Module 2 – Task 5c: Consulting reader five on professional ethics and those surrounding my practitioner inquiry

I looked at reader five before starting work on part five of the module to gain a bit more of a foothold as to how I should be thinking, and developing my critique within this particular section of study. This was only an initial read-through however, and since reviewing it again in conjunction with this task I have noticed that a lot of my earlier contextual examples (with particular regard to task 5b) lean heavily on the ethical framework suggested in the reader. I previously discussed the idea of the actor making or suggesting a change in choice with regards to their practice and how this affects those around them, as well as questioning whether this begs an ethical response. The follow diagram supports the belief that it does so and details in what order it permeates.

Each stage provokes a different response. Addressing these stages is discussed within the context of a real-life case study as featured in the reader, ‘the Mid-Staffordshire inquiry’ as carried out by British Barrister Sir Robert Francis. The following extracts are found within the reader but are lifted from an article by ‘The Guardian’. One previous inquiry surrounding the Staffordshire hospital was carried out by the then Secretary of State for Health Minister Andrew Burnham between 2005 and 2008, as well as an initial follow-up report from Francis. During this time, the results of both of these revealed that “as many as 1,200 patients died of preventable causes” (The Guardian, 2010). With reference to these earlier findings, Francis would look to determine why the aforementioned was allowed to occur. In order to produce any suitable discussion, Francis needed to “pick apart the culture that meant no clinician protested effectively at the state of affairs narrated in his first report” (The Guardian, 2010).

To begin his mode of inquiry Francis would work with personal context, in this case the motive to investigate the gross negligent behaviour towards patients as reported. This would fall within his own interests for taking up the inquiry. In order to support the proposed question, it would “be illuminating to hear from the two people who, as regional health authority chief executives, formerly had responsibility for the Mid-Staffs hospitals: David Nicholson and Cynthia Bower.” It is not only in Francis’ interest but for the NHS to defend their previous decision for not being so forthcoming with regards to the health system’s state, especially since Andy Burnham denied a public inquiry after performing his own independently. It is an opportunity for them to suggest that this choice was not taken “out of fear of what it might uncover about the system as a whole” (The Guardian, 2010). This shows a transition from personal to professional context. The next step becomes slightly blurred as it could be argued that staff support views shared by the organisation by default of their agreement to work for the institution, in this case being the NHS. However, when regulations are assessed such as the NHS’s, where “698 auditing standards and 69 different auditing bodies” (The Guardian, 2010) share this task, it can be difficult to decide who is the correct body to be speaking with. Multiple sources within the same organisation will share differing views.

“The deeper and therefore tougher issue is cultural. The NHS finds it notoriously hard to admit a mistake. There is no statutory obligation to be honest with patients when things go wrong. With abolition of community health councils nearly 10 years ago, patients struggle to make their voices heard. Francis might bear those two thoughts in mind.” (The Guardian, 2010)

The ethical consideration then reaches what society makes of such actions taken and in turn what this means for all that come before in the process. Although Francis was approaching this inquiry following negative circumstances, he may have chosen to consider vulnerability not only for the patients but general community. To what degree does the blame lie with an organisation when resources for services have been removed? Although Francis wants to bring resolve to those affected by the occurrence, does he need to be mindful as to not scaremonger and fuel unnecessary tension? Honesty is needed in presenting findings but findings can be objectively maintained by manner of investigation i.e. being careful to avoid posing leading questions and only asking what is necessary.

This rather extensive example is principally the framework for which I will need to be approaching my own inquiry. When looking to question subjects I need to be considering how this information will feed through. Once I have posed it to a context, be it professional, organisational or societal, I cannot mediate the response for which it will produce. Within my professional community this could be demonstrated in the following manner; I set up interviews within the theatre company and cast who produced ‘Half a Sixpence’. I could ask the question, ‘what is an appropriate level of cognitive action for children to be exposed to when working alongside adult performers?’ One particular scene involved my character and the lead female character sharing a moment of intimacy by way of a kiss. In order to maintain the integrity of the work, we decided that this called for the genuine act of doing so. After a discussion between the director, actress and I, we chose only to perform this motif within the scene whilst the children involved were not present at particular rehearsals. This certainly wasn’t out of a feeling of embarrassment but more so to follow moral sensibilities in regards to the children working on the production. Although there were terms and conditions laid out in our contracts regarding behaviour with minors, the issue of safeguarding was not explicitly detailed in the way that the legislation from the Department of Education is. I made my colleagues aware of the ethical framework found within the ISTD child protection policy as discussed in task 5c.

“If any of the following occur during or in the context of an ISTD event or activity, it should
immediately be reported to the designated Child Protection Officer:

• If you accidentally hurt a child.
• If a child appears to be sexually aroused by your actions.
• If a child misunderstands or misinterprets something you have done.
• If a child is unusually distressed and you have any suspicions of or concerns about
potential abuse.” (ISTD, 2015)

Although I need to remain mindful of all the above circumstances, the context of the second bullet point is important in relation to the aforementioned example. If not avoided or reported accordingly, this breaches the professional context relationship, which in turn betrays the trust between the organisation (in this case the theatre company) and the society (the parents or legal guardians of the children). The societal context will always be the most vulnerable to activity as they do not normally have direct control over the immediate action that takes place between the other three. It is the duty for the three contexts that come before to assess how actions will affect this outside body. Societal context may not have the immediate ability to affect activity but they do however make for the largest consensus of judgement, meaning their views will be the most commonly accessible.

As mentioned earlier, ethics are not always as clearly discussed as individuals may like or be wary of until raised by someone. A thinking can also arise indirectly by means of a situational occurrence, forcing the individual to consider how choices made can affect the outcome. With reference to the ethics operation system and motive for personal, professional and organisational contexts to withhold information for the ‘greater good’ from societal, what are the ramifications for doing so? In centuries past, established thinkers have questioned and supported the need for decent morality between individuals in a time when ethics weren’t widely discussed or recognised.

“Hobbes (1651) viewed ethics as a practical solution to social harmony and good through the vehicle of a social contract. He posited that in order to achieve a peaceful, co-operative social order we need to adhere to a set of moral rules… the social contract 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 rule for mutual benefit.” (Reader Five, 2015)

Much of what has been debated is principally influenced by the Christian doctrine, which in turn makes up much of the law and justice system today. A significant contribution from Thomas Hobbes (1651) was his belief that human welfare within an organisation between one another is crucial to achieving any form of progression and minimises discourse. This works much in the way my inquiry idea for collaboration does in that there is no written term in a contract that requires all members of a cast in a production to interact sincerely with each other but that it makes for good practice and therefore strengthens products as a result. Immanuel Kant (1779) strengthened this argument feeling that under no circumstance should an individual hide or alter information by whatever intent. He proposes that “If we have a universal law which forbids lying then to allow lying would make it common and before long people would cease to believe one another” (Reader Five, 2015). In order to produce the most honest and truthful work in the arts, it can be argued necessary for artistes to remain open and receptive of one another, even if this means tackling discourse within an organisation head on. This type of thinking is known as Deontology.

In juxtaposition, JS Mill (1861) later found this ideology too absolute for application within ethical contexts and “developed a theory of moral obligation which proposed to choose that which will tend to produce the greatest good for the greatest number” (Reader Five, 2015). A comparison can be made between this concept and my own practice. A creative such as an actor will sometimes choose to keep their methods of practice to themselves in order to the preserve artistic integrity of the work. This will not be just to benefit of themselves, however, as they are considering the opinion of their colleagues and how this information will affect the dynamic of the cast and performance upon learning it.

When I worked on Martin Guerre at college, for example, I can recall the choice I made as to what my character’s disability would be as it is not specified in the script. Clues were present, however, for me to make my own ‘diagnosis’ as an actor. My director advised me to take some time privately to assess my character research and make a choice that would best serve as identifiable without announcing it to the rest of the cast. If the latter choice was made, it would distort other actor’s perception of the character and their actions when interacting. My character struggled with speaking coherently so therefore if he cannot best explain his condition then why should I feel the need to reveal this information to cast members? The premise of acting is essentially to lie convincingly through portrayal of someone other than self. Therefore, the actor’s choice of hiding information from colleagues preserves what they believe to be the ethos of the work. The context in which I have placed this resemblance to that of the reader’s differs in subject matter and magnitude but the principle of JS Mills’ concept remains all the same.

One aspect I will need to be particularly wary of when planning and recording ethical consideration for my inquiry is my writing style and the way I entail questions. The process of analysing ethics can be carried out in varying manners. “Ethics, as a formal field of philosophical enquiry is the philosophical study of morality and moral issues are imbued with questions of value. Morals and ethics are entwined and moral issues raise normative questions as opposed to factual ones” (Reader Five, 2015). Having its seeds in moral behaviour, ethics relies upon questioning that provokes further thought as opposed to close-ended answers. In relevance to my own inquiry idea for the process of collaboration, there is a difference between asking “is it necessary for a competently trained actor to change methods of practice when working with children?” and “does collaboration change when working with children?” Of course it changes, but the former offers the opportunity to write persuasively and consider both reasons for and against the individual doing so, and how that affects those around them. These two questions are examples of normative and descriptive inquiry respectively.

Furthermore, techniques used when tackling ethical problems can vary. Meta-ethics is the unpacking of what particular moral terms mean within the realm of popular consensus, the analysis of which can provide for further debate. Theoretical normative ethics is the individual making a case for their own moral judgements and theories with regards to ethical concern. Virtue ethics play a major role in this process, the third and final approach to lying alongside consequentialism and deontology. It poses that moral behaviour and character of an individual whilst performing an action is as important as the action itself. Applied ethics is the act of working to find closure to moral problems that arise from the likes of professional or research ethics. Theoretical normative and applied ethics are a product of normative ethics, the ability to challenge axiological viewpoints whereas descriptive ethics can only offer an objective account of a much broader general opinion without instigating specific concerns individuals may have via first hand interviews, observations or focused feedback.

Ethics is a vast subject and can at times be overwhelming when considering how it will play into my inquiry planning. However, a focused review of reader five has sparked intrigue into the possibilities I have for carrying out my inquiry. I feel my inquiry topic is quite broad in scope so I may have to consider where what particular areas I am going to focus on. I feel ethics in regards to working with children would make for interesting work but, at the same time, I want to include the difference in training between artistes and what these means for collaboration on projects. I am confident that a balance can be met however, when investigating work within a cast that covers a large age demographic. I need to think about protocol for approaching sources for inquiry. Parents will need notifying and give consent to their child’s involvement and an agreement must be reached to what extent, interviews utilising web 2.0 technology for example. If I interview any cast members of a production or want to compose an interview with regard to source material, do I need to notify the company for which they work? I also need to examine how the writing and recording of my inquiry, specifically the normative/descriptive ethics within its structure.

Bibliography

The National Archives, 2013, “The Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry” Volume 1: Analysis of evidence and lessons learned (part 1) Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150407084003/http://www.midstaffspublicinquiry.com/report [Accessed 06 December. 2015]

The Guardian, 2010, “Mid-Staffordshire inquiry” Unhealthy System Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/09/mid-staffordshire-inquiry [Accessed 06 December. 2015]

Hobbes, T (1651) The leviathan, 1985 re-print, London: Penguin Classics

ISTD, 2015, “Child Protection Policy” Good Practice Guidelines [online] Available at: http://www.istd.org/about-us/documents/istd-child-protection-policy/ [Accessed 07 December. 2015]

Kant, I (1779) Critique of pure reason, 2007 re-print, London: Penguin Classics

Middlesex University, Reader Five, 2015

Mill, JS (1861) Utilitarianism and other essays, 1967 re-print, London: Penguin

Module 2 – Task 5b: Investigating codes of practice/regulations that steer the ethical framework within my place of work/professional community

Since posting task 5a, I have been studying whether legislative or professional sources can provide any information I may have failed to take into account initially. A lot of the points raised and discussed were at the forefront of my mind due to the regular basis on which I encountered them whilst working on projects. As predicted, there are a number of other factors that play role in maintaining the correct ethos for practice. A lot of what I came across were details describing much of the behaviour that is expected from a professional and what I would like think is present in my persona anyway. Some aspects however, with particular reference to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), have changed since I last took an informed look at the process.

The name itself was changed between the separate occasions it was required for in conjunction with my employment. Formerly known as a CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) check, I was aware of the change during its happenings via the public attention it received but I was not so that this meant more than just the name. I was always under the impression that this was to accommodate a more politically correct title for the office that deals with such matters. However, several changes were made during this transition that affected its process and the way applicants adhere with it. I previously mentioned (in task 5a) my need to complete checks as part of my employment as an assisting drama tutor, and also for a performance job I took part in last year. Unfortunately, I was unable to retrieve a copy of these two separate employment contracts. The stage school I assisted at, however, was an accredited institute for teaching ISTD moderated examinations in which many of the students took part. While I didn’t teach any dance at the school, I did assist with preparing students for LAMDA and RADA acting examinations. I feel the ethical framework is largely the same across the examination boards with particular regard to the child protection policy. This research may reveal intricacies involved when handling potential interviewing or observations of children’s activities in an environment when considering how they integrate skills as part of collaboration amongst other age demographics as I have experienced.

“Children and Vulnerable Persons Protection Policy
1. The ISTD and all its members are aware that children under 18 and vulnerable persons of
any age can be involved in their activities and that they have a responsibility, within the limits of their control and jurisdiction, to protect and safeguard the welfare of every such child and vulnerable person.
2. It is the policy of the ISTD that all children and vulnerable persons have the right to
protection from abuse. All trustees, employees and members who are in contact with such
children and vulnerable persons are expected to be familiar with and to apply the procedures on:

• Employment including temporary/sub-contracted staff, and examiners
• Data protection, especially in regard to children
• Procedures at ISTD events, competitions, and courses
• Procedures for examiners
• Photography and video recording”

I discussed the issue of safeguarding previously but after observing regulations as quoted, it had not occurred to me the exact legal age that a child could consent to my inquiry without the authority of a parent or legal guardian. At the time of my employment I was eighteen and not much older than some of the students I was assistant-tutoring. It was important to distinguish that I was no longer a student at the school and thus my attitude towards those in my class had to be in keeping with the code of practice as aforementioned. Actions adhering to the ‘Data Protection Act 1998’ such as the use of photography and video are particularly important if looking to potentially implement them for class use or, in my present case, inquiry. Evidence of recorded equipment used and reason for its taking place needs to be verified and agreed with parents or legal guardians, perhaps by form of written letter or email. Proof of recorded information will need to be stored securely and its whereabouts detailed also i.e. a personal laptop, hard-drive or physical copies unlikely to be reached by unintended and non-agreed parties. Once I have obtained all use and purpose for the material, I should agree to suitably dispose of to ensure participating parties it is not being withheld for any other means than was agreed.

I feel I made a clear case as to what constitutes as bad practice within my workplace and this has been largely reflected in the ISTD codes of practice. Although it was useful to observe and have these views reiterated, I found more worth in examining what makes for good practice to ensure I am making the process as succinct as required.

“• Always work in an open environment (e.g. avoid private unobserved situations and
encourage open communication with no secrets).
• Treat all children equally and with respect and dignity.
• Always put the welfare of each child first.
Practices to be avoided
• Avoid spending time alone with children away from others save in essential one to
one situations when extreme care should be exercised.”

The quote principally deals with the subject of space for the individual to participate in. Above my own interests, it needs to remain a safe environment for children who exercise within it. I feel it correct that children should be exposed to plenty of space for practice in order to fully express themselves creatively. If it were required that a physical interview need to take place I would prefer it to take place in the presence of another adult but I can understand that arranging such an event can be difficult. In this case, it may be more ideal to carry out via social media platforms, asking for consent prior and screening results to applicable authorities before sharing them publicly.

Whilst I didn’t manage to find a copy of my contract for ‘Half a Sixpence’, I did come across the terms and conditions of engagement from my time working on ‘Suffragette’. Since the film has reached release, ethically I don’t feel this an infringement to reveal the details via this blog post. As previously stated in task 5a, when working a long-running performance contract the project will continue to change so the individual is often not at liberty to disclose certain information. This is not the case with film and television as once the project has finished principal photography there is not much more that can be changed. Of course, editing and re-shoots are not uncommon but productions will often work to a release date settled on by the studio funding it. There is certainly no reason why those involved cannot discuss work once the end product reaches audiences.

 

Of the various legislations the contract refers to there is one in particular that directly relates to my inquiry topic and that I recall on multiple occasions dividing opinion amongst colleagues whilst working on projects. The ‘Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988’ legislation details the film company’s right to reserve any and all aspects of production recorded featuring the individual. This will include (Chapter I, Subsistence ownership and duration of copyright) moving image and sound recording. I have spoken to several artistes whilst working on projects that were not happy with dialogue as scripted or comfortable with actions as performed within the context of the scene for personal reasons, some of which will be spawn out of improvisation on the director/assistant director’s part. The formality is that the artist accepts what is asked of them as part of the agreement they signed when accepting the role.

I have also encountered times whilst filming when an artist will question a member of production as to what they feel was a best take or shot to use. Typically, there will be a rehearsal period in which the creative team and cast will discuss ideas and motives for the day of shoot. However, on the day of shooting the actor may raise concerns with a previously debated approach and suggest an alternative method. Time is often precious on days shooting so most creative teams will ideally like all details of its happenings cemented before its occurrence. Meanwhile, this does open up a dialogue as to whether artistes should continue to have a say in creative choices made. Acting tutors whilst training at college have always given the advice to me that the director will have the overall vision and scope for the project. However, it is the actors that spend the most time with their characters, researching and preparing them for performance. At some point, the actors knowledge of their character and those related to them will succeed the director’s. So, is it ethically justified that the actor have a right in suggesting their own approach to the work over a director’s? If so, how does the director monitor whether the notion best serves the integrity of the production? How does this affect those surrounding such as the lighting and camera crew? This is not strictly a debate for actors and could actually apply to any member of the crew involved in collaboration. I could potentially argue the inquiry idea from a number roles. However, for the sake of developing and furthering my own practice I feel it best to discuss others roles with respect as to how it affects my own as a performer.

My investigation into contextual examples demonstrating ethical codes of practice have helped assess where I need to be taking my inquiry topic. I have a much clearer idea as to what type of research will benefit me as well as the care I must also take in gaining permission to do so. Specific tools cannot be decided at this stage however, and I imagine work within part six will refine my current knowledge whilst distinguishing which may serve best to make up my ethics form draft and proposal for inquiry.

Bibliography

ISTD, 2015, “Child Protection Policy” Good Practice Guidelines [online] Available at: http://www.istd.org/about-us/documents/istd-child-protection-policy/ [Accessed 04 December. 2015]

The Department of Health, 1998, “Data Protection Act” Preliminary 29 (1) [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents [Accessed 05 December. 2015]

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 1988, “Copyright, Designs and Patents Act” Subsistence, ownership and duration of copyright 48 (1) [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents [Accessed 05 December. 2015]

Module 2 – Task 5a: Considering ethics within my place of work/professional community

Until recently, I have been slightly anxious as to how best to approach this task. At present I am not engaged in any long-term performance contracts and thus my immediate professional community in relation to practice is limited. I discussed this recently with Lisa via the comment section of a previous post (see 20/11/15 online session). She brought to my attention that activity at ‘work’ can subconsciously help with my thinking in regards to planning for inquiry. In connection with the phrase, it can be defined in a number of different ways and does not necessarily solely encompass my activities whilst on an informed job. I have of late been involved in a number of recalls for various projects and whilst they will not all bear the result in which I had originally attended the audition for i.e. landing the job, this does not mean that the day’s events cannot be fruitful for evaluating practice. Auditions are a great source for networking and, given the candidate’s permission, I could in fact acquire research via this method. Whether many people would be obliged to this during such a time is questionable but the opportunity is there for exploration. What was revelatory in Lisa’s comments is that there is a much wider scope with regards to planning for inquiry than I had initially considered and this may be worth investigating at a later stage before beginning the proposal. Meanwhile, I can assess areas such as ethics with the knowledge I have gathered with previous and existing communities of professional practice, with particular thought leaning on the one I encountered whilst participating in a fringe production last year and also working as drama teaching assistant during my first year of training.

Discretion is vital to a performer’s attitude in the arts. One of the most fascinating aspects about the arts broadly speaking is that it is almost immediately apparent that each artist, whether it be the creative team, technical crew or member of cast, has been selected with an aptitude to deliver something unique to the production. As a colleague I need to remain mindful of this, respecting the decision for that person’s presence. If I am to comment on a performance, it must be done with the intent to help benefit and further the production and not with that of looking to single out or belittle that person’s ability. It is also often best to be dealt with as discreetly as possible, if that means taking those it directly involves aside such as the director and another member of the cast to discuss work on a particular scene or motif within the production. I also need to remain open to critical criticism of my own work and identify that my colleagues are operating with the same ethos as myself.

When working with children, there is a little more involvement with contracts. Before commencing rehearsals, I was required to undergo a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). I have spoken about the process previously with regards to my old job as a drama teaching assistant during module one (see task 1b). The check is put in place to confirm any previous evidence of a criminal record in order to make the environment a safe place for children in the cast, but it also plays a couple of other roles in which I have not experienced personally but have been made known to me. In the case that an outside body, such as a teaching standards examining board entered my place of work (as was the case when I assisted with teaching ISTD drama examinations), the mediators would normally ask for proof of all staff’s eligibility for employment via certificate of a DBS. It is important that this service is carried out regularly (I believe it was every six months in my particular place of employment), not only for the protection of children but also for the staff. Failure to comply with these regulations through negligence can lead to incrimination and the dismissal of a given employee.

There was also the matter of maintaining a professional relationship between myself and the students or child cast members. This included an awareness in the way I communicated with them. If I am asked or feel the need to talk an activity through with them, I need to do it in a way they will understand via relatable themes or ideas. I cannot, after all, expect them to meet the level of compliance akin to a professionally trained performer. At the same time, I cannot speak in a manner as to undermine them. I should be looking to encourage and stimulate their engagement in activities. To follow, material taught must be appropriate to age. This is something I have not handled myself as I have only ever assisted to someone else’s body of work, a creative team’s vision for a play/musical or the drama tutor’s lesson plan for example. It is my job to remain representative of this. Outside of the work process, there is also the subject of personal safeguarding. I have on occasion had a dialogue with a student or cast member in which they have disclosed personal information to me. It can be difficult to assess whether the information they share is something I should be involving myself with. It will often depend upon the content of the dialogue. I want to remain respectful and supportive of a child’s decision to enter discussion with myself as one assumes they trust my opinion, but at the same time I don’t want to endanger my position. There is a duty of pastoral care involved and if I feel information disclosed requires the attention of a higher authority such as my employer or the child’s parent, I am obliged to discreetly share this knowledge with them.

Another factor that comes into play for performers as part of contracts, particularly with film, television and theatre work, are non-disclosure agreements. A legal binding signing of the aforementioned means that knowledge between two or more parties about a particular product cannot be discussed with anyone outside of the agreement. There will come a time, usually upon initial release of the product, where the artist will be able to freely speak about its content. Even after this point, however, what is the personal limit to which an artist can discuss work without spoiling its content? I have not worked with anyone previously who has infringed upon this but the act of doing so can be detrimental to the offender, the property owner and the arts in general. If devastating enough, the owner may reserve the right to call upon the arts union known as ‘Equity’ in order to seek a resolve to the settlement in dispute. I am yet to handle a performance contract large enough that may require the backing and security offered by the union but it is the leading organisation in supporting all aspects of the entertainment industry and important to remain informed about. Equity does not just cover corporations like the BBC, for example, but manages and secures equal pay for all artists that are employed by the likes of a larger establishment. It provides the support that an individual artist cannot on their own should they feel they are being treated unfairly.

Working with my own thoughts on this task without the influence of research has been satisfying in evaluating where ethics apply in my practice. Even if it isn’t surrounding my day to day activities at present, I have a diverse enough experience to identify a few professional communities in which I have had to consider my actions in relation to those around me. It will be interesting to assess my assumptions against sought out codes of practice and regulations as to be examined in the next task.

Module 2 – Task 4d: Identifying with literature relative to inquiry #1

Research into disciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary learning permeates various professional activities. It has often been debated what each of the aforementioned contribute to their respective fields. The following article focuses on their implementation within the profession of science and engineering but the methodology discussed are worth investigating in regards to my own inquiry planning.

“Keywords: Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary contributions, Environment, Col-laboration” (Lawrence, 2010)

The quote above comes from an article by human ecology professor Roderick J. Lawrence and is featured at the end of the introduction’s ‘abstract’. It is interesting to find that Lawrence wanted to draw the reader’s attention to these phrases in helping to contextualise his research. It is also intriguing to find that I myself have been using the terminology ‘environment’ and ‘collaboration’ when discussing my own work. It suggests that disciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary learning, to a degree, relies on these terms in order to give its definition a form of context and so methodology has grounds to be explored within.

Lawrence cites Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget (1972) as an instigator for knowledge being applied outside of disciplinary thinking with particular regards to teaching. This is not teaching through means of an educational institute, however, but the exchange of skills between individuals in an attempt to further improve a product by way of collaboration. Lawrence goes onto cite the development of professional “practice of architecture, urban design, and land-use planning that involves stakeholders in decision-making processes” (2010) as a major catalyst for disciplinary transitioning to transdisciplinary. Projects will often rely on the cooperation of many contributing parties. A lot of the participant’s roles will share similarities across many institutes of professional practice. The builder, project manager and financial support within the industry of architecture are really no different in terms of purpose from that of the respective performer, creative team and financial support within performing arts. The methodology draws a line of comparison in reflecting political scientist Robert Axelrod’s theory of cooperation as part of networking, discussed in module one. The “TIT FOR TAT” (2006) ideology, of exchanging fair information for fair information, lends itself to transdisciplinary learning and its other guises that came after.

While a clear distinction can be made between disciplinary knowledge, a singular source of input contributed by an individual, and inter/transdisciplinary, it is harder to distinguish the latter two knowledges amongst one another.

“Some authors remind us that the word interdisciplinary has been used consistently to denote scientific research that involves a number of disciplines. In contrast, the word transdisciplinary has not been restricted to scientific research.” (Lawrence, 2010)

Interdisciplinary will involve an individual who contributes knowledge utilising more than one subject. This can be helpful in collaboration but allows for no other contribution. To give an example of it working within my practice, a cast for a show could be in the stages of mid-rehearsal and on one particular day the choreographer and musical director are called away and cannot attend the session. The director of the show, could carry the rehearsal and make decisions on behalf of the other two members of the creative team. Whether they have the technical or ethical authority to do so could be considered debatable by the cast. In the event the director has not been briefed by his colleagues, they can only give knowledge based on what they have learnt themselves. Whether they are competent enough to fulfil the duties is irrelevant, the opportunity for the choreographer and musical director to impart their own knowledge has forgone. It could be argued that the work can be undone and changed in the next rehearsal should these other two creatives not like what has been set but the initial knowledge that had been imparted will remain with the cast. Due to its subjective nature, this can lead to a fragmentation in opinion as to which knowledge is preferred by individuals. Transdisciplinary knowledge, however, works differently in that it invites active members of the same party to contribute. Lawrence defines the process:

“Transdisciplinary contributions of this kind enable the cross-fertilisation of ideas and knowledge from different contributors that promotes an enlarged vision of a subject, as well as new explanatory theories. Innovative contributions require not only logical reasoning but imaginative thinking. Transdisciplinarity is a way of achieving innovative goals, enriched understanding, and a synergy of new methods.” (Lawrence, 2010)

In the context of performance, the approach of accepting ideas and influences from any and all members of a cast, not limiting to the creative team, allows more opportunity for diverse work and findings. The performers may have valid and credible resources at their disposal, skills not possessed by others that can further the dynamic of the production. However, a dialogue must be opened up in order to allow for these discoveries to be made. Lawrence states that “This implies the giving up of sovereignty over knowledge, the generation of new insight and knowledge by collaboration, and the capacity to consider the know-how of professionals” (2010).

Disciplinary knowledge in all its forms are detrimental to collaboration within performance. When looking for work, the performer will often be working strictly with disciplinary knowledge. However, a shift in thinking is required once a job is obtained as the cast relies on collaboration in order for projects to be successful. As mentioned previously, ‘collaboration’ and ‘environment’ have proved themselves as important aspects of my inquiry interests and I imagine further analysis of practitioner theory will prove for more expansive thought on practice and ethics involved.

 

Bibliography

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

Lawrence, R, 2010, “Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science” Deciphering Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Contributions [online] Available at: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiv7ZL1mq_JAhWLhhoKHfvLAo4QFggsMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ed.ac.uk%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.138504!%2FfileManager%2FRJL-2010Inter-Trans.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFEsGG0UAkijtrKK1etXmPWbHsx3A&sig2=P9MA0JHJ7OoXoK97VwQyww [Accessed 25 November. 2015]

Piaget, J 1972 “The Principles of Genetic Epistemology”, New York: BasicBooks

One-on-one Online Session (20/11/15) – Discussing progress and developing a plan for inquiry

Last Friday was intended to be an all module campus session, however, a clash of schedules meant that various BAPP students were unable to make it. The session is to be re-scheduled but in its place Paula decided to offer one-on-one Skype tutorials for those who were available. Paula wanted to save much of the material for the session’s workshop but we did touch upon the main topic that will be featured; thinking about the process of inquiry and how to engage with the beginning, middle and end and what that means in relevance to my own practice.

I confessed to Paula that I am not as far along with the module as I would like to be due to my activities as performer demanding so much of my time of late. I am always grateful for the opportunity to audition for projects but that does involve a great deal of preparation and subsequently time away from studies. Paula asked about my current writing style when tackling work on the module. I have always approached tasks in bulks, meaning I spend a concentrated amount of time in one sitting with them. I have previously spoken (see task 1a: continued) about finding creativity and inspiration more easily after having the chance to examine the best method of approach. Paula reminded me that while task work is important in guiding my hand towards the proposal at the end of the study period and indeed the inquiry in the next, I should not feel the need on every occasion to draw them out to essay-like levels of detail. They are, after all, not marked as part of the module and can sometimes be as poignant as a simple description of a concept with reference to a link containing sound bites/audio-visual or any other form of supporting material. The attempt to craft a perfect post can be in vain as your own ideas can evolve and change, let alone other people’s interpretation of it. Subjectivity is what an exchange of ideals is all about and, coincidentally, makes up a lot dialogue within the arts!

With these thoughts in mind, we then began to discuss current progress on my inquiry. I feel I have settled on a decent topic that my previous and ongoing practice will afford exploration for. Paula expressed that the notion of ‘identity’ was important in building an inquiry and that it should be within a field that I already have an established knowledge of. That said, I should also be looking to further this knowledge via investigation into related areas of interest. With regards to my own topic, ‘collaboration in the arts and ethics’, it is vital that I consider other roles that operate within my practice. The performer’s work will be influenced by a number of external parties (director, choreographer lighting & set designers) that are coincidentally working as a team on a given project. All have their role and their right to input, but how is that mediated? Can collaboration exist to satisfy all parties or can it not without a degree of compromise? How do I establish a difference of professional opinion? This type of conversation provides for a much larger canvas when instigating debate. As mentioned in previous posts this module, the greater the scope of information I manage to gather via research, the deeper the dialogue for debate can become.

Conversation. Dialogue. Debate. These are three keywords that Paula highlighted as interlinked when discussing the structure of inquiry. The feedback from my acting tutor (as discussed in task 4c) coincidentally informs this point further. In order to present the clearest, most concise inquiry possible with my topic, I will need to take care in making sure that text is balanced. It is expected that the body of analysis must feature some weight and extended thought. It can be likened to the English literature technique of statement, quotation and comment. This comparison may seem basic but it is the foundation as to how the inquiry will take shape. Paula then listed a sequence in which this will work utilising the aforementioned keywords.

Conversation – A starting point initiated by a particular topic between myself and another individual or party.

Dialogue – Discussing a shift in ideas within the given topic informed by the individual or party’s beliefs and my own. Are there similarities or contrasts to be made?

Debate – Finding practitioner literature in support of views and, if not apparent, instigating whether they still hold any significance.

While I feel I have been touching upon a variation of the proposed writing style within my posts at present in preparation for my inquiry, Paula mentioned that for the purpose of the upcoming proposal only the debate will need to be suggested. Evidence of recorded research will not need to be displayed until it is formally undertaken in module three, just methods as to how I will conduct it as decided by my work on this module. I will need to include examples of existing published literature that can support my topic of inquiry and address any shortcomings in covering my particular angle on a line of inquiry. I will also need to include any initial ethical considerations without relying on those raised by others as will occur when conducting research next study period. I imagine part five, ‘professional ethics’, will help in motivating a thinking about this.

I ended the session with Paula with an invigorated focus. Sometimes, when juggling other activities, it can be difficult to return to studies without feeling a loss of direction. Thoughts and ongoing ideas formed through previous work can become strained. However, taking the time to look back over my posts thus far and re-examining the handbook after a more developed understanding has set in motion a new found awareness. This is to ensure that areas contributing to my proposal at the end of the study period are as detailed as they need to be. This does not include every idea I come across as some will be relevant to my inquiry whilst others will not. Paula equated the process to ‘focusing the camera lens’. To zoom in on what is important in making the inquiry a success.

Module 2 – Task 4c: Developing questions for lines of inquiry within my professional community beyond the BAPP programme

My acting tutor from college replied back to me recently with her thoughts on whether she felt there was any significance to be found in my proposed lines of inquiry. My questions were sent upon writing task 4a and since I feel I have been able to categorise which are viable for further exploration via research conducted since. I do, however, find her input extremely valuable as she is a well-established and respected practitioner herself with experience of the arts that outweighs my own. Below are the responses with some expanded thought of my own.

In comparison to dancing and singing, what makes acting as an art form subjective?

During college I, along with my other peers, participated in a course that integrated all three performance disciplines. The course’s structure was designed to utilise skills learnt across these three art forms to create a “bouquet” method for practice, meaning that the most appropriate teachings developed by dance, singing and acting practitioners were pulled together in order to complement one another. For example, choreographer, dancer and theorist Rudolf Laban’s movement efforts, or Laban Movement Analysis (LMA), were developed by the aforementioned to assist dancers in helping to develop different strokes of fluidity in their work. The technique was later applied to acting in aiding character development. Whilst this is an example of interchangeability, modern dance and singing technique often does not lend itself to acting choices made by the performer. The individual may wish to play a certain action in support of their objective, which may prove effective if the work was a strict acting piece. However, the demands of musical theatre will often require an engagement with singing and dance, either or both at the same time. A degree of compromise is needed in order to carry out all three effectively, and it is arguably the acting that suffers the most as a result.  This raises a vital sub-question as to which discipline should take precedence over another? Is it right for the performer to take it upon themselves to decide which is more important artistically or should they look to accommodate their creative directors and audience? The latter is probably the ethical answer as it falls under an agreement the individual entered when accepting the job.

Whilst my acting tutor found the topic interesting for debate, she did share my issue with it for inquiry in that it is too linear for further investigation. We both agreed that literature as part of research would be thin, and that such a heavy focus on acting would be to neglect knowledge from other disciplines that could possibly prove fruitful for others. At this point I reminded myself that I should be looking to create an inquiry that is engaging for others as well as myself. She then pointed out that whilst the question is most probably too niche to become a fully fleshed investigation, it could play a part in supporting another question I had posed.

Why is there so much conflict of ideals within performance (with particular regards to acting) when theorists of reflective practice seem to acknowledge one another?

This question has not been edited since my initial post with task 2d, a time in which I was beginning to develop knowledge and find an appreciation for reflective practice. What has been reaffirmed since starting the BAPP programme is that I find practitioner research riveting and further enjoy learning how new ideologies play within my own practice. I will admit, however, that this question was may have been the premature result of my own thoughts running wild, unrefined. Not to say there is anything wrong with this, especially since this was a question formed during a task only attempting to turn my thinking to possible topics for inquiry. My acting tutor professed to not having the widest knowledge of reflective practice, however among initial reading of the question she pointed out a gaping flaw that I had not really considered. Instead of attempting an answer she instead asked me a question; why I was interested in evaluating reflective practitioner’s concepts above other subjects as found on the course?

I had previously explained to her before presenting the questions that aspects of the course focused on the uses of information technologies, networking, reflective practice and ethics (the latter of which being a reasonably new addition when considering inquiry). She felt that the title displayed a negligence for context, meaning without an example of practice that, for example, a question influenced from someone’s work within a school has the inquiry loses a clear objective and becomes bottomless. Whilst it is correct for me to challenge particular practitioner’s views in conjunction with my practice it should not be governing the overall subject question, but rather shaping arguments as well as being influenced by other practitioners within their fields. What I ultimately drew from this was that I should not be looking to begin an investigation with a question as focused as the one presented as it signifies I have reached a conclusion before unpacking anything that has brought me to it. I may know my reasons for reaching this argument but, in order for others to find any value or understanding in my query, it must be appropriately discussed.

Aside from the title, my acting tutor did find significance in the bullet points that made up my thinking for the aforementioned question and found these of more interest and more in line with what she thought I should have been engaging. They were the following:

·         Does this qualify an argument for art against education?

·         Can any examples of a crossover between ideologies be proven?

·         How does this translate within the context of the professional workplace?

·         Does vocational training, formal public/syllabus education or self-acquired skills from separate practitioners within a single company affect collaboration?

These questions were instantly more relatable to her practice for, as a teacher, she is dealing with a number of different students on a daily basis. She told me as she once did whilst I was training that students will come from a variety of differing backgrounds. Some will have had lots of exposure to acting training whether it be through school or extra-curricular activities whilst others will be starting lessons with more competence as a dancer or singer. She mentioned that a lot of students will utilise techniques learned in their respective fields to aid developing an understanding within her classes, such as the Laban Movement Analysis as aforementioned. She found my latter two bullet pointed sub-questions of particular, citing that whilst they were still too vague for analysis the context is present and this is the structure I should be employing; context first, practitioner research and ideology in support, followed by analysis and argument. We found an example of this approach working when she asked me about my first sub-question; “does this qualify an argument for art against education?” She mentioned that if this was to make up part of the body for inquiry, this should instead follow the latter two and would require a degree of literature support to give some weight and justify its presence. She then asked if this question has been informed by any practitioner in particular whilst studying. Although the question was a product of my own thinking, it does lend itself to John Barnett’s concept of multiple “tools of learning” as I have discovered upon examining reader four. I will be looking at his ideology more closely in task 4d with reference to appropriate literature and its relevance to my inquiry interests.

This first experience of an external source providing feedback for my current position with regards to inquiry has been one of apprehension, but satisfying all the while. I am approaching a time on the programme where I will be prepping questions related to my inquiry topic for trial interviews later in the module. I must remind myself that while it will be a difficult to process and collate information from various sources, especially given the diverse number of roles I will be considering in relation to my practice as a performer, they will also be fundamental in helping to produce a debate with a much wider breadth than can be achieved with only my own knowledge.

 

Bibliography

Espeland, T, 2015, “The theatrefolk blog” The eight efforts: laban movement [online] Available at: http://www.theatrefolk.com/blog/the-eight-efforts-laban-movement/ [Accessed 18 November. 2015]

Module 2 – Task 4b: Establishing a SIG (Special Interest Group) for developing a line of inquiry

As much as I have tried not to let it happen, I feel I have lapsed since returning to BAPP due to other activities surrounding my studies, the main cause being auditions. Audition preparation can take a lot of time, especially those that require the individual to utilise all three disciplines (acting, singing and dancing) during their call. Whilst I have been struggling to balance my schedule effectively, this has not seized an internal and continued questioning about my potential line of inquiry. Therefore, this has led me to thinking about my communities of practice and, in turn, what information I can gather from them in relevance to my topic. Task 4a’s guideline stressed an importance for looking back at emerging lines of inquiry as found within task 2d, so I feel that a consideration for recapping networking (especially since aspects of my communities have recently evolved) could greatly benefit the method in which I instigate my research. The BAPP community will of course play a pivotal role in efforts to refine my line of inquiry and as such I’m hoping that with the creation of my special interest group I will be able to hone in on a particular topic that will follow me into module three.

The SIG itself is called ‘Collaboration within the Arts and Ethics Considered'. For people who have been following my blog, you will notice that I have discussed numerous acting practitioners throughout my posts. Theories included have been influenced from training I received whilst at college and others that I sought for myself. At the time of study, I was interacting and collaborating with peers in the same environment. When it came to critically reflecting upon work, we were able to effectively dissect technical aspects of performance and share our thoughts with related linguistics as employed by the course’s structure. Upon graduation, I worked a number of jobs with like-minded musical theatre graduates that had received similar training to mine from other contemporary performing arts academies. Collaboration has proved quick and effective in these circumstances. I have experienced other moments during my career, however, in which this has not been the case. I have worked with people who are slightly older than myself and employ a different variation of training, people who have self-taught themselves outside of any institution and others who simply reject the knowledge employed and being discussed by their peers. Although I experience this mostly within the discipline of acting (due to its vast canon of development over the decades if not centuries in comparison to the other two), I have also encountered instances whilst working on dance and singing projects.

Although I am aware ethics will be required anyway as a part of investigation, I felt it important to include in the title of the SIG due to the detrimental impact it can have within the parameters of the aforementioned. I mentioned during task 2d that the ethical concerns within collaboration are different than that required of many other jobs. This does not solely concern the performers, though, and can involve creatives such as the director, stage managers, lighting and sound design crew as well as the audience. All parties have an effect on the shaping of a project and should therefore be considered. There is also a debate for how much collaboration should be shared. This meaning; where does the individual draw a line with communicating creative choices with their peers? Should some information be reserved by the creator in order to maintain artist integrity? This in itself could potentially deviate into a separate line of inquiry, but I am keen to see if it is something that I can contain within the boundaries of the aforementioned.

I have forwarded my questions to my old acting tutor as well as some new additions which shall be added as a re-draft upon result of this feedback. At the end of the campus session (as discussed in my previous post) BAPP students tackling their inquiries were asked by Paula to discuss ideas for topics we wish to pursue. It became clear to me that whilst I had an idea worthy for following up, it was a little under-developed and that much more research will be required to help narrow my investigation into something much less vague. I’m hoping that after examining a breadth of practitioner research as found in the BAPP reading list and beyond, I will be able to conduct my working with a more concise objective. Research practitioners Anne Edwards and Robin Talbot state that:

“At the start of your project you are about to take on a considerable commitment which is probably in addition to many continuing demands on your time… So be selfish, focus on what interests you, think about your future professional development as well as the impact your study might have on the workplace, and then step forward with confidence.” (Edwards & Talbot, 1999)

I imagine the results of my drafted questions, alongside the ongoing activity on my SIG, will begin to reveal which direction best serves for further investigation. I have already found in the time spent between presenting my initial framework for inquiry and now that what I aiming to achieve needs to be worth not only the time of others but my own. If I am not stimulated enough by the subject, how can I expect anyone else following it to be? I have also caught myself questioning whether my chosen topic will hold any significance but will make the choice to assess its worth after completing the task work to come instead of jumping to conclusions that have been reached without exercise or formal discussion. If you would like to be involved with the group, please do follow. The link can be found just below.

Collaboration within the Arts and Ethics Considered.

Bibliography

Edwards, A, Talbot, R (1994) The hard-pressed researcher, 1999 re-print, London: Routledge