Making Judging Transparent Without Publicly Shaming Contestants

In any competitive setting, the integrity of the judging process is vital to ensure that participants trust the outcome and feel dignity in both success and failure. Whether it’s a Quran memorisation competition, a music contest, or an academic challenge, transparency in how decisions are made helps build credibility. However, achieving effective transparency must be balanced with another equally important value: protecting the respect and public image of contestants.

This blog post explores how judging systems can be made more transparent while avoiding practices that could result in the public shaming of participants. We will examine practical methods, challenges, and examples from competitive settings across different sectors, with a focus on constructive approaches to fairness, accountability, and discretion.

Understanding the Need for Transparency

Transparency in judging refers to how openly and clearly the process, criteria, and results of a competition are communicated to stakeholders — including contestants, organisers, and even audiences. Key benefits of transparency include:

• Trust-building: Participants and spectators are more likely to accept the final results if they understand the rationale behind scoring.
• Consistency: Open rules help judges maintain consistency, reducing the risk of arbitrary decisions.
• Learning and development: Constructive feedback allows participants to improve their skills even if they do not win.

Nevertheless, a common pitfall is confusing transparency with full public disclosure, especially of individual performance issues. If not managed thoughtfully, the way results or feedback are shared can lead to embarrassment, discouragement, or unintended reputational damage to the contestants.

The Problem with Public Feedback in Competitive Settings

A frequent concern arises when judges or organisers publicly discuss a participant’s mistakes or weaknesses. While this may aim to demonstrate fairness or instructional value, it can amount to public shaming — especially for young or less experienced participants.

Examples of Public Shaming

Public shaming can take various forms in judging scenarios:

• Announcing a contestant’s errors in front of an audience, such as incorrect pronunciation or rule infractions.
• Publishing detailed negative feedback online or in brochures alongside participant names.
• Displaying numerical scores in ranked order without context, potentially highlighting who performed the worst.

In environments like Quran competitions, where respect, self-esteem, and personal effort are central to the experience, such practices can be particularly damaging. They might discourage future participation, harm confidence, or contradict the educational and spiritual nature of the event.

Principles for Transparent Yet Respectful Judging

To strike the right balance, organisers and judges can adhere to a set of guiding principles that combine transparency with privacy and dignity.

1. Clarify Criteria in Advance

Transparency begins before the competition takes place. Clearly defined and publicly shared criteria allow all contestants to know what is expected of them. Where possible, publish rubrics or scoring guidelines that explain how points are awarded for different performance aspects.

For example, a Quran recitation competition might include criteria such as:

• Tajweed accuracy
• Memorisation quality
• Voice and rhythm

When criteria are specific and measurable, there is less room for ambiguity or perceived bias.

2. Train Judges on Conduct and Feedback

Judges should receive training not only on the technical elements of scoring but also on how to handle feedback delivery with discretion and empathy. This includes:

• Providing feedback in private, whether orally or in writing
• Avoiding comparisons between contestants during comments
• Recognising achievements regardless of ranking

Some organisations implement a code of conduct or formal guidelines for judges that cover these points, reinforcing professional and ethical behaviour.

3. Use Private Feedback Channels

One of the most effective ways to safeguard contestant dignity is to ensure all performance feedback is communicated privately. This allows participants to learn and grow from their performance without being exposed to public criticism.

Methods of delivering private feedback include:

• Confidential scorecards or reports emailed to each participant
• One-on-one discussions post-event, if time and format permit
• Secure online platforms where individual feedback can be accessed only by the respective participant

This approach preserves what is valuable about transparency — accountability and growth — without the harmful effects of public exposure.

4. Avoid Naming or Ranking Poor Performers Publicly

Publishing the names of high scorers or award winners can be appropriate and celebratory. However, listing all participants in rank order, especially those who performed less well, can be demoralising and is not necessary for transparency.

Instead, organisers can choose to:

• Only publish top-scoring participants or those who receive special recognition (e.g., top 3 or best in category)
• Present scores anonymously by assigning numbers instead of names, if detailed analysis is necessary for public reporting
• Group results into broad performance bands without publicly identifying individuals (e.g., “Excellent”, “Good”, “Needs Improvement”)

This allows for meaningful disclosure of competition outcomes while protecting participant identity and morale.

Balancing Educational Feedback with Competitiveness

A major objective of many competitions, especially educational or religious ones, is skill development. Effective judging should facilitate improvement while maintaining healthy competition. Striking this balance involves designing systems that allow both performance recognition and educational support.

Coaching vs Judgement

In some cases, judges may take on a dual role as educators. While this can enhance learning, it’s important that the correctional aspect of the judge’s role does not dominate the competitive aspect in a way that publicly highlights errors during the event itself.

One way to manage this is by creating separate feedback sessions or workshops outside of the competition setting, where general tips or common issues can be discussed publicly without focusing on individual mistakes.

Anonymous Case Studies

Learning from mistakes is essential, and anonymous examples can be a good compromise. Instead of pointing fingers at individuals, organisers can use anonymised performance samples (with permission) to highlight key learning points. This preserves the instructional value without singling anyone out.

Leveraging Technology to Improve Feedback and Transparency

Digital tools and platforms can support better communication between organisers, judges, and contestants. They also help automate processes that ensure fairness and conformity with ethical guidelines.

Score Management Systems

Scoring software can be used to:

• Capture uniform evaluations from multiple judges
• Calculate average scores while minimising outlier impact
• Securely deliver scores and feedback only to the relevant participants

These systems increase accuracy, reduce administrative errors, and maintain confidentiality — key ingredients for transparent but respectful judging.

Audit Trails and Review Mechanisms

Another aspect of credible judging is the ability to review or audit scores. Contestants may request clarification after an event, and having an internal review process — accessed via official channels — can reinforce accountability.

Importantly, these reviews should be conducted privately and respectfully, focusing on process rather than personal evaluation.

Conclusion: Transparency That Builds Respect

Creating transparency in judging is not about exposing contestants’ weaknesses but about ensuring that decisions are consistent, fair, and understood. By communicating openly about how judging works, sharing constructive feedback privately, and using digital tools to support impartiality, competitions can maintain high standards without compromising contestant dignity.

Organisers, educators, and judges each have a role to play in fostering a respectful competition culture — one where participants feel both challenged and valued, regardless of the final result.

If you need help with your Quran competition platform or marking tools, email info@qurancompetitions.tech.