Abstract
Marking in higher education is argued to be under-researched and from a poststructuralist perspective is a largely subjective process based on professional judgement that is grounded in assumptions of mutual understanding of disciplinary standards (Bloxham, 2009). However, within academic development, such mutual understanding may be difficult to achieve as many academic developers have different ‘...prior disciplinary identities and knowledge... and implicit assumptions about the nature of academic work’ (Manathunga 2007, 32). But, if academic developers do not ‘own their own disciplinary domain’ (Brew, 2003: 170) and the underlying values and traditions of the field are contested, what ramifications might this have for marking? The findings of this empirical research based on semi-structured interviews, illuminates some of the implicit values and beliefs of academic developers that shape how marking is undertaken. The results indicate that subjectivity, rather than compromising the integrity of the grade, has the potential to be used as a tool for illuminating why mismatches between markers occur.