The All Module Campus Session (11/11/16) – Looking at Arts-Based Research

Last Friday a number of BAPP students came together to participate in a campus session as hosted by Paula. In attendance were Lily and Charnelle from module three, Victoria and Lizzie from module two. Megan and Taz from module two also participated via Skype as well as Lucy from module one. I hadn’t seen a number of the BAPP community since being away so it is always nice to reconnect and learn how individuals are progressing with the course. With a number of us from each module, we are all of course at different stages but the theme of the session as proposed by Paula is one that we could collectively delve into as it permeates a thinking between all of us as we develop our inquiry topics. Before getting started, Paula asked everyone to give a brief overview of where we were all at individually. Lizzie and Victoria mentioned that they are finding module two studies quite expansive given it is the time of study in which you are exploring inquiry topics of interest to take forward into module three. Lucy also chimed in, saying that she was wrapping her head around the earlier tasks in module one and trying to find correlations between the programme’s content and her previous propositional knowledge (Eraut, 1992). It was interesting listening to BAPP students who were experiencing the same as I had whilst studying prior modules and hearing their own separate learning journeys. The focus for the session was arts-based research. Paula opened by mentioning that it is a term that can be applied across multiple mediums within the performing arts field.

In her text ‘Method Meets Art’, scholar Patricia Leavy (2009) defines arts-based research as;

“a set of methodological tools used by qualitative researchers across the disciplines during all phases of social research including data collection, analysis, interpretation, and representation. These emerging tools adapt the tenets of the creative arts in order to address social research questions in holistic and engaged ways in which theory and practice are intertwined.”

Paula added that arts-based research is incredibly reflexive (Gibbons, 2008) and can therefore be approached and evaluated with varying disciplinary knowledges (Lawrence, 2010). Furthermore, “Arts-based methods draw on literary writing, music, performance, dance, visual art, film, and other mediums” (Leavy, 2009) which means that research can be drawn from a number of different disciplines. Although sources, such as literary writing, may be referring to a particular knowledge (Eraut, 1992), more of a universal meaning can be found and applied to others. Paula discussed that we should be developing a thinking for drawing on a number of different stimuli, both professional and academic, when approaching studies. In regards to my own position, carrying out my inquiry as part of module three studies, I am expected to look at a number of literature sources between the margin of ten and twenty as proposed by the module three handbook. Although it seems like a large number, I have found various practitioners that cover my inquiry topic for creative collaboration and leadership within theatre production often cite others which lead me to the referenced works. As mentioned by myself previously, the consensus found for creative collaboration on my literature review has been very much in favour. Practitioners cite it as detrimental to successful projects. However, when given context, it has been the environment in which they are explored that has prompted discussion for its degree of success.

Before giving a demonstration for carrying out arts-based research, Paula cited that arts-based research has developed out of transdisciplinary study. In a later work of hers titled ‘Essentials of Transdisciplinary Research’, Leavy (2011) paraphrases Sinner et. al (2006) in saying that “practices emerged from the 1970s to 1990s and now constitute a significant methodological genre”. She mentions herself that “arts-based research has developed in a transdisciplinary methods context involving the crossing of disciplinary borders as well as cross-disciplinary collaborations” (2009). Multi and interdisciplinary approaches deal with distinct disciplines “co-existing” within a project (Johnson, 2001) and new assumptions emerging from the result of a collaboration (Austin et al, 2008) respectively. Meanwhile, knowledge transcends to transdisciplinary when a project “team spends ample time developing a research agenda: identifying key topics, building shared definitions and concepts, and developing a conceptual framework for the study that is not the property of any one discipline” (Leavy, 2011).

Paula mentioned, however, that new knowledge gained through transdisciplinary means is not restricted to the professional and organisational contexts and that the societal (Reader Five, 2015) or audience receiving the work can also benefit from the process. A transdisciplinary approach to research is always problem-based (Leavy, 2011), whether that be an internal issue between the creative team or instead a more societal theme that they wish to address with their perspective audience. Paula then turned our attention to an online news article promoting a recently staged production of Stephen Sondheim’s musical ‘Sweeney Todd’ (see the post here). The article charts the transfer of the theatre production from a real-life pie shop in Tooting, London to a replica that is placed within the heart of the West End. The idea for staging the production in this manner was not only an idea influenced by the narrative of the material being used but to also provoke members of the community to come together and celebrate artistic work being produced within a well-known local establishment. This idea for staging the production is clearly influenced from previous theatre practitioners whose aims were the same when it came to provoking a change in thought in their prospective audience, notably the work of Bertolt Brecht. Brecht developed a mode of theatre known as ‘Epic Theatre’ which seeks not for an audience to empathise with character and narrative but critically reflect on social affairs being alluded to via conventions not found in that of naturalistic acting (a full breakdown of these can be found on the following web article). One technique in particular, known as direct address (Brecht, 1964), involves actors engaging directly with their audience, breaking the “fourth wall”, meaning the space that separates the audience from the action onstage is shattered and the allusion of narrative is broken. However, whilst parallels can be found between the two it is really the aim is not to challenge a perspective as complex as political agenda like Brecht intended with his work, but instead raise an awareness for how immersive and visually stimulating storytelling within theatre can be. This is an example of transdisciplinary action working effectively. Paula also mentioned the text “The Theory of the Avant Garde” (Peter Bürger, 1984) when referencing that it is not just about doing the art form but putting it together in a way that hasn’t been seen before. This is an argument that Bürger (1984) makes in his work, that in our proposed age of postmodernism “two essential insights come together… first, that it is not in and of themselves that works of art have their effect but rather that this effect is decisively determined by the institution within which the works function; second that modes of reception must be based in social history” (1984).

Paula has asked us prior to attending the session to prepare art-based research sources that relate to our individual areas of professional practice and inquiry topics. Unlike the professional or academic, these are sources that exist on the fringes of our topic focus and feature some of the key themes we are exploring. An article that has come to make up part of my literature review is one from the human resources publication website ‘HRZone’. The article features an argument for what makes a successful collaborative leader. It goes onto list three key features that are essential showing leadership in collaboration;

“Mediation – Collaborative leaders need to be able to address conflict constructively and effectively as soon as it arises. This is a demanding skill. Evidence from many collaborative leadership 360° feedback programmes suggests that handling conflict and the associated mediation skills are often the number one leadership priority.

Influencing – Collaborative leaders need to be able to share control and so choose the best approach to influencing their partners. This requires an understanding of the organisational culture and personality type of their partners as well as an objective analysis of the business situation at hand.

Engaging others – Collaborative leaders can’t be successful without the skills of networking and relationship building. This means communicating with clarity, often in high stress situations, and involving others in decision – making at the right time.”

It is interesting that phrases such as ‘mediation’, ‘organisation’, ‘networking’ and ‘conflict’ should be terms I have found in my professional and academic literature findings as found in this article but in a context existing outside the arts. Paula explained that arts-based research can help ground our theories and make them relatable to someone outside of our community of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Finding keywords in literature sources solidifies universal themes that apply across multiple communities. To conclude the session, Paula asked that we participate in a couple of collective mind map exercises. In light of the recent US presidential election result, we used this scenario as a stimulus for presenting art-based research ideologies within this context. A lot of what came out of the exercise were of course reactions strongly influenced by Trump and Clinton’s stances on policies but we agreed that simple phrases representing themes, as discovered in the previous exercise, can be understood by various multiple ‘lenses’ (Gardner, 2005). The results of the exercise can be found below. However, arts-based research is only one aspect of our inquiry, Paula noted, when it comes to structuring our inquiry it is important to remember who we are writing for. What is the aim of our inquiry and who is the prospective audience in mind who will benefit from our findings?

Bibliography

Archer, D 2013 “What makes a collaborative leader?” HRZone [online] Available at: http://www.hrzone.com/talent/development/what-makes-a-collaborative-leader [Accessed 21 Nov. 2016]

Austin et. al, 2008 “From Interdisciplinary to Transdisciplinary Research: A Case Study”, Qualitative Health Research, 18, (4) [online] Available at: http://qhr.sagepub.com/content/18/4/557.short [Accessed 20. Nov. 2016]

Bürger, P (1974) Theory of the avant-garde, 1984 re-print, Manchester: Manchester University Press

Brecht, B (1964) Brecht on theatre, 2014 re-print, London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama

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

Gardner, H (1983) Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences, New York: BasicBooks

Gibbons, M 2008 “Why Is Knowledge Translation Important? Grounding the Conversation”, Technical Brief No. 21 [online] Available at: http://ktdrr.org/ktlibrary/articles_pubs/ncddrwork/focus/focus21/Focus21.pdf [Accessed 20 Nov. 2016]

Johnson, R 2001 “Historical Returns: Transdisciplinarity, Cultural Studies, and History”, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 4, (3) [online] Available at: http://ecs.sagepub.com/content/4/3/261.short [Accessed 20 Nov. 2016]

Lave, J, Wenger, E, 1991, “Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leavy, P (2008) Method meets art (2009 re-print), New York: Guilford Press

Leavy, P (2011) Essentials of transdisciplinary research, Oxford: Routledge

Middlesex University, Module Two Reader Four, 2015

Sinner et. al 2006, “Arts Based Research Dissertations: Reviewing the Practices of New Scholars, Canadian Journal of Education, 29, (4) [online] Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ766913.pdf [Accessed 20 Nov. 2016]

Cash, J 2011 “Epic Theatre Conventions” The Drama Teacher [online] Available at: http://www.thedramateacher.com/epic-theatre-conventions [Accessed 21 Nov. 2016]

Brown, M 2015, “Pie-shop Sweeney Todd transfers from Tooting to West End” The Guardian [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/mar/11/sweeney-todd-transfers-tooting-pie-shop-west-end [Accessed 21. Nov. 2016]

Module 3 - Inquiry Progression Update

I am now back in the UK after finishing my contract with Live Business in Ibiza for the summer. It was a fantastic experience and I learnt not only a lot about my practice as a performer but also about myself on a personal level. A lot of these discoveries were informed by what occurred in and around my workplace environment. One of the most intense aspects of the job was the constant dialogue between myself, my colleagues and our audience. These groups have previously been identified by the BAPP Module Two Reader Five as ‘contexts’ (2015), the personal, professional, organisational and societal. What has been most interesting is observing when these different contexts communicate with each other, to what benefit and how they affect one another. There have been instances, as discovered in my interviews, when contexts have not functioned efficiently and this has caused discourse amongst others. Speaking of inquiry tools, my observations and interviews have been completed although they are currently in the form of written transcripts so I will be writing them up so as to make sense of the recorded data and also familiarise myself with themes and ideas that I can later discuss. All consent forms have been signed and I am now moving into the phase of analysing my findings which is identified by the Module Three handbook (2016) and the diagram below as stage four.

I have been previously worried about the pace of my inquiry and how long it has seemed moving between each stage. However, after a brief recap of the handbook (2016) it is stated that we as researchers may find ourselves floating in between stages. The literature review, for example, is something that has been ongoing for me since the start of the study period. It has been a great comfort learning that there is so much literature available with regards to collaboration and leadership within the arts but, on the other hand, this has also required me to observe closely at what articles and extracts from texts are relevant to my inquiry topic. I was fortunate enough during my contract’s duration to fully read through a couple of texts that have been extremely beneficial in realising what direction my inquiry needs to take. This included finding clarity in what I am looking to get out of the process and forming tasks for myself such as organising interview questions in order to realise what I want to achieve from my inquiry tools. A text I previously mentioned examining before deferring last study period was Robert Cohen’s ‘Working Together in Theatre: Collaboration in Leadership’ (2010). After finishing my initial reading, certain areas of the text have influenced my thinking for the inquiry’s direction, including my working title for the inquiry.

Inquiry Title in Working: How do theatre production company structures affect communication for creative collaboration and leadership, and what methods can improve practice when challenged by discursive dialogue?

Before reading Cohen’s text I think I was unsure as to what area of practice I wanted to investigate within creative collaboration and leadership. My literature review has proved that the topic is fairly robust and without a specific objective for investigation lacks focus. The phrase ‘theatre production company structure’ in my title does not refer to the infrastructure of a company in the same way you may speak about a business. It refers to the mode in which theatre productions operate. In his text, Cohen (2010) refers to three fundamental models that are utilised when producing theatre productions, ‘institutional theatres’, the ‘single production model’ and the ‘regional theatre model’;

Institutional theatre – “the majority of the artistic staff (directors, designers, actors) and virtually all of the production staff (technicians, dramaturgs, business and publicity offices) are already on hand when the individual production director is selected. Gathering the team in these cases may mean simply going down the hall and knocking on a few doors. With its theatre spaces ordinarily in the same buildings (or at least the same city) as its offices, shops and rehearsal halls, as well as close by the normal workplaces (offices, studios) and home-base residences of its theatre artists, institutional theatre productions easily facilitate close, frequent and easily arranged face-to-face collaborations among all members of an artistic team.” (Cohen, 2010)

I referenced this method of creating theatre when I first began looking at Cohen’s (2010) work and although I didn’t know it by the term “institutional theatre” I made comment of Stanislavski’s ‘Moscow Theatre Company’ during my module two feedback post. Institutional theatre is not a feasible option for most theatre production companies today. I will be referring to the model during the course of my inquiry but the latter two will be the focus of my case studies.

Single-production model – “In this model, each production must assemble its own team independently, from top to bottom… The single-production motif is the basic pattern [for fringe theatre], almost all films, and most small, independent stage productions, including what are popularly known as “Equity-waver” and “showcase theatre”… To initiate such a production, a self-designated producer (more commonly today a group of producers acting as a team), having raised sufficient funds to set a show in motion, will then engage each individual participant – from directors to performers to ushers – that will become part of the production company. In such cases, the “gathering” of such a team – which may be composed of artists living in different cities or even countries – may for a long time be more virtual than face-to-face, via web conferencing, emails, attachments and phone calls... and when actual meetings are arranged, they likely will be on a one-to-one basis rather than a group gathering, at least in the early weeks or months.” (Cohen, 2010)

Contrary to this extensive detailing for the intricacies of this type of production model, Cohen (2010) goes onto explain the benefits it affords such as “Artists [being] engaged because of their specific match with particular project, rather than because they are simply “the designer down the hall”. Cohen (2010) also adds that “working with artists outside one’s own periphery of local colleagues can lead to unexpected artistic growth – and professional development – throughout the individually selected team”. This latter commentary is a product of transdisciplinary knowledge being exchanged. Cohen’s notion for gaining new perspective outside of regular communities of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991) validates Michael Gibbons (2008) theory, as I discovered during module two studies, for “transdisciplinary knowledge production… not necessarily [being] derived from pre-existing disciplines”. Both Cohen (2010) and Gibbons (2008) suggest that genuine inspiration for projects can be found without pre-conceived ideals from either or multiple parties.

Regional theatre model – “a middle ground model… while regional theatres are technically institutional… virtually none is today funded sufficiently to maintain a large, resident, permanent company of directors, designers, and, most importantly, actors on yearlong paid contracts… the “company” is a mixture of a few permanent members, usually including the artistic, producing and/or managing directors, and core business, artistic and production staffs.” (Cohen, 2010)

Cohen (2010) further adds that like the previous two models, the regional has advantages and disadvantages. He cites that “Since they [company members] don’t have a year-round salaried company of one or two hundred persons, they are certainly more economical than the government-funded national theatres in Europe, and can be far more flexible in who they hire”. This model is reflective of Live Business’ production structure. The flexibility can be beneficial to all members of the company alike at one time or another but, with regards to my inquiry topic, this means a range of disciplinary knowledge that must be gauged with precision and care.

My literature review, made up of both professional and academic texts as encouraged by Reader Seven (2016), has informed me thus far that collaboration and leadership is thought of broadly as essential to theatre production. Whether it can be managed well within different environments is what will be at the centre of my critical review based on my findings gathered through observation and interview tools. I believe that Cohen’s (2010) text has made it clear that there is the opportunity for a compare and contrast scenario that can be structured for my critical review and I intend to examine further as to how this can be developed. Reader Six (2015) states that the inquiry should not be about proving “scientific truth” with our findings but to explore a focused area within our chosen topics. I have discussed methodology from my professional area of practice but I hope a continued look at academic literature will help provide for interesting discussion. I will also be posting a blog detailing my observation and interview findings as well as any new ideas these have provoked.

Bibliography

Cohen, R (2010) Working together in theatre: collaboration and leadership, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Gibbons, M 2008 “Why is Knowledge Translation Important? Grounding the Conversation”, Technical Brief No. 21 [online] Available at: http://ktdrr.org/ktlibrary/articles_pubs/ncddrwork/focus/focus21/Focus21.pdf [Accessed 10 Nov. 2016]

Middlesex University, Module Two Reader Five, 2015

Middlesex University, Module Two Reader Six, 2015

Middlesex University, Module Three Reader Seven, 2016

Middlesex University, Module Three Handbook, 2016

Resuming Module 3 studies and online all-module induction session (19/09/16)

It has been quite a while since I last blogged so I am hoping this initial entry will serve as a catalyst to continue during the course of the study period. I am picking up after deferring during the last study period, due to a performance contract I had started and demanded too much of my time to allow for appropriate attention with the BAPP. However, I am excited to be picking it up again and with only five weeks left of my contract I am looking forward to collating this experience into my inquiry project on returning home to the UK. Two Saturday’s ago Paula held an induction session for modules one, two and three. Adesola also joined and other participants included Bethany, Laura, Lizzie, Megan and Charnelle. It was great to become reconnected with the BAPP community and have initial discussions before the study period officially commenced.

Paula began the session with us introducing ourselves and giving a bit of background as to what positions we take outside of the BAPP programme. It was intriguing to hear where everyone is approaching studies from in relevance to their professional standing. Something that I have come to appreciate during my time with the programme thus far is how individual’s backgrounds come to shape and offer views on areas discussed that may not have been raised by others as it has been provoked by an experience that is particular to that individual’s environment. It opens up a way of thinking that would not have been approached otherwise, something that has certainly affected me during studies. With this in mind, Adesola chimed in and suggested a technique that was implemented in the previous day’s induction session; this being to separately suggest methodologies that may help in our planning for the duration of the study period. This being an all-module session, we as participants are all commencing the term with varying familiarity. However, what was proposed by individuals was of great value to both newcomers getting to grips with the course content, as well as those returning to studies. Moreover, what I found interesting about points being raised was whilst returning students were able to point out and identify ‘pitfalls’ from previous module experience, newcomers were suggesting methods that may have passed the former. These are devices that second and third module students may have encountered when beginning initial studies but knowledge accumulated since has put these out of forefront focus.

As we began presenting methodologies for practice we began discussing how our current resources around us support this. As mentioned earlier, everyone on the BAPP course finds themselves in different positions. Charnelle brought up three themes that have she is finding to work effectively when carrying out studies; time-keeping, communication and focus. She added that regular and continued conversation with the BAPP community helps for stimulating ideas. She also highlighted that campus sessions have been important in grounding her studies. There was a shared notion that networking was crucial in carrying out studies. There can be a feeling of isolation during the study period but avenues of communication such as blogging, SIG’s as well as online sessions and even one-on-one chats can give some clarity to ideas. Organisation is of upmost importance when planning studies. Lack of a structure can lead to time mismanagement and certain tasks within the module could be overlooked.

Continuing this trail of thought, Laura brought up a couple of methods for remaining active and motivated in times when access to the internet isn’t always possible. Laura works in a boarding school and mentioned that she will often make use of her journal and note any valuable information that she can expand on at a later stage when she has the resources available. I have found this extremely effective, especially in my current living situation where I have no direct access to the internet. Before beginning my contract here in Ibiza I took a selection of literature I knew to be relevant to my inquiry topic to then examine at my own pace. I use my journal to note any text that I think will be of particular value in literature review. However, Lizzie added that it is important whenever possible to observe other people’s blogs for entries that may provide thought for individuals who feel like they have hit a wall with studies. She expressed that is why it is important for the BAPP community to keep up with blogging.

Bethany and Megan are both working performers. Bethany is preparing for rehearsals for ‘Half a Sixpence’ which is making its move to the West End after a successful run at the Chichester Festival Theatre. Megan is currently touring with ‘Dirty Dancing’.  They both expressed how difficult it can be to juggle studies around work. Megan touched on the subject of leadership within theatre production which I found of particular interest since my inquiry topic is looking at how separate members bring professional knowledge and expertise to projects and what discourses can come of this based on individual experience. I would like to hear more on Megan’s thoughts about the subject as I feel our ideas for inquiries are very similar.

After hearing from everyone Adesola voiced that it is vital for us to be aware of what is required of us for handing in at the end of the study period. It is important that we touch base with our tutors (Adesola or Paula) regularly to maintain that our studies remain relevant and we do not stray too far from our aims for the module. I have in the past examined work that, while useful, have included in arguments (particularly when carrying out end of module reviews for assessment) when not necessarily needed. Adesola and Paula pointed us towards the Module Handbook and Readers for a full breakdown of getting a plan together for the study period. After looking at Reader Seven, I am keen to look further at Hart’s (1998) text for compiling a literature review. Although I have found many useful texts supporting my inquiry topic I spent too long gathering these texts before deferring last study period and a plan for spending further time looking more may benefit me greatly.

“1 distinguishing what has been done from what needs to be done;

2 discovering important variables relevant to the topic;

3 synthesizing and gaining a new perspective;

4 identifying relationships between ideas and practice;

5 establishing the context of the topic or problem;

6 rationalizing the significance of the problem;

7 enhancing and acquiring the subject vocabulary;

8 understanding the structure of the subject;

9 relating ideas and theory to applications;

10 identifying the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used;

11 placing the research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments” (Hart, 1998, p. 27).

I am aware that this post has been uploaded nearly two weeks after the Skype session took place and I am quite wary of the amount of time I have at my disposal. In a few weeks I will be back home and will be in a much more able position for carrying out studies. However, I am keen to remain active in these early weeks with whatever time I have available to me. This first initial Skype session was great for easing my way back into studies and I look forward to developing my inquiry project during this third and final module.

Bibliography:

Hart, C. (1998) Doing a Literature Review, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Module 3 - Module 2 Feedback

The following text was sent to Paula last week for formative feedback but some arguments featured relate to my previous blog post regarding my choice of literature review for the inquiry.

Since reading and assessing my module two feedback, I have found that several aspects of my inquiry have changed. Whilst the topic, ‘creative collaboration within theatre production’ remains the same, ideas for how the inquiry will be structured has affected questions that will be implemented for interviewing as a result new, potential ethical issues. My current idea for an inquiry title is ‘How does creative collaboration in theatre production permeate between participating members and is this altered by the level of professional experience shared as a theatre company?’

Whilst beginning to gather literature for review last study period, I came across an argument in Robert Cohen’s ‘Working Together in Theatre: Collaboration and Leadership’. Cohen (2010) proposes that the term ‘ensemble’ has ambiguous meaning. The first being the common expression for production teams collaborating together on a singular piece of work. The second was in the awareness of creative control between participating members and that in order to create successful work a hierarchy must be put in place in order to maximise productivity within a company. Cohen (2010) suggests that due to the institutionalising of theatre as a business model, the industry is made up of professionals who have trained in particular specialisms. He then goes onto cite the breakdown of what was formerly known as the ‘family’ company ideal for theatre, which was developed by Stanislavsky. In his book ‘An Actor Prepares’, Stanislavsky (1936) references his own professional experience in that his own theatre company ‘Moscow Theatre Art'. He believed that all members of the theatre company, whether an actor, director, stage or props manager, should share an equal role in creating a production. However, Stanislavsky (1936) later experienced this method not always efficient particularly when rehearsing for Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s ‘The Village of the Stepanchikovo’. After conducting 196 separate rehearsals and eventually abandoning the project due to his own opinion for it not meeting a satisfactory standard, it can be assumed that a lack of decisiveness from within the company led to this decision. Today, theatre companies cannot afford to work in this manner and members train in highly specialised, individual roles to fulfil projects. Cohen’s (2010) view for hierarchy within theatre companies validates an earlier argument made by Thomas Hobbes (1651), found in Reader Five (2015) and discussed during my inquiry plan. This was that personal, professional and organisational contexts are part of a moral social contract that “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 rules for mutual benefit.” What Cohen (2010) and Hobbes’ (1651) views suggest is a synonymous thinking that the product of collaboration will be strengthened by participating member’s willingness to show leadership in their particular field of the project and communicate their reasons for action effectively with their colleagues. Cohen believes that “Discipline may be ordered, to be sure, but the deepest levels of artistic achievement can only be evoked – and in large part that evocation must come from within the artist’s own creativity, comprising his or her wildest imagination, deepest aesthetic sensibility, and wellspring of artistic passion. No theatre veteran would doubt this.” (2010).

Detailed example of this interplay is chronicled using real life examples by Tina Bicat and Chris Baldwin in their text ‘Devised and Collaborative Theatre: A Practical Guide’ (2002). The work offers a detailed analysis of how theatre company personnel interact with each other through recording a number of real life professional relationships and how they evolve and permeate projects. With multiple examples being given throughout the text, I have been beginning to think that perhaps my observations and interviews need to extend beyond my current professional workplace in order to gauge a varied amount of data for analysis. As Cohen (2010) mentions, “communal” theatre production stills exists today and it may be interesting to investigate whether companies that compose of the same actors, creatives and stage and technical managers over various productions tell a differing opinion for their experience in creative collaboration. With my new company, Live Business, I will be entering rehearsals in just under two weeks’ time, meeting many of my cast and team for the first time. An example of a company working closer under the ‘family’ ethos for theatre production would be my experience on ‘Half a Sixpence’. The fringe company, ‘Solomon Artistes’, that produced the show are made up of a team that often work yearly together with the same ensemble across several productions. Although I had not worked with the company on a show before a couple of years ago, I knew of it and many of the people who made up the team before formerly beginning rehearsals for the show. I believe that a comparison between the two companies, one that is beginning a collaborative relationship anew and another whose members have crafted a working relationship over years, could yield for interesting data and analysis especially for the transdisciplinary knowledge (Gibbons, 2008) between professional and organisational contexts (Reader Five, 2015). I may find contrasts and equally similarities between the two companies which will be made clear given the correct approach and preparation for interview and observations. What this does mean, however, is a possible alteration in my ethical approval. Although Live Business are fully aware of my activities, should I wish to engage with ‘Solomon Artistes’ for observation and interview purposes I may need to prepare a separate ethics form for their consent. Whether this needs to be completed like the ethics and employer support forms as completed for the module two submission I am unsure of, however. Would a self-produced consent form detailing my inquiry project, its intent and safeguarding of all involved be deemed appropriate to carry out my inquiry tools? This is something that may need to be discussed.

Bibliography

Baldwin, C, Bicat, T (2002) Devised and collaborative theatre: a practical guide, Wiltshire: Crowood

Cohen, R (2010) Working together in theatre: collaboration and leadership, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Gibbons, M 2008 “Why Is Knowledge Translation Important? Grounding the Conversation”, Technical Brief No. 21 [online] Available at: http://ktdrr.org/ktlibrary/articles_pubs/ncddrwork/focus/focus21/Focus21.pdf [Accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Middlesex University, Module Two Reader Five, 2015.

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

Beginning Module 3 studies, inquiry feedback and BAPP Arts meeting room session (25/02/16)

Although my thinking for the BAPP did not entirely cease during the break between module one and two studies, I certainly found it difficult last study period to pick up the momentum required to carry out the tasks laid out after such a great length of time away from the BAPP programme. I do not feel this has been the case in the break between the module two submission and beginning module three studies, however. This has been in part influenced by a shorter break but also because by the end of module two, my inquiry plan had taken a solid enough shape to carry out further investigation. During the five weeks away from the course, I began to collect, source and examine literature relevant to my inquiry topic, ‘Creative Collaboration within Theatre Production’. One of the texts I have become particularly familiar with is Robert Cohen’s ‘Working Together in Theatre: Collaboration and Leadership’ (2010). I drew up a brief literature review for it as part of the task work during module two (see the blog post here). While some of the other texts I observed covered an exploration of collaboration as a topic, a lot of them were not informed by the theatre profession or environment rather than social scientists’ and philosopher’s views on the subject on a broader scale (see my blog post here covering an article by Roderick J. Lawrence). This is not to suggest that literature outside of my environment of study has been timed wasted however, quite the contrary. After observing the module three handbook (2015) and reader seven (2015) it is made clear that the first few weeks before formally beginning the inquiry should be spent looking at texts that support my inquiry topic. While I have found an array of relevant literature, a lot of the texts are coming in the form of large published papers and books. I have two dilemmas; firstly, in that I want to be sure to cover as much material that could prove applicable or gauge my thinking as to how I should handle the inquiry (with particular regard to conducting my observations and interviews) as possible. The other is a consciousness for how much time I can realistically spend searching for it.

Whilst a lot of new thinking is being provoked by the ongoing literature review, my module two feedback from Paula has opened my thoughts to the way in which I structure writing in order for others, be it for an audience critiquing my work for academic assessment or for others in general interested to learn about the inquiry project. Paula discussed that my writing style was dense at times and that while ideas and theories discussed are relevant they are not fully realised due to a lack of clarity when pairing it with context. For example, I am interested in discussing transdisciplinary knowledge and its influence within collaboration but what is it in particular about collaboration that leads me to make these correlations? I feel my literature review is already beginning to define clear and concise questions for observation and interview purposes as well as relating to previous theories found on the course but it I must be careful not to or impose too many ideas upon the context in which they are being explored and analysed. Simplicity will be key in presentation. As mentioned previously, I am attempting moderate what research literature will prove useful from others. Paula forwarded a useful guide from The University of Reading’s website that provides a good indication as to how I should be investigating this. The link to the website is just below and is also featured in the module three handbook (2015).

http://www.reading.ac.uk/internal/studyadvice/StudyResources/Essays/sta-startinglitreview.aspx#search

Last week Paula held the first two BAPP Arts meeting room sessions of the study period of which the evening was attended by Ellie, Lara, Lisa, Jess and myself. It was a chance to touch base with other BAPP students and clarify what is expected from this final module. Paula spoke about planning and developing an awareness for the time frame in which we must complete the inquiry. As made clear from the diagram above, taken from the module three handbook (2015), the five stages give clarity as to the order of proceedings in order to lead a successful inquiry. At the time of the session, Paula mentioned that we should be at ‘stage one’, reviewing our module two inquiry plan feedback as well as getting to grips with the new handbook (2015) and reader seven (2015). I am surprised with the short length of both of these new stimuli. Much of the material serves as a guideline to refer back to. Paula reminded us that this final module is the culmination of our previous work and that the tools are already there for us to carry out our inquiries, many of which we will have decided during our module two inquiry plans. However, we were also reminded that it will be important to mediate how our inquiries are composed. Certain elements of the inquiry process may have changed during the course of the study break. Perhaps literature, journal writing or other method could have in fact changed our outlook or reasoning for the inquiry’s purpose and what we want to get out of the experience.

One major element for my inquiry has changed since completing module two, that being the commencement of rehearsals for my work placement. I will be travelling to Milton Keynes for a week, then rehearsing in London for another three weeks in preparation before I fly out in April. I had previously thought rehearsals would be starting earlier than its happening in just under two weeks’ time. However, this presents a unique opportunity in that I will be entering into an unknown environment and forming new collaborative relationships. As such, this could provide for interesting data results. I am feeling slightly apprehensive as to how much of my literature review will be finished before carrying out my inquiry tools. Paula reminded us, however, that investigating literature will be an ongoing part of the inquiry and that we should be open to new ideas and changes. After reading Cohen’s (2010) view and his mention of Stanislavsky’s “communal” approach for creating theatre production as discussed in his own publication ‘An Actor Prepares’ (1936) (see module two feedback blog post for argument), I began a thinking as to whether it would be valuable to compare past professional instances with this upcoming placement. As discovered last study period, I believe investigating areas of discourse within the process of collaboration  In these early stages, I feel with multiple activities requiring a significant amount of attention simultaneously that it could become easy to lose a sense of direction. Paula introduced us to an exercise that serves to help us break down steps of the inquiry process into sizeable objectives, short or long-term, that will help focus our thinking without becoming overwhelmed. These are called action points. On the basis of what has been discussed in this blog post and during the BAPP Arts meeting room session I have come up with four points to strive towards during these initial weeks.

Action: Continue to search for literature relevant to inquiry topic for review.

Action: To maintain blog and SIG activity with other BAPP peers.

Action: To remain conscious of writing style and concise when addressing ideas or theories applicable to inquiry.

Action: Begin planning observation and interviews including conduct and questions, respectively.

We ended the session with a final thought; what is it we personally want to gain from the inquiry process? This was not referring to the degree result itself but what we want to see changed in our professional workplaces as a result? As well as satisfying my own interests for my topic, I would like to produce an inquiry for others who may not necessarily work within the profession of musical theatre. And although data gathered will be based on my own professional practice I feel the topic of collaboration is one that can be related to many workplaces, especially within the arts. I am also eager to learn from other BAPP peers’ work, particularly those with varying different practices to my own and look forward to following everyone’s progression over this inquiry process.

Bibliography

Cohen, R (2010) Working together in theatre: collaboration and leadership, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Middlesex University, Module Three Handbook, 2015.

Middlesex University, Module Three Reader Seven, 2015.

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