公平评价:通过反霸权的民主实践争取评价

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Rhyall Gordon, Matt Lumb, Matthew Bunn, P. Burke
{"title":"公平评价:通过反霸权的民主实践争取评价","authors":"Rhyall Gordon, Matt Lumb, Matthew Bunn, P. Burke","doi":"10.1080/00220620.2021.1931059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n Formal evaluation of policies, programmes and people has become ubiquitous in contemporary western contexts. This is the case for equity and widening participation (WP) agendas in higher education, for which evaluation is often required to measure ‘what works’. Although evaluation has a ‘fundamentally social, political, and value-oriented character’ (Guba and Lincoln. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 7), an experimental approach, situated within hegemonic positivist epistemologies, has tended to prevail. In this paper, we argue that it is misguided to pursue evaluation with an apolitical pretext of independence and objectivity. Drawing on Butler’s concept of performativity, we explore how hegemonic anti-democratic evaluation practices can potentially re-inscribe and reproduce the very inequalities that WP seeks to address. By critiquing the technologies of evaluation, we lay out one way of understanding how democratic evaluation practices can reclaim evaluation to make possible more diverse and socially just worlds.","PeriodicalId":45468,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Administration and History","volume":"36 1","pages":"277 - 290"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation for equity: reclaiming evaluation by striving towards counter-hegemonic democratic practices\",\"authors\":\"Rhyall Gordon, Matt Lumb, Matthew Bunn, P. Burke\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00220620.2021.1931059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT\\n Formal evaluation of policies, programmes and people has become ubiquitous in contemporary western contexts. This is the case for equity and widening participation (WP) agendas in higher education, for which evaluation is often required to measure ‘what works’. Although evaluation has a ‘fundamentally social, political, and value-oriented character’ (Guba and Lincoln. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 7), an experimental approach, situated within hegemonic positivist epistemologies, has tended to prevail. In this paper, we argue that it is misguided to pursue evaluation with an apolitical pretext of independence and objectivity. Drawing on Butler’s concept of performativity, we explore how hegemonic anti-democratic evaluation practices can potentially re-inscribe and reproduce the very inequalities that WP seeks to address. By critiquing the technologies of evaluation, we lay out one way of understanding how democratic evaluation practices can reclaim evaluation to make possible more diverse and socially just worlds.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational Administration and History\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"277 - 290\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational Administration and History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2021.1931059\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Administration and History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2021.1931059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在当代西方语境中,对政策、项目和人员的正式评估已经变得无处不在。高等教育中的公平和扩大参与(WP)议程就是这种情况,通常需要评估来衡量“什么是有效的”。尽管评价具有“基本的社会、政治和价值导向特征”(Guba and Lincoln, 1989)。第四代评估。Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 7),一种实验方法,位于霸权实证主义认识论中,已经趋于占上风。在本文中,我们认为以独立和客观的非政治借口来追求评估是错误的。借鉴巴特勒的表演性概念,我们探讨了霸权的反民主评估实践如何可能重新刻下和再现《工作纲领》试图解决的不平等问题。通过对评估技术的批判,我们提出了一种理解民主评估实践如何能够使评估成为可能,从而使世界更加多样化和社会公正。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation for equity: reclaiming evaluation by striving towards counter-hegemonic democratic practices
ABSTRACT Formal evaluation of policies, programmes and people has become ubiquitous in contemporary western contexts. This is the case for equity and widening participation (WP) agendas in higher education, for which evaluation is often required to measure ‘what works’. Although evaluation has a ‘fundamentally social, political, and value-oriented character’ (Guba and Lincoln. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 7), an experimental approach, situated within hegemonic positivist epistemologies, has tended to prevail. In this paper, we argue that it is misguided to pursue evaluation with an apolitical pretext of independence and objectivity. Drawing on Butler’s concept of performativity, we explore how hegemonic anti-democratic evaluation practices can potentially re-inscribe and reproduce the very inequalities that WP seeks to address. By critiquing the technologies of evaluation, we lay out one way of understanding how democratic evaluation practices can reclaim evaluation to make possible more diverse and socially just worlds.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Educational Administration and History
Journal of Educational Administration and History EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.60%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信