Module 2 – Task 5b: Investigating codes of practice/regulations that steer the ethical framework within my place of work/professional community

Since posting task 5a, I have been studying whether legislative or professional sources can provide any information I may have failed to take into account initially. A lot of the points raised and discussed were at the forefront of my mind due to the regular basis on which I encountered them whilst working on projects. As predicted, there are a number of other factors that play role in maintaining the correct ethos for practice. A lot of what I came across were details describing much of the behaviour that is expected from a professional and what I would like think is present in my persona anyway. Some aspects however, with particular reference to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), have changed since I last took an informed look at the process.

The name itself was changed between the separate occasions it was required for in conjunction with my employment. Formerly known as a CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) check, I was aware of the change during its happenings via the public attention it received but I was not so that this meant more than just the name. I was always under the impression that this was to accommodate a more politically correct title for the office that deals with such matters. However, several changes were made during this transition that affected its process and the way applicants adhere with it. I previously mentioned (in task 5a) my need to complete checks as part of my employment as an assisting drama tutor, and also for a performance job I took part in last year. Unfortunately, I was unable to retrieve a copy of these two separate employment contracts. The stage school I assisted at, however, was an accredited institute for teaching ISTD moderated examinations in which many of the students took part. While I didn’t teach any dance at the school, I did assist with preparing students for LAMDA and RADA acting examinations. I feel the ethical framework is largely the same across the examination boards with particular regard to the child protection policy. This research may reveal intricacies involved when handling potential interviewing or observations of children’s activities in an environment when considering how they integrate skills as part of collaboration amongst other age demographics as I have experienced.

“Children and Vulnerable Persons Protection Policy
1. The ISTD and all its members are aware that children under 18 and vulnerable persons of
any age can be involved in their activities and that they have a responsibility, within the limits of their control and jurisdiction, to protect and safeguard the welfare of every such child and vulnerable person.
2. It is the policy of the ISTD that all children and vulnerable persons have the right to
protection from abuse. All trustees, employees and members who are in contact with such
children and vulnerable persons are expected to be familiar with and to apply the procedures on:

• Employment including temporary/sub-contracted staff, and examiners
• Data protection, especially in regard to children
• Procedures at ISTD events, competitions, and courses
• Procedures for examiners
• Photography and video recording”

I discussed the issue of safeguarding previously but after observing regulations as quoted, it had not occurred to me the exact legal age that a child could consent to my inquiry without the authority of a parent or legal guardian. At the time of my employment I was eighteen and not much older than some of the students I was assistant-tutoring. It was important to distinguish that I was no longer a student at the school and thus my attitude towards those in my class had to be in keeping with the code of practice as aforementioned. Actions adhering to the ‘Data Protection Act 1998’ such as the use of photography and video are particularly important if looking to potentially implement them for class use or, in my present case, inquiry. Evidence of recorded equipment used and reason for its taking place needs to be verified and agreed with parents or legal guardians, perhaps by form of written letter or email. Proof of recorded information will need to be stored securely and its whereabouts detailed also i.e. a personal laptop, hard-drive or physical copies unlikely to be reached by unintended and non-agreed parties. Once I have obtained all use and purpose for the material, I should agree to suitably dispose of to ensure participating parties it is not being withheld for any other means than was agreed.

I feel I made a clear case as to what constitutes as bad practice within my workplace and this has been largely reflected in the ISTD codes of practice. Although it was useful to observe and have these views reiterated, I found more worth in examining what makes for good practice to ensure I am making the process as succinct as required.

“• Always work in an open environment (e.g. avoid private unobserved situations and
encourage open communication with no secrets).
• Treat all children equally and with respect and dignity.
• Always put the welfare of each child first.
Practices to be avoided
• Avoid spending time alone with children away from others save in essential one to
one situations when extreme care should be exercised.”

The quote principally deals with the subject of space for the individual to participate in. Above my own interests, it needs to remain a safe environment for children who exercise within it. I feel it correct that children should be exposed to plenty of space for practice in order to fully express themselves creatively. If it were required that a physical interview need to take place I would prefer it to take place in the presence of another adult but I can understand that arranging such an event can be difficult. In this case, it may be more ideal to carry out via social media platforms, asking for consent prior and screening results to applicable authorities before sharing them publicly.

Whilst I didn’t manage to find a copy of my contract for ‘Half a Sixpence’, I did come across the terms and conditions of engagement from my time working on ‘Suffragette’. Since the film has reached release, ethically I don’t feel this an infringement to reveal the details via this blog post. As previously stated in task 5a, when working a long-running performance contract the project will continue to change so the individual is often not at liberty to disclose certain information. This is not the case with film and television as once the project has finished principal photography there is not much more that can be changed. Of course, editing and re-shoots are not uncommon but productions will often work to a release date settled on by the studio funding it. There is certainly no reason why those involved cannot discuss work once the end product reaches audiences.

 

Of the various legislations the contract refers to there is one in particular that directly relates to my inquiry topic and that I recall on multiple occasions dividing opinion amongst colleagues whilst working on projects. The ‘Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988’ legislation details the film company’s right to reserve any and all aspects of production recorded featuring the individual. This will include (Chapter I, Subsistence ownership and duration of copyright) moving image and sound recording. I have spoken to several artistes whilst working on projects that were not happy with dialogue as scripted or comfortable with actions as performed within the context of the scene for personal reasons, some of which will be spawn out of improvisation on the director/assistant director’s part. The formality is that the artist accepts what is asked of them as part of the agreement they signed when accepting the role.

I have also encountered times whilst filming when an artist will question a member of production as to what they feel was a best take or shot to use. Typically, there will be a rehearsal period in which the creative team and cast will discuss ideas and motives for the day of shoot. However, on the day of shooting the actor may raise concerns with a previously debated approach and suggest an alternative method. Time is often precious on days shooting so most creative teams will ideally like all details of its happenings cemented before its occurrence. Meanwhile, this does open up a dialogue as to whether artistes should continue to have a say in creative choices made. Acting tutors whilst training at college have always given the advice to me that the director will have the overall vision and scope for the project. However, it is the actors that spend the most time with their characters, researching and preparing them for performance. At some point, the actors knowledge of their character and those related to them will succeed the director’s. So, is it ethically justified that the actor have a right in suggesting their own approach to the work over a director’s? If so, how does the director monitor whether the notion best serves the integrity of the production? How does this affect those surrounding such as the lighting and camera crew? This is not strictly a debate for actors and could actually apply to any member of the crew involved in collaboration. I could potentially argue the inquiry idea from a number roles. However, for the sake of developing and furthering my own practice I feel it best to discuss others roles with respect as to how it affects my own as a performer.

My investigation into contextual examples demonstrating ethical codes of practice have helped assess where I need to be taking my inquiry topic. I have a much clearer idea as to what type of research will benefit me as well as the care I must also take in gaining permission to do so. Specific tools cannot be decided at this stage however, and I imagine work within part six will refine my current knowledge whilst distinguishing which may serve best to make up my ethics form draft and proposal for inquiry.

Bibliography

ISTD, 2015, “Child Protection Policy” Good Practice Guidelines [online] Available at: http://www.istd.org/about-us/documents/istd-child-protection-policy/ [Accessed 04 December. 2015]

The Department of Health, 1998, “Data Protection Act” Preliminary 29 (1) [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents [Accessed 05 December. 2015]

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 1988, “Copyright, Designs and Patents Act” Subsistence, ownership and duration of copyright 48 (1) [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents [Accessed 05 December. 2015]