Rank: 4 – The authors’ use of “complicity” implies that the stakeholders of computer-assisted writing assessment are contributing to something “bad.” But the authors don’t completely advocate discounting computer-assisted assessment; they advocate for the use of computer-assisted accompanied with a better sense of praxis.
Argument: The chapter discusses the complicit agents in using computer-assisted assessment. The authors offer these stakeholders: the researchers, the entrepreneurs, the adopters, and the users. For each stakeholder, the authors point to the relationship and complicities that stakeholder has with other stakeholders, but also the consequences of those complicities.
Assumptions: McAllister and White’s approach indirectly focuses on the situation and exigencies (and the interpretation of those factors) that influenced the emergence of computer-assisted assessment. For each stakeholder, the authors point out either explicit or implicit exigiences that other stakeholders—specifically, entrepreneurs—take up to respond to those exigiences.
Points of Interest: One of the more interesting points that the authors discuss is the influence that marketing departments have on the advocacy for AES. The marketing department specifically seeks out exigencies that support their own need to make money. I just thought it was interesting how marketing plays in AES advocacy—writing assessment as a field of study doesn’t have a marketing department.