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
Sat, 6 Mar 1999, 02:58 pmI don't see the marks being discussed among the adjudicators as being a huge problem as long as discussions take place AFTER the marks are submitted.Discussion before submission leaves open the theoretical possibility of adjudicators pushing their own agenda and controlling the adjudication.The problem at the moment is that there is no real way to tell if a particular adjudicator is way off beam. Theoretically, at the moment Muriel Boggins ( imaginary adjudicator ) could either have no idea and be submitting marks that bear no relation to the plays viewed OR be harbouring a grudge against Woop Woop Amateur Dramatic Society ( imaginary theatre company ) and purposely be marking them at less than they deserve.I don't believe that that IS happening but the potential is there.The marking system allows for adjudicators who consistantly mark too high or too low and adjusts accordingly, but there is no safeguard against - "Muriel the Idiot" or "Muriel who doesn't like Woop Woop".Allowing our predominantly intelligent, talented adjudication team to peer assess may eliminate the possibility of this occuring.Kimberley