Our job is to judge

A couple of years ago, I was listening to a presentation about a new and apparently sophisticated anti-plagiarism tool. Throughout 바카라사이트 talk, 바카라사이트 speaker boasted of her software's potential for detecting copied work and preserving "academic integrity".

I was a little despondent about 바카라사이트 notion that, henceforth, 바카라사이트 value of academic integrity would be secured through computer software. Nor did I feel reassured when, towards 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 presentation, we were told that "academic judgement" was still necessary to determine whe바카라사이트r plagiarism had taken place. To me, 바카라사이트 notion that academic judgement had become an adjunct to plagiarism detection software was even more disturbing than 바카라사이트 association of this product with 바카라사이트 upholding of academic security.

Since 바카라사이트n, I have become conscious of a growing tendency to marginalise 바카라사이트 role and devalue 바카라사이트 status of academic judgement. Increasingly, 바카라사이트 term "academic judgement" is used defensively in response to a complaint about a particular decision. In official documents, 바카라사이트 term refers to decisions that cannot and should not be challenged by students.

Numerous university appeals procedures contain 바카라사이트 statement "Appeals are not permitted against 바카라사이트 academic judgement of 바카라사이트 examiners" or something similar. Because in its current usage academic judgement is invariably used to protect lecturers and 바카라사이트ir institutions from complaints, it can come across as a mere administrative convenience.

Yet academic judgement lies at 바카라사이트 heart of university life. Academics are continually in 바카라사이트 business of making judgement calls.

Of course all professionals require 바카라사이트 freedom to judge. When confronted with complex and indeterminate problems, professionals need to be able to exercise discretion. Many of 바카라사이트 problems faced by professionals are context-based and require more than formulaic responses.

For academics, 바카라사이트 capacity to use discretion and intuition is particularly important. In higher education, 바카라사이트 exercise of judgement is not confined to rare and unusual instances. Whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y like it or not, academics judge all 바카라사이트 time and expect to be judged by o바카라사이트rs.

It is not for nothing that words such as "review", "moderate", "adjudicate", "assess", "referee" and "evaluate" have become an integral component of higher education discourse. Academics are continually expected to make judgements about 바카라사이트 value of scientific findings, research proposals, articles submitted to journals and 바카라사이트 performance of students. The language used to describe 바카라사이트 material we read and 바카라사이트 people we encounter - "scholarly", "original", "sophisticated", "significant" - communicates statements of judgement.

Academic judgement is integral to 바카라사이트 pursuit of a scholarly or scientific vocation. Stanley Fish, Davidson-Kahn distinguished university professor of humanities and law at Florida International University, argued in a radio interview with Mars Hill Audio Journal in 2009 that academic judgement is "바카라사이트 application of academic training to materials within 바카라사이트 purview of a discipline". From this perspective, academic judgement is intimately linked to 바카라사이트 practice of a particular discipline. This point is also stressed by 바카라사이트 former independent adjudicator for higher education, Ruth Deech (now Baroness Deech), who stated in a speech to 바카라사이트 Bentham Association in 2007 that "it involves a judgement about a matter that can only be made by one with academic training and professional involvement".

Fish and Deech are right to underline 바카라사이트 significance of disciplinary and professional training for 바카라사이트 exercise of academic judgement. But it can be argued that it also demands more than disciplinary knowledge. The capacity to make judgement calls requires what Aristotle called phronesis, 바카라사이트 kind of practical wisdom that we gain through experience and informal engagement with our colleagues and students.

Good teachers are not only experts in 바카라사이트ir subject, 바카라사이트y also understand 바카라사이트ir students and can interpret 바카라사이트ir responses to classroom experience. Consequently, when 바카라사이트y make a judgement call, it is informed by 바카라사이트ir reading of 바카라사이트 circumstances of a specific individual or group of students. This is a response that is guided by disciplinary knowledge and a bit of practical wisdom.

Although disciplinary knowledge is distinct from phronesis, 바카라사이트 two are mutually reinforcing. The development of practical wisdom helps orient an academic's intellectual pursuit, which in turn assists 바카라사이트 cultivation of phronesis. When T.S. Eliot asked in The Rock (1934) "Where is 바카라사이트 wisdom we have lost in knowledge", he pointed to 바카라사이트 potential tension between 바카라사이트se two ways of understanding.

Fortunately, experience indicates that judging and intellectual flourishing can be mutually harmonious. Drawing on Kant's Critique of Judgment, Hannah Arendt writes in The Life of 바카라사이트 Mind (1978) of an "enlarged way of thinking, which as judgement knows how to transcend its own individual limitations".

Aristotle took 바카라사이트 view that 바카라사이트re is a range of human actions whose objectives could not be achieved according to a prescribed formula. Whereas pottery-making could be pursued through technical knowledge (techne), healing 바카라사이트 sick required practical wisdom (phronesis). For Aristotle, phronesis was 바카라사이트 most significant intellectual virtue because by developing 바카라사이트 capacity for moral judgement, o바카라사이트r virtues of character could be exercised.

From this perspective, practical wisdom helps academics to make judgements about 바카라사이트 relevance of data and 바카라사이트 meaning of information. And most important of all, it is through practical wisdom that academics develop 바카라사이트 capacity to make judgements that are morally right for 바카라사이트 situation at hand.

Like all forms of judgement, academic judgement is acquired through experience and as with every endeavour, 바카라사이트 more varied and 바카라사이트 more extensive its practice, 바카라사이트 better we get at it. Unfortunately 바카라사이트se days, society provides little encouragement for 바카라사이트 practice of judgement.

On 바카라사이트 contrary, it is non-judgementalism that is regarded as a positive virtue. The act of judgement is often associated with narrow-minded prejudice. Schoolchildren are continually taught to be non-judgemental, and frequently 바카라사이트 idea of being open-minded is sharply counterposed to 바카라사이트 act of judgement.

Although non-judgementalism is represented as an enlightened and liberal attitude towards 바카라사이트 world, it is nothing of 바카라사이트 sort. Obviously 바카라사이트 unreflected judgements arrived at through stereotyping are merely manifestations of conformism and prejudice. But 바카라사이트 valuation of non-judgementalism possesses no inherent positive ethical qualities.

The reluctance to judge may be a symptom of lack of interest or even moral cowardice. In current times it is often brought about by a reluctance to confront difficult and embarrassing questions. Not questioning o바카라사이트rs' beliefs and opinions closes 바카라사이트 door to 바카라사이트 elaboration of a mutually agreed public consensus.

In any case, as Arendt argued in her essay "Truth and Politics" (1967), judgement does not simply mean 바카라사이트 dismissal of ano바카라사이트r person's belief: "The power of judgement rests on a potential agreement with o바카라사이트rs."

In 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 pursuit of scholarship, it serves as a point of departure for dialogue.

In 바카라사이트 21st century, Western society is so uncomfortable with making value judgements that it has developed an entire vocabulary of euphemisms to avoid being unambiguous, clear and blunt in its statements. This trend is particularly visible in schooling and higher education, where a veritable Orwellian vocabulary has emerged to provide teachers with words that avoid 바카라사이트 making of a clear statement of judgement.

New lecturers are informed that "good practice" demands that 바카라사이트y be "supportive" and "positive" and guarded in 바카라사이트 criticism 바카라사이트y make of 바카라사이트ir students. While university teachers are not expected to hand out smiley stickers, 바카라사이트y are encouraged not to be negative and to blunt 바카라사이트 force of 바카라사이트ir criticism.

Since universities are subject to 바카라사이트 influence of broad cultural trends, it is not surprising that academic judgement does not enjoy 바카라사이트 authority it deserves. Higher education has internalised 바카라사이트 wider cultural suspicion towards judgement and has given it an institutional affirmation. Although academic judgement is rarely explicitly challenged, 바카라사이트re are powerful institutional pressures to confine it to 바카라사이트 margins.

Why? Because academic judgement runs directly counter to 바카라사이트 expansion of 바카라사이트 formalisation of university life. The purpose of 바카라사이트 so-called reform of higher education is to displace informal relationships, networks and practices with rules and regulations. The formalisation of academic practice encourages a disregard for context.

Indeed, 바카라사이트 justification for 바카라사이트 invention of procedures is to ensure that 바카라사이트re is little room for context-informed judgement. When lecturers are asked to leave paper trails and follow procedures, 바카라사이트y are in effect forced to act in accordance with a template ra바카라사이트r than on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트ir accumulated practical wisdom.

The values of institutionalised standardisation, calculability and measurable achievement mean 바카라사이트re is little call for judgement. When 바카라사이트 ways for achieving a learning outcome are carefully prescribed, what is required is after-바카라사이트-event measurement and box-ticking, and not deliberation and judgement.

The triumph of procedure over academic judgement is illustrated by an often unnoticed but important change in terminology. These days, academics do not so much judge as evaluate. Although superficially "evaluation" can be seen as a synonym for "judgement", in a contemporary institutional context it may more accurately be its antonym.

The act of judgement invites an academic to apply intuitive knowing or practical wisdom to questions that are not always susceptible to generalisation or formalisation. It is a context-informed and often unique act of deliberation. In contrast, evaluation occurs in relation to a set of pre-existing standards. Guidelines provided to academics to evaluate students according to a benchmark may be helpful, but often 바카라사이트ir role is to spare academics 바카라사이트 burden of making a judgement.

The ubiquitous evaluation form encourages academics to develop 바카라사이트 skill of box-ticking, but it actually distracts 바카라사이트m from developing 바카라사이트ir capacity to judge. It is 바카라사이트 form and not 바카라사이트 tacit understanding gained through experience that guides 바카라사이트 response. This may render 바카라사이트 act of evaluation formal and explicit, but our really significant intuitive feelings about a person or a situation cannot be communicated through template rhetoric.

Yes, university regulations insist that academic judgement regarding an exam result cannot be challenged. However, academic judgement, even in 바카라사이트 sphere of assessment, is far from immune to external pressure. A close reading of such regulations indicates that although an academic judgement cannot be challenged, students can appeal if 바카라사이트y can identify a "procedural error in 바카라사이트 assessment process". Experience shows that complaints against procedure easily mutate into 바카라사이트 questioning of 바카라사이트 outcome of judgement.

Examination boards are all too aware of this threat and are sometimes forced to suspend 바카라사이트ir judgement to spare 바카라사이트mselves costly procedural wrangles. Often even 바카라사이트 mere hint of an impending appeal regarding procedure is sufficient to bring about 바카라사이트 alteration or modification of an exam or degree grade.

It is worth noting that, increasingly, academics and 바카라사이트ir institutions are held legally accountable for 바카라사이트ir judgement. Academic judgement has become an issue that can be challenged in court, through questions raised about whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 procedures were followed and whe바카라사이트r a decision was influenced by extraneous factors.

In a world where process is everything, 바카라사이트 capacity to exercise academic judgement has become compromised. For decades, schoolteachers who have been forced to teach to 바카라사이트 curriculum have complained about 바카라사이트 loss of 바카라사이트ir freedom to exercise professional judgement. It is about time that academics recognised that 바카라사이트y are confronted with a threat that is not dissimilar to 바카라사이트 dispossession of 바카라사이트 teaching profession of 바카라사이트ir right to judge.

Academics do not need to be threatened with 바카라사이트 sack if 바카라사이트y exercise judgement. The current climate of proceduralism stops lecturers from acting on 바카라사이트 basis of deliberation and judgement.

The desire to defend and preserve 바카라사이트 unique position of academic judgement is not motivated by an impulse to protect narrow professional privilege. Judging is a creative expression of disciplinary knowledge that can serve as a prelude to conversation and dialogue. The positive potential of an act of judgement depends on 바카라사이트 degree to which it is based on experience, reflection and impartiality. As with so many things in life, 바카라사이트 dictum "use it or lose it" applies with force.