestige of the judicial system is
greater than any individual who works within it. Therefore, judicial educators can greatly
improve their recognition or prestige by becoming more involved in the larger judicial
system. This increased exposure may also connect the judicial educator to the right
networks that can ensure sponsorship up the organizational hierarchy, professional-status
element 6 (Larson 1977). It can also increase the judicial educator’s recognition and
long-term earning potential, professional-status elements 7 and 8 (Abbott 1988).

Consequently, moving judicial education from the margins to the center helps
lessen the power imbalance, gives the judicial educator more prestige and more
opportunity for promotion and increased salary, and provides an opportunity for judicial
education to strengthen its position within the judicial branch by becoming more visible
and involved in branch-wide matters. As suggested, several professional-status elements
would be met by judicial educators’ becoming more involved with larger court issues. In
fact, this involvement could result in judicial educators’ finding other problems they can
apprehend, diagnose, treat, and solve. And, by so doing, the boundaries of judicial
education could be expanded.

The potential problems with judicial education’s and judicial educators’ becoming
more involved in the larger judicial branch must be explored. If judicial education
expands beyond its purpose of continuing education for judges and court personnel, it
runs the risk of stretching itself so far that it can neither define nor defend its

jurisdictional boundaries. With weaken boundaries it becomes ripe for takeover. As
stated previously, the hybrid nature of judicial education, the lack of a specialized

knowledge base, and the organizational power imbalance make it difficult for judicial

edur
its b

profe

1'65le
occup.

Withstz

Closely
more pr;

b”Omin

Ele
\

J u(
likely lnCrc
State c0 Urt :
margins to I

help achj‘we
the mag, Pres

134

education to establish itself. Therefore, any situation that has the potential to deteriorate
its boundaries lessens the possibility of judicial education’s establishing itself as a
profession.

Another way expanded duties may be detrimental is that this reduces the human
resources dedicated to building and strengthening judicial education. An emerging
occupation, which strives for professional recognition and status, usually cannot
withstand a diminishment of human, monetary, or political resources.

There are both positives and negatives for judicial education as it becomes more
closely aligned with its parent organization—the judicial branch. Obviously, it receives
more prestige and status through this alignment. However, it also runs the risk of

becoming diluted by the demands of this powerful organization.

Element 6: Connection to the Right Networks That Ensure Sponsorship to the Top of the
Organizational Hierarchy (Larson 1977)

Judicial educators who wish to be promoted within the state court system can
likely increase their opportunities by increasing their exposure and recognition within the
state court administrative office and the supreme court. Therefore, moving from the
margins to the center and working on problems confronting the judicial branch would
help achieve this element. In addition, judicial educators have a great deal of exposure to
the most prestigious members of the court system. If they choose to use this exposure to

their advantage, they could likely be networked to the top of the organization.

Eleme

 

their or
educate

knowle.

CXpreSSr

M

135

Element 7: Recognition by Peers (Abbott 1988)

 

Recognition by peers is unknown as most judicial educators did not know whether
their organizational peers valued their work. Also, they did not know what their judicial
educator colleagues valued about their contributions to judicial education. This lack of
knowledge about what these two groups value suggests that recognition has not been

expressed in overt ways.

Element 8: Increased Earning Potential (Abbott 1988)

The respondents said that judicial education will not likely increase their earning
potential. Judicial educators identified unstable financial support of judicial education as
an obstacle to obtaining professional status. Without stability in budgets, it is likely that
judicial educators will continually be apprehensive about their own financial firtures. In
addition, judicial educators pointed to the fact that there is no career ladder in judicial
education. Thus, working in this occupation can be a dead-end job for many.

Perhaps the only way judicial educators can get higher salaries and create a career
path is through assuming more work for the judicial branch. This strategy solution has
other complications, as previously discussed, but it has the potential to be more lucrative
for the judicial educator.

In concluding this section, I report the mean responses of the judicial educators
pertaining to the extent to which judicial education has obtained the eight professional-
status elements. Six elements fell within the three-point range out of a possible five

points: obtaining abstract knowledge, applying abstract knowledge, ensuring autonomy

an OCCL
suggest
educator
prof essic
rCalized t

Th

136

by claiming and holding jurisdiction, the relationship between organizational and
professional prestige, connection to networks that can facilitate promotion, and peer
recognition. Only two elements were outside of that range. Judicial education serves
high-status clients; hence the respondents gave this a mean of 4.39. Thus, judicial
education has acquired at least one professional-status element. However, judicial
educators did not believe their occupation would increase their income potential, so this
element received a mean of 2.52.

These eight universally accepted elements must be present to a high degree before
an occupation can achieve professional status. The responses of the judicial educators
suggest that judicial education has not yet reached this status. In addition, when judicial
educators were asked how close they thought judicial education was to achieving
professional status, the mean response was 3.16. This indicates that judicial educators
realized they had much more work to do before their occupation can become a profession.

There is one factor that might help—the commitment judicial educators have to
professionalism. This factor was the most frequently identified strength of the
occupation. However, only 14 judicial educators identified commitment as a strength. A
commitment from the majority, in combination with a strategy, can help judicial
education achieve professional status. Without both, it is unlikely that judicial education

will get beyond where it is now in terms of recognition and standing.

clc

COIl

define

(POund

”OHHative

Iv

WillingneSS l

5' 1dr

137

Judicial Education and Models of Profession

 

The last question to address is which professional model judicial education more
closely resembles. Does it follow the traditional service model or the Marxist power and

control model?

The Traditional Service Model

 

The cornerstone of the traditional service model is a service ideal. Service ideal is
defined as a calling expressed through the practice of a learned art in public service
(Pound 1949). In 1970, Moore enumerated the attributes of the service model as follows:

1. Application of abstract knowledge to solving human problems is also
accompanied by autonomy to apply knowledge, which results in elevated status, prestige,
increased earning potential, client trust, and entry into a distinctive occupation with

normative and behavioral expectations.
2. Lengthy training required to join the profession.

3. Willingness to become part of and adhere to a professional collective; the

willingness to work long hours in client service.
4. Commitment to norms and standards.

5. Identify with and feel loyalty for professional peers.

traditio
control
of tradir
professi.
This elitr

mamMi

The

Status ’0 prt

achieve Clie

138

The Power and Control Model

 

The attributes of the power and control model are not unlike those of the
traditional service model. It is the interpretation that is different. In the power and
control model, professionals are a class bound together by education, given the privileges
of traditional intellectuality, and situated with the power elite (Larson 1977). When
professions are defined this way, they attain market power just like other elite classes.
This elite class uses knowledge to dominate and exploit clients. They establish or attempt

to establish monopolies centered on the application of their expert knowledge.

Judicial Education and the Models

 

The placement of judicial education within either model rests on whether it uses
status to promote service or whether it uses status to promote power and control to
achieve client dominance. To determine where judicial education stands on this issue, I
return to what the respondents valued about their work.

The judicial educators valued their work highly. In fact, the only value question
in this study that resulted in a firm response was related to this issue. Eighty-eight
percent or 44 of the 50 respondents said they valued most being agents of change. The
description of change agent, as it emerged from this study, follows: Judicial educators
like to make change happen. Either the idea or reality of making a better justice system is
a treasured value. Creating a better justice system is described as making the court
environment a better place to work, improving the quality of service, improving the

quality of judicial decision making, leading judges and court personnel into the future,

increa
rights
Acting

the pul

autonor
CStablis
unlikely
clients.
iCleal. Tl
the Servit
Professio
H.
““113: din
“Storical .
re’lSltiUdi

be arl’alYZe.

This

eduCaIlOn. I

139

increasing the timeliness of justice and efficiencies of the courts, and ensuring that human
rights are always guaranteed through the enforcement of laws and constitutional rights.
Acting as a change agent is also referred to as holding a service value, being a servant to
the public, and serving the greater good.

For the most part, the judicial educators did not value power, control, or
autonomy to any great degree. Therefore, one can conclude that their intention was not to
establish a monopoly that controls their clients. Even if the intention was present, it is
unlikely that they would be able to establish power and control over judicial education
clients. In conclusion, at this point in its development, judicial education holds a service
ideal. Thus, if judicial education achieves the professional-status elements and maintains
the service ideal, it will more closely resemble the traditional service model of the
professions.

However, as Geison (1983) insisted, the current models do not “account for the
richly diverse forms of distribution of professional groups as we meet them in actual
historical experience” (p. 6). Therefore, if new models are developed before researchers
revisit judicial education’s achievement of professional status, judicial education should

be analyzed in the frameworks of the existing and new models.

Recommendations for Further Study

 

This is the first research to be done on the professional status of judicial

education. It has laid the groundwork for further study. This final section contains

ICCOITl

new 1'6

work 51

should
dunestl
0f the d1
for non- j
resPOrIse
be added
educators
33

the 331116 li

140

recommendations for a written follow-up study. It also includes recommendations for
new research in the sociology of the professions.

Recommendation 1: The description of what is considered judicial education

 

work should be revisited, building on what was learned in this study. A written survey
should be distributed to judicial educators that includes the list of judicial education
duties that emerged from this study. The respondents should rank order the importance
of the duties and indicate the percentage of time spent on each. The same should be done
for non-judicial-education duties. Then a combined list should be given, with the same
response options. Space on all three lists should be made available for additional items to
be added. The results could possibly provide better information on what judicial
educators think is most important and would indicate how much time they spend on each.

Recommendation 2: Supervisors and a sample of the client groups should receive

 

the same lists. They should be instructed to identify the duties they think judicial
educators are engaged in, rate how important each duty is, and indicate the amount of
time they believe judicial educators spend on each. The results could identify the gaps
between perception and reality regarding the practice of judicial education. Supervisors
and samples of client groups are suggested for two reasons. First, the results from this
study suggested that supervisors and client groups are the only “others” who know very
much about judicial education. Second, they can be accessed.

Recommendation 3: Judicial education staff members should answer the same

 

questions related to job duties as those given to the judicial educators. Their responses
could be used to reinforce what the judicial educators identified. Or their results might

uncover information that could more fully describe the practice of judicial education.

3
recomme
of judicie

l_t
rank orde
Doing so

3
aSked to 1
about jud
e(lucator:

Strategy 1

R

-

VFhich th
exI>€rien
Work Elm

E
asked Ih

Whether

we“ in

knOWIEr

they 5hr

141

Recommendation 4: The findings from studies conducted in response to

 

recommendations 1 through 3 should be used to establish the jurisdiction and boundaries
of judicial education.

Recommendation 5: In the follow-up written survey, judicial educators should

 

rank order those items that they value about their work that emerged from this study.
Doing so will either reaffirm these findings or provide new information.

Recommendation 6: Supervisors and a sample of the client groups should be

 

asked to rank order those items that were identified in this study as things they value
about judicial education. The findings should illustrate what gaps exist between judicial
educators’ perceptions and reality. The data about the gaps could be used to develop a
strategy to promote the occupation’s achieving professional status.

Recommendation 7: Using a five-point scale, judicial educators rate the extent to

 

which they perceive that their gender, law training, non-law training, and length of
experience make a difference in what their supervisors and client groups value about their
work and how much they value it.

Recommendation 8: Supervisors and a sample of the client groups should be

 

asked the same question as in Recommendation 7. The findings should help determine
whether any perceptual gaps exist and whether those factors are issues in determining the
effect judicial educators may have.

Recommendation 9: Judicial educators should be asked whether they rely on the

 

knowledge bases of management, education, and the law, and if so, how much. Then,

they should be asked which knowledge base they believe to be the most important in their

Fl

 

 

142

work. The results could be used to determine whether, in practice, there is a predominant
knowledge base upon which judicial education rests.

Recommendation 10: Judicial educators should be asked to rank order the eight

 

elements of professional status and the additional elements they identified in this study
for the purpose of determining which elements they think should be addressed first in an
effort to obtain professional status.

Recommendation 11: Judicial educators should be asked whether they believe

 

professional status is important for judicial education, and to explain why it is or is not
important. If they indicate professional status is important, they should be asked to offer
strategies on how judicial education can achieve professional status. If they indicate it is
not important, they should explain why. Such information may be developed into a
model that judicial education and other emerging occupations could follow to achieve
professional status.

Recommendation 12: To determine who knows about judicial education and to

 

find out what they know, a survey should be conducted in each state of bar association
members, jurors, court-watcher groups, legislators, law enforcement and correctional
personnel, civic and service groups, and others who may attend law-related education
events.

Recommendation 13: To determine how much is reported about judicial

 

education, a longitudinal study of the written media in each state capital city could
illuminate what, if anything, is printed about judicial education. These last two
recommendations would help judicial educators and researchers determine how much and

what kind of information about judicial education is in the public domain.

143

Recommendation 14: New sociological studies on professional work are needed

 

to determine how contemporary organizations select and train employees when the work
requires specialization in several disciplines and no prerequisite formalized education is

available.

Appendix A

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS OF JUDICIAL EDUCATION AND
NON-JUDICIAL-EDUCATION JOB RESPONSIBILITIES

Appendix A

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS OF JUDICIAL EDUCATION AND
NON-JUDICIAL-EDUCATION JOB RESPONSIBILITIES

Judicial Education Responsibilities - Management and Administration

 

Budgeting. Budgeting involved developing, defending, and monitoring budget
expenditures.

Interviewee 9: “Budgeting can be very complicated. Money comes from a variety of
sources with a variety of strings attached. I have to watch it closely to make sure the
money is spent only on those items stipulated by the granting authority.”

Interviewee 16: “I do budget administration. You know, manage and defend the budget.

Interviewee 29: “We don’t do budgeting here. Every time I want something, I have to
make my case to the finance officer. But, I do develop a mini-budget for the item I’m
pleading.”

Direct/Advise Policy Board. This term involved working with a board or

 

committee for the purpose of setting judicial education policy. The judicial educator’s
role was either as the chair, a voting member, or as an advisory member similar to an
executive director of a nonprofit organization. In any of the three capacities, the judicial
educator had a leadership role in shaping and implementing policy.

Interviewee 48: “I run the show, but I have no vote. This was a conscious choice. I can
speak my mind. I am the technical expert unencumbered by the role of voting.”

I44

I45

Interviewee 4: “As the director of judicial education, I lead from behind. The judges
need to have ownership in the programming. They need to show leadership. They don’t
know adult education or understand the whole picture. That’s where I come in and shape
the issues for discussion.”

Direct Advisory Committee. This responsibility involved establishing and

 

directing advisory committees for the purpose of soliciting field input on setting judicial
education programming goals and curriculum development priorities. The advisory
committee functions included needs analysis; curriculum planning and implementation;
topic, program, faculty, and delivery-method identification; and program and project
evaluation. Policymaking was not part of the committee’s responsibilities.

Interviewee 30: “Advisory committees are used extensively. On issues requiring policy
decisions, the supreme court justices do not want to give away their authority.”

Direct Program Committees. This term involved establishing and directing

 

program committees. Program committees advised the judicial educator on audience
composition and need, topical content and objectives, educational pedagogy, delivery
methods, and faculty for individual program initiatives.

Legislative Input on Judicial Education. Legislative input involved developing or

 

assisting in the development of legislation affecting judicial education. Working on
legislative initiatives had many related activities such as advising legislative staffers,
testifying in the legislature, collecting field data, analyzing legislation, drafting the
supreme court’s response to the proposed legislation, and developing implementation
plans.

Local Training Network. Local training network pertained to establishing and

 

managing education and training opportunities scheduled at the local court level. Local

training was an adjunct to statewide judicial education programming.

I46

Out-of-State Travel. Out-of-state travel involved establishing and managing a

 

process by which judges and court personnel could attend out-of-state educational
programming.

Personnel. Personnel matters involved hiring, firing, and supervising personnel.
It also involved determining duties, establishing performance objectives, and developing
and conducting performance appraisals.

Planning. Planning had two major components. The first was planning the
human, financial, and physical resources. The second component was planning
curriculum, programs, and projects.

Policy Development. Policy development involved developing, implementing,

 

and monitoring policies for their effect on judicial education and the court.

Publications. Publications pertained to the responsibility of managing a

 

publications function related to judicial education. Judicial education publications
included benchbooks, benchguides, monographs, manuals, and periodicals.

Resource Enhancement. Resource enhancement involved finding additional

 

funding and writing grants.
Interviewee 33: “Our entire program is run on soft money. Without grant money there
would be no judicial education here. I think the folks appreciate my efforts. I know our

administrative director does.”

Staff Policy Board. Judicial education responsibilities for this item were

 

described as administrative. Duties included recording meeting minutes, providing
informational memoranda, approving expenses, scheduling meetings, and/or shaping and

preparing board decisions for supreme court review and approval.

I47

Interviewee 10: “I have little substantive input. It’s staff work. It’s clerical consisting of
logistical arrangements, approving vouchers, monitoring grants, and so on. The judge
education side is composed and heavily structured. So, I do this kind of work for judge
education. For the court staff, I have a leadership and substantive role. I developed it
from scratch. I can be creative there. I suppose others find the judge work more
important, but I enjoy the court staff side more.”

Judicial Education Responsibilities—Educational Programming

 

Approving Invoices. Approving invoices involved the judicial educator’s

 

scrutinizing and then authorizing payment of bills related to programming.

Contracting Facilities. This responsibility involved selecting sites and facilities

 

where educational programming could be conducted.

Contracting Faculfl. Contracting faculty involved selecting and contracting with

 

individual faculty members for the purpose of developing and presenting topics in
educational programming.

Delivery Technologies. Delivery technologies involved selecting and managing

 

the appropriate technology for each program. This responsibility focused on technologies
related to teleconferencing, video conferencing, and computer conferencing.

Evaluation. This responsibility involved developing and implementing evaluation
strategies for the purposes of determining the quality, worth, or outcome of the
educational program or project.

Needs Assessment. This duty involved the responsibility for conducting needs

 

assessments to be used in the development of programs and curricula, planning, and

policy development. Needs-assessment formats involved written surveys; focus groups;

148

trends analysis; literature review of court-related publications, reports, and studies;
interviews; and analysis of program-evaluation results.

On-Site Program Management. On-site program management involved being

 

responsible for faculty members, facilities, educational staff, and participants during the

program.

Oversight of Mandatory and/or Certificate Credits. This responsibility involved

 

approving, monitoring, or tracking participants’ attendance at programs that were eligible
for mandatory or certificate credits.

Program and Curriculum Development. Program and curriculum development

 

involved the judicial educator’s developing comprehensive curricula and individual
programs.

Teaching. This item involved teaching at programs developed by the judicial
education organization.

Non-Judicial-Education Responsibilities—
State Court Management/Administration

 

 

Acting State Court Administrator (SCA). The judicial educator was the acting

 

director for the state court system when the administrative director was gone.

Administrative Office (AO) Management Team. The judicial educator was a

 

member of the AO management team. As a member of this team, the judicial educator
would meet with all other department heads and the administrative director for the

purpose of guiding and directing the priorities and activities of the administrative office

149

of the court. (Note: Administrative Office of the Court is also known as the State Court

Administrator’s Office.)

Interviewee 2: “I was an independent director, but now I have broad responsibilities for
the entire judicial branch. I’m a policymaker for the entire branch. In this role, I have to
be a top-notch administrator because of the diverse impact on how the judiciary and
administration interact. The future of judicial education rests with making judicial
education an integral function of the judiciary. It can’t be isolated. Also, as a division
director, I get equal status and equal pay with other administrative office directors.”

Interviewee 12: “Being involved to this level makes me more well-rounded. I know the
whole operation. My input is better. I have more credibility because of my involvement.’

9

Clerks Procedures. Clerks procedures involved developing, disseminating, and

 

providing on-site instruction and technical support related to clerk of court procedures
and reporting.

Judicial Branch Budgeting. The judicial educator was responsible for developing,

 

defending, and monitoring budgets related to the state court system.

Judicial Branch Personnel. This term pertained to the responsibilities that judicial

 

educators had for personnel administration beyond judicial education.

Interviewee 27: “I was originally hired to be the personnel director. Soon, I got training
as a responsibility. Education became mandatory early-on.”

Interviewee 7: “Primarily, I’m the personnel director—develop and administer policy,
job-evaluation methods, compensation, employee-relations problems, recruitment, and
employee training and development.”

Judicial Branch Planning. The judicial educator was involved in statewide court

 

planning.

Judicial Branch Policy Development. This responsibility involved the judicial

 

educator’s assisting in the development of policies affecting the entire state court system.

Judicial Performance Review. Judicial performance review involved the judicial

 

educator’s being responsible for managing the performance review of trial judges.

150

Interviewee 22 : “Evaluation of judicial performance is 40 percent of my time. It is tied
to education. The judges are evaluated in intervals--two to four years and six to eight
years. Performance review is done by sending the lawyers an evaluation who appeared
before the judge over a nine-month period. We compile the data and give it to the judge.
We sanitize it so the respondent can’t be identified. The purpose is to see how the judge
is perceived. Then I develop an education plan to address the deficiencies. Also, we
videotape the judge for two days. I share it with a communication expert for
consultation. I also share it with an experienced judge for law issues and other court-
related things. This is then shared with the governor for reappointment. There are no
surprises. I also use courtroom observers to give feedback.”

Lflslative Input on Judicial Branch Matters. This term involved the judicial

 

educator’s reviewing, analyzing, and giving recommendations on pending legislation
affecting the state court system.

Negotiate Court Contracts. The judicial educator was the negotiator for all state

 

court contracts involving facilities, equipment, and services.

Public Information/Media. This responsibility involved the judicial educator’s

 

acting as the public information and media relations officer for the administrative office
and/or the supreme court.

Interviewee 12: “As information officer, I educate the public about the court.”

Interviewee 14: “In my communications officer role, I do public information, press
releases, media responses, setting up media liaisons, and I do media training conferences.
We’re proactive in media relations. I do briefing books on new initiatives and problems
in the courts. In our consumer-relations program, I develop user-friendly brochures for
public consumption. I began a clearinghouse of information so people can get what they
need.”

Study Committees/T ask Forces/ Special Projects. Study committees, task forces,

 

and special projects are established by the administrative office or the supreme court.
Judicial educators may be assigned to any of these three by either the administrative
director or the chief justice. Their responsibilities varied, depending on the charge of the

committee, task force, or special project.

151

Trial Court Performance Reporting. Trial court performance reporting constituted

 

monitoring and reporting the extent to which the trial courts were meeting established

performance standards.

Non-Judicial-Education Responsibilities—Technical/Clerical

 

Electronic Technology. Electronic technology involved technology projects

 

undertaken by the state court system. Judicial educators with this responsibility were
administrators for technology ventures such as establishing web pages; on-line video
conferencing; electronic mail conferencing; broadcast technologies; and placing court
reports, instructional materials, and benchbooks on CD ROM or high-density disks.

Judges’ Financial Statements. The judicial educator collected judges’ financial

 

statements and reported any violations or abnormalities to the appropriate authorities.

Interviewee 41: “Judges must file statements of financial interest. These are open to the
public. I must keep track of these—1 ,500 to 1,600 per year. I have to make sure they are
filed and correctly completed. I must report on this.”

Non-Judicial-Education Responsibilities—Legal

Judicial Branch Legal Counsel. Judicial branch legal counsel involved duties that

 

law-trained judicial educators had in administrative matters affecting the trial and
appellate courts and the administrative office of the court.

Interviewee l: “I do legal support for the administrative office and the supreme court. It
involves lawsuits, administrative rule making, and risk management on legal procedures.’

9

Interviewee 6: “All attorneys in this office act as legal counselors for the administrative
office. I call it the ‘warm line.’ We take legal calls from court groups. When the

l52

supreme court makes a decision, we do memoranda for the affected groups with
supporting cases, and we send it out.”

Law Library. Judicial educators with this responsibility administered the supreme

 

court law library and managed its employees.

Non-Judicial-Education Responsibilities—Reporting

 

Judicial Branch Newsletter. Judicial educators with this responsibility wrote and

 

published the state judicial branch newsletter.

Judicial Branch Reports. Judicial branch reports involved judicial educators’

 

being responsible for writing reports pertaining to state court activities.

Appendix B

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS OF WHAT JUDICIAL EDUCATORS
VALUED ABOUT THEIR WORK

 

Appendix B

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS OF WHAT JUDICIAL EDUCATORS
VALUED ABOUT THEIR WORK

Ability to Influence. This value pertained to the ability to influence powerful

 

people.

Interviewee 24: “The challenge to develop better judges is high. They are difficult
people with large egos. But they make life and death decisions everyday. If I can make
them better, then I’ve made an impact.”

Interviewee 48: “I get to influence people who are influential. That is satisfaction.”

Interviewee 30: “I value being on the inside of a very powerful branch of government
and at a very significant level. I value the ability to influence that.”

Appreciation. This term referred to the value judicial educators placed on the

 

appreciation that judicial education audiences expressed for the programming they
received.

Autonomy. Judicial educators reported that they had autonomy and freedom in
their work. They reported that their work gave them a certain amount of physical
fi'eedom and creative license not enjoyed by other positions in the courts.

Interviewee 19: “I value the complete autonomy and flexible schedule. It is an
intellectually stimulating job. I have the freedom to create learning experiences that are

on the cutting edge.”

Change Agent. Judicial educators reported that they liked to make change

 

happen. Either the idea or the reality of making a better justice system was a treasured

value. Creating a better justice system was described as making the court environment a

153

154

better place to work, improving the quality of service, improving the quality of judicial
decision making, leading judges and court personnel into the future, increasing the
timeliness of justice and efficiencies of the courts, and ensuring that human rights are
always guaranteed through the enforcement of laws and constitutional rights. Acting as a
change agent was also referred to as holding a service value, being a servant to the public,
and serving the greater good.

Interviewee 19: “Most importantly, I value being a change agent. There are compelling
issues facing judges. The technological, sociological, demographic mix is changing. The
cultural, scientific, and technological advances are calling us to change. The best way to
change judicial attitudes is through education. They are not shying away from the
change. Neither am I.”

Interviewee 45: “The quality of people who serve as judges and clerks, that’s what I
value. We are making a difference. We keep the muni [municipal] court functioning in a
timely manner. The muni court is the people’s court. I value and the judges and clerks
value developing and keeping the public trust. I make a contribution to the uniformity of
the courts. So, the public is treated fairly across the state.”

Interviewee 5: “What I do makes a difference in the way justice is meted-out. This is not
Pollyanna. Judges and court clerks can’t do their work unless they get the information
they need to dispense justice and work the counter. I value that I make a difference.
Some judicial educators believe they are better than others because of who they serve.
Now, I believe in my work as a public servant.”

Interviewee 6: “In law school I was committed to human rights. So, I came to the courts
because magistrates do justice to more people in than any other group.
The court engages in human rights through the fair administration of justice.”

Interviewee l6: “Judicial education is what is going to help us maintain our democratic
institutions and independent judiciary.”

Developing Human Potential. Developing human potential was described as the
opportunity to contribute to the ethical and moral development of judges, in particular,
and court personnel, in general. This term was also used in regard to developing the
personal and professional maturity that judges need to dispense justice and for others to

administer it.

 

155

Interviewee 6: “Education is enormously important to humanize people.”

Interviewee 9: “The courts must address the change that is going on around them. They
must be prepared, and that’s my job. The judges must have the moral and ethical fiber to
deal with the problems.

Interviewee 12: “Before, we developed skill. Now, we develop the whole person so they
can be personally and professionally sound.”

Interviewee 47: “I value my holistic approach, which improves their professional
performance, their human being-mess, family, and community.”

DiversigI in Work. This term referred to valuing diversity in the work and

 

flexibility in the work environment.

 

Does Not Know. This term referred to judicial educators who reported that they

 

did not know what they valued about their work.

Education Product. This term referred to the high importance of the education

 

product to the judicial educator.

Interviewee 22: “I like that there is a beginning, middle, and end. I see the products and
the outcomes. I like that.”

Education Process. Education process was described as the creative give and take

 

of surfacing ideas, developing those ideas, and making them a reality. The education
process was further described as a community-building exercise in which values were
shared and shaped through open communication.

Interviewee 1: “I love watching ideas develop and become real. I find it enriching to
contribute ideas and then finding people who can move them forward. And I value the
exchange among us in the process. Having access to other people who have knowledge
you don’t have is a great opportunity to expand your own knowledge base. This creates
community. I’m a catalyst. I’m autonomous. I see the payoff.”

Interviewee 19: “I value the educational process. I have to learn the topics so I can
develop them and pass them on.”

Financial Compensation. Judicial educators reported that they valued the money

 

they were paid.

156

Interviewee 19: “I’m well-paid. Ienjoy that.”

Intellectual Growth. Intellectual growth was described as the continual

 

opportunity to learn new information, to be in an environment in which the validity of
knowledge and its applications were constantly challenged, and to be in a position where
the new information and increased knowledge could be applied and shared with others.

Interviewee l: “I value the opportunity for intellectual growth. It is stimulating to shape
an idea and make something come to life.”

Power. This term referred to the feeling of power that results from the belief that
judicial education has the potential to change lives.

Relationships. Judicial educators reported that they valued the relationships they

 

had with judges and court personnel.

Interviewee 5: “I value that I can communicate in a personal way with judges who are
isolated and can’t speak freely with others.”

Interviewee 14: “I nurture judges. I call judges and talk with them about their problems
and how they may be able to act. I nurture them because I need it. Just doing legal stuff
is boring. I love the partnership.”

Respect. Judicial educators reported that they were accorded respect for their
work, and they valued receiving it.

Role of the Court in Society. Role of the court in society referred to improving

 

human rights, maintaining democracy through maintaining an independent judiciary,
ensuring fair and impartial justice, and serving the greater good.

_SLa_t_t_r_s. Judicial educators reported feeling they had status because of the high
level of access they had to judges, because they worked in the courts, and because they

could influence people and systems. They valued the perception, if not the reality, of

status.

157

Success. Judicial educators reported that they valued their success.
Visibility. Visibility referred to the high exposure judicial educators had with

judges and others in the judicial system.

Il

 

Appendix C

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS OF WHAT OTHERS
(i.e., significant others/partners, organizational peers, colleagues, supervisors,

audiences/client groups, state legislators, and the public)
VALUED ABOUT THE JUDICIAL EDUCATION WORK

Appendix C

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS OF WHAT OTHERS
(i.e., significant others/partners, organizational peers, colleagues, supervisors,
audiences/client groups, state legislators, and the public)
VALUED ABOUT THE JUDICIAL EDUCATION WORK

Significant-Other Value Terms -. x

 

Does Not Know. The judicial educator did not know what his or her partner

 

valued.

Interviewee 36: “We don’t talk about our jobs.”

Interviewee 22: “Tough question. We don’t bring our work home.”

Does Not Know Work. This term referred to the perception that the judicial

 

educator’s partner did not know enough about the work to value it.
Interviewee 27: “We know, in general, what the other does. That’s the end of it.”

Does Not Value. This term referred to the perception that the judicial educator’s

 

significant other did not value the work.
Interviewee 13: “ doesn’t believe in continuing education.”

Change Agent. This term referred to the partner’s valuing the change agent nature

 

of the judicial education work.

Court Public Education. This term referred to the value of the public’s receiving

 

education about the role of the court.

158

ll

159

Interviewee l2: “ sees the ignorance of the courts on the part of the public.
thinks that educating the public is very important.”

Financial Compensation. This term referred to the perceived value of the salary

 

and benefits established for the judicial education position.
Interviewee 20: “ values the salary and benefits.”

Organizational Skills. This term referred to the value placed on the organizational

 

skills required to perform judicial education work.

Interviewee 3: “My __ values the organization that is involved in the work.”
Pritjge. This term referred to the perceived prestige accorded to those who are

associated with judges.

Interviewee 8: “ values the job as prestigious because of the supreme court.
likes that I work with people in positions of power.”

Recognition. This term referred to the value placed on the recognition that the
significant other enjoyed through the position of his or her partner in the judiciary.

Interviewee 20: “ is an attorney, so _ likes the judge and clerk contact and
recognition.”

Role of the Court in Society. Role of the court in society referred to improving

 

human rights, maintaining democracy through maintaining an independent judiciary,
ensuring fair and impartial justice, and serving the greater good.

Interviewee 50: “My spouse is an attorney. knows the courts are important in our
society.”

Values All Education. This term referred to the perception that the judicial

 

educator’s significant other valued all education.

Interviewee 6: “My spouse values education so values this.”

Interviewee 46: “ values education, in general.”

160

Values Me. This term referred to the perception that the work was valued because

the judicial educator was valued.

Interviewee 2: “ is pretty impressed with my work. It has to do with who __ is.
_ values it highly because _ values me.”
Interviewee 50: “ believes I have a positive impact. He just supports me.”

Friends Value Terms

 

Change Agent. This term referred to the value placed on being a change agent.

 

Creativity. This term referred to the perception that the work of judicial education
allowed for creative expression.

Interviewee 30: “Most friends don’t know about my work. But those who do, value the
creativity and freedom I have. They value the cutting-edge initiatives.”

Does Not Know. This term referred to the fact that the judicial educator did not

 

know what his or her fiiends valued about judicial education.
Interviewee 25: “I just don’t talk about my work to my friends.”

Does Not Know Work. This term referred to the perception that the judicial

 

educator’s friends did not know enough about the work to value it.
Ethics. Friends valued the work and service ethic held by the judicial educator.

Interviewee 39: “They value my ethics even though many don’t value the ethics of the
court.”

Influence. Friends perceived that the judicial educator had influence over

powerful decision makers, and they valued this influence characteristic.

161

Leadership. This term referred to the opportunity to influence judicial decision
making through education. Thus, judicial educators could lead powerful people to
change.

Personal Enhancement. This term referred to the perception that the judicial

 

educator was more interesting to be around and more healthy and relaxed since becoming
a judicial educator.

Interviewee 19: “They see I am more relaxed and healthy in this job. I’m also more
interesting.”

Interviewee 31: “My friends value that I am happy. They could [not] care less about the
rest of it.”

Prestige. This term referred to friends believing that judicial educators were
accorded prestige because of their work with judges.

Interviewee 39: “They perceive when you work with judges, attorneys, and high-ranking
officials that you have prestige.”

Role of the Court in Society. Role of the court in society referred to improving

 

human rights, maintaining democracy through maintaining an independent judiciary,
ensuring fair and impartial justice, and serving the greater good.

Status. This term referred to the perceived status of the judicial system and
judges. Therefore, by extension, judicial educators had status.
Interviewee 37: “Internally I have less status because I’m an other and not a judge.
Outside, I’m with the supreme court and that gives me status. Internally, I’m just staff.
But, the judges treat me with respect. My friends kinda have an idea, but they don’t

really get it. They don’t understand the subordination of the job to the judges.”

Survival Skills. This term referred to the skills necessary to survive and thrive in

 

a power-based system.

Interviewee 24: “My friends value my ability to survive with pain-in-the-ass judges.”

162

Values All Education. This term referred to the perception that all education was

 

valued.

Women Value Women. Women judicial educators reported that their women

 

friends valued the intellect, savvy, tenacity, skill, and ability it took to achieve in a
professional environment that had traditionally been dominated by male attorneys.

Interviewee 48: “I have broader and deeper discussions with my fiiends. I talk in an
emotional sense with my best friend. She thinks it is an important and difficult position
for a woman to be in. We discuss what it is like for women to confront these difficult
issues and work in these environments. We know there is an undercurrent of bias against
women. It’s always there. Women have to assert themselves, and when that happens,
you are a bitch and a turf builder. It is ultimately important for women to be there.”

Interviewee 2: “Women who work, they appreciate what it takes to be a woman in a
policy role. They know the struggle it takes to do equal work and get equal pay with
men.”

Organizational-Peers Value Terms

 

Does Not Have Peers. The judicial educator had no peers.

 

Does Not Know. This term referred to the fact that the judicial educator did not

 

know what his or her organizational peers valued about judicial education.

Does Not Know Work. This term referred to the perception that organizational

 

peers did not know enough about the work to value it.

Does Not Value. This term referred to the perception that organizational peers did

 

not value the work.

Improves System. This term referred to the value of judicial education when it

 

corrected problems, positively affected what the peers did, generated positive results, was

a resource, and was a service to the trial courts.

I63

Interviewee 4: “On average, they see it as a mechanism to improve the system.”

Interviewee 12: “I have made real advancements with the rest of the organization. Now,
as a system, they recognize that without education they can’t get people to do what needs
to be done.”

Nurturing. Organizational peers valued judicial education because they believed
it was a nurturing activity, whereas the rest of the activities and projects emanating from
the supreme court and administrative office were either regulatory or report—driven.

god—up}. This term referred to the value placed on educational products such as
notebooks, monographs, videotapes, benchbooks, benchguides, manuals, guides, and the
like.

Their Involvement. The term referred to the perception that organizational peers

 

valued judicial education because they were often involved in the planning and/or
presentation of the programming.
Interviewee 23: “They like to get exposure to the judges. They get to schmooze.”

Values All Education. Organizational peers valued education in general;

 

therefore, they valued the work of judicial education.

Judicial-Educator-Colleagues Value Terms

 

Application of Adult Education Theories, Principles, and Practices. Colleagues
valued that the work was based on adult learning theory, principles, and practices.

ChangeiAgent. This term referred to the perception that judicial educators valued

 

the change agent role their colleagues played.

ll

164

Does Not Know. This term referred to the perception that the judicial educator

 

did not know what was valued about his or her work.

Does Not Know Work. This term referred to the perception that the respondent’s

 

judicial education colleagues did not know enough about the work to value it.

Intergovernmental Relations. This term referred to the perception that work with

 

other branches of government was valued.

Interviewee 21: “The ones I interact with are amazed at how we can do the things we do
with other state agencies. They value that I bring all the players together.”

 

Leadership. Judicial educators said that they perceived their colleagues valued
their innovation, futuristic views, creativity, depth of work, and the benefit that their work
had for the advancement of judicial education as a profession.

Interviewee 30: “I value excellence, so I exceed people’s expectations. Therefore,
creativity, risk-taking, futuristic thinking puts me and my organization on the leading
edge. My colleagues value the leadership I provide. is a model for how they can
work.”

Longevity. This term referred to the perception that the respondent’s colleagues

valued his or her ability to survive in the job for a long period of time.

Interviewee 22: “They value that I have been around so long. I made the profession with
others. Now new people can come in and pick up quickly.”

My Effort. This term referred to the perception that their colleagues valued the
effort they put forth in making quality programming on restricted budgets.

Interviewee 5: “They see value in that does _ level best to put together the best
program with no help and no money.”

165

Product. This term referred to the perception that judicial education products like
notebooks, monographs, videotapes, benchbooks, benchguides, manuals, guides,
videoconferences, and the like are valued.

Interviewee 17: “Others like the products I develop. They can model them.”

Supervisors Value Terms

 

Adult Education Application to Legal Topics. This term related to the belief that

 

the supervisor valued the judicial educator’s ability to apply adult education theories and
practices to the law and legal education.

931C135 This term referred to the perception that the supervisor valued the
nonpolitical, honest, and forthright appraisals and comments offered by the judicial
educator.

Interviewee 14: “He values my ability to speak candidly. That’s something that doesn’t
happen often in this environment.”

Change Agent. This term referred to the perception that supervisors valued

 

judicial education because it can bring about change.

Communication Skills. This term referred to the verbal and nonverbal skills held

 

by the judicial educator. Judicial educators reported that their supervisors valued their
writing abilities, public-speaking skills, interpersonal skills, diplomatic characteristics,
and capabilities.

Interviewee 2: “He thinks I’m a real diplomat about getting work done. He’s happy with
my ability to change judicial education and work with . He likes that I can work
with others.”

166

Consistent Production. This term referred to the perception that supervisors

 

valued the consistent production of high-quality products and programs.

Does Not Know. The judicial educator did not know what his or her supervisor

 

valued about judicial education.

Does Not Know Work. The supervisor did not know enough about the work to

 

value it.

Does Not Value. The supervisor did not value the work.

 

Improves System. This term referred to the perception that supervisors valued

 

judicial education because it corrected problems, positively affected their work, generated
positive results, was a resource, and was a service to the trial courts.
Knowledge. Supervisors valued the knowledge that judicial educators had about
the courts, adult education, judicial education, and legal education.
Interviewee 27: “My boss has been here only one year. He values judicial education as a
way to keep the courts moving ahead. likes well-trained people and a competent
judiciary. He values the knowledge I have so I can make these things happen.”
Leadership. Supervisors valued innovation, futuristic views and action, creativity,

depth of work, and contributions to court reform through judicial education.

No Problems. Supervisors valued judicial education because it was typically

 

problem free, and they received praise for the products and programming.

Interviewee 32: “My boss values several things. She values the products. She values
that there are no more political problems. She gets the benefits with none of the hassles.”

No Supervisor. The judicial educator had no supervisor.

 

Positive Attitude. The supervisor valued the respondent’s positive attitude and its

 

effect on others.

167

Public Relations. This term referred to the perception that the supervisor valued

 

judicial education because it was good public relations with the trial courts.
Interviewee 4: “The state court administrator sees judicial education as a necessity. You
have to have it so that the diverse parts come together as a system. He sees it as him

looking better if it’s good.”

Relations With Courts. Supervisors valued the close relationships judicial

 

educators had with judges and court personnel.

Interviewee 14: “Above anything else, my supervisor values my relationships with the
bench.”

Teaching. This term referred to the perception that the supervisor valued the

judicial educator’s teaching abilities.

Audiences Value Terms

 

Attention They Receive. Audiences valued judicial education because of the

 

attention they received.

Interviewee 30: “They value the excellence and attention to detail. Mostly, they value
the attention they receive. We tend to them.”

Collegiality. Audiences valued the opportunity to see their colleagues.

Interviewee 3: “Judges love the opportunity to converse with their colleagues and gain
knowledge.”

Interviewee 25: “I always have a good attendance. They value the socialization because
they are so isolated.”

Does Not Know. Judicial educators did not know what their audiences valued.

 

Increased Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSA). Audiences valued the

knowledge, skills, and abilities gained from the programming.

I68

Interviewee 4: “On the whole, the majority has come to see education as a means to
develop and stay out of trouble. By improving the courts and getting good audits and
professional reviews, their position is more secure.”

Interviewee 11: “Judges value first the aspects of the program that keep them current.
Second, they value a comprehensive presentation that fits into the fabric of what they are
doing. Third, they value the theoretical construct of the information.”

Judicial Educator’s Candor. Audiences valued replies to questions given by the

 

judicial educator.

Interviewee 31: “They value the academic and bureaucratic expertise. I’m a real-world
person. I give them this with no bullshit.”

Judicial Educator’s Confidentiality. Audience members valued the fact that they

 

could talk to the judicial educator in complete confidence.

Interviewee 17: “I’m the answer lady. I’m the resource person. Because I anticipate
their needs, I’m their confidante.”

Judicial Educator’s Hard Work. Respondents perceived that their audiences

 

valued their hard work and dedication.

Interviewee 24: “They value that I work hard, make an effort, care for them, and have
concern for them.”

Judicial Educator’s Knowledge. This term referred to the perception that

 

audiences valued the knowledge of the judicial educator.
Location. This term referred to the perception that the audiences valued attending
programs in desirable locations.

Interviewee 40: “They believe good hotels at nice locations is what they need. Beyond
that, I don’t know what they value.”

I69

Mandatory Continuing Legal Education/Continuing Judicial Education
(CLE/CJE). Audiences valued the education they were receiving because it helped them
meet their mandatory requirements.

Obtaining Financial Resources. Audiences valued the additional money resources

 

that judicial educators received through aggressive grant writing and/or persistent
lobbying of the state legislature.

Quality Learning Experience. Audiences valued participatory learning, strong

 

and well-developed content, outside expert faculty, and needs-assessment processes that
provided the necessary information to develop programming tailored to fit their needs.

Quality Service. Audiences valued the rapid and high-quality attention they

 

received.

Interviewee 19: “They value being developed as whole people. They like our quality and
rapid service.”

Safe Learning Environment. Judicial educators reported that their audiences

 

valued having an environment in which they could show their vulnerabilities without
public exposure.

“Interviewee 13: “They like the camaraderie. They also like raising new ideas and
practicing in safe learning environments.”

Supreme Court Commitment. This term referred to the perception that judicial

 

education audiences believed that the programming they received demonstrated the
supreme court’s commitment to them and their work.

Interviewee 20: “They feel important because judicial education here is new, they’re
getting attention, and it signals supreme court commitment to them.”

Appendix D

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS OF WHAT THE RESPONDENTS
PERCEIVED THEIR COLLEAGUES VALUED ABOUT THEIR OWN WORK

Appendix D

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS OF WHAT THE RESPONDENTS
PERCEIVED THEIR COLLEAGUES VALUED ABOUT THEIR OWN WORK

Appreciation. Judicial educators valued their work when the benefits of the work

 

were acknowledged by the recipients.
Challenge. This term referred to the judicial educators’ ability to consistently
produce quality programming with reduced resources.

Change Agent. Judicial educators reported that their colleagues liked to make

 

change happen. Either the idea or reality of making a better justice system was a

treasured value.

Does Not Value. This term referred to the perception that judicial educators did

 

not value their work.

Does Not Know. The judicial educator did not know what his or her colleagues

 

valued.

Developing Human Potential. Developing human potential was described as the
opportunity to contribute to the ethical and moral development of judges, in particular,

and court personnel, in general. This term also was used in regard to developing the

170

171

personal and professional maturity necessary for judges to dispense justice and others to
administer it.

Education Process. Education process was described as the creative give and take

 

of surfacing ideas, developing those ideas, and making them a reality. The education
process was further described as a community-building exercise in which values were
shared and shaped through open communication

Education Product. This term referred to the high importance of seeing the

 

product or outcome of the work.

Ego Fulfillment. This term referred to the role that working with judges played in

 

fulfilling personal ego needs.

Freedom to Create. This term referred to the creative process that allowed for on-

 

going innovation in the development of programming.
Influence. This term referred to the perception of influence over powerfirl
decision-makers through the topics presented in the educational programming.

Intellectual Growth. Intellectual growth was described as the continual

 

opportunity to learn new information, have the new information challenged, and be able

to convey that information to others.

Power. This term referred to feeling powerful because judicial education has the

potential to change lives.

Recognition. This term referred to the judicial educator’s receiving

 

acknowledgment for his or her work.

Relationships. Judicial educators reported that they valued the relationships they

 

had with judges, court personnel, and other judicial educators.

172

Resmct. Judicial educators reported that they were accorded respect for their
work, and they valued receiving it.

Role of the Court in Society. Role of the court in society referred to valuing the

 

role of the courts in improving human rights through improving justice, maintaining
democracy through maintaining an independent judiciary, ensuring fair and impartial
dispensation of justice, and serving the greater good.
_S_t_a;t_u_s. This term referred to the perceived status of the judicial system and
judges. Therefore, by working with judges and the court system, judicial ..

educators gained status through association.

Appendix E

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS REGARDING GENDER
DIFFERENCES IN WHAT JUDICIAL EDUCATORS VALUED

Appendix E

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS REGARDING GENDER
DIFFERENCES IN WHAT JUDICIAL EDUCATORS VALUED

Female Gender-Difference Terms

 

Accommodate. Women are willing to make room for all people and all ideas if

 

both can be accommodated within the goals and objectives of the programming.

Appreciation. Women value being appreciated for their work.

 

Better Job. Women do their work in such a way that the quality is higher than the
work produced by men.

Bright—er. Women are brighter than men.

Bu_rn_o_ut. Women have higher rates of burnout than men because they have to
consistently do everything better and bigger than men just to be as good as men.

Qlflgp. Women value the ability to change people or organizations through their
work.

Collaborate. Women work to neutralize power-oriented environments so that all
work is conducted in collaboration with all parties.

Communications. Women are more fluid and passionate communicators than

 

men.

173

 

174

Content Oriented. Women care more about the substance of the programming

 

than do men.

Detail Oriented. Women are more particular about all aspects of their

 

programming because they understand that it is the quality of the entire package that will
have the largest impact. Therefore, they work to ensure that the details pertaining to topic
selection are carried out with the same precision as the details pertaining to room set-up.

Extend Themselves. Women will go beyond themselves to do more work or

 

 

involve more people than will men.

Gender-Related Issues. Women, more than men, care about topics that focus on

 

issues related to women, such as domestic violence, child support, hate crimes, and
sexual assault.

Nurturer. Women are care-givers and are more sensitive than men to other
people’s emotional and intellectual needs.

Politically Astute. Women are more aware than men of their political

 

surroundings and act accordingly.

Priorities and Values. Women are directed by their priorities or values and are

 

much less likely than men to deviate from either.

Process Oriented. Women value soliciting ideas, information, and opinions of

 

others for the purpose of developing comprehensive programs and systems.

Relationships. Women, more than men, value the relationships they establish

 

through their work.

Self-Actualized. Women know who they are and are less motivated than men by

 

externals to gain self-esteem.

175

Service Oriented. Women hold a service ethic and act on that ethic.

 

Share Power and Knowledge. Women are more willing than men to share

 

whatever power they have in their work. Women are also more willing to share the
knowledge they have about their work.

Social Issues. Women care about the social issues confronting our society and see

 

them as much more important than the traditional legal issues.

w _ _ __..

 

Male Gender-Difference Terms ~ ‘

 

Blinders. Men do not see the full picture. They work with blinders on.
Change. Men are committed to positive change and will work to see change
realized.

Collaborate Less. Men are much less likely than women to involve others in their

 

work because they want power and control.
Combative. Men are more argumentative and aggressive than women.
Control. Men want control in their lives and jobs.

Critical/Business. Men take a detached critical or business approach to their work

 

because they value the bottom line above everything else.

firing. Men value their futures; therefore, they make all job moves based on
where those moves will get them.

Get More. Men always receive more acknowledgment and compensation for their
work even though it is usually the same or less volume and quality than the work that

women produce.

176

Independence. Men value their independence.

 

Influence. Men value the appearance or reality of influence.

Law-Trained Analytical. Men, whether or not they are attorneys, value the law-

 

trained analytical approach to their jobs.
No Process. Men do not value soliciting ideas, information, and opinions of
others.

Power. Men want power.

 

Quantitative Products. Men value things. Tangible products determine the value

 

men place on their work.

Success. Men value success and want their success recognized.

Non-Gender-Specific Terms

 

Does Not Know. This term was used by respondents who did not know whether

 

gender made a difference in what their colleagues valued.

Masculine/Feminine Personality Blend. This term referred to the perception that

 

a blend of masculine and feminine qualities is essential in contemporary life. The
perception is that stereotypical masculine and feminine qualities are a hindrance to job
performance and are inappropriate in today’s work environment.

No Difference. There is no difference in what judicial educators value based on

 

gender.

I77

Socialization Is Different. Men and women are only different and may value

 

different things because of their socialization; therefore, these things are not in the

conscious awareness of men and women.

Appendix F

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS OF DIFFERENCES BASED ON
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

 

Appendix F

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS OF DIFFERENCES BASED ON
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

‘4-
Law-Trained Judicial Educators or What Law-Trained

Judicial Educators Valued

Adversarial. Law-trained judicial educators are trained to be adversarial, and they
bring that to the educational process.

Competitive. Law-trained individuals are trained to be competitive, and
Competitiveness is antithetical to building strong coalitions for the ongoing support of
educational programming.

Concrete Law Issues. Law-trained judicial educators place a high value on
traditional legal topics in criminal law and procedure, civil law and procedure,
constitutional law, juvenile law, probate law, and family law.

High Constituent Recognition. Law-trained judicial educators enjoy more
recognition than non-law-trained judicial educators because they share the same
educational background with judges. Law-trained judicial educators also enjoy instant
credibility.

meact on Justice. Law-trained judicial educators value that they can affect

justice. They better understand how knowledge, perceptions, and actions change justice.

178

179

No Human-Development Skills. Law-trained judicial educators do not have the

 

skill or education in psychological or spiritual development that is critical in developing
the whole person through educational programs.

Poor Administrators. Law-trained judicial educators do not have training in

 

administration; therefore, they are poor administrators.

Poor Education-Process Skills. Law-trained judicial educators are not educated in

 

curriculum development and/or adult learning. Therefore, they do not understand the
importance of the education process and do not have the skills to lead the process.

Seek Connections. Law-trained judicial educators value and seek connections

 

with powerful people through judicial education.

Non-Law Trained Judicial Educators or What
Non-Law-Trained Judicial Educators Valued

 

 

Attitude Chang. Non-law-trained judicial educators look for attitude changes

 

among their audience members.

Developing Human Potential. Non-law-trained judicial educators value

 

developing human potential through their programs and products.

Easily Intimidated. Non-law-trained judicial educators are easily intimidated by

 

JUdges and attorneys.

Education Process and Products. Non—law-trained judicial educators have a more

 

thorough background in adult education principles and practices. Therefore, they are

better at educational design, instruction, and content development.

180

Good Communications. Non-law-trained judicial educators have good verbal and
non-verbal communication skills.
Low Recognition Need. Non-law-trained judicial educators have lower
recognition needs than do law-trained judicial educators. They are not looking at judicial

education as an entree to their next job.

Other Terms Used In Identifying Whether Educational Background
Made a Difference in What Judicial Educators
Valued About Their Work

 

Competence Is Important. The only factor of importance is whether the judicial
educator can perform the job competently.

Determines Perspective and Approach Only. Educational background determines
only perspective and approach. It does not affect how others value the judicial educator
01‘ how the judicial educator values his or her work.

Does Not Know. Judicial educators do not know whether educational background

 

makes a difference in what they value about their work.

Familiarity with Court and Legal Issues Is Important. This term refers to the
Perception that what is important is not educational background, but rather that the
educator is familiar with the pressing issues in the courts and the law.

Phony Issue. Educational background is a phony issue or a nonissue. What

matters are diverse opinions and a holistic approach.

Appendix G

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THE EFFECT OF
LENGTH OF EXPERIENCE

Appendix G

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THE EFFECT OF
LENGTH OF EXPERIENCE

Academic Freedom. Those judicial educators who have been in judicial education

 

for a long time value the freedom to put on programs they believe are appropriate.

Change Agent. The more experience judicial educators have, the more they value

 

their potential to make a positive impact.

Does Not Know. Respondents do not know whether length of experience makes a

 

difference in what their colleagues value about their work.

Ego Fulfillment. This term refers to the role that working with judges and

 

working in the court system plays in fulfilling personal ego needs. The perception was
that the more experience the judicial educator has, the more important ego fulfillment is.

Entrenchment. Judicial educators who have been in the field for a long time are

 

slow to change and are jaded. Long-term involvement results in the judicial educator’s
valuing continuity and sameness rather than innovation.

Exhibit Leadership. With experience, judicial educators exhibit leadership.

 

Holistic Approach. The more experience a judicial educator has the more well-

 

rounded the programming. Experienced judicial educators take a more theoretical or
philosophical approach to their work. In their later career years, they value a holistic

approach.

l8l

182

Politically Savvy. With experience, judicial educators become more politically

 

savvy. They know how to move in the same circles as the power players.

Reduced Impact. New judicial educators believe that they can make a difference

 

and that judicial education is valuable. However, over time, they become less sure of the
value of their work.

Relationships. The more time judicial educators have in judicial education, the

 

more they value the relationships they develop.

Self-Directed. More experienced judicial educators value their contributions.

 

They have more confidence in themselves, and they have more self-esteem. They look
for less external verification and rely more on their own appraisals of their work. They

value themselves more.

 

Appendix H

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS REGARDING VALUE DIFFERENCES
BASED ON ORGANIZATIONAL PLACEMENT

Appendix H

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS REGARDING VALUE DIFFERENCES
BASED ON ORGANIZATIONAL PLACEMENT

Judicial Education in Administrative Office/Supreme Court Structure

 

AO Division. Judicial education placed in an administrative office division has

 

high visibility and credibility. It also sends a signal that the supreme court is committed
to and respects education.

AO Unstable. Administrative offices are inherently unstable because of funding

 

uncertainties, and the political nature of the work, and the leadership on the supreme
court changes every time there is a new chief justice. This kind of uncertainty is so
disruptive that judicial education cannot possibly realize its true potential.

More Responsive. Judicial education organizations in the administrative

 

office/supreme court are more responsive to the education needs of judges and court
personnel than are their counter parts which function outside of the court system.

Symbolic. Judicial education that is under the direct control of the supreme court
sends a symbolic message to the trial courts that they are important and that their

concerns and needs matter.

183

 

184

Transforrnative. Judicial education, which comes from the court system, has a

 

better opportunity to transform that system because problems and issues are known and

can be addressed.

Judicial Education in Law School/University

 

Academic Freedom. More academic freedom is present in law schools and

 

universities than in court sponsored judicial education organizations.

Not Responsive. Academics are not part of the real world. Therefore, programs

 

emanating from law schools and universities are not focused on the pressing issues of the
courts. Also, they are distant, remote, and care little about the courts as organizations.
Prestige: Judicial education organizations housed within a law school or
university are more prestigious than judicial education organizations placed within the
court structure.
Scholarly. Law school judicial education programs are scholarly, but they may
not give judges and court personnel the knowledge and skills necessary to perform their

jobs.

Judicial Education in Independent Organizations

 

Administratively Neutral. The term “administratively neutral” referred to the

 

perception that judicial education organizations in this environment can remove
themselves from the political constraints that are present in state court systems. They do

not have to adhere to any particular administrative or political agenda.

185

Other Terms

 

Does Not Know. Judicial educators do not know whether organizational structure

 

makes a difference in what their colleagues value.

Environment. Environment always drives the work and what the individual

 

values about the work.

No Difference. Organizational structure has no bearing on what judicial educators

 

value about their work.

Appendix I

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS REGARDING WHETHER
AUDIENCE COMPOSITION MADE A DIFFERENCE IN WHAT
JUDICIAL EDUCATORS VALUED

Appendix I
DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS REGARDING WHETHER

AUDIENCE COMPOSITION MADE A DIFFERENCE IN WHAT
JUDICIAL EDUCATORS VALUED

All Audiences Important. The judge is only as good as his or her staff.
Therefore, all audiences are important.

Does Not Know. The respondents did not know whether audience composition
made a difference in what their colleagues valued about their work.

Judges Important. Judges are the most important audience. Judge programming is
the most prestigious; therefore, the most valuable and most valued by judicial educators.
Institutional survival rests on the judges’ happiness with and acceptance of the

educational programming.

186

_—-—I
—

     

Appendix J

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THE VALUE OF
JUDICIAL EDUCATION TEN YEARS INTO THE FUTURE

Appendix J

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THE VALUE OF
JUDICIAL EDUCATION TEN YEARS INTO THE FUTURE

Does Not Know. The respondents do not know what value judicial education will

 

have ten years into the future.

Learner-Directed Education. This term refers to the perception that as distance

 

education becomes more accessible, live programming will be replaced with formats in
which education can be had on demand.

Global Change. This term refers to the perception that as high-tech, mass

 

communication continues to facilitate discussion across the globe, the courts will be
called upon to settle legal disputes between the United States and other countries.

Professional Status. This term refers to the perception that technologically

 

advanced societies will force more people to identify themselves as professionals. Thus,
judicial education, as the primary provider of continuing professional education in the
courts, will become more valuable and in higher demand.

Public Accountability. Judicial education will become more important because

 

the need for public accountability for judges will be higher.

187

188

Social/Cultural Change. As the white population in the United States declines
and the African-American and Hispanic populations increase, the court will have to
reflect that change. One way it can prepare for the change is through judicial education.

System Improvement. Judicial education will become important in facilitating
improvements to the courts.

Technological Change. Technological advances will cause the most change for

 

the courts.

Value Professional Education. The value of judicial education will increase as

 

society becomes more complex and continuing professional education is the only way to

deal expeditiously with the complexities.

Appendix K

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THE STRENGTHS OF
JUDICIAL EDUCATION THAT PROMOTE ACHIEVEMENT OF
PROFESSIONAL STATUS

Appendix K

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THE STRENGTHS OF
JUDICIAL EDUCATION THAT PROMOTE ACHIEVEMENT OF
PROFESSIONAL STATUS

Address Court Complexity. The courts are becoming more complex in their

 

operations and in the cases they hear. Through education, the courts can be prepared for
this complexity.

Commitment to Professionalism. Judicial educators are highly educated; they
share common goals; they have a service ethic; they conduct themselves with decorum
and commitment; and they value their responsibility to develop the human potential
within the court, thus developing the court as an institution. The respondents reported
that there is a commitment to making judicial education a profession.

Constituency Advocates. This term refers to the perception that judicial education

 

has high-profile constituents who will advocate for the expansion of judicial education.

Court as Change Agent. This term refers to the perception that through education

 

the courts can be more proactive and take a leadership role in their communities.

Distance Education. With the advent of sophisticated technology, education on

 

demand will be a reality. The technology will also allow for the development of more
specialized education that may be of high need for a small population of learners.
Distance education has the potential to increase the size and variation of the audience

group, thus increasing the base of support for judicial education

189

190

Does Not Know. Respondents could not identify any strengths.

International Judicial Education. As other countries look to American judicial

 

education as a model, it will only enhance the presence and credibility of judicial
education in the United States.

Judicial Education Now Institutionalized. Judicial education has been visible

 

since the 19705. Because of its 30-year history, judicial education has become
recognized and institutionalized as a natural and necessary part of the judicial system.

Mandatory Judicial Education. As mandatory judicial education becomes more

 

prevalent, the position of judicial education will become solid and gain more recognition
and status.

Mentoring. Judicial education promotes mentoring across court types and
geographic regions. Thus, mentoring facilitates learning long after the educational event
is over.

National Advocates. As judicial education gains more national attention in the

 

legal and justice fields, conditions within the states will improve.

Networking. This term refers to the perception that because the field of judicial

 

education is still small, a great deal of networking can take place from state to state and
nationally, which increases cohesiveness and homogeneity.

Public Expectations. Public demands for more accountability will spill over into

 

the courts. As demands for accountability increase, the courts will have to maintain
extensive continuing education to meet the new demands.

Quality Programming. Judicial education comprises consistently high-quality

 

programming.

191

Role of the Judge. As judges become more visible, they will have to become more
versed in changing legal and contemporary issues.

Small Size. The small size of the field is a strength because it makes judicial
educators more cohesive and homogeneous. (Note: Small size was also reported as an
obstacle.)

Value of Professional Education. In this global high-tech society, people will

require continuing professional education; consequently, judicial education will gain

more support.

Appendix L

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THE OBSTACLES TO
JUDICIAL EDUCATION’S ACHIEVING PROFESSIONAL STATUS

h

 

Appendix L

DESCRIPTORS AND EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THE OBSTACLES TO
JUDICIAL EDUCATION’S ACHIEVING PROFESSIONAL STATUS

Devaluing Education. As primary and secondary education comes under attack,
so will continuing professional education. As the public devalues education, judicial
education will have a more difficult time gaining professional status.

Does Not Know. Judicial educators do not know what obstacles will prevent
judicial education from obtaining professional status.

Gender Devaluation. As the gender composition of judicial education becomes
more largely female, judicial education will have a harder time becoming recognized as a
profession because of the extreme gender bias that is still present in contemporary
society.

Hidden Work. To gain professional status, the work must be known, needed, and
well defined. The perception is that judicial education is hidden within the state court
System. Further, the state court system is hidden in comparison with the executive and
legislative branches of government.

wf Autonomy. Judicial educators perceive that the work is controlled by
judges and Others who make decisions about whether judicial education will live or die.

Withom autonomy, judicial educators perceive that it cannot gain professional status.

192

193

Lack of Clear Identity. Judicial education lacks a clear definition concerning the

 

following: what it is, who can do it, and how it should be done. The perception is that
professional status cannot be obtained under these conditions.

Lack of Mobility. One of the hallmarks of professional status is that it offers an

 

avenue for advancement. The perception is that judicial education has no career path or
mobility.

Lack of Recognition. For an occupation to obtain professional status, it must have

 

widespread recognition. Judicial education has no such recognition.

Limited to Definition of Judicial Education. Judicial education will only get as

 

large as its definition. Currently, it is more often thought of as providing knowledge,
skills, and abilities to judges on substantive and procedural legal issues. Judicial
educators indicated that until judicial education is viewed as necessary for the entire
judiciary, it will not be able to obtain professional status.

No Certification or Required Credentials. Until judicial education establishes

 

mandatory credentialling for judicial educators, it will never reach professional status.

No Leadershyg. Judicial educators reported that the occupation has never had the

 

type of leadership that can take it beyond day-to-day performance issues and into the
larger arena of establishing itself as a profession.

No Public Relations Effort. Judicial educators perceived that NASJE has
undertaken no public relations effort that will increase the professional standing of
judicial education. The perception was that without such an effort, judicial education will

continue to rest on an unstable foundation.

h

 

194

No Universally Accepted Standards. Judicial educators indicated that, in order for
judicial education to receive professional status, it must have universally accepted
standards. Such standards do not exist.

Pioneering Effort. Judicial education is a pioneering effort. There are many
things it must do to make it institutionally recognized and ready for professional status.

Too Small. Judicial education, as an enterprise, is far too small to become
recognized as a profession.

Unstable Support. Judicial education does not have solid institutional support,
nor does it have solid fiscal support. This lack of support calls into question its

permanent viability and ability to gain professional status.

APPENDIX M

TABLES 18-92

195

Table 18. Judicial Education Job Responsibilities by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL
Responsibilities Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Budgeting 14 28 20 40 34 68
Program/curriculum development 14 28 19 38 33 66
Personnel 1 3 26 17 34 3O 60
Direct advisory committee 8 16 15 30 23 46
Contracting faculty 6 12 16 32 22 44
Needs assessment 7 l4 14 28 21 42
Planning 7 14 13 26 20 40
Evaluation 7 I4 12 24 19 38
Approving invoices 5 10 13 26 18 36
On-site program management 6 12 12 24 18 36
Direct program committees 5 IO 13 26 18 36
Direct/advise policy board 5 10 13 26 18 36
Policy development 7 14 10 20 17 34
Contracting facilities 5 10 12 24 17 34
Resource enhancement 4 8 12 24 16 32
Out-of-state travel 4 8 7 14 ll 22
Publications 5 10 6 12 l l 22
Legislative input on judicial
_giucation matters 5 10 5 10 10 20
Teaching 3 6 7 14 10 20
Oversight of mandatory and/or
certificate credits 1 2 4 8 5 10
Delivery technologies 1 2 2 4 3 o
gaff Policy board 3 o 3 6
Local training network 2 4 2 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

196

Table 19. Judicial Education Job Responsibilities by Educational Background

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LAW-TRAINED NON-LAW-TRAINED TOTAL
Responsibilities Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Budgeting 16 32 18 36 34 68
Program/curriculum
development 16 32 17 34 33 66
Personnel 14 28 16 32 30 60
Direct advisory
committee 10 20 13 26 23 46
Contracting faculty 8 16 14 28 22 44
Needs assessment 10 20 ll 22 21 42
Planning 9 l8 1 l 22 20 40
Evaluation 9 1 8 10 20 19 38
Approving invoices 6 12 12 24 18 36
On-site program
management 7 14 1 1 22 18 36
Direct program
committees 7 14 1 1 22 1 8 36
Direct/advise policy
board 8 16 10 20 18 36
Policy development 10 20 7 l4 17 34
Contracting facilities 6 12 11 22 17 34
Resource
enhancement 6 12 10 20 16 32
Out-of-state travel 7 l4 4 8 l l 22
Publications 8 16 3 6 l l 22
Legislative input on
judicial education
gatters 7 l4 3 6 10 20
jleaclflg 5 10 5 10 10 20
Oversight of
mandatory and/or
Erfificate credits 5 10 5 10
Delivery
tichnologies 1 2 2 4 3 6
Séafi policy board 1 2 2 4 3 6
Local training
network 1 2 1 2 2 4

 

Valid Cases=50

 

 

197

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N N_ N _ O m w v w v 826333
ON 2 N _ O m O m O m 635 883950
Nm 2 v N N _ v N O _ m N _ O “588525
ooh—88¢
em 2 O m 2 a N_ O moEzofl wczogcoo
Vm .2 O m v N O_ m w v O m “5:50.03“. 5:0;
E t o m w o w a. 2 m N _ was E8
83.58th
em 2 N _ N _ O _ m N _ O w v moQEEan
Efimoa 825
Om m _ O m O. m 3 n Eon—«ween:—
Eon 0:25
Om m _ O m m: w 3 N. 329:: wE>oEa<
O». ON v N O m ON O _ O _ m cones—gm
Nv _N w v O m w v E b O m wEEfiE
N». _N N _ O m w v M: O w v EoEmmommm $32
3. NN N L O m NN _ _ E n 33$ wczogcoo
3V NN O m O m w v E N. O _ m 32558
Damien 825
OO Om O _ n O _ m M: o NN _ _ _oacoflom
OO mm O m w v N_ O ON 2 ON 2 “cacao—gov
E23E=§=§moi
we em 2 m N. O at: w ON On O. m wzzomesm
E35; 3:2.ch E85; 3:252..— Eoohum 3:252"— Euocum .85:ch E86; 35:52..— Eooaum .8532“. on=£maoamuM
m0¢<4
4<HOF @«J -OH-ED_Q§ EDEN—2 ‘SSZm ZOEAHEO

 

an aaoaaaaao B aééaoaom no. 8.38:8 39.65 .2 D32

 

 

198

enuaao 23>

 

x836:
wEEmb _auoq

 

Egon 3:2. team

 

mafia—0:58
bo>=oo

 

O—

3620 885:3
8B5 boEeSE
co E3330

 

ON

O—

misused.

 

ON

O—

Eons:
cosmos? .2063.
so EOE causeway—

 

E85;

.8532“.

Eueum

35:35

E83;

.85:qu

 

 

 

~Euuhom

 

3:252;

«COP—UL

.3532...

E35.

.3532“—

 

 

mas—5233M

 

 

1. «FOP

 

mom/3

 

moxefi
-O._.-_ZD_DmE

 

$55M:

 

‘ESZw

 

ZOmxmmm—ZO

 

 

 

 

Orcoov 8mm _ecouSEeweo .3 82=£m=ommo- OOH couwoawm ESE: .am $22.

 

ll

 

199

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 M: o m a o 2 a w a .58 3.8

33.3325

Om m. N. O O. m O. m v N mooxEEoU

EEwoa 885

3 w _ o m w v E w o m 2559.55

.5...on oeméo

3 2 o m o m E w w a 822:. 9.329?

mm O. w v O. m N. O w v 5.339”.

S. ON w e O m ON O. O m 9:587.

Ne .N w v N. O v. n w v E05383 382

3 mm o. m w e O. m o. m .932... @3858

O... MN N. O v. .. O m v. .. 858.50

@833 62F.

OO Om O. w v. n O. O N. O .quBum

OO m m w . o v. N. w. o O. O Eve—5.23%

EEEEEEEEoE

8 a M: a E a an : E a 9:385

8:252”. E35. 8553:. E35. 8532“. 8:252“. E33; .8532... E35. 8:252”. worm—55:033.
...<...O.r mmmm<oémuz<>o< Qmoz<>o<-o.r-n.=>. okEdWBlmuz Mmmm<0<5m2

 

 

 

 

 

owfim Bongo .3 mow...£m:o%om 5.0.. noumoswm 30%.... .~ N mEmH

 

 

200

Omum0mao E.n>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v N N . N . 0.20.50:

w:.:.e..: .80..

0 m N _ N . N _ .58 5:8 tam

o m N _ v N 83852

D0509

O. m N . v N N . N . $620 88....200

SEEN N29205:.

.o Em.20>0

ON 2 v N o m o N v N 2225

ON O. w v O. m N . 2022:

5.60.60 .2063

:o EOE 0>.E.m.w0..

NN . . N . O m O m w v 22:00.33.

NN . . O m v N O N. O m .055 28.30-50

Nm O. N . O. m v. N O m E0E00:§.:0

00.583.

am N. O m w v v. N O m 8.2.68 wEENEoU

em N. O m w v O. O O. m E0E..20>0O 8:9.

8:03.02“. E02»... 8:03.02... E020... 8:252... 8:032”. E020; 8:20.02... E02“... 8:252... 35:56:88”.
..<...O... mmmm<uémoz<>o< DMUZ<>D<-O..-Q.E n...>.-O..->»mZ mmmM<U$>mZ

 

 

 

3.83 owsm .85 3 Buzsioaom .o. 8.32.3. 30...... . . N OEE

 

 

 

201

Table 22. Non-Judicial-Education Job Responsibilities by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL

Responsibilities Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

A0 management

team‘ 6 33.3 12 66.7 18 100

Study

committees/task

forces/special

projects 5 27.8 12 66.7 17 94.5

Legislative input on

judicial branch

matters 3 16.7 7 38.9 10 55.6

Public

information/media 6 33 6 33.3

Judicial branch

legal counsel 1 5.5 4 22.2 5 27.8
TrTaicial branch

personnel 2 l 1.1 3 16.7 5 27.8

Judicial branch

policy development 2 11.] 2 11.1 4 22.2

Judicial branch

budgeting 1 5.5 2 l 1.1 3 16.7

Judicial branch

newsletters 3 16.7 3 16.7

Judicial branch

planning 1 5.5 l 5.5 2 11.1

Law libTary 1 5.5 1 5.5 2 11.1

Judicial

performance

review 1 5.5 1 5.5 2 11.1

Judicial branch

reports 2 11.1 2 11.1

Negotiate court

contracts 1 5.5 1 5.5

Trial court

performance

reporting 1 5.5 l 5.5

Judge financial

statements 1 5.5 1 5.5

Electronic

technology 1 5.5 1 5.5

Acting SCA" 1 5.5 l 5.5

Clerk procedures 1 5.5 1 5.5

 

 

 

 

*Administrative Office Management Team
"Acting State Court Administrator

Valid Cases=18

202

Table 23. Non-Judicial-Education Job Responsibilities by Educational Background

 

LAW-TRAIN ED

NON-LAW-TRAIN ED

TOTAL

 

Responsibilities

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

 

A0 management
team"

5

27.8

13

72.2

18

100

 

Study
committees/task
forces/special
projects

38.9

10

55.5

17

94.4

 

Legislative input on
judicial branch
matters

33.3

22.2

10

55.5

 

Public
information/media

33.3

33.3

 

Judicial branch
legal counsel

27.8

27.8

 

Tidicial branch
personnel

1].]

27.8

 

Judicial branch
policy development

22.2

 

Judicial branch
budgeting

5.5

16.7

 

Judicial branch
newsletters

5.5

16.7

 

Judicial branch
planning

5.5

11.1

 

Law library

11.]

11.1

 

Judicial
performance
review

5.5

5.5

 

Judicial branch
reports

5.5

5.5

11.1

 

Negotiate contracts

5.5

5.5

 

Trial court
performance
reporting

5.5

5.5

 

Judge financial
statements

5.5

5.5

 

Electronic
technology

5.5

5.5

 

Acting SCA”

5.5

5.5

 

 

Clerk procedures

 

 

 

 

5.5

 

 

5.5

 

*Administrative Office Management Team

"Acting State Court Administrator

Valid Cases=18

 

203

 

Ow

Wm .

0.02.50
2.80 0.....ow0z

 

....

Wm .

Wm .

$.32 :05... 3.0.3:

 

....

Wm .

30.5..
85:28.2. 3.0.9:

 

....

Wm .

Wm .

55: 5.

 

....

Wm .

Wm

w:...5...
:05... 3.0.9...

 

N.O.

N.O.

205.030..
.055 30......

 

N.O.

Wm .

....

3.83....
:05... 3.0.3...

 

N.NN

m6

Wm .

Om .

Wm

...0.....o.0>0..
3...... :05... 3.0.3...

 

Wm

.... N

35020..
:05... 3.0.2..

 

N.NN

m6

.... N

Wm

.0258
a»... .235 32.5.

 

Wmm

.... N

Wm .

N.O.

m...0...\..o.3E..o¢E.
0......n.

 

9mm

O.

....

N.NN v

N.NN

205... :05... 3.06%
:o .3... 033.030..

 

Ova

N.

Wm

N.O.

N.NN v

w.NN m

N.NN

v

$00.8... 3.02.5020.
38.03.5500 33m

 

OO.

O.

....

N

N.O.

m

N.O. m

m.mm O

N.NN

v

.50. E25555 O<

 

E020.

 

5:032“.

3020..

 

3:032...

 

3020.. 3:030...

 

E020... 5:032...

 

38.0.. 3532..

3020..

 

3:032".

80:322.“;

 

 

..<...O...

 

W55

 

MOM/.1.

-02229M2

 

235M:

 

\.a.<2m

 

209E320

 

 

a... 3:23.55 .3 2......253. cc. 8383-322..ch «N as...

 

204

«.5030 23>

.o.abm.:.5..< taco 0.5m w:..0<:
500... 50509502 0050 0>..a..m.:.5..<.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.m . Wm . 8.3.08... .105
n. . n. . :50 02.2
w.m _ Wm _ 320::00. 0.:ob00.m
m .m . Wm . 0505023
5.05:... 0%....
m.m . Wm . w:...o..0.\00:05..o.t0..
:30 5.;
500.0. .8530... 500.0. 3:030... 500...... 3:030... 500...... 5:03»... 58.0.. 3:030... 500.0. 5:030... mu.._.....m=onmuy.
m0”??—
4<HOH $.43 -OP-ED.DM2 23.0mm). ‘.1.<.>.m ZOmxm..-m.ZO

 

0.80. 3.0 523.505 3 82.3.8880 no. 8085....-.s23782 .3 0......

 

l1

 

 

205

 

_.2

m6

n6

33>”:
8.5.5023 3063.

 

fl:

Wm

Wm

has: 33

 

_.:

Wm

Wm _

mafia—n
55.5 33.5..

 

>6—

mfi _

flute—mac:
555 3063

 

b.0—

magma—5
5:82 30%....

 

N.NN

Wm _

28:50.32. 5:3
£255 36%.:

 

«KN

3:582.
55.5 322:.

 

«SN

Wm

_.:

Wm _

_omaaoo
Emu. figs 3%.:

 

m.mm

N.NN

«_voEEoumncomfi
33am

 

mdn

o—

b.0—

5.2

_.: N

”—ng

.53 322..
so 59: 262334

 

Yea

C

wSm

«SN

m.mm

Wm _

88.83
333.5028
xmfiuooEEEou

bém

 

co—

«—

N.NN

m.mm

0

”SN

_.: N

.158
EoEowmaaE O<

 

 

3:302".

 

«GDP—on—

.6:ng

 

«gon—

mucus—VB..—

 

Fag—.2..—

E88.—

 

Faun—.2".

 

.520; >833...—

mozmmnmmaoamod

 

17:0,“.

 

MmmM<0ém02<>D<

 

QmUZ<>D<.OH.n=E

 

BEéhémz h

 

dmggk’mz

 

 

3% .35 B sééeamom as Basswafiaaoz .3 29¢

 

206

w _ "83 23>

§Em§§< E50 23 mag:

88% EoEuwacm—z 850 u>zah£EEu<u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wm _ Wm _ 85385 €20

2 _ nm _ .28 meg

mun _ m.m _ Awe—9:83

quboflm

Wm _ Wm _ mEQEBSm

328.5 owvzq

Wm _ m.m _ wfitoqfi

SSW—Ecru“—

:=8 3.;

m.m _ Wm _ 923:8

E50 Bacowoz

_.: N m.m _ m.m _ $83..

5:89 .239...

35:3.”— Euosm 3:252“. ESSA 3:252”— zocuaaam 585m 35:32". Eueum xenon—.2... moEzfimconmoM
12.—bk Mmmd<0§m02<>o< QMUZ<>Q<-O(_H£2 QPEéHi/WZ Mmmm<o45mz

 

 

 

 

 

3.83 owSm 883 E mogémcoqmom 22. :ouaozcm-_m_o%3.-=oz .mm 2an

 

207

Table 26. What Judicial Educators Valued About Their Work by Sex

Value
Developing human

Education
Role of the court in

Intellectual
Education

in work
A
Abi to influence

Status

Does not know
Success

Power

V

Financial

Valid Cases=50

MALE

Percent
32

FEMALE
Percent
28 56

IO
9

4
8
5
4
2
l
2
3

t

u—n—i
WW

_

TOTAL
Percent
88

36
26

NNN&&&O\Q

N

 

208

Table 27. What Judicial Educators Valued About Their Work
by Educational Background

LAW-TRAINED NON-LAW-TRAINED TOTAL
Value Percent F Percent Percent
Chan 19 38 25 50 88
Developing human

A
h

10
Education 12
Role of the court in

36
26

— _
oo‘oo
u—t u—N
o~°° 4km
_— flfl
—w W”

Intellectual
Education
in work
Autonom
to influence

Status

iation
Does not know
Success
Power
V
Financial

9
3
5
2
4
2
3
l
l
l
l

NNNNQ-bmb
u—nc—u—t—I—I—N—w—AUJOO-h
NNNNNNbN¢NO¢G
———NNNWAMMO\OO
NNN-BQAOSW

 

—
N

Valid Cases=50

209

ownmommu 23>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N _ N _ :ozamcanOu 3055..—
N _ N _ 5:535
N _ N _ .oBom
N ~ N _ 3825
v N N _ N _ 305. 8: 800
v N v N confluorauax
v N N _ N _ 35m
0 m N _ N _ N _ 838m
w v N _ N _ v N 85:55 8 b=5<
o. m N _ N _ N _ v N age—85¢.
o_ m N _ v N v N x83 5 Dakota
N. o v N o m N ~ 835:. census—cm
2 m N _ N _ w v v N 538m 338:8:—
NN _ _ N _ v N w v w v 83223;
cm 2 N _ v N w a. e m o m @208
E 58 2: t6 20M
N m. e m N _ o m e m c m 3308 828:3—
em 3 v N c m 3 N. w v v N 33:88
58:; 9:53.050
l3 3. o. m E m mm _ _ on 2 om 2 Eons owafio
ESSA mucus—.2..— Eoocun— 3:258“— Euobm Nucoscam Eaton 35:79...— Eousn— 3538; E85.— »2532... o:_n>
mow—<1—
x_<._tO._. V973 -Ohéfidnw—z 235sz ‘SEZm ZOmEkaO

 

85 3:23:35 3 v.83 so“: 522 3:?» 58:8 323 ~23 .3 2E

 

ll

 

 

210

cmuaao 23>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N _ N _ cocmmcomES
Eur—«Em
N _ N _ baa”;
N _ N _ .038
N _ N _ mmooozm
v N v N >85— 8: moon
v N N _ N _ :o_§oo._&<
v N N E N _ 58m
0 m N _ N _ N _ 627.3.
w v o m N _ 8:265 2 b=5<
o. w v N N _ v N NEocoS<
o. m N _ v N v N x53 E biota
N_ o o m N _ v N 8285 :ozauscm
m: w v N N _ N _ w v 53on 338:2:—
NN _ _ v N w v o N v N £282.33.
0N 2 S m c m w v N _ @2qu
E :38 0:80 2cm
N m _ N_ c c m o m N 2 $895 cos—8.6m
em 2 E m E N 2 m N _ 3228
58:: mime—gun—
ww 3. «N N. N m _ N N_ 3 N. Eowu owcuso
mucus—c2... Evy—um mecca—5....— Eoohom 3:032; caucus—cam Evy—um 5:33..“— Euocom mucosa»; o=_a>
52.0% Mmmm<udmoz<>a< QMUZ<>D<-OH-E ESTOWB§ xmmx<o-3mz

 

 

 

 

 

”mam .85 B is,» Efi 33< 8:3 magnum E23 3:3 .8 2%:

 

211

Table 30. Value of Work to Judicial Educators

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
Sex

Female
Male
Educational
Law-trained
Non-law-trained
size
Medium

Small
Medium-to-
Career
Mid-to-advanced
New-career
New-to—mid
Advanced

 

Valid Cases=50

ll

 

 

212

Table 31. What Significant Others Valued About Judicial Education by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL
Value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Change agent 8 16 10 20 18 36
Values m? 6 12 9 18 15 30
Prestige 2 4 6 12 8 16
Role of the court in
society 7 l4 7 14
Does not know 4 8 3 6 7 14
Does not know
work 5 10 5 10
Values all
education 1 2 2 4 3 6
Does not value 1 2 l 2 2 4
Organizational
skills 1 2 1 2
Financial
compensation l 2 1 2
Recognition l 2 l 2
Court public
education 1 2 l 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cases=50

 

213

Table 32. What Significant Others Valued About Judicial Education
by Educational Background

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LAW-TRAIN ED NON-LAW-TRAINED TOTAL
Value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Change agent 10 20 8 16 18 36
Values me 7 14 8 16 15 3O
Prestige 2 4 6 12 8 16
Role of the court in
society 4 8 3 6 7 14
Does not know 3 6 4 8 7 14
Does not know
work 4 8 4 8
Values all
education 2 4 l 2 3 6
Does not value 1 2 1 2 2 4
Organizational
skills 1 2 l 2
Financial
compensation l 2 l 2
Recognition 1 2 1 2
Court public
education 1 2 l 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cases=50

 

214

cmumomau 23>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N _ N _ 5:835
0:93 :30
N _ N _ cozawoaom
N _ N _ nonsmcanOu
BUS—LE
N _ N _ mExm
_mco:§_=mw.0
v N N _ N _ o=_m> 8: 800
o m N _ N _ N _ 5:823
=a mo=_m>
o_ m N _ N N v N N _ x33
>65. 8: moon
3 N. v N N _ N _ N _ v N 305. 8: 800
: N v N N _ v N v N 538
E :38 05 No 23.
2 w o m e m 4 N 8:85
cm 2 v N w v v N o. w v N 2: mo=_m>
mm M: v N N _ z N w v w v =5? 88.6
ESSA Nazca—.2“. ESSA— Nucusve... .529; 35:32“. 283; 5:252“. E86“. 5:252". E85.— »ocosvam o:_m>
mom’s
44219—1 m0m<q 6.723532 22sz gqém ZOmMmmkanO

 

 

 

 

Ba 3:23:35 3 8%88 323 522 8:3 3.5 fiéawa 3:3 .2 22¢

 

215

ownsao 23>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N _ N _ cosmos?

0:33 550

N _ N _ SENS;

N _ N _ :ocmmcanoo

.2053:—

N _ N _ NExN

_NcozfiENwNO

v N N _ N _ 2:? 8: 800

c m N _ N _ N _ cosmos?

=N 82.3

o_ n v N v N N N V:2;

>55. 8: Noon—

: N c m v N v N >65. 8: 800

E N N _ v N v N v N 968

E N58 05 he 20m

2 N N _ v N N v N _ “NEE

cm 2 o. m 2 w v N c m 2: mo=_m>

NN N_ 2 N N v N. N N N New“ owsao

E85; 3532,.— Eueum 3:252... E33; 5:0:ch E83; 5532“. E38“. .3532... o=_a>
1:90;. Mmmm<odmuz<>fl< EZ<>D<-OK_HQI_IZ 82-0%-3WZ Mmmz<0-3mz

 

 

 

 

 

”Nam .85 3 8:8:me 323 322 3:15 226 anemia :33 .NN 033

 

|\

 

 

Table 35

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
Sex

Female
Male
Educational
Law-trained
Non-law-trained
size
Medium-to-

Medium
Small

Career
Advanced-career
New-to-mid
Mid-to-advanced
New-career

 

Valid Cases=36

216

. Value of Work to Significant Other

FREQUENCY

23
l3

l9
l7

217

Table 36. What Friends Valued About Judicial Education by Sex

MALE FEMALE TOTAL
Value Percent Percent Percent
Does not know
work 24 20 44
Does not know 18 24
8 12
10 12

Women value
women 6
Role of the court in

Influence

Personal
enhancement
Status

Value all education

Survival skills
Ethics

 

Valid Cases=50

ll

 

 

218

Table 37. What Friends Valued About Judicial Education by Educational Background

LAW-TRAINED NON—LAW-TRAINED TOTAL

Value Percent F Percent Percent
Does not know
work 20 24 44
Does not know 10 14 24

4 8 12

6 6 12
Women value
women 6
Role of the court in

Influence

Personal
enhancement
Status

Value all education

Survival skills
Ethics

 

Valid Cases=50

ll

 

 

219

ownmommu 23>

 

82m.

 

Exm 33>sz

 

£3320

 

35.633

 

5:83.» _3 33>

 

58m

 

VNNNNNN

N—‘—-—-—-—‘-—

“cog—cognac
_MCOmhon—

 

V

N

00:035.:

 

bfluom
E taco 2t .8 20m

 

:uEOB
o=_u> COEOB

 

N_

owzmoh;

 

N—

Euwa owEEU

 

VN

V
N

365 go: much—

 

3

00°60?

VV'MN

x83
>65. 8: Neon

 

ESE;

 

5:252;

 

38.6; caucus—.2;

 

385; 5532;

 

E85; 3532;

 

38.5; caucus—NB;

 

E85;

.3532;

33>

 

 

4<HOH

 

H323

 

m0¢<4
-OPéADHDm—z

 

235W:

 

13:85

 

zomfiazo

 

 

Ba Eofiwawco B 8:835 E23 522 3.3 $55 :33

.mm 073,—.

 

220

omnmommo 23>

 

8:2:

 

as: :3an

 

22320

 

2:20:33

 

£23223 _3 23>

 

NNNNNN

~——-—.——

2.35

 

VNNNNNN

N——-———-—

acoEou—azcv
_MEOmhwm

 

V

N

02.535:—

 

D208
:_ 2:8 2: No 201

 

N

COS—03
o:_m> ~5an

 

N—

027.2;

 

N—

EowN owSEU

 

VN

N
o
v

VNN

w v

>35; 8: N25

 

vv

 

N

—.

\ONM—

3

(\N——

OOOOVV
VVNN

0— m

283
305. No: Noon—

 

E33;

3:252;

3.09—Un—

 

3:262;

E85;

 

3:932;

 

E25;

3:262;

 

E029;

3:252;

23>

 

 

A<;.O;.

 

mmmM<U-Qmoz<>Q<

 

 

almuz<>o<6Ndhz

 

Q_E-O;.-3mz

 

Mmm¢<o<$mz

 

 

 

 

 

2% 528 3 8285 322: 822 823» 2.5:: 3:3 .2 2.5

 

221

Table 40. Value of Work to Friends

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE FREQUENCY
Sex

Female

Male
Educational

Law-trained

Non-law-trained

size

Small
Medium
Medium-to-
Career
Mid-to-advanced
Advanced-career
New-to-mid
New-career

 

Valid Cases=lO

Table 41. What Organizational Peers Valued About Judicial Education by Sex

MALE FEMALE TOTAL
Value Percent Percent Percent
8 16 24
Does not know 14 10 24
Does not know
work 4 14 18

Does not value 2 14 16
Their involvement 4 4 8
Does not have

Product

Value all education

 

Valid Cases=50

222

Table 42. What Organizational Peers Valued About Judicial Education
by Educational Background

LAW-TRAIN ED NON-LAW-TRAIN ED TOTAL
Value Percent F Percent Percent
6 18 24
Does not know 14 10 24
Does not know
work 18

Does not value 16
Their involvement 8
Does not have

Product

 

Value all education

Valid Cases=50

223

omnmomao 23>

 

5:825 =m 2::>

 

wEStzz

 

N

Ewe;

 

”\OVN

VMNF‘

202;
32; E: moon;

 

Vt

EoEo>_o>:_ 22:1

 

M

2:? 8: moon.

 

2

x29:
305 8: moon;

 

N

N.

N

v—

N.

N

_

o

m

.505 “O: moon—

 

«N

N—

N

o

m

c

m

o

m

v

N

E03? 335::

 

E020;

 

3:252;

E220;

 

3:052;

E020;

 

5:252;

E920;

 

5:352;

«cucuom

 

3:952;

E020;

 

3:252;

33>

 

 

A<;.O;r

 

$25

 

mox<4
622265.

 

$55M:

 

1:5)5

 

ZOmMm;-mZO

 

 

8% 383890 3 8283 323 33¢. was; an»; 38332520 3:» .3 03¢

 

224

owumommo 23>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N _ N _ cons—60 =m 2._a>
v N v N 9:23.52
0 m N _ v N 2262;
w v v N N _ N _ 200;
03: 8: 300
w v v N N _ N _ E25235 22F
E m N _ v N o m v N 03? 8: moon;
3 o v N v N N _ w v x53
Bocx «O: moOQ
N N_ w v v N w v v N >65. Ho: 309
N N. o m w v e m v N E063 m0>2;E;
E020; 3:052; E020; 3:052; E020; 3:252; E020; 3:052; E020; 3:252; ”25>
44210.: Mmmm<udmoz<>o< QMUZ<>D<-OH-Q.;IE‘ £2-033m2 Mumm<o-3mz

 

 

 

 

 

2% 595 E 8283 323 58¢. 8:3, £8; 3:23:25 3:3 .3 032

 

ll

 

 

Table 45

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
Sex
Female
Male
Educational
Non-law-trained
Law-trained

Medium-to-
Small

Medium

Career
New-to-mid
Mid-to-advanced
Advanced-career
New-career

 

Valid Cases=24

225

. Value of Work to Organizational Peers

FREQUENCY

l6
8

14
10

ll

 

 

226

Table 46. What Other Judicial Educators Valued About the Respondent’s Judicial

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Education Work by Sex

MALE FEMALE TOTAL
Value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Does not know 12 24 12 24 24 48
Does not know work 1 2 12 24 I3 26
Leadership 2 4 3 6 5 10
My effort 1 2 3 6 4 8
Application of adult
education theories,
principles, and
practices 1 2 l 2 2 4
Intergovernmental
relations 1 2 l 2
Product 1 2 l 2
Change agent 1 2 l 2
Longevity 1 2 l 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cases=50

Table 47. What Other Judicial Educators Valued About the Respondent’s Judicial
Education Work by Educational Background

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LAW-TRAINED NON-LAW-TRAINED TOTAL
Value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Does not know 14 28 10 20 24 48
Does not know work 2 4 ll 22 13 26
Leadership 3 6 2 4 5 10
My effort I 2 3 6 4 8
Application of adult
education theories,
principles, and
practices 2 4 2 4
Intergovernmental
relations I 2 l 2
Product 1 2 l 2
Change agent 1 2 1 2
Longevity 1 2 l 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cases=50

 

 

227

omumummo v=n>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N _ N _ £39.01—
N _ N _ Eomm 0320
N _ N _ 8355
N _ N _ 228.2
_anEEgowcoE—
v N N _ N _ moocufin
can £29053
£3805 cosmos?
:28 mo :o:8=&<
w v N _ v N N _ tote 32
2 w. v N N _ N _ N _ 2.22884
0N m. N _ N _ o m o_ w c m x53 305. 8: 800
3 .N w v e m N_ o N_ e o_ m >55 8: moon
Enuaom 5:03.92“. E35; 5538... E33; 13533.; E85“— zucoscocm E029; >05:ch E33“— xucosvoi 033/
momaj
172.0% m0¢<4 -9722sz SEEMS 4.235 ZOmyW—mflzo

 

Em acoufiwawao 3 as? 8888 323 €52§£ 2: 522 8:3, eesém 333 550 .23 .9, 03¢

 

ll

228

8886 23>

 

bm>ow=oq

 

Eoma owSEU

 

5.69.;

 

NNNN

.———.—

28:22
_ScoEEo>ow.5E_

 

8258; .98
335%.; £252;
8:835 :33

mo :o:3=;;<

 

w

tote >2

 

o—

m

N

N

N

355954

 

0N

m—

N—

x53
>55— 8: moon—

 

xv

VN

 

@—

w

o—

m

o—

m

N—

o

30.5— HOC moon—

 

E85;

3538;

E85;

 

3515.;

E85;

 

55:32;

E85;

 

3.5338;

E85;

 

3:532;

52a>

 

 

4<;.O._r

 

 

EOEE

 

onuz<>o<éfio|§

 

DF2-O._1-3mZ

 

MmmM<U$>mZ

 

 

omfim 55.80 3 x83 53853; 3063. muconconwom 05 33¢. v2.1.5 mcoweosvm 339:. 550 85$ .3 £an

 

 

229

Table 50. What Supervisors Valued About Judicial Education by Sex

MALE FEMALE TOTAL

Value Percent Percent Percent
Does not know 20 10 30

14 8 22
Relations with
courts 1 2 6 18

8 2 10
Consistent

Know
No lems
Communication

skills

Does not value
No '
Adult education
to law
Candor
Does not know
work
Leadersh
Positive attitude
Public relations
T

 

Valid Cases=50

230

Table 51. What Supervisors Valued About Judicial Education
by Educational Background

LAW-TRAINED NON-LAW-TRAINED TOTAL

Value Percent F Percent Percent
Does not know 16 14 3O

8 14 22
Relations with
courts 6 12 1 8

4 6 10
Consistent

Know
No
Communication

skills

Does not value

No

Adult education
lication to law

Candor

Does not know

work

Positive attitude
Public relations
T

 

Valid Cases=50

23]

 

cmumomau 23>

 

mchaoH

 

E252 23:;

 

33:3 3E8;

 

955354

 

NNNNN

x53
32$ 8: moon

 

N

5250

 

>3— 9 :o_Eo=;;u
5:835 :32;

 

E83595 oZ

 

oEm> .o: 500

 

237.
cozmoizfiEoU

 

3538; 02

 

('1

535.305;

 

5:038;
E3350

 

o—

V

Eowu owEEU

 

M:

3.58
5:: Eons—um

 

NN

_—

N

_

e

m

c

m

v

N

889$ 535E;

 

om

m—

N

_

c

m

E

w

c

m

>205 HO: moon

 

E85;

 

55:32;

2.33:0».—

5:538;

 

E85;

 

35:39.;

acuohuk

 

35:3...—

”Evy—oa—

 

5532;

E85;

 

3:532;

o:_u>

 

 

ion—10h

 

m

0.;«3

 

Evy—<4
-OHéfidDmE

 

SSH—m:

 

44<Em

 

ZOmMm;-mZO

 

 

 

53m EcowSNEwwHO .3 5:835»; 352:. Eon? c523, muofltogm E55 .Nm 538.

 

232

omumowmu 23>

 

9:58;.

 

ESE—2 23:;

 

82:8 53:8;

 

955354

 

NNNNN

x53
>65— 8: .509

 

N

Lou—EU

 

>3. 8 :o_Eo=;;m
:23qu 23%

 

Sakai oZ

 

o:—N> HOE moon—

 

23m
coma—NEESEEOU

 

2538; 02

 

_.

535.305;

 

coco—68;
EoEmcoU

 

o—

Eoma owcmnu

 

a.

$58
55 30:23;

 

NN

_—

v

N

o

m

o—

m

N

_

88m? 835::

 

om

 

m—

w

v

v

N

e

m

N—

o

Bop—X “O: moon—

 

E85;

3532;

acupam

 

5.5202;

E85;

 

5.53:2;

E85;

 

5.5352;

wavy—un—

 

5:262;

83>

 

 

A<;.O;.

 

MmmM<UAEUZ<>D<

 

 

QmUZ<>Q<-OP-n—._IS_

 

Q:2-0;H>EZ

 

mmmm<0i>m2

 

 

 

omflm 5530 3 cosmos—cm 3533. 53¢. 833/ whommtgsm 3:3 .mm 23;.

 

233

Table 54. Value of Work to Supervisors

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE FREQUENCY
Sex

Male 1 5

Female 29
Educational

Non-law-trained 24

Law-trained l 9

size
Medium-to-

Small

Medium

Career
New-to—mid
Advanced-career
New-career
Mid-to-advanced

 

Valid Cases=44

234

Table 55. What Audiences Valued About Judicial Education by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL
Value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Increased KSA“ 16 32 10 20 26 52
Collegiality 7 14 7 14 14 28
Quality learning
experience 5 10 9 1 8 14 28
Safe learning
environment 4 8 5 10 9 1 8
Does not know 1 2 6 12 7 14
Quality service 2 4 4 8 6 12
Attention they
receive 4 8 2 4 6 12
Judicial educator
hard work 2 4 2 4
Judicial educator
knowledge 2 4 2 4
Judicial educator
candor 1 2 1 2
Judicial educator
confidentiality l 2 I 2
Location 1 2 I 2
Mandatory
CLE/CJE" 1 2 1 2
Obtaining financial
resources 1 2 1 2
Supreme court
commitment 1 2 1 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Increased Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities
"Mandatory Continuing Legal Education/Continuing Judicial Education

Valid Cases=50

 

ll

 

 

235

Table 56. What Audiences Valued About Judicial Education by Educational Background

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LAW-TRAIN ED NON-LAW-TRAINED TOTAL
Value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Increased KSA“ l l 22 15 3O 26 52
Collegiality 6 12 8 16 14 28
Quality learning
experience 6 12 8 1 6 14 28
Safe learning
environment 4 8 5 10 9 18
Does not know 3 6 4 8 7 14
Quality service 3 6 3 6 6 [2
Attention they
receive 3 6 3 6 6 12
Judicial educator
hard work 2 4 2 4
Judicial educator
knowledge 2 4 2 4
Judicial educator
candor l 2 l 2
Judicial educator
confidentiality l 2 l 2
Location 1 2 l 2
Mandatory
CLE/CJE" l 2 l 2
Obtaining financial
resources 1 2 1 2
Supreme court
commitment 1 2 l 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Increased Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities
”Mandatory Continuing Legal Education/Continuing Judicial Education

Valid Cases=50

 

236

 

£23001—

 

bzfiEucccs
5:835 5563.

 

59.8
5:525 5563

 

«35365.
552.5 5563

 

x53 Ea:
5585 55:2:

 

0382
>55 cos—.82

 

N

835m 5:85

 

[\

30—O— HO: mDOQ

 

EoEcohEo
wEEaB 05m

 

v—

o—

c.

85585
@552 5:20

 

”N

3

N

N

_

w

v

o

m

w

v

E35230

 

Nm

N

v

o

m

e—

w

o—

w

o

M

Li; 8322:

 

EDP—on—

 

5552;

E85;

5552;

 

E85;

 

tau—558;

E85;

 

3.5.52;

E85;

 

3552;

E85;

 

3.552;

85>

 

 

12.—10;.

 

W05:

 

MOM—<1—
-O;.-ED_OME

 

22mm:

 

\SSZm

 

zomyalaflzo

 

 

85 3:83:85 3 8585 323 32% 85> 30563 ES .3 camp

 

ll

 

 

237

ownmummu 23>

5:30va 3533 wEEEEoUEEanum 3qu 9:35:50 553932:
52.5.; Ea £56 632305; 38555..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N _ N _ ~:o§_EEoo
:38 E555
N _ N _ 58:82
3555; 9:350
N _ N _ *§m_.U\mx_U
b03232
E85; 5552; E85; 3559.; E85; 5552; E85; 5552; E85; 5552; E85; .8552; o=_a>
moxi—
4<,_.O.F ”1553 65-23552 EDEm—E 44<Em ZOmmmnTmZO

 

 

 

 

0.58 05m 3833580 3 season—um 35:63. Eon< vo=3> 8253?; 355 Km 23.—t

 

238

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N _ N _ 5:854

N _ N _ b35838

53255 3533.

N _ N _ 5555

53255 3533.

v N N _ N _ 532305;

53255 3553

v N N _ N _ :53 En:

53255 3553

N_ e a v N _ N _ 5382

>2: 53:82

N_ o N _ o N N _ N _ 8E3. 5:20

3 N. N _ w v v N >55 5: 500

m _ o w v o m N _ N _ E55555

9552 53m

”N E o. m o m N_ o 85:85

9.352 33:0

”N 3 2 a v N v N v N 5:250:05

Nm 0N ON 0— o_ m N. c o_ m «<mv_ 5855:.

E85; 3552; E85; 3552; E85; 5558; E85; 5552; E85; 5552; o=_a>
42.—.05 @<U-Omoz<>o< QMUZ<>Q<-OH-DF2 QF2-0H-3mZ mmmyzgamz

 

53% 5550 .3 56526”; 3552. 53¢. 55=3> mooE553< 3:3 .mm 23;.

 

ll

239

omumommo 33>

532.3; 3553 552—3503253535”; 3w3 win—£250 253532:
5332 5:3 5:55 535.305. 5355:?

 

N

_

EufizEEou
5.8 2:296

 

52:82 35:35;

55:58

 

(‘l

.. ammomiu
b03532

 

E85;

5:252;

 

 

E85; 5552;

 

E85; 3552;

 

E85; 5552; E85;

 

5:252;

23>

 

 

A <._.Oh

 

ammm<0dmuz<>o<

 

 

:Woz<>:<-ofiofi

 

 

92-05262

mmmm<u-3mz

 

 

 

3.83 35m 526 E 8:825 323 52% 83> “8853 ES, .2 033

 

240

Table 59. Value of Work to Audience

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE FREQUENCY
Sex
Female 29
Male 1 6
Educational
Law-trained l 9
Non-law-trained 26
izational size
1 0
5
Small 1 5
Medium-to- 5
Medium 10
Career
Mid-to-advanced l l
New-career 10
Advanced-career 12
New-to-mid l 3

   

Valid Cases=45

ll

 

 

241

Table 60. What Judicial Educators’ Colleagues Valued About Their Own Work by Sex

MALE FEMALE TOTAL
Value Percent Percent Percent
26 16 32 58
Does not know 6
Developing human

\0
00
H
N

Influence
Relationsh'
Status
Education
Intellectual

~NNN——ww
th-RNNO\O\

 

Freedom to create

-—t-—N-—NNA&AJ§
NNANAAooeooom

Does not value
Education
fulfillment
Power
ition

8
8
6
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Role of the court in

N

 

Valid Cases=50

242

Table 61. What Judicial Educators’ Colleagues Valued About Their Own Work

Value

Does not know
Developing human

Influence
Re

Status
Education
Intellectual

Freedom to create
iation
Does not value
Education
fulfillment
Power

Role of the court in

Valid Cases=50

LAW-TRAINED

NNANNww-h

by Educational Background

24 17 34
7 14

O

h-bOO-AAO‘GOO

NON-LAW-TRAINED
Percent F Percent

——~
Nxo

#

Percent

58
24

14
14
10
10

0°

8
6
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

N

 

L

243

cmumommu 23>

 

3208
5 2:8 2: ;o 23;

 

838m

 

52:?qu

 

Lose;

 

N

225.53 a»:

 

 

$2.2; 5:832;

 

0=_m> uOfi moch—

 

5:32:22

 

N

.—

0395 De EO—uOQFk

 

owcu=~no

 

WOONNNNNNN

539w 338:2:—

 

ausuoa Samoa—cm

 

masm

 

N

332253;

 

V

3:02;:—

 

[\hInInVVY‘MM—‘v—v—r———'—

VQ’NNV
NN—‘—‘N

VNVNVV

N—‘Nv—NN

36:22;
5:5: w:_;o_u>om

 

3

v

N

N _

c

n

v N

w

v

305. 8: moon

 

001
N—

mm

o

m

o_ m

N—

c

on o—

o—

m

Eowu owfifio

 

E020; 5:332;

 

E83;

5:252;

 

E85; 5:252;

 

«cop—0n—

 

3:332;

E85; 5:052;

 

E85;

3:052;

 

2._m>

 

 

A<;.O;.

 

MOM??—

 

m0m<4
-OhézDEm—z

 

EDEN—2

 

13<2m

 

ZOmMm;-mZO

 

 

 

 

 

 

85 3832520 3 is: 55 :2: 38¢. 8:3 8:228 298%: 323 ES .8 23

 

244

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

enumomao 23>
N _ N _ 5208
:_ 2:8 2: ;o 23;
N _ N _ Somme;
N _ N _ 52:38;
N _ N _ 826;
N _ N _ «58:53; owm
N _ N _ $82; 8:822;
N _ N _ 2i; 8: wood
N _ N _ 523625;;
e m N _ N _ N _ 0520 2 8032;
o m e m ems—.20
w v v N v N 532» 358:2:—
w v N _ N _ v N $052; .5585”;
2 n v N c m 2.58m
S m w v N _ 3222.23.
E n w v o m 8:03;:—
3 N. o m N _ o m 33:20;
5E3; wine—goo
N N. N _ w v N _ N; o 3:5; 8: moon—
2 an M: a E b M: a w v .52 .255
5929; 5:252; .520; 5:252; E029; 5:252; .52»; 5:252; E85; 5:252; o:_a>
1790;. fi§<U-QmUZ<>D< JQMUZ<>Q<-O;HO.VE nEZéhiEZ mmlmm’fiYBmZ

owfim 52:0 5 x83 :30 22F 5?? v2.15 8:98:00 .238:me 30:2; :33 .mo 2an

 

H

 

 

245

Table 64. Perceptions on Whether the Gender of the Judicial Educators Made a
Difference in What They Valued About Their Own Work by Sex

MALE FEMALE TOTAL

Value Percent Percent Percent

Women
Collaborate
Detail-oriented
Nurturer
Priorities/value
Process-oriented
Accommodate
Chan
Communications
Content-oriented
Extend
themselves

Nt—NNN—www
ANAhANGONa
NNNNwwwww
Aé-AAOONGGG

 

N
A

iation
Better

NNNNN
u—nt—nu—tu—n—NN
NNNNNJXA

Burnout
Gender-related

N

issues

N

astute
Service oriented
Share power/
know
Social issues
Self-actualized

Men

N

Control
Quantitative

Power
Future

Collaborate less
No
Critical/business
Law-trained

Influence
Blinders

 

246

Table 64. Perceptions on Whether the Gender of the Judicial Educators Made a
Difference in What They Valued About Their Own Work by Sex (con’t)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| MALE | FEMALE | TOTAL

Value I Frequency J Percent firequency I Percent I Frequency I Percent
Men (con’t.) 7 7

Success I l 2 I I l 2

Get more I I l 2 I l 2

Combative I I l 2 I l 2
Other

No difference 5 IO 9 18 14 28

Does not know 5 10 8 16 13 26

Masculine/

kmmme

personality

blend 2 4 2 4

Socialization is

difl‘erent l 2 l 2 2 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cases=50

247

Table 65. Perceptions on Whether the Education of the Judicial Educators Made a

Difference in What They Valued About Their
Own Work by Educational Background

 

J LAW-TRAINED

j NON-LAW-TRAINED |

TOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value I Frequency I Percent I Frequency I Percent I Frequency I Percent
Law-trained

Concrete law

issues 5 10 3 6 8 16

High

constituent

recognition 4 8 l 2 S 10

Impact on justice 1 2 l 2 2 4

No human

development

skills 2 4 2 4

Poor education

process skills 2 4 2 4

Adversarial l 2 l 2

Competitive l 2 l 2

Poor

administrators l 2 l 2

Seek connections 1 2 1 2
Non-law-trained

Education

process and

products 3 6 2 4 5 10

Developing

human

potential I 2 2 4 3 6

Good

communication 2 4 2 4

Attitude change I 2 l 2

Easily I

intimidated l 2 l 2

Low

recognition need 1 2 1 2
Other

Does not know 5 10 6 12 ll 22

Determines

perspective and

approach only 4 8 2 4 6 12

Competence is

important 1 2 2 4 3 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cases=50

 

248

Table 65. Perceptions on Whether the Education of the Judicial Educators Made a
Difference in What They Valued About Their
Own Work by Educational Background (con’t)

 

 

 

 

 

 

| LAW-TRAINED rNON-LAw-TRAINED | TOTAL
Value I Frequency I Percent I Frequency I Percent I Frequency I Percent
Other (con’t) 7
Familiarity with
court and legal
issues is
important 4 6 3 6
Phony issue 2 4 l 2 3 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cases=50

 

249

omnmommo 23>

 

0E: :0>0
80%: 00260”;

 

£00055. 03:0:

 

EEGEéfl

 

N

E0002; 250003;

 

N

>>>0m b.0250;

 

N

£228. 95%:

 

02:20:20;

 

\DVOVVNNN

MmNN———

E23 0525

 

N
.—

e

N

acoEr—Ucobcm

 

00
N

E

N—

c

0001

MM—

2

m

030220.22

 

X“

S

v

N

w

v

o—

m

N—

o

>>O§ Ho: mwOQ

 

E020;

5:052;

 

E020;

 

5:252;

E020;

 

5:052;

“CUP—um

 

5:252;

E020;

 

5:252;

020>

 

 

1:90;.

 

xmm—M <U-DmUZ<>Q<

 

 

 

OMUZ<>D<-O.TQ=2

 

05-02302

 

mwm<odfimz

 

 

0205 000000 3 0:03 22F 33¢. 00305 53;. «0:3

3 00:20th 0 0002 230003; 322: 05 ;0 00:0i0;xm ;0 5304 05 85055 :0 0005520; do 030E

 

I'l

«consumes—nu B:O.SQN..§W..O kn— xuo>> 23:5 ~38< 30:23» K255 23>)
Cm vocvhficmn— 6 0—062 thuan—umu -wmo=u35 Dfiuko 020500.07; ~m~=0muflNw§mLO hDSDCE CC MEANSQQULUQ N6 U~Q~mfi

 

250

3200.00 0:0>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v N v N E0E:2_>:m
v N v N 00:22.00 02
0m 2 v N em 2 30:0. 00: 0000
.050
w _ v v _ N _ _ v _ N _ .28:
bo>0~b£EE0<
5002520 E00:0;00:_ :_ :0000000 3203
N _ N _ 3.2200
0 m N _ v N 0008:;
c; w v N 0 m E0002;
0_E0000<
NN _ _ v N N _ c; w 02288: 002
52035500000 32 :_ :0000000 00203.
w v 0 m N _ 0350:: 02.00
0>000m_:_:_0<
0; m 0— w 0>00::0;m:2;.
NN _ _ NN _ _ 2.8.50
«N E v N N N; 0>_m:0;m2 202
3 NN 0 N N _ mm a 2.02:
300.20%
000.00
0>0§£EE0<
2:00:00 2000 050530003 0>000£EE00 5 :0000300 .2203.
E020; _ 5:252; E020; 4 5:252; E020; _ 5:252; E020; _ 5:052; 0=_0>
A5500 A5500
ZOF<§Z<0¢0 mh<hm 0% 400205533 @535 0% 4000me52:
402.0% HZmQZman—v: >twmm>_20300:0m 3.01. 5500 m2m;;0m\m0_;;0
m>_h<;;.m_kp_20<

 

E08002; 020002590 5 0003 00:9 0000.; 0023/ 50;. 0003
5 00:20:05 0 0002 228:0”; 00200;. 20 ;0 E05002; 020030820 02000;? :0 2000320; .$ 050;.

 

 

h.

(~]~I-

-]~.I;

.\~‘

(\{\115

251

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 68. Value of Judicial Education Ten Years From Now (2006) by Sex
MALE FEMALE TOTAL
Value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Technological
change 8 16 10 20 18 36
Does not know 6 12 10 20 16 32
System
improvement I 2 8 l 6 9 1 8
Public
accountability l 2 6 12 7 14
Learner-directed
education 3 6 l 2 4 8
Social/cultural
change 3 6 3 6
Value professional
education 3 6 3 6
Global change 2 4 2 4
Professional status 1 2 l 2 2 4
Valid Cases=50
Table 69. Value of Judicial Education Ten Years From Now (2006)
by Educational Background
LAW-TRAINED NON-LAW-TRAINED TOTAL
Value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Technological
change 8 16 IO 20 18 36
Does not know 8 l6 8 16 I6 32
System
improvement 2 4 7 l4 9 l 8
Public
accountability 3 6 4 8 7 l4
Leamer-directed
education 2 4 2 4 4 8
Social/cultural
change 1 2 2 4 3 6
Value professional
education 2 4 1 2 3 6
Global change 1 2 l 2 2 4
Professional status 1 2 l 2 2 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cases=50

 

 

252

omnaau 20>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v N N _ N _ 02000 0222202;
0 N N ; N _ 030:0 .0020
0 m N _ N _ N _ 5:00:00
3:05.022; 0:_0>
c m N _ v N 0w:0:0
_Nha_50\_d_00m
w v v N N _ N _ 50:00:00
0800:0L0E004
0— N. v N N _ N _ v N N ; 3258:0080
0:95;
w _ o 0 m o m 0 m E0E0>2;E_
806%
NM 0— N _ N_ o o. w w 0 305— 5: 300
0m 2 0 N 2 m w v 0 v v N 005%
_00_w0_0::00;r
E020; hug—0:02; E020; 3:00:00; E020; 5:032; 0:020; 3:032; E020; 3:03—02; E020; 3:032; 030>
m 0% <4
J<HOH m OM <4 AFT—2g: (AD—OWE wax—gm ZOmMm—mum ZO

 

 

 

80 080000005 3 A080 302 so; as; 50 808000 323.0 80> .2 0300

 

ownum 000.50 %£ 0000.00 >202 0:00.; 00.09} EUR. 23:60:me 220.530.}. 03:?» .NN 073,0

 

 

253

omnm0m00 0..0>

 

N

0380 0:23.002;

 

N

0w:0:0 .0020

 

5:00:00
05.00002; 0:.0>

 

0w:0:0
.023.=0\.0.00m

 

5.000300
0082.020E00x.

 

v.

b..50E=080
0.3:;

 

EOEo>2;E.
820$

 

e.

v

o.

0

30:0— u0= mDOQ

 

m—

N.

o.

v

0w:0..0
.00.wo.0::00.w

 

3:02.02;

 

E020;

5:03.02;

 

E020;

0:00.02;

 

3:03.02...

2,500.0.”—

 

5:03.02...

“cop—om

 

5:00.02;

0:.0>

 

 

x2900

 

mwmm<90w02<>0<

 

 

 

o%z<>o<-ofiohz

 

€200-32

 

0mmM<U<$mZ

 

 

00% 0200 3 880 >82 520 e00> 50 8.0800 000020 80> .: 200

 

254

Table 72. Obtaining Abstract Knowledge

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
Sex
Female
Male
Educational
Law-trained
Non-law-traincd

SIZC

Medium-to-
Small

Medium

Career
New-career
Mid-to-advanced
New-to—mid
Advanced-career

 

Valid Cases=50

Table 73. Applying Abstract Knowledge

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
Sex

Female

Male
Educational

Law-trained

Non-law-trained

size
Small

Medium

Medium-to-
Career

New-career

Mid-to-advanced

New-to-mid

Advanced-career

 

Valid Cases=50

 

 

fl~it-l-~rx---rx~xxxx

255

Table 74. Ensuring Autonomy

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE FREQUENCY
Sex

Female 32

Male 1 8
Educational

Law-trained 23

Non-law-trained 27

' size

Small 15

l I
Medium 12

6
Medium-to- 6

Career

New-to-mid l4
Mid-to-advanced l3
Advanced-career l 3
New-career 10

 

Valid Cases=50
Table 75. Serving High-Status Clients

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE FREQUENCY
Sex

Female 32

Male 1 8
Educational

Non-law-trained 27

Law-trained 23

' size
M

Small
Medium

Career
Mid-to-advanced
New-career
New-to-mid
Advanced-career

 

Valid Cases=50

 

 

F1.5~L~E-~C~\\\\\C\\\N\

256

Table 76. Professional and Organizational Prestige

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE FREQUENCY
Sex

Female 32

Male 1 8
Educational

Law-trained 23

Non-law-trained

size
Medium-to-
Small

Medium

Career
New-to-mid
Mid-to-advanced
New-career
Advanced-career

 

Valid Cases=50
Table 77. Connections and Promotional Sponsorship

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE FREQUENCY
Sex

Female 32

Male 18
Educational

Non-law-trained 27

Law-trained 23

' size
Medium-to-
Small

Medium

Career
New-to-mid
Mid-to-advanced
Advanced-career
New-career

 

Valid Cases=50

257

Table 78. Peer Recognition

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE FREQUENCY
Sex

Female 32

Male 1 8
Educational

Non-law-trained 27

Law-trained 23

izational size
Medium-to-
Small

Medium

Career
Mid-to-advanced
New-to—mid
New-career
Advanced-career

 

Valid Cases=50

Table 79. Increased Earning Potential

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE FREQUENCY
Sex

Female 32

Male 1 8
Educational

Non-law-trained 27

Law-trained 23

size

Medium-to-
Medium
Small

Career
New-to—mid
Advanced-career
Mid-to-advanced
New-career

 

Valid Cases=50

ll

 

258

Table 80. Indicators of Professional Status Not Held by Judicial Education by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL
Indicators Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Does not know 4 8 20 40 24 48
Universally
accepted definition
of judicial educator 3 6 4 8 7 l4
Certification 2 4 4 8 6 l2
Universally
accepted standards
of the work 2 4 4 8 6 12
Code of ethics 3 6 2 4 5 10
Specific body of
knowledge 4 8 l 2 5 10
Universally
accepted definition
of the work 2 4 3 6 5 10
Recognition 2 4 2 4 4 8
Continuing
education
requirements 1 2 2 4 3 6
Promoting
association 1 2 l 2 2 4
Believe it is a
profession I 2 l 2
Impacts society I 2 l 2
Independent 1 2 l 2
Prerequisite
education
requirement 1 2 l 2
Self-regulating l 2 l 2
Universally
accepted value to
constituency l 2 l 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cases=50

 

ll

 

Table 81

259

. Indicators of Professional Status Not Held by Judicial Education
by Educational Background

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LAW-TRAINED NON-LAW-TRAIN ED TOTAL
Indicators Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Does not know 10 20 14 28 24 48
Universally
accepted definition
of judicial educator 4 8 3 6 7 l4
Certification 1 2 5 10 6 12
Universally
accepted standards
of the work 3 6 3 6 6 12
Code of ethics 3 6 2 4 5 10
Specific body of
knowledge 3 6 2 4 5 10
Universally
accepted definition
of the work 3 6 2 4 5 10
Recognition 3 6 1 2 4 8
Continuing
education
requirements 2 4 1 2 3 6
Promoting
association 1 2 l 2 2 4
Believe it is a
profession I 2 l 2
Impacts society 1 2 l 2
Independent 1 2 l 2
Prerequisite
education
requirement 1 2 1 2
Self-regulating 1 2 1 2
Universally
accepted value to
constituency l 2 1 2

 

 

 

 

Valid Cases=50

 

ll

 

 

 

260

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N . N . 5.30.0.5
a m. a. 0>0..0m
v N N . N . 5.3.088
wEEEEm
c n v N N . 35:50.30.
5:00.60
w:.==.EoU
w v N . v N N . cozEwouom
o. m N . N . N . v N v.83 05.0
5.025% .00E000m
3.3.035.
2 m N _ v N v N 03225.
.E anon. 0....00mm
o. m N . v N N _ N . 8.50 .8 0.50
N . o v N N . N . N . N . 0.83 .0
mat—85% “005008
>..mfl0>.::
N. o N . N . o m N . 5.32.2:00
3 N v N v N N _ N _ N . 5.835 3.22:0
5.25.0.0 E03080
3.80035.
.3 .N v N N . N. o v. n c. w >65. 8: 00°C
E929. 35:92... E029. 5:032... E980; 3:033... E029. 5:03.02”. E0205. 3:032". E029. 5539:. whoa—No.9:
monafi.
..<...O... mfimfl. -O...-.>.D.n.m.S. SEEMS ....<S.m ZOmen.-mZO

 

8% 38.03.30.005 .3 808.60 329: .3 20: sz 3% 38.30.20 .0 58.2. N» 2.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

261

anuaao 23>

 

3:02:28
2 0...? v0.38:
93.03::

 

bog—$05.8

 

E0E0._.=c0:
5.28200
0._m.=c0:0:n.

 

(\l

E02302.

 

N

.

30.08 30:9...

 

E029.

 

3:03.02".

Event

 

3:03.02...

 

E080“. 3:032...

.589.

 

3:03.08".

E080".

 

35:30:“.

E089.

 

3:03.00...

£0306:—

 

 

. <...O..

 

m0¢<4

 

m0x<x.
-Oh-.>.3.DM—>.

 

23.0m2

 

.1./«Em

 

ZOmy. mam. ZO

 

 

 

Choov 0~.m .0:o..§.§w5 3 8.30:2“. 3.2.5.. .3 202 82 0586 35.30.00“. mo 00886:. .Nm 03m...

 

 

262

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N . N . 0:00:00005

N . N . 30.000 3009:.

N . N . 5.30.20

0 m. 0. 0>0..0m.

.0 N N . N . 5.00.0020

w:.EEok.

0 N v N N . 35:02.03.

00.000000 w:.=:.EoU

w v. N . 0 m :0...:w000y.

0. m N . v N v N .003 0... .0 5.0.5.00

00.00000 3.020>.:D

o. m. 0 m N . N . 0300.305.

.0 >000 2.60%

o. m N . v N N . N . 00.50 .0 0.000

N. 0 v N N . v N N . 0.003 0... .0 00:00:03

00.00000 3.02035.

N. 0 v N 0 m N . 5.002.500

v. .. 0 m N . v N N . 00000000 3.0.0....

0... .0 5.0.5.00

00.00000 3.020303

N.» N N. 0 N. 0 v. .. o. m >.65. 00: 000A.

00020.. 35:02. E0200 3:00.00... E020. 300000... E020. 3:00.02. E020. 3:00.02“. 39005:.
..<...O.: mmm¢<odmoz<>a< QmUZ<>D<-OP-O.S. 9.2-0.7232 zmmm<o-3m.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

0wSm 000000 3. 00.00003. .0.0.0:.. .3 0.0... 002 030% 3.8.20.2. .0 20000.00. .2. 030...

 

263

 

ownmowflu 0..0>

 

h

 

N

 

3:035:00 0. 0:.0>
00.0080 3.02035.

 

 

 

(\l

30.0.sw0....0m

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:082:62
5.000000
2.0.0.0205

 

E020. 3:03.02.

E020.

 

3:302.

E020.

 

3:03.02.

 

E020; 3:00.02.

 

E020. 3:00.02...

20.00.00.

 

..<...O...

 

 

mmmx<udmuz<>o<

 

QmUZ<>Q<-OH-D:>.

 

0.2-0.7232

 

 

mmmm<U<$mZ

 

 

3.000. 093m 000000 3. 00.00003. 3.0.03 3 0.0.. 002 030% 302000.00. .0 20000.00. .9. 0.00..

 

II

 

 

 

 

264

Table 84. Extent to Which Judicial Education Has Obtained Professional Standing

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE FREQUENCY
Sex
Female 32
Male 1 8
Educational “
Law-trained 23
Non-law-trained 27
izational size
Small 1 5

 

Medium-to-

Medium .. _
Career ~

Advanced-career

New-to-mid

New-career

Mid-to-advanced

   

Valid Cases=50

 

 

Table 85. Strengths of Judicial Education That Promote Achievement

265

of Professional Status by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL
Strengths Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Commitment to
professionalism 5 10 9 1 8 14 28
Does not know 5 IO 4 8 9 18
Quality
programming 3 6 6 12 9 18
Address court
complexity 3 6 3 6 6 12
Constituency
advocates 3 6 3 6 6 12
Change agent 2 4 3 6 5 10
Role of the judge 3 6 2 4 5 10
Networking 4 8 4 8
National advocates l 2 2 4 3 6
lntemational
judicial education 2 4 2 4
Public expectations 2 4 2 4
Small size 2 4 2 4
Value of
professional
education 2 4 2 4
Distance education I 2 1 2
Judicial education
institutionalized l 2 l 2
Mandatory judicial
education 1 2 l 2
Mentoring l 2 1 2

 

Valid Cases=50

 

 

266

Table 86. Strengths of Judicial Education That Promote Achievement
of Professional Status by Educational Background

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LAW-TRAINED NON-LAW-TRAINED TOTAL
Strengths Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Commitment to
professionalism 8 16 6 12 14 28
Does not know 5 10 4 8 9 18
Quality
programming 3 6 6 12 9 18
Address court
complexity 4 8 2 4 6 12
Constituency
advocates 4 8 2 4 6 12
Change agent 3 6 2 4 5 10
Role of the judge I 2 4 8 5 10
Networking 1 2 3 6 4 8
National advocates l 2 2 4 3 6
International
judicial education 2 4 2 4
Public expectations 1 2 l 2 2 4
Small size 2 4 2 4
Value of
professional
education 1 2 l 2 2 4
Distance education 1 2 1 2
Judicial education
institutionalized 1 2 1 2
Mandatory judicial
education 1 2 1 2
Mentoring 2 1 2

 

Valid Cases=50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\
Ill n I . .,
‘5!
ownmommo 23>
N . N . wctoEoS.
N . N . 5.8025
:58. bass:
N . N . uou..~=ouazm£
5.80:3 3.2.5..
N . N . gorse—60 853.0
5.23:3
v N N . N _ 3868.95
.8 o=.m>
v N N . N . uni =25
v N v N 30.23830 0.3:“.
v N v N 5.8260 .3063
.acozafiouc.
o m N . v N 3.8035 .2232
7 w v N . N _ v N 95.8382
x 2 m N _ o m N _ “as: as .o 23.
o. w v N N . v N Euws owcdzo
3.833
N. c N . N . o m N . 5:255:00
N. e N . v N o m b.3358
:58 mmofiu<
wEEEEon
w. a v N o m N . o m €230
a. o N . v N o m o m 305. no: moon
”N 3 v N N _ w v w v o m 52.203325
2 Eo:£EE00
E85; Eco—GE”. E85; 5533.: 235.. 6:252”. .523. 35:qu 2820.. 3532“. E35... .85:qu mfiwcobm
m0¢<4
glitch may—<4 -OP-ED.QWE’ $5352 4.32m ZOmmm..-m.ZO

 

 

vim .ncozaNEmmLO .3 £58m 3563.35 mo EoEo>oEo< 8089:. was... coumoscm .3063. mo mfimcobm .3 2an

 

 

268

emuaao 23>

 

9:80:02

 

8:00:00
8.0.9: b08283.

 

BEE—8.08.03.
8:00:00 8.0.03

 

8.80.80 00530.0

 

8.8030”.
8.8.3.088 .o 0:.m>

 

0N.m ..0Em

 

N

28.88098 0.3:.

 

N

8.80.80
8.0.9: .Eosz0E.

 

c

—.

m0~000>0~ 228.82

 

m

N

95.83.02

 

o.

033. 05 .8 0.3.

 

o.

.20»... 098.5

 

N.

N

00.83.00 8:03.380

 

N.

W‘OWWQM

NVNN‘O

--N-'-—M

NNNO

'—‘—-—‘M

b.8888
:80 3080.1

 

w.

0

00

V

o.

mEEEN—woa $.95

 

w.

o

N

.—

N

305. 8: m0on.

 

”N

v.

N.

Em..m=o.mm0.08
o. E0E.EEoU

 

E020.

 

8:280...

~=oU.Un—

 

8:082“.

8008..

 

8:080...

259—un—

 

85:00...

E020.

 

8:03.00...

mfiwc0bm

 

 

\.<..rOH

 

fimx<0.omUz<>o<

 

QmUZ<>Q<-O....QF—>.

 

£289-52

 

Mmmd<04$m2

 

 

0mSm 00080 .3 038m 88.30.80. mo E0800§>v< 08:85 85 8.80:0... 8.0.9... .8 mfiwcgm

.3 050...

 

269

Table 89. Obstacles to Judicial Education’s Achieving Professional Status by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MALE FEMALE TOTAL
Obstacles Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Unstable support 6 12 10 20 16 32
Lack of clear
identity 9 18 4 8 13 26
Too small 3 6 9 18 12 24
Hidden work 4 8 7 14 l 1 22
No certification or
required credentials 4 8 3 6 7 14
No public relations
effort 1 2 5 10 6 12
Lack of autonomy 5 10 5 10
Does not know I 2 3 6 4 8
Lack of mobility 3 6 1 2 4 8
Lack of recognition 1 2 3 6 4 8
Limited to
definition of
judicial education 3 6 3 6
Devaluing
education 2 4 2 4
No leadership 1 2 1 2 2 4
No universally
accepted standards 1 2 1 2
Pioneering effort 1 2 1 2

 

Valid Cases=50

 

 

 

 

270

Table 90. Obstacles to Judicial Education’s Achieving Professional Status

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by Educational Background

LAW-TRAINED NON-LAW-TRAINED TOTAL
Obstacle Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Unstable support 9 18 7 14 16 32
Lack of clear
identity 9 18 4 8 13 26
Too small 4 8 8 16 12 24
Hidden work 4 8 7 14 11 22
No certification or
required credentials 2 4 5 10 7 14
No public relations
effort 2 4 4 8 6 12
Lack of autonomy 3 6 2 4 5 10
Does not know 2 4 2 4 4 8
Lack of mobility 4 8 4 8 '
Lack of
Recognition 2 4 2 4 4 8
Limited to
definition of
judicial education 1 2 2 4 3 6
Devaluing
education 1 2 1 2 2 4
No leadership 2 4 2 4
No universally
accepted standards 1 2 1 2
Pioneering effort 1 2 1 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Cases=50

 

 

271

88030 23>

 

0000”

NO
_—

NN
VN
oN

Nm

VOW???

..
N.
m.

c.

v

v

N

v

N

VVNNO

w

NN-‘M

v

w

v

w

v

“8&0 3.808...
88.088 60.2.0008
2.3.3.8 oz

llllll
8.5.0.80. oz

8.80.60
w=.=.a>0n.
8.80300 8.0.8:.
.o 8.25.0.0

8 08......

Illllll

:o...=woo0. .8 0.08.

llllllllll

8:32: 0o 0.05

Illllll‘ll

30.5— .0: much—

lllllllll

E8888 .0 0.8.

lllll
not».
80.8.0. 0.32. oZ

llllllllll

£280.88 .00....80.
8 8.82.280 oZ

lllllllllln

0.53 5%.:

llll\l

=8Em ooh

llll
$52
80.0 .o 0.81.

.899; 05833

 

800.0“. _ 5:03.02“.

2.008.. _ 88:00;

8008.. _ .0532...

2.008.. _ 5:02.00...

8008.. _ .0530...

8020.. . 5:03.02“.

8.8.30

 

 

x.<...O...

 

MOM<A

 

m0x<4

-O...-.>.D.Dm=>.

 

 

23.0w:

 

.1.<2m

 

Zmemn.-m.ZO

 

0N.m 8:0..Sw8wuo .3 3.8m 8:0.mm0mok. m:.>0...0< 9.8.8261”. 8.2.5.. 2 3.0830 . .o 038...

 

 

 

 

272

omum0mmo 28>

 

no.8 w:..00:o.n.

 

88.08... .008008
b88035. oZ

 

330.080. 02

 

V!

N

8.80300 win—«>00

 

\D

(*1

8.80300 8.0.8.80
8.0.5.0.. 9 .00..E.‘.

 

N

8.08800. 8 0.8.

 

8:32: .o .03

 

cocoon

BO—U— “O: moch—

 

xEo:o=8 .8 0.03

 

NO

\OWVI‘VV

VNNNN

N—---—v-'

NONN

~m—v—n

8&0
80.8.0. 0.32. oz

 

V

N

I—

.—

m_0..:0.00.0 80.3.00.
8 8.80550 02

 

NN

.—

N

o.

.33 5%.:

 

.N

N.

x

o.

.880 8..

 

0N

m.

v.

hw—

V00

NMM

v

NW")

.0

N

3.80... 80.0 8 0.03

 

Nm

o.

 

o

m

w

v

w

v

o.

m

conga 0380::

 

800.0:

8:280...

800.0:

 

5:02.02.

800.0.

 

8:030...

 

2.59.0.—

8:03.00...

2.00..ko

 

8:030...

00.8.30

 

 

A<HO...

 

ammz<U-QmUZ<>O<

 

DMUZ<>Q<-OH-QFE

 

0.2-0.739.

 

MmmM<U-3m.Z

 

 

086 .0080 .3 0385 88.808... w:.>0...0< m.:o.80:.0m. 8.0.8.. 9 8.08030 .Na 038.1

 

 

 

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abbott, A. 1988. The System of Profiessions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Acker, J. 1991. "Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations." In
The Social Construction of Gender, edited by J. Lorber and S. A. Farrell, 162-179.

Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Almquist, E. M. 1991. "Labor-Market Gender Inequality in Minority Groups." In The
Social Construction of Gender, edited by J. Lorber and S. A. Farrell, 180-192.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Berlant, J. L. 1975. Profession and Monopoly. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

Bledstein, B. J. 1976. The Culture of Professionalism. New York: Norton.

Board of the National Association of State Judicial Educators. 1994. “Revised National
Association of State Judicial Educators Constitution and Bylaws.” Photocopy.

Braude, L. 1961. "Professional Autonomy and the Role of the Laymen." Social Forces
39: 297-301.

Brenner, J. 1991. "Feminization of Poverty and Comparable Worth: Radical Versus
Liberal Approaches." In The Social Construction of Gender, edited by J. Lorber
and S. A. Farrell, 193-209. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Caplow, T. 1954. The Sociology of Work Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Carr-Saunders, A. P., and RA. Wilson. 1933. The Professions. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Charmez, K. 1983. "The Grounded Theory Method: An Explication and Interpretation."
In Contemporary Field Research: A Collection of Readings, edited by R. M.
Emerson, 109-126. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.

Conner, M. E. 1996. Professional Education and Development of NASJE Members.
East Lansing, MI: Judicial Education, Reference, Information and Technical

Transfer (JERITT) Project.

Denzin, N. K. 1994. "The Art and Politics of Interpretation." In Handbook of
Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 500-515.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

273

274

Ehrenreich, B. 1989. The Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class. New
York: Harper Collins.

Fine, M. 1994. "Working the Hyphens: Reinventing Self and Other in Qualitative
Research." In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y.
S. Lincoln, 70-82. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fontana, A., and J. H. Frey. 1994. "Interviewing The Art of Science." In Handbook of
Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 361-376.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

F reidson, E. 1984. "Are Professions Necessary?" In The Authority of Experts: Studies
in History and Theory, 3-27. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Geison, G. L., ed. 1983. Professions and Professional Ideologies in America. Chapel
Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Goode, W. J. 1957. "Community within a Community." American Sociological Review
25: 902-14.

Habenstein, R. W. 1995. Chicago Light: Selected Sociological Writings of Robert W.
Habenstein. Columbia: University of Missouri-Columbia.

Haskell, T. L., ed. 1984. The Authority of Experts. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.

Hudzik, J. K. 1995. Issues and Trends in Judicial Education. East Lansing, MI:
Judicial Education, Reference, Information and Technical Transfer (JERITT)

Project.

Jackson, J. A., ed. 1970. Professions and Professionalization. Cambridge: University
Press.

Kanter, R. M. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Larson, M. S. 1977. The Rise of Professionalism. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

Larson, M. S. 1984. "The Production of Expertise and the Constitution of Expert
Power." In The Authority of Experts: Studies in History and Theory, 28-80.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Lofland, J ., and L. H. Lofland. 1995. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative
Observation and Analysis. 3d. ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing

Company.

Marshall, T. J. [1939] 1965. Class, Citizenship, and Social Development. Garden City,
NY: Anchor.

Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. 2d ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Millerson, G. 1964. The Qualifizing Associations. London: Routledge.

275

Mills, C. W. 1951. White Collar: The American Middle Class. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Moore, W. E. 1970. The Professions: Roles and Rules. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.

Naegle, K. D. 1956. "Clergy, Teachers and Psychiatrists." Canadian Journal of
Economic and Political Science 22: 46-62.

National Association of State Judicial Educators Standards Committee. 1991. Principles
and Standards of Continuing Judicial Education. N.p., n.d.

Parsons, T. [1939] 1954. "The Professions and Social Structure." In Essays in
Sociological Theory, 34-39. New York: Free Press.

Pound, R. 1949. "The Professions in the Society of Today." The New England Journal
ofMedicine 241, no. 10: 351-357.

Roth, J. 1970. "Comments on 'Secret Observation.‘ " In Qualitative Methodology:
Firsthand Involvement with the Social World, edited by W. J. Filstead, 278-280. “
Chicago: Markham.

Reskin, B. F. 1991. "Bringing the Men Back In: Sex Differentiation and the
Devaluation of Women's Work." In The Social Construction of Gender, edited by
J. Lorber and S. A. Farrell, 141-161. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Seymour, S. 1987. "The Case of the Mismanaged Ms." Harvard BusinessReview 65,
no. 6 (November-December):77-87.

Strauss, A. L. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Sullivan, W. M. 1995. Work and Integrity: The Crisis and Promise of Professionalism
in America. New York: Harper Collins.

Weber, M. 1978. Max Weber Selections in Translation. Edited by W. G. Runciman.
Translated by E. Matthews. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wilensky, H. L. 1964. "The Professionalization of Everyone." American Journal of
Sociology 70: 157-58.