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