Abstract
This essay critically examines the Oxford Accord, a professional position paper proposing standardized procedures for evaluating artist-teachers in academic theatre programs. It argues that while the Accord establishes well-intentioned principles, its call for departmental lists of outside evaluators introduces risks of bias, favoritism, and political manipulation. The author contends that before creating such lists, departments must clarify whether evaluations emphasize process or product and select evaluators whose credentials align with that emphasis. Effective evaluation, the essay maintains, requires sustained engagement from early production stages, not perfunctory judgments at performance time. The author advocates a system in which evaluators observe or correspond regularly with production teams, ensuring nuanced assessments of collaboration, pedagogy, and artistry. To avoid conflicts of interest, the essay proposes that professional associations develop and maintain centralized evaluator registries, with departments contributing feedback on evaluator performance. Financial compensation is identified as essential for credible assessment. Ultimately, the essay frames the Oxford Accord as a constructive but incomplete step, urging theatre educators to establish rigorous, transparent, and institutionally supported evaluation standards that reflect both artistic and educational values.
Recommended Citation
Collins, Sherwood
(1986)
"The Oxford Accord and Evaluators,"
Association for Communication Administration Bulletin: Vol. 57, Article 7.
Available at:
https://stars.library.ucf.edu/aca/vol57/iss1/7
