I looked at
reader five before starting work on part five of the module to gain a bit more of
a foothold as to how I should be thinking, and developing my critique within
this particular section of study. This was only an initial read-through
however, and since reviewing it again in conjunction with this task I have
noticed that a lot of my earlier contextual examples (with particular regard to
task 5b) lean heavily on the ethical framework suggested in the reader. I
previously discussed the idea of the actor making or suggesting a change in
choice with regards to their practice and how this affects those around them,
as well as questioning whether this begs an ethical response. The follow
diagram supports the belief that it does so and details in what order it
permeates.
Each stage
provokes a different response. Addressing these stages is discussed within the context
of a real-life case study as featured in the reader, ‘the Mid-Staffordshire
inquiry’ as carried out by British Barrister Sir Robert Francis. The following
extracts are found within the reader but are lifted from an article by ‘The
Guardian’. One previous inquiry surrounding the Staffordshire hospital was
carried out by the then Secretary of State for Health Minister Andrew Burnham between
2005 and 2008, as well as an initial follow-up report from Francis. During this
time, the results of both of these revealed that “as many as 1,200 patients
died of preventable causes” (The Guardian, 2010). With reference to these
earlier findings, Francis would look to determine why the aforementioned was
allowed to occur. In order to produce any suitable discussion, Francis needed
to “pick apart the culture that meant no clinician protested effectively at the
state of affairs narrated in his first report” (The Guardian, 2010).
To begin his
mode of inquiry Francis would work with personal context, in this case the
motive to investigate the gross negligent behaviour towards patients as
reported. This would fall within his own interests for taking up the inquiry.
In order to support the proposed question, it would “be illuminating to hear
from the two people who, as regional health authority chief executives,
formerly had responsibility for the Mid-Staffs hospitals: David Nicholson and
Cynthia Bower.” It is not only in Francis’ interest but for the NHS to defend
their previous decision for not being so forthcoming with regards to the health
system’s state, especially since Andy Burnham denied a public inquiry after
performing his own independently. It is an opportunity for them to suggest that
this choice was not taken “out of fear of what it might uncover about the system
as a whole” (The Guardian, 2010). This shows a transition from personal to
professional context. The next step becomes slightly blurred as it could be
argued that staff support views shared by the organisation by default of their
agreement to work for the institution, in this case being the NHS. However, when
regulations are assessed such as the NHS’s, where “698 auditing standards and
69 different auditing bodies” (The Guardian, 2010) share this task, it can be
difficult to decide who is the correct body to be speaking with. Multiple
sources within the same organisation will share differing views.
“The deeper and therefore tougher
issue is cultural. The NHS finds it notoriously hard to admit a mistake. There
is no statutory obligation to be honest with patients when things go wrong.
With abolition of community health councils nearly 10 years ago, patients
struggle to make their voices heard. Francis might bear those two thoughts in
mind.” (The Guardian, 2010)
The ethical
consideration then reaches what society makes of such actions taken and in turn
what this means for all that come before in the process. Although Francis was
approaching this inquiry following negative circumstances, he may have chosen
to consider vulnerability not only for the patients but general community. To
what degree does the blame lie with an organisation when resources for services
have been removed? Although Francis wants to bring resolve to those affected by
the occurrence, does he need to be mindful as to not scaremonger and fuel
unnecessary tension? Honesty is needed in presenting findings but findings can
be objectively maintained by manner of investigation i.e. being careful to
avoid posing leading questions and only asking what is necessary.
This rather
extensive example is principally the framework for which I will need to be
approaching my own inquiry. When looking to question subjects I need to be
considering how this information will feed through. Once I have posed it to a
context, be it professional, organisational or societal, I cannot mediate the
response for which it will produce. Within my professional community this could
be demonstrated in the following manner; I set up interviews within the theatre
company and cast who produced ‘Half a Sixpence’. I could ask the question,
‘what is an appropriate level of cognitive action for children to be exposed to
when working alongside adult performers?’ One particular scene involved my
character and the lead female character sharing a moment of intimacy by way of
a kiss. In order to maintain the integrity of the work, we decided that this
called for the genuine act of doing so. After a discussion between the
director, actress and I, we chose only to perform this motif within the scene
whilst the children involved were not present at particular rehearsals. This
certainly wasn’t out of a feeling of embarrassment but more so to follow moral
sensibilities in regards to the children working on the production. Although
there were terms and conditions laid out in our contracts regarding behaviour
with minors, the issue of safeguarding was not explicitly detailed in the way
that the legislation from the Department of Education is. I made my colleagues
aware of the ethical framework found within the ISTD child protection policy as
discussed in task 5c.
“If any of the following
occur during or in the context of an ISTD event or activity, it should
immediately be reported to the designated Child Protection Officer:
• If you accidentally hurt a child.
• If a child appears to be sexually aroused by your actions.
• If a child misunderstands or misinterprets something you have done.
• If a child is unusually distressed and you have any suspicions of or concerns
about
potential abuse.” (ISTD, 2015)
Although I
need to remain mindful of all the above circumstances, the context of the
second bullet point is important in relation to the aforementioned example. If
not avoided or reported accordingly, this breaches the professional context
relationship, which in turn betrays the trust between the organisation (in this
case the theatre company) and the society (the parents or legal guardians of
the children). The societal context will always be the most vulnerable to
activity as they do not normally have direct control over the immediate action
that takes place between the other three. It is the duty for the three contexts
that come before to assess how actions will affect this outside body. Societal
context may not have the immediate ability to affect activity but they do
however make for the largest consensus of judgement, meaning their views will
be the most commonly accessible.
As mentioned
earlier, ethics are not always as clearly discussed as individuals may like or
be wary of until raised by someone. A thinking can also arise indirectly by
means of a situational occurrence, forcing the individual to consider how
choices made can affect the outcome. With reference to the ethics operation
system and motive for personal, professional and organisational contexts to
withhold information for the ‘greater good’ from societal, what are the
ramifications for doing so? In centuries past, established thinkers have
questioned and supported the need for decent morality between individuals in a
time when ethics weren’t widely discussed or recognised.
“Hobbes (1651) viewed ethics as a
practical solution to social harmony and good through the vehicle of a social
contract. He posited that in order to achieve a peaceful, co-operative social
order we need to adhere to a set of moral rules… the social contract works on
the premise that rational people will accept it on the understanding that
everyone else will as well and supported by the idea that morality is a set of
rule for mutual benefit.” (Reader Five, 2015)
Much of what
has been debated is principally influenced by the Christian doctrine, which in
turn makes up much of the law and justice system today. A significant
contribution from Thomas Hobbes (1651) was his belief that human welfare within
an organisation between one another is crucial to achieving any form of
progression and minimises discourse. This works much in the way my inquiry idea
for collaboration does in that there is no written term in a contract that
requires all members of a cast in a production to interact sincerely with each
other but that it makes for good practice and therefore strengthens products as
a result. Immanuel Kant (1779) strengthened this argument feeling that under no
circumstance should an individual hide or alter information by whatever intent.
He proposes that “If we have a universal law which forbids lying then to allow
lying would make it common and before long people would cease to believe one
another” (Reader Five, 2015). In order to produce the most honest and truthful
work in the arts, it can be argued necessary for artistes to remain open and
receptive of one another, even if this means tackling discourse within an
organisation head on. This type of thinking is known as Deontology.
In
juxtaposition, JS Mill (1861) later found this ideology too absolute for
application within ethical contexts and “developed a theory of moral obligation
which proposed to choose that which will tend to produce the greatest good for
the greatest number” (Reader Five, 2015). A comparison can be made between this
concept and my own practice. A creative such as an actor will sometimes choose
to keep their methods of practice to themselves in order to the preserve
artistic integrity of the work. This will not be just to benefit of themselves,
however, as they are considering the opinion of their colleagues and how this
information will affect the dynamic of the cast and performance upon learning
it.
When I
worked on Martin Guerre at college, for example, I can recall the choice I made
as to what my character’s disability would be as it is not specified in the
script. Clues were present, however, for me to make my own ‘diagnosis’ as an
actor. My director advised me to take some time privately to assess my
character research and make a choice that would best serve as identifiable
without announcing it to the rest of the cast. If the latter choice was made,
it would distort other actor’s perception of the character and their actions
when interacting. My character struggled with speaking coherently so therefore
if he cannot best explain his condition then why should I feel the need to
reveal this information to cast members? The premise of acting is essentially to
lie convincingly through portrayal of someone other than self. Therefore, the
actor’s choice of hiding information from colleagues preserves what they
believe to be the ethos of the work. The context in which I have placed this
resemblance to that of the reader’s differs in subject matter and magnitude but
the principle of JS Mills’ concept remains all the same.
One aspect I
will need to be particularly wary of when planning and recording ethical
consideration for my inquiry is my writing style and the way I entail
questions. The process of analysing ethics can be carried out in varying
manners. “Ethics, as a formal field of philosophical enquiry is the
philosophical study of morality and moral issues are imbued with questions of
value. Morals and ethics are entwined and moral issues raise normative
questions as opposed to factual ones” (Reader Five, 2015). Having its seeds in
moral behaviour, ethics relies upon questioning that provokes further thought
as opposed to close-ended answers. In relevance to my own inquiry idea for the
process of collaboration, there is a difference between asking “is it necessary
for a competently trained actor to change methods of practice when working with
children?” and “does collaboration change when working with children?” Of
course it changes, but the former offers the opportunity to write persuasively
and consider both reasons for and against the individual doing so, and how that
affects those around them. These two questions are examples of normative and
descriptive inquiry respectively.
Furthermore,
techniques used when tackling ethical problems can vary. Meta-ethics is the
unpacking of what particular moral terms mean within the realm of popular
consensus, the analysis of which can provide for further debate. Theoretical
normative ethics is the individual making a case for their own moral judgements
and theories with regards to ethical concern. Virtue ethics play a major role
in this process, the third and final approach to lying alongside
consequentialism and deontology. It poses that moral behaviour and character of
an individual whilst performing an action is as important as the action itself.
Applied ethics is the act of working to find closure to moral problems that
arise from the likes of professional or research ethics. Theoretical normative
and applied ethics are a product of normative ethics, the ability to challenge
axiological viewpoints whereas descriptive ethics can only offer an objective
account of a much broader general opinion without instigating specific concerns
individuals may have via first hand interviews, observations or focused
feedback.
Ethics is a
vast subject and can at times be overwhelming when considering how it will play
into my inquiry planning. However, a focused review of reader five has sparked
intrigue into the possibilities I have for carrying out my inquiry. I feel my
inquiry topic is quite broad in scope so I may have to consider where what
particular areas I am going to focus on. I feel ethics in regards to working
with children would make for interesting work but, at the same time, I want to
include the difference in training between artistes and what these means for
collaboration on projects. I am confident that a balance can be met however,
when investigating work within a cast that covers a large age demographic. I
need to think about protocol for approaching sources for inquiry. Parents will
need notifying and give consent to their child’s involvement and an agreement
must be reached to what extent, interviews utilising web 2.0 technology for
example. If I interview any cast members of a production or want to compose an
interview with regard to source material, do I need to notify the company for
which they work? I also need to examine how the writing and recording of my
inquiry, specifically the normative/descriptive ethics within its structure.
Bibliography
Hobbes, T
(1651) The leviathan, 1985 re-print,
London: Penguin Classics
Kant, I
(1779) Critique of pure reason, 2007
re-print, London: Penguin Classics
Middlesex
University, Reader Five, 2015
Mill, JS
(1861) Utilitarianism and other essays,
1967 re-print, London: Penguin
