<![CDATA[This study aims to describe the representation of injustice in judges’ utterances during the Four Pillars Quiz Competition of the People’s Consultative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia (MPR RI). This study is motivated by a controversy over the assessment process in the competition, which revealed different treatment of participants’ answers that were substantively similar. This research employed a qualitative approach using Fairclough’s model of Critical Discourse Analysis. The data consisted of utterances by judges and competition officials appearing in a video of the Four Pillars Quiz Competition of MPR RI, particularly in the assessment of participants’ answers regarding the process of selecting members of the Audit Board of Indonesia. The data were collected through documentation, observation, note-taking, and transcription. The data were analyzed through three dimensions: textual analysis, discursive practice, and social practice. The findings show that the representation of injustice appears in four forms: evaluative, procedural, interactional, and symbolic injustice. Evaluative injustice is reflected in different assessments of answers with similar substantive meaning. Procedural injustice appears through limited opportunities for clarification and verification. Interactional injustice is evident in responses that direct participants to accept decisions without adequate explanation. Symbolic injustice is reflected in the affirmation of judges’ authority as the center of decision legitimacy. These findings indicate that judges’ utterances cannot be understood as neutral speech, but rather as discursive practices that construct power relations between assessors and participants. This study recommends the need for judges’ communication guidelines, transparent assessment rubrics, and evidence-based clarification mechanisms in academic competitions.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
