{"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。
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.