Agustín Barroilhet, Mónica Silva, Kurt F. Geisinger
{"title":"获得公平评估的权利","authors":"Agustín Barroilhet, Mónica Silva, Kurt F. Geisinger","doi":"10.1057/s41307-024-00352-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Merit-based procedures should be constantly reevaluated according to the circumstances to remain both valid and fair—two interrelated concepts. Inducing reevaluation, however, is difficult. These procedures are controlled by legitimate authorities, are rule and contract-bound, and can become quickly entrenched. This resistance to change calls for specific legal tools and institutions that can favour a potential review. This article advances the first of these tools: enacting the right to be fairly assessed. With this aim, we first explain why challenges to merit-based procedures are complex and then provide contingent justifications to base potential challenges. Our concern is the role of biases and conflicts of interests of authorities who define and control merit-based procedures. We then turn our focus to the institutional aspects of the problem. Administrative alternatives to induce reevaluation involve complex challenges, hence our defence of an actionable legal right. We illustrate the usefulness of this approach by showing how courts enforce fairness in testing in the USA. The need for the right to be both validly and fairly assessed is based on Chilean examples. Still, our argument also applies to other nations lacking equitable remedies and actions to deal with the same issues.</p>","PeriodicalId":47327,"journal":{"name":"Higher Education Policy","volume":"08 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Right to be Fairly Assessed\",\"authors\":\"Agustín Barroilhet, Mónica Silva, Kurt F. Geisinger\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41307-024-00352-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Merit-based procedures should be constantly reevaluated according to the circumstances to remain both valid and fair—two interrelated concepts. Inducing reevaluation, however, is difficult. These procedures are controlled by legitimate authorities, are rule and contract-bound, and can become quickly entrenched. This resistance to change calls for specific legal tools and institutions that can favour a potential review. This article advances the first of these tools: enacting the right to be fairly assessed. With this aim, we first explain why challenges to merit-based procedures are complex and then provide contingent justifications to base potential challenges. Our concern is the role of biases and conflicts of interests of authorities who define and control merit-based procedures. We then turn our focus to the institutional aspects of the problem. Administrative alternatives to induce reevaluation involve complex challenges, hence our defence of an actionable legal right. We illustrate the usefulness of this approach by showing how courts enforce fairness in testing in the USA. The need for the right to be both validly and fairly assessed is based on Chilean examples. Still, our argument also applies to other nations lacking equitable remedies and actions to deal with the same issues.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47327,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Higher Education Policy\",\"volume\":\"08 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Higher Education Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-024-00352-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Education Policy","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-024-00352-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Merit-based procedures should be constantly reevaluated according to the circumstances to remain both valid and fair—two interrelated concepts. Inducing reevaluation, however, is difficult. These procedures are controlled by legitimate authorities, are rule and contract-bound, and can become quickly entrenched. This resistance to change calls for specific legal tools and institutions that can favour a potential review. This article advances the first of these tools: enacting the right to be fairly assessed. With this aim, we first explain why challenges to merit-based procedures are complex and then provide contingent justifications to base potential challenges. Our concern is the role of biases and conflicts of interests of authorities who define and control merit-based procedures. We then turn our focus to the institutional aspects of the problem. Administrative alternatives to induce reevaluation involve complex challenges, hence our defence of an actionable legal right. We illustrate the usefulness of this approach by showing how courts enforce fairness in testing in the USA. The need for the right to be both validly and fairly assessed is based on Chilean examples. Still, our argument also applies to other nations lacking equitable remedies and actions to deal with the same issues.
期刊介绍:
Higher Education Policy is an international peer-reviewed and SSCI-indexed academic journal focusing on higher education policy in a broad sense. The journal considers submissions that discuss national and supra-national higher education policies and/or analyse their impacts on higher education institutions or the academic community: leadership, faculty, staff and students, but also considers papers that deal with governance and policy issues at the level of higher education institutions. Critical analyses, empirical investigations (either qualitative or quantitative), and theoretical-conceptual contributions are equally welcome, but for all submissions the requirement is that papers be embedded in the relevant academic literature and contribute to furthering our understanding of policy.
The journal has a preference for papers that are written from a disciplinary or interdisciplinary perspective. In the past, contributors have relied on perspectives from public administration, political science, sociology, history, economics and law, but also from philosophy, psychology and anthropology. Articles devoted to systems of higher education that are less well-known or less often analysed are particularly welcome.
Given the international scope of the journal, articles should be written for and be understood by an international audience, consisting of researchers in higher education, disciplinary researchers, and policy-makers, administrators, managers and practitioners in higher education. Contributions should not normally exceed 7,000 words (excluding references). Peer reviewAll submissions to the journal will undergo rigorous peer review (anonymous referees) after an initial editorial screening on quality and fit with the journal''s aims.Special issues
The journal welcomes proposals for special issues. The journal archive contains several examples of special issues. Such proposals, to be sent to the editor, should set out the theme of the special issue and include the names of the (proposed) contributors and summaries of the envisaged contributions. Forum section
Occasionally, the journal publishes contributions – in its Forum section – based on personal viewpoints and/or experiences with the intent to stimulate discussion and reflection, or to challenge established thinking in the field of higher education.