THE REVISED & UPDATED FINLEY AWARDS
Sat, 27 Mar 2004, 09:37 amMelz9 posts in thread
THE REVISED & UPDATED FINLEY AWARDS
Sat, 27 Mar 2004, 09:37 amTHE ITA COMMITTEE HAS REVISED THE FINLEY AWARDS
The ITA Committee is proud to announce its completely revised and updated Finley Awards adjudication system.
As posted on the ITA webpage, and in the ITA Link newsletter, the ITA Committee has been looking very closely at the adjudication process. We are aware that there have been problems with the system, we have listened to the feedback, and we have determined to make changes. No system will ever be 100% perfect, and we'll never please all the people all the time, but we believe that attempting change is better than doing nothing at all.
The major problem with the old system was a lack of both accountability and standardised marking. The entered productions could not be assessed in a standard way because all the adjudicators did not see all the productions. Three random adjudicators (from a pool of eleven) were sent to each entered production. The adjudicators individually scored the production, sent their marks to a coordinator, and never had to justify or discuss them again.
Adjudicators held two meetings per year. Invariably, because of the number of people involved, not all adjudicators were always in attendance at these meetings. This didn't matter much because discussion of plays and marks was rarely, if ever, entered into. The problem was that all the adjudicators did not see all the productions. They couldn't discuss them if they didn't see them.
To be fair, it's impossible for 11 adjudicators to see every play. In the distant past there was a team of three professional (ie paid) adjudicators who DID see every play and could thus compare them. Unfortunately, it didn't work in practice since adjudicators kept missing productions because of professional engagements. The only alternative at the time was to establish a pool of volunteer adjudicators. However, because of this, standardised marking became a casualty. Statistical attempts were made to "average" the marks but this was a far from ideal situation.
Ideally, if all the adjudicators saw all the productions, met regularly and discussed and justified their scores, perception of, and trust in the awards would improve dramatically. Realistically however, it's close to impossible for all 11 adjudicators to see EVERY production. Quite apart from the logistics of such an exercise, it's sincerely doubtful each club would gladly give away so many free tickets.
Our solution is to use a small, dedicated team of adjudicators. A team of four volunteer adjudicators will cover EVERY production, with a guarantee that each production will have at least three adjudicators in attendance. Shows will be discussed at regular meetings and marks will be justified & tabulated. Candidates for Adjudicators' Certificates would be noted throughout the year, instead of the previous end of the year, "Who wants to propose an award?" The adjudicators may not always agree but at least discussion is held. It's a better system than no discussion at all.
At each meeting, all marks will be put on the table and every adjudicator will be accountable for the marks that they have given. If an adjudicator has scored a play markedly differently to that of the other adjudicators, then that adjudicator will need to justify their marks. This process will allow for marks to be changed if the adjudicators feel that it is necessary to do so, after collaboration with the other adjudicators. Among other benefits this allows for adjudicators to be able to accurately and confidently produce a top ten plays list – as they have all seen and assessed all of the plays.
Because of the full schedule, and the necessary perception of lack of bias, none of the four adjudicators will be permitted to direct or produce a Finley-entered play during that year's term. If a club enters a play, and one of the adjudicators is actively involved in that club, they can see and mark the play but the other three adjudicators will write the comments to the club. There is no reason why all four couldn't judge the play, because all marks will be open and accountable. If an adjudicator is performing in an production, they obviously cannot mark that production. The other three adjudicators will score the production and the fourth will be ineligible for any individual awards.
Obviously this decision was painful because it meant cutting back on the number of adjudicators, all of whom we respect, admire and consider friends. This decision was made somewhat easier because as it was necessary to eliminate adjudicators who were directing (or otherwise unavailable for the entire year) it left us with a much smaller pool.
The adjudicators for 2004 are Jarrod Buttery, Sue Hicks, Kerri Hilton and Andrew Round. They represent a spread of experience and skills. We would be extremely pleased to hear from any adjudicators who would be interested in adjudicating within the new system in 2005. The new system is extremely demanding for an adjudicator, but we hope extremely rewarding as well.
We apologise for the inconvenience of making this change after the adjudication year has started and would like to assure all clubs and all entered productions that they have not been disadvantaged. The four adjudicators have seen all of the entered productions this year. All productions have been adjudicated using the same - new - system.
We would like to emphasise that this was not a rushed decision. Of course, if you do something too slowly, you're dragging your tail; if you do something too quickly, it's a knee-jerk response. However, the committee has been observing the Finley debate and discussing possibilities since January's Awards Night, and in earnest since the February AGM elected a new committee. The Finley Awards were thoroughly discussed at the March Committee Meeting - the first meeting of the new committee. The discussion went around the table. Every committee member was asked for their opinions and given the opportunity to speak on the proposed changes. When it came to a vote, the new system was overwhelmingly endorsed - no committee member voted against it. The entire committee recognised the need for improvement in the system, and acted to swiftly to implement the changes.
A second problem is that bank rates over the last few years have meant that the original Finley bequest (and the prize money) will soon be gone. The ITA has been actively seeking corporate sponsorship, and this is close to being finalised. This will allow monetary prizes to continue to be given for Best Play and Best Musical, and to other awards too. It is the committee's intention to expand the Finley Awards to include awards such as Best Actor, Best Actress, and more.
Once again, by having all of the adjudicators see all of the plays, then the aforementioned awards could be given with a degree of certainty.
The profile and value of the Finley Awards needs to be increased within the theatre community and amongst the general public. This could not be done under the old, outdated system. The system was changed before, it needed to be changed again. It's the responsibility of the ITA committee to manage the system and implement changes when needed. If this new system doesn't work or isn't accepted, further changes can be made. The worst mistake we could make would be to ignore the problem.
Letters have been sent to all member clubs containing more information about this new system. We recommend that all interested parties contact their club secretaries. Additionally, if your club would like ITA Representatives to come along to your next committee meeting to discuss these changes and answer all of your questions, please feel free to contact Kimberley Shaw on yak@git.com.au or 0403 438 390
The ITA Committee.
Melanie DeCull
Publicity Coordinator
Independent Theatre Association
[%sig%]
The ITA Committee is proud to announce its completely revised and updated Finley Awards adjudication system.
As posted on the ITA webpage, and in the ITA Link newsletter, the ITA Committee has been looking very closely at the adjudication process. We are aware that there have been problems with the system, we have listened to the feedback, and we have determined to make changes. No system will ever be 100% perfect, and we'll never please all the people all the time, but we believe that attempting change is better than doing nothing at all.
The major problem with the old system was a lack of both accountability and standardised marking. The entered productions could not be assessed in a standard way because all the adjudicators did not see all the productions. Three random adjudicators (from a pool of eleven) were sent to each entered production. The adjudicators individually scored the production, sent their marks to a coordinator, and never had to justify or discuss them again.
Adjudicators held two meetings per year. Invariably, because of the number of people involved, not all adjudicators were always in attendance at these meetings. This didn't matter much because discussion of plays and marks was rarely, if ever, entered into. The problem was that all the adjudicators did not see all the productions. They couldn't discuss them if they didn't see them.
To be fair, it's impossible for 11 adjudicators to see every play. In the distant past there was a team of three professional (ie paid) adjudicators who DID see every play and could thus compare them. Unfortunately, it didn't work in practice since adjudicators kept missing productions because of professional engagements. The only alternative at the time was to establish a pool of volunteer adjudicators. However, because of this, standardised marking became a casualty. Statistical attempts were made to "average" the marks but this was a far from ideal situation.
Ideally, if all the adjudicators saw all the productions, met regularly and discussed and justified their scores, perception of, and trust in the awards would improve dramatically. Realistically however, it's close to impossible for all 11 adjudicators to see EVERY production. Quite apart from the logistics of such an exercise, it's sincerely doubtful each club would gladly give away so many free tickets.
Our solution is to use a small, dedicated team of adjudicators. A team of four volunteer adjudicators will cover EVERY production, with a guarantee that each production will have at least three adjudicators in attendance. Shows will be discussed at regular meetings and marks will be justified & tabulated. Candidates for Adjudicators' Certificates would be noted throughout the year, instead of the previous end of the year, "Who wants to propose an award?" The adjudicators may not always agree but at least discussion is held. It's a better system than no discussion at all.
At each meeting, all marks will be put on the table and every adjudicator will be accountable for the marks that they have given. If an adjudicator has scored a play markedly differently to that of the other adjudicators, then that adjudicator will need to justify their marks. This process will allow for marks to be changed if the adjudicators feel that it is necessary to do so, after collaboration with the other adjudicators. Among other benefits this allows for adjudicators to be able to accurately and confidently produce a top ten plays list – as they have all seen and assessed all of the plays.
Because of the full schedule, and the necessary perception of lack of bias, none of the four adjudicators will be permitted to direct or produce a Finley-entered play during that year's term. If a club enters a play, and one of the adjudicators is actively involved in that club, they can see and mark the play but the other three adjudicators will write the comments to the club. There is no reason why all four couldn't judge the play, because all marks will be open and accountable. If an adjudicator is performing in an production, they obviously cannot mark that production. The other three adjudicators will score the production and the fourth will be ineligible for any individual awards.
Obviously this decision was painful because it meant cutting back on the number of adjudicators, all of whom we respect, admire and consider friends. This decision was made somewhat easier because as it was necessary to eliminate adjudicators who were directing (or otherwise unavailable for the entire year) it left us with a much smaller pool.
The adjudicators for 2004 are Jarrod Buttery, Sue Hicks, Kerri Hilton and Andrew Round. They represent a spread of experience and skills. We would be extremely pleased to hear from any adjudicators who would be interested in adjudicating within the new system in 2005. The new system is extremely demanding for an adjudicator, but we hope extremely rewarding as well.
We apologise for the inconvenience of making this change after the adjudication year has started and would like to assure all clubs and all entered productions that they have not been disadvantaged. The four adjudicators have seen all of the entered productions this year. All productions have been adjudicated using the same - new - system.
We would like to emphasise that this was not a rushed decision. Of course, if you do something too slowly, you're dragging your tail; if you do something too quickly, it's a knee-jerk response. However, the committee has been observing the Finley debate and discussing possibilities since January's Awards Night, and in earnest since the February AGM elected a new committee. The Finley Awards were thoroughly discussed at the March Committee Meeting - the first meeting of the new committee. The discussion went around the table. Every committee member was asked for their opinions and given the opportunity to speak on the proposed changes. When it came to a vote, the new system was overwhelmingly endorsed - no committee member voted against it. The entire committee recognised the need for improvement in the system, and acted to swiftly to implement the changes.
A second problem is that bank rates over the last few years have meant that the original Finley bequest (and the prize money) will soon be gone. The ITA has been actively seeking corporate sponsorship, and this is close to being finalised. This will allow monetary prizes to continue to be given for Best Play and Best Musical, and to other awards too. It is the committee's intention to expand the Finley Awards to include awards such as Best Actor, Best Actress, and more.
Once again, by having all of the adjudicators see all of the plays, then the aforementioned awards could be given with a degree of certainty.
The profile and value of the Finley Awards needs to be increased within the theatre community and amongst the general public. This could not be done under the old, outdated system. The system was changed before, it needed to be changed again. It's the responsibility of the ITA committee to manage the system and implement changes when needed. If this new system doesn't work or isn't accepted, further changes can be made. The worst mistake we could make would be to ignore the problem.
Letters have been sent to all member clubs containing more information about this new system. We recommend that all interested parties contact their club secretaries. Additionally, if your club would like ITA Representatives to come along to your next committee meeting to discuss these changes and answer all of your questions, please feel free to contact Kimberley Shaw on yak@git.com.au or 0403 438 390
The ITA Committee.
Melanie DeCull
Publicity Coordinator
Independent Theatre Association
[%sig%]
Re: I'd like to thank the Academy...
Tue, 30 Mar 2004, 09:52 pmThis all sounds pretty well-thought-out to me.
I especially like the bit about judges collaborating to discuss their thoughts. This ensures the marks are applied according to a similar scale by each judge, and is the way we agreed upon the winners when I was a judge for the WA Citizen of the Year Youth awards.
Someone will always take issue with the RESULTS...that's just the nature of awards. But having read all the objections to the previous system, and how this new one seeks to correct those problems, I don't think many will take issue with this METHOD of judging.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
I especially like the bit about judges collaborating to discuss their thoughts. This ensures the marks are applied according to a similar scale by each judge, and is the way we agreed upon the winners when I was a judge for the WA Citizen of the Year Youth awards.
Someone will always take issue with the RESULTS...that's just the nature of awards. But having read all the objections to the previous system, and how this new one seeks to correct those problems, I don't think many will take issue with this METHOD of judging.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]