Abstract
This article considers whether different types of Clinical Legal Education (CLE) programs have the same potential to provide a transformative learning experience for students. The author uses Mezirow’s theory to postulate that, although addressing a societal need, ‘missing middle’ Clinical Legal Education programs – those that assist middle-income Australians – may not provide the necessary environment, including an environment ripe for ‘disorienting dilemmas’, for transformative learning. After a comparison of missing middle clinics in Australia and poverty law clinics in the United States of America (US), the author suggests that disorienting dilemmas may only be offered by Clinical Legal Education programs aimed at assisting society’s most vulnerable people.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
