Judging by the Rules? A Framework for Predicting How Evaluative Cultures Develop

• In Event: 413 - Section on Organizations, Occupations and Work Refereed Roundtable Session. Table 01. Culture and Organizations
  In Refereed Roundtable 100min: Table 01. Culture and Organizations

Abstract

Why does evaluation often work very differently in different contexts? Drawing on a mixed-methods study of evaluation in figure skating and classical music, I propose a framework for predicting when evaluative cultures (cultural scripts surrounding evaluation) will tend to be more or less formal, focusing on four variables: controversy, centralization, power, and trust. In particular, I consider why and how evaluative cultures change over time and why different settings within a particular field adopt different evaluation practices. I argue that low levels of trust and power and high levels of controversy and centralization foster formal evaluative cultures with rigid rules, whereas high levels of trust and power and low levels of controversy and centralization promote informal cultures where evaluators have more discretion. I conclude by proposing other cases to add to the analysis to make this framework more comprehensive. Understanding how evaluative cultures develop is important because in addition to influencing the objects of evaluation and perceived fairness and legitimacy, evaluation practices often affect outcomes, which have significant consequences for participants.

Author

• Stacy E. Lom, University of Central Arkansas