Equity and widening participation (EWP) initiatives in Australia are increasingly reimagined in policy as sites where participants are constructed as competitor-individuals, with education considered only in terms of employability, social mobility and nation-state market competition. In the context of EWP outreach, and with school students in particular, this can transpire into demands for narrow forms of ‘legitimate’ aspirations. Goffman defines obscenity as when (1) the very intimate is forced into the public sphere, while (2) the humanising dimensions or contexts are stripped away, with an example being pornography—where intimate encounters are reproduced as de-contextualised acts while being made public. This article argues that dominant approaches to practicing and evaluating EWP risk obscene consequences if they force community members to present static future-oriented valuations of intimate, fluid aspirations and experiences of education against a backdrop of increasingly individuated, competitive and standardised educational institutions. In this article, firstly we detail the context to establish a foundation for theorising consequences of particular socio-educational discursive practices. Secondly, we engage with notions of frame, keying and fabrication as a toolbox to reveal some of the unintended (obscene) dynamics risked via certain approaches to programmatic practice and evaluation. Thirdly, we review the diversity of approaches to evaluation (and their attendant debates), highlighting the importance of these debates and diversities, making a case against methodological imperialism.

中文翻译：

---

公平和扩大参与方法中的淫秽和捏造

澳大利亚的公平和扩大参与 (EWP) 计划在政策中越来越多地被重新构想为参与者被构建为竞争者个人的场所，教育仅考虑就业能力、社会流动性和民族国家市场竞争。在 EWP 外展的背景下，尤其是在学校学生中，这可能会转化为对狭隘形式的“合法”愿望的需求。戈夫曼将淫秽定义为：(1) 非常亲密的人被迫进入公共领域，而 (2) 人性化的维度或背景被剥夺，例如色情——亲密接触被复制为脱离背景的行为，同时被制造上市。本文认为，在日益个性化、竞争性和标准化的教育机构的背景下，如果 EWP 的主要实践和评估方法迫使社区成员呈现静态的、面向未来的、面向未来的对亲密、流动的教育抱负和教育经验的评估，则可能会带来淫秽后果。在本文中，我们首先详细介绍了背景，以便为特定社会教育话语实践的理论化后果奠定基础。其次，我们将框架、键控和制造的概念作为工具箱，以揭示某些计划实践和评估方法所带来的一些意外（淫秽）动态风险。第三，我们回顾了评估方法的多样性（及其伴随的辩论），强调了这些辩论和多样性的重要性，