Module 2 – Task 6a: Carrying out an informal trial utilising a professional inquiry tool

I recently asked a member of my SIG if they could take part in a pilot interview surrounding my inquiry topic, ‘collaboration and its significance to theatre work’. They were aware that this was only a ‘beta’ test of sorts and that their responses were solely for the purpose of exercising a tool of which I may utilise for my inquiry, much the same as she would be exploring within her own inquiry. All questions asked are tailored towards a performer as I do not currently have ethical authority to pose questions to other members of my community of practice (such as a director or lighting designer). We agreed that I should practice keeping subjects anonymous so she will be referred to as ‘SIG participant A. Below are some of the questions that I posed and were answered, the same questions can also be found on my SIG. The responses below are paraphrased and not the original text sent. Since writing these up and having further time to examine reader six I understand that my method of recording may not completely convey the truth as best it could and that my own opinions could have influenced methods of recording. It may be best in future occurrences to present a quote or exact statement from a source as it is before proceeding to interpretation. Meanwhile, it is also important to remember that interpretation can be approached in favour of supporting the participant’s view or the researcher’s (being my own) or a mixture of the two to create a balanced argument whilst also learning new viewpoints about the inquiry. This could be described as “constructing or documenting a version of what you think the data mean[s] or represent[s], or what you think you can infer from them” (Mason, 2002, p. 149).

We know that collaboration is necessary for successful theatre work but are there examples to be found of certain members having a greater influence in the project’s formation over others?

SIG participant A believed that while performers are a great contributor and arguably the faces of theatre productions, they are perhaps collaborators that have the lowest amount of influence for a project’s outcome. Whilst a performer can develop ideas and approaches to performance they are ultimately moulded by those who assume creative authority over them. SIG participant A gave the example that the performer may have an idea for a particular motif within a scene occurring, such as the staging set-up to emphasise a character’s activity. This will, however, have to pass through the director and stage designer whose action in turn will be dictated by the funding body supporting the project. If the theatre cannot provide for the idea due to its size or resources then a change may be required.

If a performer’s preparation and reasons for creative choices juxtapose decisions made by creatives (such as the director, choreographer, musical director, set and lighting designer), should this be challenged by the performer? Is it right for the performer to show a level of artistic leadership?

SIG participant A thought the word ‘challenged’ as a counter-productive term when discussing collaboration as it infers a negative working relationship. I further asked the participant whether they felt discourse can be avoided. They answered that discourse is a natural part of collaboration but it doesn’t always have to be for negative purposes. Healthy debate can lead to new ideas being built upon existing ones when shared with a larger pool of person knowledge (Eraut, 1992). SIG participant A believed that all performers should look to show artistic leadership in their work. Not from a selfish perspective as to think their knowledge is above all others, however, but to actively engage their colleagues in seeking new ways to think about work. The sharing of ideas may lead to concepts not originally thought by just a single contributor and can take the project into an unforeseen but stimulating direction. SIG participant A finished with mentioning that they felt ‘inspiration’ was perhaps one of the greatest by-products of collaboration.

Is it right for performers to sacrifice artistic integrity in order to comply with those who help facilitate their employment (such as financial sponsors or audience demand for a particular production)?

SIG participant A indicated that in today’s economic climate, funding will often be awarded via forecast trajectory as to how successful the project will be in terms of profit. This would involve production companies gauging with their prospective audience as to what they would like to see in theatre. SIG participant A then went onto explain themselves with an example of context. They suggested that a production will often gain a green light from funding bodies if there is an incentive. For example, an independent theatre company looking to tour the musical Blood Brothers could be forecast for a successful run due to its previous experience and extensive history in the West End. A grant may be permitted based on these factors. Although it isn’t always necessary to receiving funding, the organisation could expect to see return on a portion of profit made by the project. In this instance, it will become an ethical responsibility for the professional context (being the performers and creatives) to uphold the organisation’s terms and conditions of agreement. SIG participant A also cited a moral responsibility for the professional context to tend to this agreement as best they can should they wish for further opportunity to work with the funding body again.

After finishing the interview, the participant gave me some feedback as to what they thought of my questions. They identified there were clear distinctions between the contexts in which collaboration operates but felt the structure and wording of them were forcing them to draw a conclusion based on my own subjective knowledge. ‘Artistic leadership’ for example is a term I have acquired through my literature reviews and I cannot assume that all performers will be familiar with this terminology. The same will go for the discussion of performance based techniques. I can’t pose questions such as ‘to what extent is Stanislavski’s units and objectives method compromised in regards to a performer’s acting choice when lighting design does not effectively inform this?’ There is a strange duality in needing to be specific with language but also not so much that participants feel they cannot answer due to a difference in knowledge. In future, they suggested making the questions simpler to then analyse using my own learning. The participant also added that they felt the questions were perhaps too similar to one another and that I should be looking to aim them at particular contexts. They suggested this could be ‘how is the professional context of the director’s work influenced by the organisational context of the funding body’. This presents more space and a focus between fewer contributors of particular contexts can allow for enriched discussion. The participant also suggested that it may be worth looking at a clause of terms and conditions to learn what exactly is expected from a project when gaining funding and how this affects performance.

One final piece of advice was to review existing practitioner literature regularly to determine whether there are any similarities between theories detailed and how it plays into my professional practice. SIG participant A mentioned person knowledge (Eraut, 1992) during their answer to the second question but also thought it might be worth investigating the effect of trying to integrate propositional/disciplinary knowledge amongst colleagues that may not share the same knowledge themselves. This may be the attempted integration of Stanislavski’s (1937) methods (propositional/disciplinary knowledge) for units and objectives amongst colleagues. Unlike the interview approach to collecting data however, it may be best to try this within the boundaries of an observation, acting as a participant observer. The reasoning for this is because knowledge will be adapted to better serve that of the recipient through discussion or a continued engagement over a period of time, such as a rehearsal. This is in juxtaposition to the interview form that may sometimes feel like the participant must reach a finality immediately after a question has been asked. In is important to note if carrying out an observation that when practice concerns only self the individual can work strictly with their knowledge of these teachings. However, trying to integrate them within a group will be gauged with critical review from others as to whether this knowledge is relevant or worthy. Furthermore, this can change professional and personal relationships between individuals. The pilot interview has successfully served its purpose whilst giving me new insight into the way in which I engage my inquiry.

Bibliography

Eraut, M (1992) Developing professional knowledge and competence (1994 re-print), London: Falmer Press

Mason, J (2002) Qualitative researching, (2^nd end), London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Stanislavski, K (1936) An actor prepares, 2008 re-print, London: Methuen Drama