Judging the judges
Fri, 5 Mar 1999, 04:35 pmGrant Malcolm6 posts in thread
Judging the judges
Fri, 5 Mar 1999, 04:35 pmI understand that the ITA committee are due to discuss some ideas realted to the training and selection of award adjudicators.Barry Lucas and I had a very fruitful discussion last week at the ITA office.Amongst the ideas to emerge from our conversation was a suggestion from me that the adjudication process had been rendered too anonymous and in the process was "protecting" the adjudicators from criticism that may at times be warranted. After all, what does anyone really know about our adjudicators and the marks they give?I suggested that each adjudicator's marks should be subject to a process of peer review - discussed and if necessary voted on at a meeting of all adjudicators. A similar process already takes place for adjudicator's certificates, why not for other awards?Opinions often differ so widely on a show, it is vital that these differences be aired and discussed. Through this process of debate and discussion the adjudicators can achieve concensus. Along the way, their outlooks will be broadened, their critical thinking tested and their opinions revised.I'd almost line up to adjudicate in a process like that! It would be very challenging for all involved.If adjudicators are going to sit in judgement over other people productions, i say, let them be judged, too!CheersGrant
Re: Judging the judges
Fri, 5 Mar 1999, 05:26 pmWell this is my first time on this page and I must say so far it has been averitable landslide of cyber fun, what a great idea - a forum for the ideaswe usually express in green rooms and bars out of the earshot of fellowthespians. How very year 2000 of us.Grant, thrilled to see your well considered and aired (and justified) viewson our adjudication system are finally being given a good think about by the ITA. Little more explanation required for me though I think -> I suggested that each adjudicator's marks should be subject to> a process of peer review - discussed and if necessary voted on at> a meeting of all adjudicators.Does this mean that the adjudicators who didn't see the show in question will be voting on accepting the marks of the adjudicators who did see it, or that all the adjudicators who saw a show will reach a consensus about it, or something I'm just not grasping at all?