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