Module 2 – Task 6b: Discussing the relative merits and limits of differing professional inquiry tools

Something that I feel I have struggled with this study period is establishing context within my inquiry topic. In the module two handbook, the outline of the inquiry plan states that the conclusion should be an “overview of the whole inquiry – who, what, why and when” (2015). ‘What’ I am discussing, collaboration, has been clear since the offset. However, the other three have not been explicitly mentioned and therefore hindered my overall aims for the inquiry. As I have mentioned previously, my career has taken form in a variety of different performance mediums thus far. As fortunate as this has been, I feel I have been trying to accommodate the idea of collaboration within the fields of film, television and theatre simultaneously. I have struggled to realise how I would cross reference ideologies between these distinctly different mediums and the separate skill sets required. After examining reader six and speaking with Paula I have realised, that the amount of work needed to examine these fields of practice would simply be too ambitious given the time constraints. The amount of preparation it would have taken to arrange data collection from the three mediums would have been insurmountable. Even if attempted, I would need at least four or five sources within each context to avoid creating an inquiry based on a mostly biased result. For this reason, I have decided that my research will be carried out principally with performers whilst a couple of interviews will be carried out on creatives that play a role in the influencing of performer’s work (such as the director and set & lighting designer). If I can arrange to speak with a staff member of Equity or a funding body (such as Arts Council) that would provide another subjective opinion. However, I recognise that this latter may not be viable due to unforeseen circumstances. This could include the withdrawal of participants or the inability for them to take part due to time constraints/a desire not to take part. On the topic of subjective data, it can be argued that bias will be a natural part of research when the inquirer, being myself, is acting as an insider-researcher. I will be interviewing other performers and the like who hold opinions regarding questions I pose that I will simultaneously hold my own for in regards to collaboration. (Costley et al. 2010). The term ‘reflexivity’ is popular in social science for its association with remaining as objective as possible whilst gathering subjective research. This will be difficult when assuming the role of both employee and a practitioner researcher.

Until now I have been examining my practice strictly as a “portfolio worker” (Reader Six, 2015), someone who collates past and various present professional experiences in order to make sense of theories and practice debated. However, I have recently been offered a contract with a performing arts team overseas next year from which I will be finishing the BAPP programme. This opportunity allows for me to acquire research from a central institution. This isn’t to say I will neglect the former approach as there may be an opportunity to speak to certain creatives via web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2006) tools such as Skype or email. This now pulls into focus what method of data collection would be best served whilst carrying out my inquiry. After an extensive look into reader six, I have investigated the uses of different methods of data collection as well as assessed their merits and limits in conjunction with my inquiry topic.

As was demonstrated with my pilot interview, this style of collecting data is known as a qualitative approach (Punch, 1998). It deals with the gathering of material, often by means of written notes, audio or video recording to help form analysis. As explored in task 5c, two differing tools for analysing data are the use of normative/descriptive questions by the researcher, the former of which will serve more beneficial to myself if I wish to present a strong argument or discussion within my inquiry topic. It can be carried out in a variety of forms such as the already tested interview for task 6a.

Interview

After my own experience with this professional inquiry tool I believe this will serve as an excellent method for collecting data. One-on-one interviews are effective for collating subjective opinion free from the influence of others. While it wouldn’t be true to say that comments cannot be pre-meditated (interview questions could be sent out prior to the recording of answering taking place), it does eliminate a flaw that focus groups present in that a question posed to participants with varying levels of knowledge can be answered by one participant which may manipulate the response given from another. This affects the authenticity of data for analysis. With interviews I can tailor questions to individual or participants that who exist within the same context as one another be it professional, organisational or societal. Another factor that makes it a great tool is that initial questions can be built upon mid-interview as was discovered in task 6a in order to draw more immediate or unsuspecting knowledge from a participant which may lead to interesting discoveries for both the them and the researcher. The drawbacks of the interview method is that it can become time consuming to investigate an individual or group from the same context. A negative aspect of the aforementioned interjection of questions mid-interview is that I may ask an unsolicited question in the moment that could be construed as a leading question. An example of which could be a discussion regarding the worth of practitioner knowledge as acquired by published texts. I could word a question such as “how useful is reading of professional practitioner texts to practice?” while another take could be “don’t you find Stanislavski’s ‘An Actor Prepares’ to be the most important published text in regards to acting?” The former advocates for a broader response while the latter is looking for a specific answer akin to a yes/no. It is important to remain specific and clear in what I am asking but not force a contrived response as it compromises my position to remain objective and dilutes the usefulness of research. Participants may also remove themselves due to unforeseen circumstances which can make it a lengthy process to replace them.

Focus Group

Focus groups are similar to group interviews but are “more likely to include members who either have similar characteristics or experience… or are known to have a professional concern about and knowledge of the issues involved.” (Bell, 2005, p.162). This means that participants look to challenge and engage with a particular concept. Because the focus group will often involve more than two participants this can often create a supportive atmosphere in which those involved feel inclined to actively engage with ideas presented. This can sometimes make the method hard to manage when a diverse number of opinions are contributing and conflicts of interest become apparent. Bell states that strong personalities can “also influence, and in some cases actually take over, a group and make it difficult for the less assertive members to speak” (2005, p.163). If I choose to implement this inquiry tool it is crucial that I maintain the duty of a moderator and channel the course of the discussion back to the inquiry topic should it divert in order to extract appropriate data for research and analysis (Denscombe, 2007. P.179). This could be a duty shared with the ‘gatekeeper’ of the focus group (in my instance it will be the director of the production team). Denscombe (2007) also mentions the need to moderate the recording of data itself. With a number of participants taking part, transcription will become difficult to differentiate. Focus groups will tend to be recorded using an audio device as opposed to written form due to the amount of effort that is relieves from the researcher in spite of other factors they have to deal with. Denscombe (2007) goes onto cite that online chat groups may not be best method for protecting data discussed due to its public platform.

Observation

I briefly touched upon this data collection tool in my last blog. I mentioned how the implementation of performing arts practitioner knowledge may be better gauged within the mode of observation. This was because responses can be formed physically/kinetically as opposed to the interview style. Observation allows for this style of recording. With kinetic activity, data can be recorded and later assessed based on the amount of time particular behaviour occurs. Statistical recording invites a quantitative approach (Punch, 1998). This could involve the presentation of findings via mathematical methods such as a graph or tally. “Be aware that quantitative data can be analysed using a qualitative perspective and vice versa using a mixed methodology” (Reader Six, 2015). It is important that I explore what these statistics mean and why they have occurred. Thomas Black states that “quantitative research is quite good at telling us what is happening, and often qualitative studies are better at determining why events occur” (2002, p.3). Inquiry planning requires defined ‘aims’ that set out what is hoped to be achieved and indicate how data should be examined, by qualitative and/or quantitative means. Observation differs to the interview and focus group tools in that the researcher has an opportunity to play a much subtler role as an overseer and more an observer-participant. What this affords is a desensitised awareness from participants for their input being assessed. This method may however call for findings to be recorded at a later time than the instance they occur which may present a distortion or alteration of events on my part as I will be recalling from memory. This calls into question reflective practice and what methods best describe this process. Although I would be collating much of my thoughts through reflection-on-action there will be opportunity to present reflection-in-action (Schön, 1983), similar to the example displayed in my pilot interview, if planning is considered well. I have also noticed that Kolb’s learning cycle can be used to hypothesise the effects of both interview and observational tools. The act of carrying out both of these styles can be thought of as entering reflection by product of a ‘concrete experience’ due to the need to physically carry out the inquiry tool. It could be argued that 'active experience' also serves as an entry point but I feel trying to formulate previous knowledge indicates a lack of preparation and compromises the inquiry tool. This is, however, not applicable to reflective observation or abstract conceptualisation as this encourages a containing of information to draw conclusion and a learning from the experience.

Surveys & Questionnaires

The survey & questionnaire inquiry tool is synonymous with the quantitative approach to collecting data (Punch, 1998). Perhaps the greatest advantage to this method is the ease in which data can be collected from a wide variety of participants within separate contexts. Questions will often accommodate this with answers only requiring a yes/no response, dramatically reducing time needed of participants. It can be most effective when research attainment draws on a large pool of people. In relation to my own inquiry topic this could be the case when wishing to gauge representatives of funding bodies such as Arts Council UK or the prospective audience of a production (the general public). Unlike the closer and more accessible professional context the organisational and societal aren’t going to be as readily available as other tools discussed thus far so a survey or questionnaire may prove useful in gathering a large amount of data quickly. What I need to be careful of as a researcher is that a sufficient number of each context are accounted for in order to represent an overall general consensus from this group and prove this to others outside? Low response rates can compromise the validity of whatever data has been generated from the same group. Part of what makes surveys and questionnaires so accessible it that they will often be distributed through means of web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2006) platforms. However, there will be people who will not always have access or sufficient knowledge of how this works. If I choose to use this inquiry tool it will be crucial for me to bear in mind the demographic of perspective audience for theatre as it could be argued that a lot of economic support and revenue for the arts comes from attendants who have the disposable income to do so, not always the case with the younger but more technology-savvy theatre enthusiast. In this case it may be important that surveys & questionnaires are made available physically also. I could choose this method although results may not be representative of a large, particularly societal context as I will realistically only have access to customers of the hotel I will be stationed at next year. This may raise issues with the type of questions asked not being applicable to all participants within the same context. In regards to analysing data it is important to remember that qualitative discussion can produce interesting suggestions for similarities and differences in thought existing within the same context.

Documents

In the event I cannot gain access to a representative of a funding body, theatre management or organisation that assists with making theatre projects possible, it may be worth examining available documentation that can support their input in collaboration. Organisational contexts can be transparent to members of other contexts such as performers as communication will often be handled by the production company. I have known this to be the case but have never come into contact or discussion with my immediate professional community of practice. My beginnings for a thinking about organisations that may contribute came about after coming across a performance programme pamphlet that was produced for ‘Half a Sixpence’ recently, a show I worked on last year. I noticed that the National Lottery Funding insignia was featured on the front of the programme. Before this, I had no idea of their involvement in the production. This inspired me to look further into what arts funding does for theatre and what it affords projects. As previously mentioned, one of the funding organisations I have been examining is Arts Council UK. Although I have not yet attempted to contact anyone within the organisation I have taken the time to review their policy for eligible funding for projects. In the 2013 re-draft of ‘Standard terms and conditions for grants’ from Arts Council UK it states under the general conditions sub section that the production company “are responsible for getting your own management, business and artistic advice” (2013). I had previously thought that funding will more or less be awarded by entering a “TIT FOR TAT” relationship (Axelrod, 2006), in which the beneficiary will assume some form of creative influence over the project. However, from examinations so far I have gathered these organisations (or this one in particular) do not overtly seek this when entering into collaboration. Instead it could be argued that the decision to support a project will be deliberated internally before an offer is made. The sum offered will play more of an indirect effect for what choices the production company can afford to make. This could include the location in which the project takes place or influence decisions creatives must make with regards to performance. To return to the use of documents for data collection on a broader scale, disadvantages could present themselves through other document types aside from policies. Journal or diaries can be written from a biased perspective. These forms of documentation can often be lengthy and dissecting relevant text to my inquiry can be time consuming. A range of journals/articles may need to be examined to support inquiry. Depending on the date of its publication or release, the material may also be out of date, irrelevant or falsely represent current affairs on the subject of collaboration.

My studying and comparisons of these varying professional inquiry tools have been key to deciding which methods are best for carrying out my activities. I believe the interview and observation approaches will be of the most immediate benefit due to the human element that qualitative/purposive qualities it entails. It can be argued that the arts cannot be gauged effectively in terms of statistics and that specific interpretation is needed, something quantitative research cannot cater for without description. I am, however, interested in reviewing documentation into what organisations such as the aforementioned Arts Council UK and other regulatory bodies contribute to collaboration and to what extent their roles affect the process. I think an inquiry utilising a mix of interview, observation and documentation or ‘triangulation’ (Bell, 2005) could provide for a more cohesive and considered thinking of the process for collaboration.

Bibliography

Arts Council UK (2013) “Standard terms and conditions for grants” [online] Available at: artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/doc/standardconditions_2010.pdf [Accessed 29 Dec. 2015]

Axelrod, R 2006 “The Evolution of Cooperation”, New York: BasicBooks

Bell, J (2005) Doing your research project (4^th ed), Milton Keynes: Open University Press

Black, T (2002) Understanding and social research, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Costley, Carol, Wlliot, Geoffrey, Gibbs, Paul (2010) Doing work based research: approaches to enquiry for insider-researchers, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Denscombe, M (2007) The good research guide for small-scale social research projects (3^rd ed), Maidenhead: Open University Press McGraw-Hill Education

Middlesex University, Module Two Handbook, 2015

Middlesex University, Reader Six, 2015

O’Reilly, T. (2006) “What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software”, Available at: http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html [Accessed 23 December. 2015]

Punch, Keith F. (1998) Introduction to social research, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Schön, D 1983 “The reflective practitioner” How professionals think in action [online] Available at: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_url?url=http://smeduquedecaxias.rj.gov.br/nead/Biblioteca/Forma%25C3%25A7%25C3%25A3o%2520Continuada/Artigos%2520Diversos/reflective%2520practitioner%2520-%2520schon.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm3f2As46TQAy6VSUihgQjSqCfsd1g&nossl=1&oi=scholarr&ei=P349VezaH9PpaMnvgegC&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQgAMoATAA [Accessed 29 Dec. 2015]