Mr. Charles Ho Wang Mak is a PhD Candidate in international law and a Graduate Teaching Assistant at the University of Glasgow, a Fellow of the Centre for Chinese and Comparative Law at the City University of Hong Kong, an Honorary Fellow of the Asian Institute of International Financial Law at the University of Hong Kong, and a Research Affiliate at SovereigNET, The Fletcher School, Tufts University. Charles has studied law at the University of Sussex in England (LL.B. (Hons.)), The Chinese University of Hong Kong (LL.M. in International Economic Law), and the City University of Hong Kong (LL.M.Arb.D.R.(with Credit)). He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb), the Hong Kong Institute of Arbitrators (FHKIArb), the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand (FAMINZ (Arb/Med)), the Asian Institute of Alternative Dispute Resolution (FAIADR), and the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (FRAS).
Contrived Collegiality: Friend or Foe For The Development of Law Schools
Abstract:
Continuing professional development for academic staff is crucial to improve the quality of teaching, research, and service for law schools. Collaboration is the key for law schools to implement professional development for their academic staff. In order to collaborate, academic staff need to work with each other. As one of the main forms of joint work and interaction among academic staff, contrived collegiality is becoming one of the most common forms of collegiality in the higher education sector in recent years. This form of collegiality is composed of administratively contrived interactions among academic staff, where they work together to implement the teaching and curriculum development plan developed by others. This feature also forms part of the teaching and research culture in the legal education sector. The chief purpose of the paper is to explore whether contrived collegiality facilitates or impedes academic staffs’ professional development in law schools. The first part of this paper provides an overview of contrived collegiality, setting the stage for later discussion. It then examines if contrived collegiality is a common feature of teaching and research culture in law schools. Furthermore, the next part focuses on the positive and negative impacts of contrived collegiality on academic staffs’ professional development. At the end of this paper, suggestions for potential reform of the current model of contrived collegiality in the legal education sector will be given. Building on this analysis, the paper will discuss whether contrived collegiality will be ideal for academic staff in law schools to collaborate.