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

Module 2 – Task 6c: Determining an Award Specialism Title

After much deliberation I have decided that I would like my award title to be the following:

BA (Hons) Professional Practice in Arts (Acting and Performance)

My rationale for this title stems from the way in which I approach a contextualising of professional practice. Even as a performer who has trained in the three disciplines of acting, singing and dance, I regard the first as my greatest interest and certainly the field in which I have accrued the most knowledge and understanding for practitioner research. Not only this, but in the future I wish to take up teaching, acting in particular. I feel the first half of the title caters for a recognition of acting practitioners studied as previously discussed and yet to be referenced within the upcoming inquiry. The second half of the title, ‘Performance’, is more reflective of the work being carried out within the inquiry and the BAPP programme in general. I do not wish the title to feature ’collaboration’ as this phrase could be used to describe relationships within a number of different professional fields. This could be argued for ‘Performance’ but I feel the phrase is more indicative of studies carried out within the arts sector and how individual input is affected by process of collaboration. Although I will be examining separate parties’ activity, I recognise I will be the main beneficiary for the inquiry and as such my analysis will feature an extensive detailing of my own practice. However, I hope my findings will yield worthy discussion with my peers, whether as an active performer or a prospective teacher.

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

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

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

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

Interview

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

Focus Group

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

Observation

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

Surveys & Questionnaires

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

Documents

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

Middlesex University, Module Two Handbook, 2015

Middlesex University, Reader Six, 2015

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

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

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

Module 2 – Task 6a: Carrying out an informal trial utilising a professional inquiry tool

I recently asked a member of my SIG if they could take part in a pilot interview surrounding my inquiry topic, ‘collaboration and its significance to theatre work’. They were aware that this was only a ‘beta’ test of sorts and that their responses were solely for the purpose of exercising a tool of which I may utilise for my inquiry, much the same as she would be exploring within her own inquiry. All questions asked are tailored towards a performer as I do not currently have ethical authority to pose questions to other members of my community of practice (such as a director or lighting designer). We agreed that I should practice keeping subjects anonymous so she will be referred to as ‘SIG participant A. Below are some of the questions that I posed and were answered, the same questions can also be found on my SIG. The responses below are paraphrased and not the original text sent. Since writing these up and having further time to examine reader six I understand that my method of recording may not completely convey the truth as best it could and that my own opinions could have influenced methods of recording. It may be best in future occurrences to present a quote or exact statement from a source as it is before proceeding to interpretation. Meanwhile, it is also important to remember that interpretation can be approached in favour of supporting the participant’s view or the researcher’s (being my own) or a mixture of the two to create a balanced argument whilst also learning new viewpoints about the inquiry. This could be described as “constructing or documenting a version of what you think the data mean[s] or represent[s], or what you think you can infer from them” (Mason, 2002, p. 149).

We know that collaboration is necessary for successful theatre work but are there examples to be found of certain members having a greater influence in the project’s formation over others?

SIG participant A believed that while performers are a great contributor and arguably the faces of theatre productions, they are perhaps collaborators that have the lowest amount of influence for a project’s outcome. Whilst a performer can develop ideas and approaches to performance they are ultimately moulded by those who assume creative authority over them. SIG participant A gave the example that the performer may have an idea for a particular motif within a scene occurring, such as the staging set-up to emphasise a character’s activity. This will, however, have to pass through the director and stage designer whose action in turn will be dictated by the funding body supporting the project. If the theatre cannot provide for the idea due to its size or resources then a change may be required.

If a performer’s preparation and reasons for creative choices juxtapose decisions made by creatives (such as the director, choreographer, musical director, set and lighting designer), should this be challenged by the performer? Is it right for the performer to show a level of artistic leadership?

SIG participant A thought the word ‘challenged’ as a counter-productive term when discussing collaboration as it infers a negative working relationship. I further asked the participant whether they felt discourse can be avoided. They answered that discourse is a natural part of collaboration but it doesn’t always have to be for negative purposes. Healthy debate can lead to new ideas being built upon existing ones when shared with a larger pool of person knowledge (Eraut, 1992). SIG participant A believed that all performers should look to show artistic leadership in their work. Not from a selfish perspective as to think their knowledge is above all others, however, but to actively engage their colleagues in seeking new ways to think about work. The sharing of ideas may lead to concepts not originally thought by just a single contributor and can take the project into an unforeseen but stimulating direction. SIG participant A finished with mentioning that they felt ‘inspiration’ was perhaps one of the greatest by-products of collaboration.

Is it right for performers to sacrifice artistic integrity in order to comply with those who help facilitate their employment (such as financial sponsors or audience demand for a particular production)?

SIG participant A indicated that in today’s economic climate, funding will often be awarded via forecast trajectory as to how successful the project will be in terms of profit. This would involve production companies gauging with their prospective audience as to what they would like to see in theatre. SIG participant A then went onto explain themselves with an example of context. They suggested that a production will often gain a green light from funding bodies if there is an incentive. For example, an independent theatre company looking to tour the musical Blood Brothers could be forecast for a successful run due to its previous experience and extensive history in the West End. A grant may be permitted based on these factors. Although it isn’t always necessary to receiving funding, the organisation could expect to see return on a portion of profit made by the project. In this instance, it will become an ethical responsibility for the professional context (being the performers and creatives) to uphold the organisation’s terms and conditions of agreement. SIG participant A also cited a moral responsibility for the professional context to tend to this agreement as best they can should they wish for further opportunity to work with the funding body again.

After finishing the interview, the participant gave me some feedback as to what they thought of my questions. They identified there were clear distinctions between the contexts in which collaboration operates but felt the structure and wording of them were forcing them to draw a conclusion based on my own subjective knowledge. ‘Artistic leadership’ for example is a term I have acquired through my literature reviews and I cannot assume that all performers will be familiar with this terminology. The same will go for the discussion of performance based techniques. I can’t pose questions such as ‘to what extent is Stanislavski’s units and objectives method compromised in regards to a performer’s acting choice when lighting design does not effectively inform this?’ There is a strange duality in needing to be specific with language but also not so much that participants feel they cannot answer due to a difference in knowledge. In future, they suggested making the questions simpler to then analyse using my own learning. The participant also added that they felt the questions were perhaps too similar to one another and that I should be looking to aim them at particular contexts. They suggested this could be ‘how is the professional context of the director’s work influenced by the organisational context of the funding body’. This presents more space and a focus between fewer contributors of particular contexts can allow for enriched discussion. The participant also suggested that it may be worth looking at a clause of terms and conditions to learn what exactly is expected from a project when gaining funding and how this affects performance.

One final piece of advice was to review existing practitioner literature regularly to determine whether there are any similarities between theories detailed and how it plays into my professional practice. SIG participant A mentioned person knowledge (Eraut, 1992) during their answer to the second question but also thought it might be worth investigating the effect of trying to integrate propositional/disciplinary knowledge amongst colleagues that may not share the same knowledge themselves. This may be the attempted integration of Stanislavski’s (1937) methods (propositional/disciplinary knowledge) for units and objectives amongst colleagues. Unlike the interview approach to collecting data however, it may be best to try this within the boundaries of an observation, acting as a participant observer. The reasoning for this is because knowledge will be adapted to better serve that of the recipient through discussion or a continued engagement over a period of time, such as a rehearsal. This is in juxtaposition to the interview form that may sometimes feel like the participant must reach a finality immediately after a question has been asked. In is important to note if carrying out an observation that when practice concerns only self the individual can work strictly with their knowledge of these teachings. However, trying to integrate them within a group will be gauged with critical review from others as to whether this knowledge is relevant or worthy. Furthermore, this can change professional and personal relationships between individuals. The pilot interview has successfully served its purpose whilst giving me new insight into the way in which I engage my inquiry.

Bibliography

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

Mason, J (2002) Qualitative researching, (2^nd end), London: Sage Publications Ltd.

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

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

I have recently decided on a specific line of inquiry I would like to take forth into the third module. This module has been difficult in that I have been uncertain as to the context in which I should set my inquiry. I have worked within a few different areas of the arts, however, I feel my investigation would be best carried out within a setting that is most familiar to me and my knowledge acquired via training received at Urdang Academy. And so, the working title for my inquiry project is ‘to what extent is collaboration useful to the performer when working within theatre?’ Since deciding this, I have been sourcing literature that directly relates to this topic. Robert Cohen’s ‘Working Together in Theatre: Collaboration and Leadership’ is a prominent work in relation to my inquiry in that it is rare for a practitioner to discuss the art of working with other people and not focusing solely on the performance and technique of self.

“Every theatre production, though sometimes headlined by a world-renowned director or one or two famous actors, is put together by a great many people, numbering from the dozens to the hundreds. And when these people work together they can, as a collective, attain artistic heights that none could attain independently. “If the theatre is not about the interaction of people, it’s about nothing,” says Joe Dowling, former head of Ireland’s Abbey Theatre and now of Minneapolis’s Guthrie Theatre. “Theatre,” Dowling continues, “can never be solely about concept, ideas, intellectual pursuits – it has to be about the way in which the people relate to one another.” (Cohen, 2010)

This extensive quote provides suggestions from both Cohen (2010) and Dowling for collaboration being only a positive influence for practice. Dowling’s latter comments deal with ignorance for individual efforts in preserving an over-arching goal in the production’s design instead of learning how to communicate with peers beforehand. Cohen (2010) denotes the phrase “family” as a common colloquial used by individual’s within the same cast to express a deep fondness for one another, brought on by a successful experience with collaboration. Cohen (2010) goes onto cite family in the literal sense being an initiator for theatre and collaboration’s necessity in crafting formal theatre as we know it today. He references arguably the greatest contributor in forming modern acting as we know it today, Konstantin Alekseiev or ‘Stanislavsky’, the name he later adopted when he co-founded the Moscow Art Theatre, began his work in theatre with relatives as the ‘Alekseiev Circle’. Although he includes evidence of collaboration working at a much earlier time, Cohen’s (2010) inclusion of Stanislavsky’s beginnings in the lead up to his founding of the Moscow Art Theatre demonstrates a major shift in collaboration’s importance to performance. This is not solely credited to Stanislavsky, but the development of institutes akin to the Moscow Art Theatre that led to the development of more structured teachings and methods of practice has broken down the communal value of the ‘family’ ideology in favour of a thinking more driven towards using theatre as a platform for business.

Cohen (2010) cites this transition’s occurrence being partly due to the reason that “theatre has diversified geographically, particularly in America.” He references that “In the 1940s and 50s, the American professional theatres simply meant the New York professional theatre”, because of its exclusivity to the city. “Now, however, there are nearly 2000 professional theatres in the United States, about 150 of them operating on budgets of anywhere from one to thirty-some million dollars.” He also indicates that “Such diversification is good in many ways, but – since the vast majority of theatres outside of New York present only limited runs of, typically, three to seven weeks – it has also led to actors, designers and directors working mainly on short-term, single-production assignments rather than on yearly (much less lifetime) contracts as was commonly the case in earlier generations.” This changes the attitude to which artistes approach working with colleagues. When cast in a theatre show today, they are aware that the relationship is built upon a contract that forces collaboration as part of the agreement. This is a different kind of collaboration to one that has spawned out of a genuine bond and inspiration to work with another individual. Cohen (2010) strengthens this argument with the notion that “the “family of strangers” that gathers today to mount a twenty-first-century production is also educationally diversified” by way of “artists who have been trained in different schools, in different cities, in different ways, and by different teachers.” Cohen suggests that while the opportunity to take part in performance has never been stronger, he stresses what this means for performers who participate in collaboration today.

“Moreover, they have usually received intensely specialized training in just a single theatrical discipline; as an actor, perhaps, or sound designer or stage manager or a projection designer…And when they then become professionals, they will join specialized professional unions.” (Cohen, 2010)

What Cohen refers to is the calibre in which today’s performers are trained for profession. Although graduates of programmes can show immense levels of proficiency within their respective fields, it could be argued that these modern, streamlined methods of learning only hinder means of collaboration within the context of ensemble work. Cohen draws a line of comparison between the types of collaboration as was known when theatre came to prominence in popular culture. He credits theatre practitioner Thespis who, according to Greek philosopher Aristotle, was not only the first person to ever step onstage to assume the role of an actor, but also wrote, directed and designed the stage mechanics of the play by himself. Granted, by today’s standard the ability and quality to which these jobs are executed were probably primitive but it does conjure an idea as to the scope individual’s previously strived for. This is in sharp contrast to today. Although theatre has been regarded as a form of business for decades, it could be argued that communities of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991) that have evolved as a means to regulate and sustain its fruitfulness disrupts the flow of creativity. The contract for a performance job today, for example, will pass through many modes of communication before the individual can allow themselves thought for what happens onstage. These could include terms and agreements of the job and contacting Equity (the performer’s work union) for ensuring fair cooperation between employer and employee. Such divided thought, brought on by a developed awareness of ethics in the workplace, can cripple exploration and will often remain a conscious factor for performers even in the midst of active collaboration. Such hurdles as aforementioned can inhibit the ability to do so effectively.

To follow, Cohen (2010) introduces the main idea within his literature; “collaboration and leadership”. If collaboration is the working together of colleagues then leadership is the individual’s urge to express their own artistic choices. But how does one maintain this when work is being adjusted by proxy of collaboration? How do performers deal with their work being critically examined? Are they willing to accept that other’s input is not for humiliation’s sake but instead for the good of the project? On the other hand, Cohen (2010) poses that work can never truly be a fair collaborative effort due to the hierarchy of those involved. Despite their direct rapport with a participating audience, performers often have the least amount of influence on a production. For example, if the project is the revival of a famous musical the financial investors may seek to capitalise on such a thing by asking the creative team to capture aspects that made the original so successful. This could include acting choices, choreography, set and lighting design. In the interest of maintaining an economically robust industry, should it be expected of performers to sacrifice integrity? The closer I examine collaborative roles, the clearer it becomes for a need to collect data from all contributors including the creatives, the performers, stage management, financial support as well as the general public/audience who support the arts. Hopefully a diverse palate of acquired information can provide me with some interesting results for collaboration’s benefit.

Bibliography

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

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

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