CHAPTER 9| Fairness, ethics and standards

consequentialism.
on power and pessimism.
relativism and power.
joycephine marie d. rodriguez
DISCUSSANT
consequentialism
We define any tests as its
consequences.
consequentialism.

 We have extended the notion of professionalism to include

engagement with a democratic community of professionals.

 The value of our activity as professionals can be

judged by the extent to which our work contributes to
the opportunities which our tests open up to all the
citizens of our society.
consequentialism.
 This extended definition is essentially pragmatic.

 However, it does not take account of one of the standard criticisms

of pragmatism, namely, how we decide on the ethicality of the
decision of an individual taken at a particular point in time.

 The answer lies in the consideration of the consequences that we

expect our present decisions and actions to entail. The intention
of a decision should be to maximize the good for the
democratic society in which we live, and all the individuals
within that society.
consequentialism.
 As we saw in Unit A1, Messick (1989) introduced the notion of
consequential validity to educational testing and assessment, and it
has become a central notion in language testing:

The central question is whether the proposed testing should

serve as the means to the intended end, in light of other
ends it might inadvertently serve and in consideration of
the place of the intended end in the pluralistic framework of
social choices.

(Messick, 1989: 85)

consequentialism.
 Positive consequence is best achieved through distributive justice,
which Messick described as follows:

The concept of distributive justice deals with the

appropriateness of access to the conditions and goods that
affect individual well-being, which is broadly conceived to
include psychological, physiological, economic, and social
aspects.
(Messick, 1989: 85)
consequentialism.
 We can combine distributive justice with a new definition of what a test
is if we re-conceive the problem of ethical test use in terms of the
consequences of its use.

 Doing so takes new advantage of the pragmatic maxim (Peirce, 1877: 146:)

Consider what effects, that might conceivably have

practical bearings, we conceive the object of our
conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects
is the whole of our conception of the object.
consequentialism.

 That is, the

nature of a thing is its impact or effect
on the world.
 This, we believe, is also true for any testing or assessment
procedure. As such, we may define any test as its
consequences.
consequentialism.
 The logic of our argument is that if we design a test with its impact in mind,
then the best results are more likely to follow.

 From this stance we are able to address the charge that we are not able to
make an ethical decision at any particular point in the test design or
implementation process.

 ‘Ethical’ or ‘fair’ decisions are those which address the test’s effect at
every step of the way during the test development process. The criterion
against which we measure the success of the enterprise is acceptance by the
community of professionals and the stakeholders.
consequentialism.
The ‘absolutely’ true, meaning what no farther experience will
ever alter, is that ideal vanishing-point towards which we imagine
that all our temporary truths will some day converge... Meanwhile
we have to live to-day by what truth we can get to-day, and be
ready tomorrow to call it falsehood... When new experiences lead
to retrospective judgments, using the past tense, what these
judgments utter was true, even tho no past thinker had been led
there. We live forwards, a Danish thinker has said, but we under-
stand backwards. The present sheds a backward light on the
world’s previous processes.

(James, 1907: 98)

consequentialism.

 The task for the ethical language tester is to look into the
future, to picture the effect the test is intended to have, and to
structure the test development to achieve that effect.

 This is what we refer to as effect-driven testing.

on power and pessimism
All examinations are symbols
of power and control.
 on power and pessimism.

 In a famous commentary on tests, Foucault (1975: 184) claims

that all examinations are symbols of power and control:

The examination combines the technique of an

observing hierarchy and those of normalizing
judgment. It is a normalizing gaze, a surveillance that
makes it possible to quantify, classify, and punish. It
establishes over individuals a visibility through which
one differentiates and judges them. That is why, in all
the mechanisms of discipline, the examination is
highly ritualized.
 on power and pessimism.

 This is a very different perspective on the ‘consistency’ in the rituals of

administration that we presented in Unit A8.

 For Foucault, the evolution of the test in edu-cation is a form of control,

in which the test takers are turned into objects to be measured and classified.

 The whole notion of ‘knowledge’ is a construct, used by the powerful to

oppress the weak and keep them under control.
 on power and pessimism.

 This postmodern re-working of a Marxist view of knowledge is deeply

embedded in a philosophy of ethical relativism, where the rules, values and
modes of behaviour that are encouraged are those which privilege the
powerful.

 For postmodern thinkers, talk of ethics and fairness is simply that – talk. It is
lodged within a discourse that is created within specific societies or groups in
order to normalize behaviour.
 on power and pessimism.

 The problem of power takes us back to one of the oldest and most
fundamental debates in the history of thought, and it impacts upon
language testing practice today.

 Foucault’s critique of testing echoes the debate between Plato and the
Sophists, primarily explored in the Theaetetus.
 on power and pessimism.
 In this text the Sophists are allowed to put forward their view that morality is
merely a set of rules invented by the powerful to subjugate the weak, and that
ethical behaviour is but a relative social contract to guide behaviour. The
greatest advocate of this position was Protagoras (480–411 BC).

There are two sides to every question.

Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that
are, that they are, and of the things that are not,
that they are not.
 on power and pessimism.
 Socrates characterized this position as ‘what seems true to anyone is true for
him to whom it seems so’ (Theaetetus, 170a).

 Nietzsche (1887) argued that history and culture determine our view of what is
right and wrong, even though we like to think of ourselves as independent
individuals. Rather, moral codes are imposed with threats of discipline and
punishment (hence Foucault’s title) until the individual conscience is nothing
more than the internalization of the rules of a specific society. Like the
existentialists, Nietzsche believes that we make values rather than discover them.
But he is even more radically relativist, for ‘Facts are precisely what there is
not, only interpretations’ (Nietzsche, 1906: 481)
 relativism and power
What is considered ethically acceptable varies

from country to country, culture to culture.

 relativism and power.

 Hamp-Lyons (1997a: 324) argues that the growing interest in ethics is

related to the fact that language testers have had a positivist approach to
their discipline; that ‘the object of our enquiry really exists’.

 She argues that this is not the case. She anchors processes from test
design to interpretation, from research to score use, firmly within the
exercise of power, as all ‘language testing is a political act’ (ibid.:
325).
 relativism and power.

 Hamp-Lyons (2000a: 581) expands upon this, with an explicit statement

of what ‘ethical language testing’ is under postmodernism:

Under the influence of postmodernism, we cannot avoid

acknowledging the contingent nature of knowledge nor the fact
that different stakeholder groups will have competing goals and
values. The combination of expanded views of stakeholders and
accountability with growing acceptance that the truth is not ‘out
there’ but in us has made many language testing professionals
question what they do and how they do it: this is what I mean when
I refer to ‘ethical language testing.’
 relativism and power.

 Hamp-Lyons (2000a: 589) also writes:

I do suspect that what is considered ethically

acceptable varies from country to country, culture to
culture.
 relativism and power.

 Fulcher (1999) has argued that there can be no answer within a post-
modern paradigm, because there are different ethics for different
societies.

We contend that effect-driven testing – as defined

above – provides a feasible resolution: the test
development team and all its stakeholders should
never be prohibited from discussing any aspect of
testing, and, provided that they keep the test effect in
mind, we believe they have done their job. Relativism
will enter – naturally, we believe – into such test
design discussions.
thank you.
Have a good
day.