Volume 168, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Justice has been the topic of comparatively few papers in the fields of applied linguistics or language assessment. This may be due to the lack of a clear and agreed-upon definition on the one hand, or to the difficulty of operationalizing justice for test development on the other. This paper aims to remedy both problems by discussing prior conceptualizations of justice and by introducing six justice principles, which are based on theories of distributive justice that focus on human rights, fairness, equal opportunity, and dignity. The overarching aim of this paper is to advance the debate on justice, and to provide a consistent way of considering ethical and moral dilemmas that language testers face today.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. ALTE
    ALTE (2010) Minimum standards for establishing quality profiles in ALTE examinations. ALTE. Retrieved from www.alte.org (10March 2013).
  2. Altman, A. , & Wellman, C. H.
    (2009) A liberal theory of international justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199564415.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199564415.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bachman, L. , & Palmer, A.
    (2010) Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Pres.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bentham, J. , & Mill, J. S.
    (1987) Utilitarianism and other essays. ( A. Ryan , Ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boylan, M.
    (2004) A just society. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Connolly, T. , Arkes, H. R. , & Hammond, K. R.
    (1999) Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Davies, A.
    (2010) Test fairness: A response. Language Testing, 27(2), 171–176. doi: 10.1177/0265532209349466
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209349466 [Google Scholar]
  8. Deygers, B. , Van den Branden, K. , & Van Gorp, K.
    (2017) University entrance language tests: A matter of justice. Language Testing. (Published online, awaiting print) doi: 10.1177/0265532217706196
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217706196 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dworkin, R.
    (2002) Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2013a) Justice for hedgehogs. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2013b) Taking rights seriously. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. EALTA
    EALTA (2000) EALTA Guidelines for good practice in language testing and assessment. Retrieved from www.ealta.eu.org/guidelines.htm (10March 2013).
  13. ETS
    ETS (2016) Privacy and security. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/legal/privacy#Collect (29September 2016).
  14. Foucault, M.
    (1977) Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison. London: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fulcher, G.
    (2015) Re-examining Language Testing: A Philosophical and Social Inquiry. London : Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hobbes, T.
    (1982) Leviathan. London: Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1651).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. IELTS
    IELTS (2016) IELTS candidate identity verification. Retrieved from takeielts.britishcouncil.org/book-your-test/terms-and-conditions/ielts-candidate-identity-verification (29September 2016).
  18. ILTA
    ILTA (2000) Code of ethics. Retrieved from www.iltaonline.com/general/custom.asp?page=CodeofEthics (10March 2013).
  19. ILTA
    ILTA (2007) Guidelines for practice. International Language Testing Association. Retrieved from www.iltaonline.com/images/pdfs/ilta_guidelines.pdf
  20. Kane, M. T.
    (2010) Validity and fairness. Language Testing, 27(2), 177–182. doi: 10.1177/0265532209349467
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209349467 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2013) Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. doi: 10.1111/jedm.12000
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kant, I.
    (2016) Fundamental principles of the metaphysic of morals ( T. K. Abbott , Trans.). Create Space Independent Publishing Platform. (Original work published 1785).
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kaufmann, P. , Kuch, H. , Neuhaeuser, C. , & Webster, E.
    (2010) Humiliation, degradation, dehumanization: human dignity violated. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Khan, K. , & McNamara, T.
    (2017) Citizenship, immigration laws, and language. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of migration and language (pp.451–467). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kunnan, A. J.
    (2000) Fairness and justice for all. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assessment. (pp.1–14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2004) Test fairness. In M. Milanovic & C. Weir (Eds.), European language testing in a global context (pp.27–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2010) Test fairness and Toulmin’s argument structure. Language Testing, 27(2), 183–189.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2014) Fairness and justice in language assessment. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Locke, J.
    (1980) Second treatise of government. ( C. B. Macpherson , Ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (Original work published 1689).
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Long, M. H.
    (2005) Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp.19–79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511667299.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667299.002 [Google Scholar]
  31. McNamara, T.
    (2009) Australia: The dictation test redux?Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(1), 106–111. doi: 10.1080/15434300802606663
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300802606663 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2012) Language assessments as shibboleths: A poststructuralist perspective. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 564–581. doi: 10.1093/applin/ams052
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams052 [Google Scholar]
  33. McNamara, T. , & Ryan, K.
    (2011) Fairness versus justice in language testing: The place of english literacy in the australian citizenship test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(2), 161–178. doi: 10.1080/15434303.2011.565438
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.565438 [Google Scholar]
  34. Messick, S.
    (1989) Validity. InEducational Measurement (pp.13–103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education / Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Mill, J. S.
    (2015) On liberty, utilitarianism and other essays ( M. Philp & F. Rosen , Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1861).
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Nagel, T.
    (1989) The view from nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Nelson, L. S.
    (2006) Constructing policy: The unsettled question of biometric technology and privacy. In K. J. Strandburg & D. S. Raicu (Eds.), Privacy and technologies of identity (pp.151–173). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/0‑387‑28222‑X_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-28222-X_9 [Google Scholar]
  38. Norris, J.
    (2008) Validity evaluation in language assessment. New York, NY: Peter Lang. doi: 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑01171‑5
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-01171-5 [Google Scholar]
  39. Nozick, R.
    (1974) Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Nussbaum, M.
    (2002) Capabilities and social justice. International Studies Review, 4(2), 123–135. doi: 10.1111/1521‑9488.00258
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00258 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2004) Beyond the social contract: Capabilities and global justice. Oxford Development Studies, 32(1), 3–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (2006) Frontiers of justice. Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (2011) Creating capabilities. The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674061200
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674061200 [Google Scholar]
  44. Phillips, D. C.
    (2007) Adding complexity: Philosophical perspectives on the relationship between evidence and policy. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 376–402. doi: 10.1111/j.1744‑7984.2007.00110.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2007.00110.x [Google Scholar]
  45. Pierce, C. P.
    (2010) Idiot America: How stupidity became a virtue in the land of the free. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Pogge, T.
    (2010) A critique of the capability approach. In H. Brighouse & I. Robeyns (Eds.), Measuring justice: Primary goods and capabilities (pp.17–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511810916.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810916.002 [Google Scholar]
  47. Prometric
    Prometric (2016) ID Management. Retrieved from https://www.prometric.com/en-us/our-solutions/test-delivery/id-management/pages/default.aspx (12October 2016).
  48. Rawls, J.
    (1958) Justice as fairness. The Philosophical Review, 67(2), 164–194. doi: 10.2307/2182612
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182612 [Google Scholar]
  49. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Reisch, M.
    (2014) Social justice and liberalism. In M. Reisch (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of social justice (pp.132–147). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Rousseau, J. -J.
    (2016) The social contract ( G. Cole , Trans.). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. (Original work published 1762).
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Sandel, M. J.
    (2010) Justice: What’s the right thing to do?New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Saville, N.
    (2010) Developing a model for investigating the impact of language assessment. Cambridge ESOL Research Notes, 42, 2–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Scanlon, T. M.
    (1998) What we owe to each other. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Scientific American’s Board of Editors
    Scientific American’s Board of Editors (2014) Beware the eye spies. Scientific American, 310(1), 10–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Sen, A.
    (1980) Equality of what?In S. M. McMurrin (Ed.), The Tanner lectures on human values (pp.196–220). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press and Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. (2010) The idea of justice. London: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Sethi, I. K.
    (2006) Biometrics: Overview and applications. In K. J. Strandburg & D. S. Raicu (Eds.), Privacy and technologies of identity (pp.117–135). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/0‑387‑28222‑X_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-28222-X_7 [Google Scholar]
  60. Shohamy, E.
    (1997) Testing methods, testing consequences: Are they ethical? Are they fair?Language Testing, 14(3), 340–349. doi: 10.1177/026553229701400310
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229701400310 [Google Scholar]
  61. (2001) The power of tests. New York, NY: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Strik, T. , Böcker, A. , Luiten, M. , & van Oers, R.
    (2010) The INTEC project: Synthesis report. Nijmegen: Radboud University.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Tistarelli, M. , Li, S. Z. , & Chellappa, R.
    (Eds.) (2009) Ethics and policy of biometrics. InHandbook of remote biometrics for surveillance and security (pp.293–312). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑84882‑385‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-385-3 [Google Scholar]
  64. Toulmin, S.
    (2001) Return to reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. (2003) The uses of argument (Updated edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511840005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005 [Google Scholar]
  66. UN General Assembly
    UN General Assembly (1948, December10). Universal declaration of human rights. UN General Assembly. Retrieved from www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf (19September 2016)
  67. Valentini, L.
    (2009) Coercion and (global) justice: Towards a unified framework. CSSJ Working Papers Series, SJ010, 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. (2012) Justice in a globalized world: A normative framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Van Avermaet, P.
    (2009) Fortress Europe? Language policy regimes for immigration and citizenship. In G. Hogan-Brun , C. Mar-Molinero , & P. Stevenson (Eds.), Discourses on language and integration (pp.15–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.33.06ave
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.33.06ave [Google Scholar]
  70. Van Oers, R.
    (2013) Citizenship tests in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Radboud University Nijmegen.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Walters, S. F.
    (2012) Fairness. In G. Fulcher & F. Davidson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language testing (pp.469–479). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Walzer, M.
    (1983) Spheres of justice. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Weir, C.
    (2005) Language testing and validation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230514577
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230514577 [Google Scholar]
  74. Witkin, S. L. , & Irving, A.
    (2014) Postmodern perspectives on social justice. In M. Reisch (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of social justice (pp.188–202). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): high-stakes test; justice; language testing; language testing policy
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error