Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Research in three acts : approaches to developing reserarch-based theatre Lea, Graham Walter 2010-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
ubc_2010_fall_lea_graham.pdf [ 2.25MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0071129.json
JSON-LD: 1.0071129+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0071129.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0071129+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0071129+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0071129+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0071129 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0071129.txt
Citation
1.0071129.ris

Full Text

    RESEARCH IN THREE ACTS APPROACHES TO DEVELOPING RESEARCH-BASED THEATRE   by  Graham Walter Lea  B.Sc., University of Prince Edward Island, 1999 B.Ed., University of Prince Edward Island, 2004      A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS   in   THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  (Literacy Education)     THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)     August 2010   © Graham Walter Lea, 2010 ii  Abstract This thesis explores the artistic development of three research-based theatre productions at The University of British Columbia faculty in 2009.  Each was developed using one of the three approaches to research-based theatre identified in the literature: collective, combined:collective/playwright, and playwright-centered.  The experience of working in each of the three approaches is closely examined in this descriptive / exploratory case study (Winston, 2006, p. 49) based primarily on my critical reflections.  The discussions of the projects are stylistically independent; however, each is guided by two central questions (1) how meanings are constructed in each approach and (2) how each approach may create and inhibit meaning-making.   In the first chapter, I propose research-based theatre as an umbrella term for the use of theatre in research.  I also identify three approaches to developing research-based theatre and situate them in using examples from both scholars and theatre artists.  The discussion of Drama as an Additional Language in chapter two attempts to weave research-based theatre with a/r/tography.  Chapter three focuses on Naming the Shadows, exploring the complexities of adding additional artists in the playwright-centered approach.  The development of Centering the Human Subject is used in chapter four to develop a scribe–artist continuum upon which the development of productions using the combined:collective/playwright may be better understood.  The final chapter weaves script and prose to theatrically explore issues which cut across the three discussions and offer suggestions for further research and inquiry.  iii  Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. v List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... viii Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... ix Chapter One – Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 Literature Review........................................................................................................................ 2 What is Research-Based Theatre? .......................................................................................... 3 Laying the Foundations........................................................................................................... 5 Approaches to Research-Based Theatre ................................................................................. 7 1. Playwright-Centered Approach ................................................................................ 7 2. Collective Approach ............................................................................................... 10 3. Comined:Collective/Playwright Approach ............................................................. 12 Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 13 Approach ............................................................................................................................... 13 Site and Sample Selection ..................................................................................................... 14 Role of the Researcher .......................................................................................................... 15 Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................... 15 Potential Contributions of the Research ............................................................................... 16 Limitations of the Study........................................................................................................ 16 Chapter Two – Collective Approach: A Loud Silence: Weaving Research-Based Theatre and A/r/tography ......................................................................................................................... 18 Setting the Stage ....................................................................................................................... 19 Weaving Research-Based Theatre and A/r/tography ................................................................ 32 Chapter Three – Playwright-Centered Approach: Shadow (Un)Boxing .............................. 34 PRESENTing Data to a Playwright .......................................................................................... 34 Preparing the Analysis .......................................................................................................... 36 Opening the Box ....................................................................................................................... 38 Staring at Shadows .................................................................................................................... 40 Shadow Origins ..................................................................................................................... 40 Building Shadows ................................................................................................................. 41 Out of the Shadows ................................................................................................................... 44 iv  Illuminating Research ............................................................................................................... 46 Chapter Four – Combined:Collective/Playwright Approach: (De)Centering the Playwright: The Scribe  Artist Tension in Research-Based Theatre ................................... 51 Approach and Development ..................................................................................................... 52 Identifying the Tension ............................................................................................................. 55 Situating the Tension ................................................................................................................ 57 Playwright as Scribe ................................................................................................................. 61 Playwright in the Middle .......................................................................................................... 65 Playwright as Artist................................................................................................................... 71 Playwright as Data .................................................................................................................... 74 Authorship................................................................................................................................. 75 Ethics......................................................................................................................................... 77 What‟s in a Name? ................................................................................................................ 77 Whose Story is It? ................................................................................................................. 78 Implications............................................................................................................................... 79 Chapter Five – Reflections and Projections ............................................................................. 81 Preface....................................................................................................................................... 81 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 81 Weaving the Three Approaches ................................................................................................ 84 Art, Data, and the Dramaturge .................................................................................................. 88 Romantic Realism ................................................................................................................. 91 Does it Work?  Evaluating the Efficacy of Research-Based Theatre ....................................... 95 References .................................................................................................................................. 101 Appendix A: Ethics Certificate ................................................................................................ 113 Appendix B: Project Timeline ................................................................................................. 114 Appendix C: Poem Used to Introduce Drama as an Additional Language .......................... 115 Appendix D: Drama as an Additional Language Moment Flowchart .................................. 116 Appendix E: Centering the Human Subject Script ................................................................. 119 Appendix F: Truth and Fantasy ............................................................................................... 135    v  List of Tables Table 1 Approaches of each production ....................................................................................... 14 Table 2 Colour coding scheme ..................................................................................................... 37 Table 3 Themes explored in the two development sessions ......................................................... 54     vi  List of Figures Figure 1 Three approaches to research-based theatre ..................................................................... 7 Figure 2 Playwright-centered approach .......................................................................................... 8 Figure 3 Collective approach ........................................................................................................ 11 Figure 4 Combined:collective/playwright approach ..................................................................... 12 Figure 5 Process used to create scenes from data ......................................................................... 20 Figure 6 Dissolution into moments ............................................................................................... 22 Figure 7 Research image ............................................................................................................... 37 Figure 8 Boxing in the playwright ................................................................................................ 38 Figure 9 Unboxing ........................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 10 Backstage view of the shadow projection unit ............................................................. 40 Figure 11 List of shadows (student names removed), and students creating the puppets ............ 41 Figure 12 Sample of student created shadow puppets .................................................................. 42 Figure 13 Silhouettes on the classroom wall ................................................................................ 43 Figure 14 Layers of filtering ......................................................................................................... 47 Figure 15 Linear model of the playwright-centered approach ...................................................... 48 Figure 16 Reduction in over-colouring when the playwright has access to the original data ...... 48 Figure 17 Reduction in over-colouring when performers have access to the original data .......... 49 Figure 18 Non-linear model used for Naming the Shadows ......................................................... 49 vii  Figure 19 Adding a dramaturge .................................................................................................... 50 Figure 20 The scribe   artist continuum ....................................................................................... 57 Figure 21 The scribe   artist continuum in theatre ....................................................................... 58 Figure 22 The scribe   artist continuum in research-based theatre .............................................. 60 Figure 23 CtHS placement along the scribe   artist continuum ................................................... 64 Figure 24 Dissecting sections 2 and 3........................................................................................... 74 Figure 25 The playwright becomes part of the data ..................................................................... 75      viii  Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without the assistance, guidance, and support of a large number of people.  First and foremost, I gratefully acknowledge my advisor Dr. George Belliveau, who provided the opportunities for this project, the academic and personal support to complete this thesis, and the freedom to do so artistically.  To Jaime Beck, Donnard MacKenzie, and Amanda Wager: thank-you for the hard work and dedication to the productions, without which this thesis would not have been possible.  Also, I thank the collective development team of Centering the Human Subject for sharing their creativity and insight.  None of the productions would have been possible had the original research participants not trusted us with their stories; for this trust I am deeply indebted.  Thank-you to Darquise Lafrenière who served as an outside observer during the development of Centering the Human Subject and was instrumental in its production.  I must acknowledge Amanda Wager who designed the figures used to describe the three approaches and who provided some of the photographs used in the thesis.  Many thanks to the two other members of my thesis committee, Drs. Rita L. Irwin and Susan M. Cox. To my brother Brendan Lea who helped to edit, often on short notice, and became the brunt of my procrastination, thank-you.  I am very grateful to have a cat, Macavity, who knows when to be a lap warmer and when to „encourage‟ me to stop working for the evening.  Finally, thank-you to my parents: Walter M. Lea, who taught me to be persistent, and E. June Lea, who taught me to question and to think broadly and deeply.  Both showed me the importance of education.  ix  Dedication To those whom I would most like to read this yet never will . . .  1  Chapter One – Introduction   The use of theatre in educational research has grown over the past three decades from a novel method of disseminating research results (Walker, Pick, & MacDonald, 1991)1 into an emerging methodology that can simultaneously gather, analyze, and disseminate data (Norris, 2002).  Barone and Eisner (1997) argue that the “aim of educational research is to further human understanding so that the quality of educational practice can be improved” (p. 85).  However, traditional scholarly works have a relatively narrow audience of professional researchers, keeping much educational research from those who can most effect change in the practice of education (Barone, 2008, p. 485).  The use of theatre in educational research may help bridge the gap between researchers and those “unprepared to penetrate the opaque prose of disciplinary specialization” (Barone, 2008, p. 485).  By providing an avenue for educational research to reach a broader audience, theatre may be instrumental in increasing the transformative nature of research.  Yet, theatre can be more than a powerful method for disseminating research findings.  Theatrical and dramatic techniques can be integrated into the data gathering and analysis process (Norris, 2002) creating an active and interactive research methodology. As research-based theatre is still an emerging methodology, further inquiry is necessary to understand how theatre may be integrated into the research process and the implications for its use.  Through a review of existing literature in the field, I have identified three approaches of developing research-based theatre (1) playwright-centered, (2) collective, and (3) combined:collective/playwright.  This study will elucidate these three approaches and then explore a particular example of each to further understand ways of engaging with these three approaches to research-based theatre.                                                    1 The script and introduction were initially presented in 1976. 2  In 2009, I participated in three separate research-based theatre projects, each following one of the three approaches.  These three projects form the basis of a descriptive / exploratory case study (Winston, 2006, p. 49), based primarily on my personal reflections of working with each artistic development approach.  This inquiry will be guided by two central questions (1) how are meanings constructed in each approach and (2) how might each approach create and inhibit meaning-making.  As each approach is distinct yet related to the others, the discussions of the projects are designed to be read either independently or collectively, forming a thesis which bridges the traditional and manuscript styles.  As each chapter may stand on its own, there is a limited amount of repetition within them.   Literature Review Arts-based, including theatre-based, inquiry are relatively recent methods of gathering, analysing, and disseminating data (Kerry-Moran, 2008; Rossiter, Kontos et al., 2008) particularly in the field of education.  However, a developing body of writing on research-based theatre has emerged from health research.  Initial searches were conducted through electronic databases using terms such as research-based theatre, theatre-based research, ethnodrama, ethnotheatre, and applied theatre.  While this method produced numerous articles, the most effective method of acquiring articles was through a snowball sampling method (Palys & Atchison, 2008, p. 126).  Through this method, citations from one article would lead to several other related articles.  In light of the literature discovered in this review, this thesis proposes to situate research-based theatre as an umbrella term.  To do so, this thematic review will examine a. terminology associated with research-based theatre b. theoretical foundations of research-based theatre, and c. three approaches to integrating theatre into research projects.  3  What is Research-Based Theatre? The field of research-based theatre is still emerging and, as such, its terminology is varied and evolving, necessitating an exploration of the term.  In this section I explore the terms ethnodrama and ethnotheatre and suggest research-based theatre as a term allowing for a broader integration of theatre into the research process. Early uses of theatre in the research process invoked theatre as a mode of disseminating research data.  In 1976, Walker, Pick, and MacDonald developed a script describing the experiences of “twenty young [science] teachers” (1991, p. 82).  The data were collected in traditional manners such as focus groups and diaries.  However, after unsatisfactorily attempting to report the data in a traditional form, the authors chose to develop a script which followed the young teachers through a typical school day.  The script was developed from text “made by teachers in the form in which they appear” (Walker et al., 1991, p. 83).  However, the authors recognize that there is an interpretation involved “in the process of selecting, editing, and sequencing the material” into a linear narrative (Walker et al., 1991, p. 83).   The transformation of data gathered using ethnographic methods such as that of Walker et al. has been formalized by practitioners such as Jim Mienczakowski and Johnny Saldaña.  Mienczakowski and Moore (2008) describe ethnodrama as  a method and methodology synthesizing health and education fields where we combine qualitative research processes with action research, grounded theory, and narrative to provide data from which a script can be written that, in turn becomes the basis of health theatre.  (p. 451) In his book Ethnodrama: An Anthology of Reality Theatre, Saldaña (2005) refines the term ethnodrama noting a distinction between ethnodrama and ethnotheatre.  Ethnodrama, according 4  to Saldaña, is “the written script, consist[ing] of dramatized, significant selections of narrative collected through interviews, participant observation field notes, journal entries, and/or print and media artefacts such as diaries, television broadcasts, newspaper articles and court proceedings” (2005, p. 2).  He differentiates ethnotheatre from ethnodrama suggesting that “ethnotheatre [is] the traditional craft and artistic techniques of theatre production to mount for an audience a live performance event of research participants‟ experiences and/or the researcher‟s interpretations of data” (2005, p. 1).   The definitions of ethnotheatre and ethnodrama provided by Saldaña and Mienczakowski and Moore describe them as modes of dissemination of data gathered and analysed using traditional qualitative research tools such as action research, narrative, interviews, and field notes (Mienczakowski & Moore, 2008; Saldaña, 2008a).  However, Norris (2000) argues that theatre may extend beyond being an artistic dissemination of data suggesting that “the potential of drama as research is fully realized, not when one translates data into a play, but when the dramatic activities shape the presentation in the same way as quantitative research uses numerical data through all stages” (p. 45).  Similarly, Schonmann suggests Playback Theatre as a possible method of “simultaneously presenting data, analyzing and interpreting them, and delivering a clear meaning” (2001, p. 144).  The Playback Theatre performance consists of the actors listening to the narrator‟s tale, and then “play back” what they hear as the essence of the story.  Their enactment may be realistic or symbolic.  The conductor helps to structure the story for the actors by asking questions of the teller. . . .  It is a dramatic forum which can provide a vehicle to step out of oneself, like a theatrical piece of Brechtian alienation, to look at what that self is doing. This idea . . . might be used as a main line for inquiry that wants to maintain a kind of distance from 5  the objects under research, and yet maintain a kind of involvement with it.  (Schonmann, 2001, pp. 143-144) While Norris and Schonmann suggest possibilities for integrating theatre throughout the research process, this use of theatre is not explicit in current definitions of either ethnodrama or ethnotheatre. In light of the literature in the field, ethnodrama and ethnotheatre appear to serve only part of the use of theatre in the research process.  The term research-based theatre may be more effective to describe the multiple ways of integrating theatre and research.  Sinding, Gray, Grassau, Damianakis, and Hampson describe research-based theatre as “the use of dramatic form to capture research knowledge” (2006, p. 694).  However, this understanding of research-based theatre focuses upon the capturing and disseminating of research data, not the analysis of research data using theatrical techniques as suggested by Norris.  Mitchell, Jonas-Simpson, and Ivonoffski open the use of theatre throughout the research process suggesting that research-based theatre is a way of “enhancing understanding of lived experience in different groups and communities” (2006, p. 198).  This understanding of research-based theatre does not restrict the approach to “capturing” or disseminating research; instead, it permits the integration of theatre in any part of the research process, encompassing ethnodrama and ethnotheatre as well as research such as Norris‟s that uses theatre throughout.   Laying the Foundations While theatre is becoming more common in educational research, Saldaña suggests that “the legitimacy of ethnotheatre [and research-based theatre] as a credible genre of research reportage remains suspect to many scholars in the social sciences” (2008a, p. 203).  If the 6  legitimacy of such research is in question, why then should research-based theatre continue to be explored as a mode of educational research? Providing a more accessible medium for the dissemination of educational research as suggested by Barone (2008) may be a positive outcome of using arts-based inquiry including research-based theatre.  However, research-based theatre is not only a method of broadening the potential audience for research.  Denzin argues that “the performance text is the single, most powerful way for ethnography to recover meanings of lived experience” (1997, p. 95).  When theatricalising data, researchers show, not tell the results of their research (Saldaña, 2008a, p. 201) creating a three-dimensional presentation of their research data.  This three-dimensional dramatic form “allows one to retain, at least somewhat, the human dimensions of the life experience qualitative research attempts to study [helping] to not lose research participants in the data or not transform them into dehumanized stereotypes” (Donmoyer & Donmoyer, 2008, p. 216).   Mienczakowski and Moore argue that theatricalising data can extend the three-dimensional presentation of research to gain “an empathetic power and dimension often lacking in standard qualitative research narratives” (2008, p. 451).  This “empathetic power” creates an opening between the research presentation and audience in which “the overall performance becomes a shared context that the actor [supported by the researcher] and audience member intimately construct and relate to because of their own emotional link to the topic of the research/performance” (Mienczakowski & Moore, 2008, p. 452).  They stress that ethnodrama is not “about a tradition of artistic endeavour but explanation and emotion evocation . . . with one side critical and emancipatory. . ., the other side evocative, self-expressing, and intentionally creative” (Mienczakowski & Moore, 2008, p. 452).  Through this dual lens, theatricalised 7  research may provide both a critical lens through which to view research and an opening for a cathartic response for audience members. Approaches to Research-Based Theatre Research-based theatre encompasses a broad array of methods of integrating theatre and research – from theatre as a mode of dissemination to a process of gathering, analyzing, and disseminating data.  While the methods of integrating theatre and research are varied so are the approaches to developing research-based theatre.  I have identified in the literature three approaches used to develop research-based theatre: (a) playwright-centered, (b) collective, and (c) combined:collective/playwright.  The three approaches are not intended as containers into which all research-based theatre projects will neatly fall.  Rather, the approaches form points on a continuum of research-based theatre development (see Figure 1).   Figure 1 Three approaches to research-based theatre 1. Playwright-Centered Approach   The playwright-centered approach is characterized by the funnelling of the data into a script by a single playwright/researcher (see Figure 2).  In the descriptions of his playwright-centered process, Saldaña indicates that data for his theatrical presentations are gathered using traditional qualitative tools such as “interviews, participant observation field notes, journal entries and/or print and media artifacts” (2005, p. 2).  His “playwrighting phase began not as an artistic vision but as a data analytic process” (1998b, p. 184).  Once gathered, the data are then analyzed and transformed by the playwright into a theatrical script.  The script that is created is then developed into a theatrical production (Saldaña, 1999).   8   Figure 2 Playwright-centered approach  When developing Hong Kong, Canada (2001), Goldstein followed the playwright-centered approach having collected her own ethnographic data and transformed them into a script.  However, this did not mean that she was not open to the suggestion of others.  While rehearsing the script, actors made her aware of dialogue she had created that contained “problematic representations of ethnographic characters” (Goldstein, 2002).  While Goldstein changed the stereotypical language she inadvertently used in the script, she retained compositional and analytical control of the script.  Thus the playwright-centered approach may involve critical perspectives from actors, directors, designers, and others involved to explore and challenge the theoretical and artistic elements of the text.  However, in this approach, the data is still gathered and analysed using traditional qualitative techniques and the researcher/playwright remains the primary analytical and artistic figure in the script development.    This development process is analogous to a playwright developing a script for a non-academic audience.  Canadian playwright, Kent Stetson researched and scripted plays such as Horse High, Bull Strong, Pig Tight (2004) and The Harps of God (2001) independently; rather 9  than a collective creation process, it is “Kent [who] brings these characters to us” (Butt, 2001, p. x).  However, Stetson notes that “theatre is first and foremost a collaborative art” (2001, p. 130).  The dramaturge, director, designers, actors, and others developing the work for the stage all leave their mark on the final product.  As a member of the production team for Horse High, Bull Strong, Pig Tight, I witnessed the production draft evolve through the rehearsal and production processes; however, like in the playwright-centered approach, the playwright remained the primary artistic figure and the script remains that of the playwright.   This is not to suggest that the research-based theatre playwright needs to be a trained, professional playwright.  Saldaña observes that  the art of writing for the stage is similar to yet different from creating a dramatic narrative for qualitative reports because ethnotheatre employs the media and conventions of theatrical production.  A researcher‟s criteria for excellent ethnography in article or book formats don‟t always harmonize with artist‟s criteria for excellent theatre.  This may be difficult for some to accept, but theatre‟s primary goal is to entertain – to entertain ideas and to entertain for pleasure.  With ethnographic performance, then, comes the responsibility to create an entertainingly informative experience for an audience, one that is aesthetically sound, intellectually rich, and emotionally evocative.  (2003, pp. 219 - 220) Similarly, while the research-based theatre playwright need not be professional or highly trained, he or she must be willing and capable of, as suggested by Saldaña, integrating the art of the theatre.  10  2. Collective Approach  Using the art form of theatre to conduct or disseminate research often requires the playwright to write from another‟s perspective.  Canadian playwright Sharon Pollock uses a metaphorical diamond to explain her approach to this challenging writing task.  I am standing in one place, and I am the result of a certain time and place and experience, and I have a flashlight.  If I never try to expand those boundaries I can only hold my flashlight one way, shine it on one part of the diamond. . . .  But I can‟t go all the way around that diamond.  I suppose when you have many writers attacking the same story, you get the entire diamond lit up.  (cited in Jansen, 1991, p. 100) The process of collective theatrical creation allows many writers to attack the same topic providing a potentially more complete view of the diamond.  The Canadian collective play, The Farm Show, developed by Theatre Passe Muraille, “grew out of the actors‟ attempts to dramatize their discoveries in daily improvisational sessions” (Johns, 1976).  “The play was not written down; it developed out of interviews, visits, and improvisations” (Thompson, 1976).  The Farm Show emerged as a creation of the company developed through theatrical activities rather than a playwright at a desk.  The collective creation used by Theatre Passe Muraille resembles the collective approach such as that of Norris‟s Mirror Theatre (2000) and of Belliveau (2008a) which integrates theatrical techniques throughout the research process.   In the collective approach, data are collected by or are presented to a development team to explore theatrically.  Unlike the playwright-centered approach, there is no central figure with final control over the script (see Figure 3).  Norris describes the process of his collective approach to research-based theatre as a continual and collective process of exploring the data. 11  [In] the playbuilding and rehearsal processes we go through spirals of external research, personal exploration, discussion and dramatic exploration until we have collected a large number of ideas that are potential themes and scenes.  In our work, the process of collection, analysis and dissemination are intermingled as each informs the other.  (2000, p. 46) In this collective process, theatrical rehearsals become methods of research analysis as, through repetition, character work, and exploration, new meanings may be discovered.  The themes, stories, and scenes developed are collectively woven into a script for performance.  This script may be recorded on paper or may exist ephemerally, constructed by the members of the research-team as a scripted improvisation but not recorded.    Figure 3 Collective approach 12  3. Comined:Collective/Playwright Approach The Joint Stock Theatre Group, a British theatre collective, used an approach similar to the collective approach in which shows “have been set up or completed without a writer and material has been improvised by the actors, though the results – writers will be pleased to note – have been generally considered less successful” (Ritchie, 1987, p. 18).  The more successful ventures of the Joint Stock Theatre Group were developed using a three-stage process merging the collective and the playwright-centered approaches (see Figure 4).  In the Joint Stock method, a writer, director, actors, and other members of the company collectively explore the subject being dramatized.  After this exploration, the playwright develops a script inspired, but not dictated by the work of these sessions.  Finally the work is rehearsed for production (Ritchie, 1987, p. 18).  Figure 4 Combined:collective/playwright approach Like the Joint Stock Method, the combined:collective/playwright approach to developing research-based theatre weaves the playwright-centered and collective approaches (Colantonio et 13  al., 2008; Gray, 2000; Gray, 2003; Mitchell et al., 2006).  In this approach, the group theatrical analysis of the collective approach is used by the playwright to develop a script.  In some cases data are first collected, analysed, and possibly disseminated using more traditional analysis and dissemination methods.  Theatre artists are then presented with the data in raw, analysed, or a combination of the two forms (Mitchell et al., 2006).  The acting group is led through a series of improvisational theatrical techniques using the data as the foundation for their work, much like the collective approach.  Through this development process, powerful stories, themes (Mitchell et al., 2006, p. 201), and visual images (Gray, 2003, p. 224) emerge from the data and from the actors‟ and directors‟ “emotional connections to the material” (Mitchell et al., 2006, p. 200) which are identified for theatrical development.  Unlike the collective approach, in the combined:collective/playwright approach of developing a research-based theatre script, the stories, themes, and visual images are gathered together and woven into a script by a playwright (Mitchell et al., 2006). Procedures Approach This study was conducted as a descriptive / exploratory case study (Winston, 2006) of the artistic development of three research-based theatre projects2: 1. Drama as an Additional Language: Creating Community, Confidence and Comfort (Beck, Belliveau, Lea, & Wager, 2009) – exploring the impact of drama on English language learners in an afterschool drama program,  2. Centering the Human Subject (Lea et al., 2009) – exploring the experiences of people who have been participants in health research, and                                                  2 Refer to Appendix B for a project timeline. 14  3. Naming the Shadows (MacKenzie, 2009) – exploring the production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream in an elementary school class.    Each of these research-based theatre productions was developed using one of the approaches to research-based theatre as illustrated in Table 1. Project Approach Chapter Drama as an Additional Language Collective 2 Centering the Human Subject Combined:Collective/Playwright 3 Naming the Shadows Playwright-centered 4 Table 1 Approaches of each production Site and Sample Selection  As part of my work as a research assistant at the University of British Columbia, I was been asked to participate in the planning, development, and production of these three research-based theatre projects.  Drama as an Additional Language and Naming the Shadows are both elements of a SSHRC-sponsored research project „Building Community through Drama‟ under the direction of Dr. George Belliveau of the department of Language and Literacy Education.  Centering the Human Subject is part of a larger CIHR-sponsored project „Centering the Human Subject in Health Research: Understanding the Meaning and Experience of Research Participation‟ under the direction of Dr. Susan M. Cox of the W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics.  As I was involved in the arts-based development phase of each project, this study focuses on the process of developing the scripts for each production and the understandings gained about research-based theatre rather than the understandings gained and shared within each project.  As a participant in the planning of all three projects, I was able to help guide the development processes of each to ensure that each of the three approaches to research-based theatre is explored through one of the projects, providing the unique opportunity for this case study. 15  Role of the Researcher  I acted as an artistic observer-as-participant (Palys & Atchison, 2008, p. 209) to varying degrees in all three research-based theatre productions.  As a participant, I maintained a journal throughout each process and, when not directly involved in the development of each production, observed the development processes.  Drama as an Additional Language was produced as a collective theatre production.  Throughout the development, I was directly involved in all aspects of the production: the data analysis, script writing, theatrical exploration, and performance.  As such, I acted as a participant-as-observer (Palys & Atchison, 2008, p. 122) through the development of this research-based theatre production maintaining journal records of my experience. I coordinated the development for the Centering the Human Subject, organizing and running two theatrical development sessions, writing based on the existing data and the ideas and images from the development sessions, and directing the final production.  Throughout the process, I maintained a journal and when not directly involved in the development process maintained observation notes. In the final phase of the project, Naming the Shadows, I helped to code the data that was presented to a playwright.  After the script was developed, I performed in and helped to produce the show at academic conferences.   Ethical Considerations The work in this project is of minimal risk to participants.  Nonetheless, some of the data involved in Centering the Human Subject component of the project is emotionally charged and may provoke emotional responses in the participants in the theatrical development.  Additionally, the collective approach to playbuilding may create tensions among the participants developing 16  the piece (Belliveau, 2006).  The anonymity of all participants is maintained through the use of pseudonyms.  This research project falls under “Building Community through Drama” under the direction of Dr. George Belliveau.  Additionally, a subset of the participants in the Centering the Human Subject research project, under the direction of Susan M. Cox, granted special permission for their interview data to be used to develop the script for Centering the Human Subject.  Aall necessary ethical clearances have been acquired. Potential Contributions of the Research  Theatre-based research is an emerging methodology attracting interest from researchers of various backgrounds.  Saldaña suggests that some of these scholars may be “lacking basic theatre training exploring how to structure their research into ethnodramatic form” (2008a, p. 204).  As research-based theatre is still emerging, not only are many researchers “lacking basic theatre training” but may also be lacking experience and exposure to the multiple approaches of developing research-based theatre.  This study will present the three approaches as development models upon which future developers of research-based theatre may conceptualize their own work.  Limitations of the Study The scope of this study is to explore three approaches to developing research-based theatre scripts and is not intended to prove or examine the efficacy and applicability of research-based theatre as a research methodology.  As such, the principle limitation of the study is that it is not designed to produce results that can be easily generalized to all instances of research-based theatre; rather, this is a study of a particular exploration of approaches.  It is important to note that this study centres on the artistic processes of developing research-based theatre scripts.  As a 17  result, the discussions will focus on the artistic development rather than the subject matter explored in each piece.  This study is not designed to compare the three approaches; rather it articulates the approaches and highlights the understandings gained about research-based theatre gained through the particular projects.    18  Chapter Two – Collective Approach A Loud Silence Weaving Research-Based Theatre and A/r/tography  Arts-based approaches to research have emerged as an integral component of current scholarship in the social sciences, education, health research, and the humanities.  Integrating arts-based methods and methodologies into research has generated fresh approaches for creating, translating, and exchanging knowledge (Barone & Eisner, 1997; Barone, 2000; 2008; Knowles & Cole, 2008).  This chapter weaves two of these methodologies, a/r/tography and research-based theatre, by closely exploring an arts-based project that engaged with data generated from an after-school drama program in a Vancouver, Canada elementary school. While the integration of theatre into the research process has been referred to as ethnotheatre, ethnodrama, performative inquiry, performance ethnography, and research-based theatre (among others), this chapter will use Mitchell, Jonas-Simpson, and Ivonoffski‟s understanding of research-based theatre as being a way of “enhancing understanding of lived experience in different groups and communities” (2006, p. 198).  This broad definition allows for the integration of theatre throughout the research-process as part of data gathering, analysis, and exchange.   The potential of research-based theatre to be integral throughout the research process resembles the a/r/tographic interrelation of theoria, praxis, and poesis – knowing, doing, and making (Irwin, 2004).  A/r/tography emphasizes the process (praxis) through which practitioners draw upon their Artistic, Researcher, and Teacher identities to artistically (poesis) engage in re-understanding and re-questioning their understandings (theoria).  This living mode of inquiry features six renderings as “theoretical spaces through which to explore artistic ways of knowing 19  and being research” (Springgay, Irwin, & Kind, 2005, p. 899): contiguity, living inquiry, metaphor and metonymy, openings, reverberations, and excess (Springgay et al., 2005).  Rather than distinct, distilled processes through which a/r/tographic research must be conducted, the renderings contiguously co-exist forming a framework upon which a/r/tographers may “portray the conditions of their work for others” (Springgay, Irwin, & Kind, 2008, p. xxvii).   Despite connections among research-based theatre and a/r/tography, little has been written exploring the specific relationship of these arts-based approaches (Beare & Belliveau, 2008; Winters, Belliveau, & Sherritt-Fleming, 2009).  This chapter addresses this gap by examining the evolution of the research-based theatre production Drama as an Additional Language: Creating Community, Confidence, and Comfort (Beck et al., 2009).3  The presentation evolved from its initial conception as a research-based theatre piece framed by more traditional research reportage into an a/r/tographically inspired experiment in the form of, and approach to, research-based theatre.  This chapter incorporates the a/r/tographic renderings to explore the development of Drama as an Additional Language.  To respect the contiguous relationship among them, segments of a co-created poem4 are used to flow among discussions of the renderings. Setting the Stage  Drama as an Additional Language began as a proposal for a three-paper panel session at the 2009 International Association for Performing Language conference in Victoria, BC Canada.  The three-fold intent of this hour-long panel was to (1) contextualize, (2) dramatize, and (3) analyze the experiences of English language learners during an after-school drama program.                                                    3 For a discussion of the after-school drama program see Wager, Belliveau, Beck, & Lea (in press). 4 The poem was used as a prologue to Drama as an Additional Language.  The full text appears as Appendix B. 20   In late January 2009, our four member research team began developing the presentation by closely examining the data and each developing two short scripted scenes (see Figure 5).  The eight scenes developed were shared among the group with the intent to use them as a basis for the research-based theatre dramatization portion of the panel presentation.    Figure 5 Process used to create scenes from data By early February, we had developed our individual script ideas and were ready for our first collective interactive development session.  Based on the collective approach to developing research-based theatre, we intended in this session to warm-up with a few drama-based activities and then improvise through the scenes we created in an effort to use “dramatic activities [to] shape the presentation” (Norris, 2000, p. 45).  However, instead of jumping directly into the warm-up, we faltered; there was a palpable awkwardness as ten seconds of silence fell among us.   After this first session, I noted in my journal that it appeared “we were negotiating who would lead the activities – there were unspoken tensions within the group” (Lea, February 9, 2009).  From my perspective the professor was in a position of authority and power; my instinct was to defer leadership to him.  I also questioned whether the co-creator helming the project 21  should lead the activities, and if she had the desire to lead.  I refrained from taking the lead as I questioned what would “I have to offer and how can I lead these people” (2009c, February 9, 2009).  These ten seconds of silent negotiation of power and leadership lead to new understandings and new questions of both the data we were working with and the form in which we were working.   While the project was designed to explore the experiences of English language learners during an after-school drama program, the moment of silence spoke loudly as we moved away from the “introductory research questions . . . to posit questions of inquiry that evolve[d]” (Irwin, 2008, p. 77) through the lived experience of theatrically reflecting upon the data.  Irwin (2008) suggests that “it may be that in rhizomatic form, various individuals within the community will come to different understandings” (p. 77).  Not only do understandings vary, the questions being explored by the community of inquirers may as well.  The collective re-quest(ion)ing, embodied in the moment of silent tension allowed our own living inquiries to evolve over time.   Together we are becoming an a/r/tographic  community of inquirers. What you will see here today our research, our art, our teaching, comes not from us as individuals but  emerges from the spaces between us.  Theatre is necessarily a collaborative art; writers, directors, designers, actors, managers, technicians, and audiences co-exist in a contiguous relationship to create a unified theatrical experience.  The development and production of Drama as an Additional Language forged the creation of contiguous communities among the creators, with the audience, and also among aspects of the presentation.   22  The initial proposal for the panel session included a research-based theatre centerpiece framed by more traditional, non arts-based, research dissemination models.  The presentation was to begin with a paper contextualizing the study: the after-school drama program, drama‟s influence on the English language learners, and current developments in research-based theatre.  Following this paper, we were to present a short research-based theatre piece based upon the data collected and analysed.  After the scene, we intended to share a paper analyzing the data and the artistic, methodological, and ethical considerations we encountered during the theatrical development.  This proposed design created three metaphoric communities: context, theatre, and analysis (see left side of Figure 6).  In our initial proposal, these three communities, while referring to each other, would remain isolated.  Figure 6 Dissolution into moments 23   As we began to improvise based upon our preliminary scripts, we explored various entry points into the presentation.  This exploration led to a collapse of the intended three-part presentation.  As “a/r/tography exposes the dissolution of the boundary between the „creative‟ and the „theoretical,‟” (Springgay et al., 2005, p. 909) the emergent structure of Drama as an Additional Language dissolved boundaries between the theatrical and theoretic elements, weaving theory and art (see right side of Figure 6).  No longer were the three communities of context, theatre, and analysis lying next to one another.  They meshed into a métissage – context/scene/analysis – of the theoretical and the theatrical (Hasebe-Ludt, Chambers, Oberg, & Leggo, 2008; Irwin, 2004).   In this new form, theory and theatre continuously built upon and informed each other.  To facilitate the complexities of weaving in and out of theory and theatre, we drew inspiration from Moisés Kaufman and his Tectonic Theatre Project to develop the piece as a series of moments (Brown, 2005; Kaufman, 2001).  Through this subdivision we attempted to forge a dialogue among theory and theatre, encouraging, as Kaufman suggests, the copulation of theory and practice (Brown, 2005).   The evolution from the three communities of context, drama, and analysis into a métissage of theoretical and theatrical moments was dramatized in the opening of the production.  We began with an outline posted in view of the audience which reflected the three distinct communities in our original proposal.  As part of the theatre-based introduction, we moved the outline items from their original three categories into the woven moments that compromised the final presentation (see Figure 6).  By recreating the dissolution of our structure as part of the presentation we attempted to both honour the original proposal and begin a theatrical sharing of our research process. 24  The evolution from three distinct communities of knowledge into a métissage of theory and theatre developed through the contiguous relationship among the inquirers in the collective development process.  However, this contiguous relationship may have held us back from pushing the project as far as we may have.  Irwin suggests that a “commitment to troubling difference isn‟t comfortable for anyone” (2008, p. 79).  As we developed Drama as an Additional Language, we seemed aware of the potential for discomfort in our differences of approach and style, often refraining from pushing each other either theoretically or theatrically.  In not fully expressing our individual artistic and theoretic ideas, we favoured collective comfort over the creative possibilities of discomfort.  While we existed as singularities within a collective (Irwin, 2008, p. 79), instead of embracing the continuously contiguous nature of the singular collective, we subdued our individual, singular ideas for the perceived benefit of the collective.  By not fully honouring the singular, avoiding the possibly uncomfortable, we may have missed some engaging and evocative possibilities in our presentation. We invite you to join our community of  theatrical inquiry; we invite you to explore  Drama as an Additional Language.  Norris describes the theatrical explorations used in his graduate qualitative research courses as “works in progress” (2002, p. 305) rather than fixed performances.  Through the development process, participants “are continually in a process of de-centering and re-centering . . . and all perspectives are held as placeholders until the next insight” (Norris, 2002, pp. 305, 319).  This centering and de-centering encourages a living inquiry through which meanings are continually and recursively excised from theory, data, and process in “a spiral, with much movement back and forth among them” (Norris, 2002, p. 316).  These spirals in, out, and around 25  the theory, data, and art, create “multiple circulations traversing many directions simultaneously creating meaning” (Irwin, 2008, p. 71).   In the initial theatrical phase of developing Drama as an Additional Language each researcher created scripts based upon their individual analyses of the data.  These scripts formed a basis for the data-informed improvisations providing the structure through which we refined our work.  The improvisation sessions became living inquiries informed by an evolving understanding and analysis of the data, the form, and ourselves.  Through this process, our data evolved from the raw field data to include our continued artistic inquiry (Irwin & Springgay, 2008, p. xxix).  The development process became a “continuous engagement with the works: one that interrogate[d] yet celebrate[d] meaning” (Irwin & Springgay, 2008, p. xxix).  Each rotation through the development and rehearsal spiral recursively built upon our previous work.  The continued exploration did not end with the development of a script or at our final rehearsal.  Rather, each performance was a scripted improvisation in which new understandings were uncovered.  By being improvisatory in nature, our presentation, and the understandings we gained through the work, became informed not just by ourselves and the data but also by the audience and context in which we were working.   Today we will become metaphors. Today you too may become a metaphor.  The ten seconds of silence that emerged as we collectively faltered during the initial development session created an opening through which new understandings and questions could emerge.  The break of rhythm we experienced reflected moments described in the data in which English language learner program leaders would defer leadership of activities to those fluent in English.  This was described as creating awkward moments when activities faltered and, without words, program leaders negotiated who would lead (Wager et al., in press).  As we, in our ten 26  seconds of silence, negotiated who would lead our process, we became metaphors (Henry, 2000, p. 55) for the participants; our experiences reflecting theirs.  This provided the opportunity for us to understand the data at a lived, visceral level.  This embodied understanding of the data and the experiences of the participants would have been difficult to achieve using more traditional analytic techniques.   As actors develop characters, they become metaphors for the characters and, in the case of research-based theatre, they metaphorically embody the data being explored.  Norris (2000) describes a trust-fall exercise through which his participants became “metaphor[s that] helped . . . the group better understand . . . student teaching in particular and risk taking in general” (p. 45).  In Drama as an Additional Language we too became metaphors for the participants opening a space through which new meanings had the opportunity to be created (Irwin & Springgay, 2008, p. xxx).  We quickly realised that we had to cautiously manage these new meanings; by becoming metaphors for our participants we could be misconstrued as mocking them.  We were most aware of this in relation to the language that we chose.  Saldaña (1999) suggests that when developing research-based theatre, authors should not “compose what your participants tell you in interviews.  All you can do is creatively and strategically edit their stories” (p. 64).  While sticking to verbatim language may lend verisimilitude (Mienczakowski, 2001, p. 468), the language used opened the possibility for unintended and potentially harmful meanings to be created (Goldstein, 2002).   In discussing his theatrical collaboration with Saldaña on the development Finding My Place: The Brad Trilogy (Saldaña, 2002), Wolcott suggests that in Saldaña‟s determination to remain faithful to my words, he seemed to have restricted his selection almost solely to phrases already in print.  In my own self-interest I had to encourage him 27  to take liberties lest I appear a stodgy professor unlikely ever to have become intimately involved with Brad [a case study participant] in the first place.  (2002, p. 135)  Similarly, a strict adherence to verbatim language while developing Drama as an Additional Language may have betrayed our research participants.  Much of the data came from journal entries kept by students in a drama education class, about one third of these students were English Language Learners.  As a result, these entries were written in a distinct style.  By using their words verbatim, trying to incorporate the language and accent, we as fluent English speakers may have been viewed as mocking our participants, becoming metaphoric representations.  Compounding this, the language written in these class journals may not have represented the spoken language of the participants or their more formal written language.  To avoid unintended meanings, we decided to not use verbatim language in the presentation, indicating directly to the audience which characters were English Language Learners and when these characters were speaking in languages other than English.  Like Wolcott suggested to Saldaña, we took key moments from the data and altered the words; while Wolcott suggested this change to create a greater sense of realism, we suggested a move away from verbatim dialogue as a potentially more ethical way to metaphorically present our research participants. These differences create openings The rips, tears, and windows Through which our work emerges.   In past research-based theatre projects with which I have been involved (Belliveau, 2006; Belliveau, 2008a; Lea, 1999) I have sought to affect change in the audience.  To help elicit change, openings were created to allow audience members to enter into and engage with the work using devices such as catharsis, back-story, intentional ambiguity, and open-endedness.  Through these openings audience members could engage personally, emotionally, and 28  intellectually with the work.  Like these previous efforts, Drama as an Additional Language cleaved openings through which audience members could engage with the work.  The production deliberately opened space(s) for the weaving of the theoretical and theatrical.  The space created between the theoretical and theatrical allowed them to co-exist and inform each other.  The theory and theatre intermingled providing an opportunity for those less accustomed to research-based theatre to enter into the work.  This intermingling became a space for audience members to be simultaneously comfortable and challenged.    The blending of the theoretical and theatrical within the production helped avoid arriving at conclusions; we wanted to present what we saw in the data not as concrete findings but as openings through which audience members could co-construct understandings with us.  Throughout the presentation we raised some of the concerns we wrestled with during the development process such as the language used by the characters, the development of composite characters, excising and creating dialogue, and re-arranging time.  Goldstein (2008) suggests that “the theatrical performance of ethnographic playwriting and the reciprocity of meaning making that occurs between the performance of a play and its audience discourages the fixed, unchanging ethnographic representations of research subjects” (2008).  Similarly, by not providing concrete findings, we sought to create a space in which audience members could create understandings with us.  This space acknowledges that there are not fixed, unchanging, universal solutions to our concerns.  Rather, research-based theatre practitioners must be constantly mindful of these emergent issues as they develop their work. The work of each individual reverberates  and we create something more than ourselves.   When developing a piece based on the classroom experiences of student teachers, Norris (2000) recalls one member of the development group stating that “„[cooperating teachers] don‟t 29  give me enough space” (p. 45).  Norris decided to use a trust fall exercise to explore this statement theatrically.  At the center of a circle of students, Norris fell having the students catch him.  This exercise was repeated, expanding the circle each time.  The larger the circle became, the harder it was for the students to keep Norris from hitting the floor.  While debriefing the activity “the student claimed that he had not realized how much work it was for those who supported him to allow him the space he requested” (Norris, 2000, p. 45).  Through the recursive reverberations of this activity, “a dynamic movement . . . force[d the participants] to shift their understandings” (Irwin & Springgay, 2008, p. xxx) of the relationship between cooperating and student teacher.     A similar moment occurred early in the development of Drama as an Additional Language.  The ten seconds of silence in which we became metaphors for the participants was a significant reverberation, through which a dynamic and dramatic shift in understanding began.  The lasting significance of this shift was not just a new understanding of the experience of the participants; rather it was an understanding of the power of research-based theatre and of art in the research process, of how theatre can be more than a method of disseminating data, that it can provide openings into data that may otherwise lie untapped.  Had the data been explored in a more traditional manner, the embodied understanding of the experience of the participants may not have been captured.   Not all of the reverberations in the process were as dramatic or meaningful.  Theatrical development is, by its nature, repetitive as continual rehearsals help shape a piece.  Through this recursive repetition of rehearsal, reverberations may take place.  The scripted improvisation used to develop and present Drama as an Additional Language allowed each performer to continually explore the piece, to uncover new meanings, through rehearsal and performance.  This continued 30  exploration allowed openings through which subtle reverberations of understanding could emerge.   One of the devices we used to differentiate the researcher from the character was a scarf – each researcher wore a distinct coloured scarf indicating the character being portrayed.  The continued work with the scarf provided an opening for a shift in my perception of both my character and my understanding of the data.  As we worked with the scarf, I noticed that, at times, I would start to play with the ends of the scarf.  I realised that my character, M.J., was using this as a way of expressing nervousness.  As I continued to play with the idea of using the ends of the scarf as theatrical business, I realised that M.J. was playing with the scarf not when he had to speak but rather when facing a new experience such as entering the new class, being asked to lead an activity, or entering the school for the first time – through this slow and subtle reverberation I realised that M.J., an English language learner, was not as effected by working in English as he was by unfamiliar experiences, creating a distinction between M.J. and the other English language learner character, Ji-Soo (Belliveau, 2008b). Together we push beyond,  beyond our comfort,  we extend our gaze,  we look toward excess  A/r/tographic excess provides the opportunity to explore “beyond the acceptable” (Irwin & Springgay, 2008, p. xxx).  Drama as an Additional Language embraced and shunned this notion of excess leading to both strong and weak elements of the production.  The strength of our pushing the acceptable lay in the form of the production.  Experimenting with weaving in and out of theory and theatre pushed the form of research-based theatre allowing us to create links in the presentation and understandings that may not have been otherwise possible. 31  Norris (2002) suggests that as he works with groups he pushes his actor/participants to explore that which may lie outside of their acceptable and their comfort.  As a collective, we did not “push beyond our comfort,” we seemed unwilling to impose ideas or push each other to a point of discomfort.  As a result, our work may not have fully capitalized upon the analytic or aesthetic possibilities of research-based theatre.   Bickel notes that in the development of her community art project Sisters “honestly sharing our feelings about the art piece in process and at completion was, at times, a great challenge” (2008, p. 86).  Similarly, pushing each other to academic and artistic excess during the development of Drama as an Additional Language was a challenge.  Irwin suggests that “as individuals share their own interpretations of knowledge, community members will engage in collaborative inquiry meant to reveal new understandings” (2008, p. 77).  While developing Drama as an Additional Language we, as a community of inquirers, had to share not only our interpretations of knowledge but our own understandings of how we would construct that knowledge.   The awkwardness that emerged as we silently negotiated the ten seconds of silence seemed to push us toward seeking collective comfort rather than collective excess as we began our journey as a/r/tographic research-based theatre practitioners. Ironically, becoming a practitioner is less about practice and more about becoming.  For communities of inquirers, becoming a practitioner of inquiry includes the early introductions and commitments . . . made by individuals within a community of inquirers.  Yet the becoming never ends, for becoming is a continuous process inherent in the knowing-through-inquiry process.  (Irwin, 2008, p. 77) 32  Indentifying areas where Drama as an Additional Language may have further pursued excess allows us to see possibilities for future projects, ones where excess is pursued rather than subverted for comfort as we continue to unfold our research-based theatre becoming.  Weaving Research-Based Theatre and A/r/tography  Drama as an Additional Language evolved from a study of the experiences of English Language Learners in an after-school drama program to also become an experiment in the a/r/tographic identity of research-based theatre.  The production became an amalgam of our various theatre, research, and a/r/tographic experiences and understandings.  While Drama as an Additional Language contained many a/r/tographic elements, its creation did not fully draw upon the contiguous relationship among the artist, research, and teacher identities, nor did the production completely embrace the a/r/tographic renderings.  But as “becoming a[n a/r/tographic] practitioner is less about practice and more about becoming,” (Irwin, 2008, p. 77) acknowledging these shortcomings allows us to build upon them to further strengthen our a/r/tographic becoming.  “A/r/tography is not a formulaic-based methodology.  Rather it is a fluid orientation creating its rigor through continuous reflexivity and analysis” (Springgay et al., 2005, p. 903).  Thus, while aspects of the production may have benefited from a more thorough immersion in a/r/tography, our integration of art through the entire process and the continual efforts to reflect upon and share the experience of Drama as an Additional Language reinforce the piece‟s place within the expanding understandings of a/r/tography.  The collective approach used to develop the dramatic aspects of Drama as an Additional Language was influenced by Norris‟s suggestion that “the potential of drama as research is fully realised, not when one translates data into a play but when the dramatic activities shape the presentation in the same way as quantitative research uses numerical data through all stages” 33  (2000, p. 45).  This use of theatre throughout the research process reflects Springgay, Irwin, and Wilson Kind‟s assertion that “a/r/tography is not something adopted ad hoc at the time of research dissemination; it is a thoughtful, enacted way of knowing and being” (Springgay et al., 2005, p. 903).  The use of theatre throughout the collective development of Drama as an Additional Language then provides an example of how research-based theatre and a/r/tography may weave together to form the strongest tapestry.   34  Chapter Three – Playwright-Centered Approach Shadow (Un)Boxing Songer à l'Ombre est une chose sérieuse. (Hugo, 1967 version, II.7.viii) To think of shadows is a serious thing. In a Vancouver classroom during the spring of 2008, a grade one to three Montessori class rehearsed and presented Richard Carter‟s adaption of A Midsummer Night’s Dream (2008).  The theatrical lighting in the classroom illuminated the students as they performed for parents and loved ones and with this illumination came shadows.  The shadows of the students were collected by a field-researcher who observed both the rehearsal process and production.  These shadows were collated and analyzed by a four-member research team who presented them to a playwright who then developed them into the research-based theatre production Naming the Shadows (MacKenzie, 2009).   This chapter will explore the process of presenting these captured shadows to the playwright and a close examination of the resulting script will be used to uncover new understandings of the playwright-centered approach to research-based theatre.  This examination will focus on three key aspects of Naming the Shadows and the medium of shadow puppetry used in the production: the shadow puppets, the box through which the shadow puppets were projected, and the light used to illuminate the shadows.   PRESENTing Data to a Playwright A significant decision when working in the playwright-centered approach is at what point the playwright is integrated into the research process.  At one extreme, the playwright is involved in the research from its inception.  Maybe Someday, If I’m Famous . . . (Saldaña, 1998a), began 35  as a traditional report following a seven-year longitudinal study.  However, “intrigued by Denzin‟s assertion that „the performance text is the single, most powerful way for ethnography to recover yet interrogate the meanings of lived experience‟ (pp. 94-95)”, Saldaña decided instead to report the research as an ethnographic performance text (1998b, p. 182).  Unlike the case of Maybe Someday, If I’m Famous . . ., Saldaña was not part of the original research team for Street Rat (Saldaña, Finley, & Finley, 2005), which he co-adapted with, and from the work of, Finley and Finley (M. Finley, 2000; S. Finley & M. Finley, 1999).  To overcome the lack of familiarity with the context of the research, “Saldaña conducted „quick ethnography‟ (Handwerker, 2002) to . . . [familiarize himself] with the setting and the participants‟ world” (Saldaña, 2005, p. 140).  Similarly, a playwright who has been involved in the research from its inception will have a greater familiarity with the world of the research than a playwright who is involved only in the artistic development phase of the research project.  Thus a playwright not involved in the research process may require additional, first-hand, research such as quick ethnography to more firmly ground the work in the world of the research.  However, not all researchers who see theatrical potential in their work have the training or experience required to translate their work to the stage.  Such was the case with Harry Wolcott who saw theatrical potential in the research which led to The Sneaky Kid series of articles (Wolcott, 1994).  Johnny Saldaña approached Wolcott asking if he “would be willing to let him adapt and direct an ethnographic performance text of the Brad Trilogy” (Wolcott, 2002, p. 132).  As the playwright, Saldaña was not the original researcher but rather based the script on Wolcott‟s existing articles with input from Wolcott.  At this extreme, the playwright engages with the research only after the analysis and initial dissemination has been completed.  36  Maybe Someday, If I’m Famous . . . , Street Rat, and The Brad Trilogy (Saldaña, 2002) demonstrate possible models of integrating the playwright into the playwright-centered approach; the playwright as original researcher and the playwright as adapter of existing research.  However, Naming the Shadows fits neither model; the playwright was not involved in the initial phases of the research nor was he presented with existing research reports.  Rather, he was presented with both the raw research data (including photos, an in-depth interview with the teacher, letters by the elementary students describing the production to someone unable to see it, field researcher observations, parent comments, and Richard Carter‟s version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream (2008), the script used in the student production) and a preliminary analysis of the data.   Preparing the Analysis To prepare material for the playwright, the four-member research team split into two sub-groups; one group focused on parent comments and an in-depth interview with the teacher, while the other group focused on the elementary students‟ letters and the field researcher observations.  Each member of the team read the data for his or her sub-group looking for commonalities, anomalies, stageable moments, and “juicy stuff” (Saldaña, 1998b) that the research team thought may be useful to help guide the playwright.  This was then given to the other member of the sub-group for comparison.  Two questions emerged out of this preliminary analysis process: „What do I get out of it?‟ and „What do we get out of it?‟  These two questions guided the next phase of analysis in which the data was colour coded using the coding in Table 2.  Items coded blue addressed „what the students got out of the process‟ and so forth.   37  Colour Participant Red Non-participating researcher Blue Students Green Teacher Violet Parents Black Everybody Table 2 Colour coding scheme At the first meeting with the playwright, the research team and playwright used these colour-coded data segments to create a research image, a visual representation of the data (see Figure 7) explored the questions “what do I get out of it?” to “what do we get out of it?”  This image provided a visualization to help guide the playwright through the data; however, the process of creating the image with the research team also opened space for the playwright to converse with the research team providing another avenue through which the playwright could familiarize himself with the data.  The research image and the original data were then presented to the playwright as the source material from which he was to develop a research-based theatre script.    Figure 7 Research image Photo by Graham W. Lea 38  Along with the research image and the original data, the playwright was also presented with a set of constraints imposed by the research team:  1. The running time of the research-based play was to be approximately 12 – 15 minutes 2. The script had to represent the spirit or essence of the data (Beare & Belliveau, 2008) 3. The number of characters had to be kept to a minimum 4. The script had to work with the strengths of the research team In an interview with the playwright, he described this as being boxed in (see Figure 8) (D. MacKenzie, personal communication, May 18, 2009).  He could not stray outside the box formed by the research image, the original data, and the constraints.    Figure 8 Boxing in the playwright Opening the Box  Although the playwright was constrained by the box presented to him, in the script, he indicates that these constraints were creative, that “people who say you have to think outside the box have probably never made a box and learned the magic that they can contain inside the box (MacKenzie, 2009).  Rather than limiting creativity, the box of constraints presented to the playwright became creative constraints through which the “magic” of transforming research into a script could emerge.     39   Mitchell, Jonas-Simpson, & Ivonoffski (2006) note that when developing I’m Still Here, Ivonoffski as playwright introduced significant “additional exploration into dementia and was not directly linked to the research” (p. 201).  The research team had to remove this extra data suggesting that they may “not have defined the parameters of the play sufficiently” (p. 201).  This definition of parameters resembles the box of creative constraints presented to the playwright while developing Naming the Shadows; each providing a structure which may be both creative and confining.  These parameters have a significant impact on the final production, potentially influencing the audience‟s understandings of the data.  As such, a research team engaging a playwright must carefully consider the box of constraints in which the data are presented to the playwright.  In Naming the Shadows, the playwright opened the box of creative constraints to unveil a shadow puppet play.  However, the shadows created by the playwright and presented back to the research team created their own box of constraints.  To create the shadows, a structure had to be created on which they could be projected.  The playwright suggested that this structure be built from a cardboard box similar to one which could be found in a typical classroom.  This literal box of constraints was opened to create the shadow display unit.  Opening this second box of constraints provided a new level of “magic” in which the research team gained new understandings of both the data and research-based theatre (see Figures 9 and 10).  Figure 9 Unboxing 40   Figure 10 Backstage view of the shadow projection unit Photo by Graham W. Lea Staring at Shadows Shadow Origins While the playwright‟s use of shadow puppetry emerged as a response to the box of constraints presented to him, the shadow puppets also emerged from the box of constraints.  The shadows were not an arbitrary addition; they emerged organically from the data.  The play performed by the students, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, exists in two worlds, the mortal and the fairy (Holland, 1994, p. 34).  Puck refers to the world of the fairies as a world of shadows when he addresses the fairy king Oberon as “king of shadows” (Shakespeare, 1994 version, III.ii.365).  In his iconic final speech, Puck transforms both the fairy and the mortal worlds of the play into shadow as he begs that audience that “if we shadows have offended, think but this and all is mended” (Shakespeare, 1994 version,  V.i.361).  As Puck transforms the entire world of A Midsummer Night’s Dream into shadow, the playwright transformed the world of the students performing the play into shadow as he conceived Naming the Shadows.  41  Building Shadows While part of the intent of using shadow puppetry was to reduce performance demands on the research team, adding shadows introduced new challenges.  No members of the research team had prior experience working with shadow puppets.  One of the most significant demands imposed by this medium became designing and creating the many shadow puppets used in the production.   While having to create the shadows created a constraint, it opened new opportunities for meaning-making.  While developing Naming the Shadows, the research team continued to work with some of the students involved in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.  One of the researchers asked students to design the required shadow puppets.  The researcher presented them with a brief lesson on creating, a list of the required puppets, and some design ideas (see Figure 11).  Students were free to design the puppets using their own style (see Figure 12).    Figure 11 List of shadows (student names removed), and students creating the puppets Photos by Amanda Wager 42   Figure 12 Sample of student created shadow puppets Having the students create the puppets relieved some of the time constraints on the research team.  However, it allowed the students an additional opportunity to participate in the research.  Had the research team designed and constructed the shadows themselves, the students would have helped to co-create the research through the data collected and presented to the playwright.  But, as the students created the shadow puppets, they actively participated in the building of understandings.  They physically co-created the research, the production, with the research team, an opportunity that emerged from the box of constraints presented by the playwright to the research team. The shadows created by the students were all of non-student characters.  Rather than have the students design themselves, the research team took inspiration from a photograph of the rehearsal process for A Midsummer Night’s Dream.  Along the top of the wall were silhouettes of 43  the students (see Figure 13).  These silhouettes were adapted into shadow puppets that were used for student characters in Naming the Shadows.    Figure 13 Silhouettes on the classroom wall Photographer unknown In his introduction to Street Rat, Saldaña posits that  if one of written ethnography‟s primary goals is to give the reader a sense of „being there,‟ ethnotheatre should also strive to do no less through authentic reproduction onstage, as much as time, budget, space, and human resources will allow. . . .  The live, intimate, real-time nature of ethnotheatre gives the audience member not a sense of „being there‟ but, during a performance, „being here.‟  (2005, p. 141) Yet the world of an ethnodramatic performance is never a re-creation of the research, it is shaped by the interpretations of its creators and by such constraints as “time, budget, space, and human resources” (Saldaña, 2005).  If “ethnography is an interpretative, subjective, value-laden project” (Goldstein, 2008), then so too is ethnotheatre.  Saldaña seems to acknowledge this in indicating that ethnotheatre provides a “sense of „being there‟” rather than transporting the audience to the time and place of the research. The acknowledgement that ethnotheatre and research-based theatre cannot re-create/represent allows freedom to move beyond the form of realistic theatre which Schonmann reinforces this in her discussion on Readers Theatre in educational research, suggesting that in Readers Theatre “no attempt is made to recreate a sense of reality on stage.  From this aspect 44  Readers Theatre is presentational rather than representational” (Schonmann, 2001, p. 139).  However, Schonmann notes that many examples of Readers Theatre “wanted to present but instead they represented the adolescents as though in realistic theatre” (2001, p. 142).  Naming the Shadows employed a playwright uninvolved in the research who was able to see the research creatively to present the research in shadow puppetry.  This use of shadows presents rather than represents the research while reinforcing to the audience that research-based theatre can only present a shadow of the world of the participants.   Out of the Shadows  The shadows of the students in Naming the Shadows became a physical manifestation of the memories and reflections of the teacher, Mr. Calby, as he cleaned up after leading the student production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream.  Unlike the students, for most of the show Mr. Calby does not appear as a shadow; rather he is portrayed by a live actor.  As shadows only provide a glimpse of the students, the character of Mr. Calby provides only a glimpse of the teacher.  In an interview with the teacher, she asks herself “why do I do this, because sometimes it is a complete zoo?” (Participant interview, November 14, 2008).  However, through the interview, she attempts to answer her question, wondering “if it‟s that sense of purposefulness that they just feel that there‟s huge value and I guess seeing them rise is really quite remarkable” (Participant interview, November 14, 2008).  The playwright captured the teacher‟s self-questioning and answering by introducing Bottom from A Midsummer Night’s Dream to question Mr. Calby.  Bottom poses a problem for Mr. Calby telling him that  45   You can sleep when you tell us what it meant for you, for your ensemble.  Tell us what‟s left in these shadows. . . .  What do the kids take away?  Yes there were performances, but it‟s about the process you understand.  (MacKenzie, 2009) This questioning and prodding of Mr. Calby to reflect provides an impetus and motivation for his reflections.  Rather than a composite character in which a single character is written as an amalgam of multiple participants, such as those used in Centering the Human Subject (see chapter 4), and the students of Naming the Shadows, the teacher was decomposed into Mr. Calby and Bottom.  This decomposition shows rather than tells (Saldaña, 2008a, p. 196) the teacher‟s self-questioning and answering in the interview.    At the end of Naming the Shadows, Mr. Calby and Bottom too enter the world of shadow. (Bottom starts to exit.) TEACHER Where are you going? BOTTOM Aye Boyo, I knew you‟d miss me. (Bottom fully exits behind the screen and beckons Teacher.) BOTTOM (continued) Follow me.  You know it‟s your desire.  It‟s Faerie hour. (Teacher exits and they both become shadows.)  46  BOTTOM AS SHADOW You‟re one of us now. TEACHER AS SHADOW What do I do here? BOTTOM AS SHADOW Chase airy nothings.  Find meaning.  Name the Shadows.  (MacKenzie, 2009)  As they metamorphose into shadow, Mr. Calby and Bottom become for the audience what the shadows of the students were for them, presentations of the data upon which the audience members can construct their own understandings of “what‟s left in these shadows” (MacKenzie, 2009). Illuminating Research Thus shadow owes its birth to light. (Gay, 1974) To create the shadows, the research team had to explore how to integrate light into the production.  During the rehearsal process, one member noted that coloured binder dividers could be used to change the colour of the light projected on the screen.  The change of colour allowed the researchers to change the atmosphere for some of the scenes – a blue divider gave a moon-light quality to a scene in which a student and his grandfather are “walking in the moonlight” (MacKenzie, 2009), a red divider emphasised the chaos of a nightmare scene.   In her discussion of playback theatre as a form of research presentation, Schonmann notes that “the „source‟ tells his story, then the players present the story via their own understanding of the narration and via the filters of art; filters, through which the data in the case 47  or in the phenomenon are viewed” (Schonmann, 2001, p. 145).  The binders, colouring the light, became an artistic filter though which the data was viewed.  However, in using these filters “to create a more artistically sound product there may be a danger of misrepresenting the data” (Sinding, Gray, & Nisker, 2008, p. 465).  When a blue divider was added to situate a scene in moonlight, it coloured the scene but reduced the amount of light transmitted to the shadow screen, noticeably reducing the light illuminating the scene.  Similarly, by working with the data the researchers and playwright created meanings, added colours to the research; however, adding these colours to the research, like adding binder dividers to light, filtered the original data – meaning was both created and lost (see Figure 14).   Figure 14 Layers of filtering By the time audiences engaged with Naming the Shadows, adding their own filters, the data had already travelled through four levels of filtering: the field researcher, the research team, 48  the playwright, and the performers (see Figure 15).  As with adding colour filters to the light, colour or meaning is added to the research but there is the danger of the data being over-coloured and hidden by the analytic and creative processes of the researchers, playwright, performers, and audience.   Figure 15 Linear model of the playwright-centered approach Naming the Shadows used a playwright-centered approach which was initially designed using a linear model in which a field researcher passes her understandings to the research team, who pass their understandings to the playwright, who passes his understandings to the performers, who pass to the audience, who then create their own understandings (see Figure 15).  However, by presenting the playwright with the original data along with analysed data, the research team subverted the linear model, potentially reducing over-colouring of the data.    Figure 16 Reduction in over-colouring when the playwright has access to the original data Similarly, as the research team were also the performers they had a strong familiarity with the original data and were able to return to it throughout the rehearsal process, helping to ensure the data were not misrepresented or forgotten (see Figure 17).   49   Figure 17 Reduction in over-colouring when performers have access to the original data Rather than the linear model shown in Figure 15, the development process for Naming the Shadows evolved into a non-linear model (see Figure 18) providing opportunities for the playwright and performers to reflect back upon the data.  Figure 18 Non-linear model used for Naming the Shadows The non-linear model of playwright-centered research-based theatre development that evolved as we developed Naming the Shadows may provide checks and balances to avoid over-colouring the data.  However, it is not always practical or aesthetically sufficient for the researchers to also be performers in the production.  Rossiter et al. suggest the use of a dramaturge who works as “a member of the production team who is concerned with the manner in which the ideas, themes and concepts are represented” (2008, p. 279).  This dramaturge should 50  be fluent in the languages and approaches of research and theatre in order to help the researchers and artists translate the “interdisciplinary and epistemological issues” (2008, p. 279) introduced when transforming data to theatre.  Building upon Rossiter et al.‟s dramaturge, in situations where the playwright or performers do not have ready access to the data, the dramaturge may also become a „guardian‟ for the data so that the artistic development does not over-colour the research (see Figure 19).  As the linear playwright-centered approach reduces the possible opportunities for checks and balances to be integrated into the research, development, and rehearsal processes, the more linear the model, the more valuable a research-based theatre dramaturge‟s ability to provide a clearer lens on the data may be to the playwright-centered approach.  Figure 19 Adding a dramaturge As light, projected onto an open cardboard box, created shadows which presented understandings of how an elementary class engaged with A Midsummer Night’s Dream.  This chapter explored three key elements of the production used to disseminate these understandings: the box, shadows, and light.  These elements are but glimpsed into and shadows of a year-long study.  Yet in these glimpses and shadows are insights into the complex process of developing research-based theatre using the playwright-centered approach.  These insights may inform future research-based projects which can only illuminate shadows.  51  Chapter Four – Combined:Collective/Playwright Approach (De)Centering the Playwright The Scribe  Artist Tension in Research-Based Theatre Arts-based research, including research-based theatre, has become increasingly common in health research over the past three decades (Rossiter, Kontos et al., 2008).  As the integration of arts-based and health research is a relatively recent phenomena, there remain unanswered questions regarding how they may co-exist.  The relationship among the two research fields was the focus of the exploratory workshop Arts-based Methods in Health Research conducted at the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies at UBC in the fall of 2009.  This workshop had five principle objectives, among them to:  Define principles and values that could apply to the conduct of arts-based research; . . .  Discuss how the quality of an arts-based work could be evaluated so that the product and the process are credible in the eyes of the research community . . .   Deliberate on the ethics of employing arts-based methods in health research (doing arts-based methods ethically) and on doing arts-based research on ethics-related topics in health research.  (Cox & Belliveau, 2009) The workshop featured an arts-based performance which grounded the workshop in a practical example of the use of arts-based methods in health research.  The performance, integrating visual art, music, poetry, and theatre, was based upon data collected as part of the research project Centering the Human Subject in Health Research: Understanding the Meaning and the Experience of Research Participation funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.  This data was provided to artists in each genre as coded transcripts grouped into four themes: trust, practical costs, relationships, and reasons for participating.   52  In the spring of 2009, I was commissioned to develop a short theatre-piece to serve as the theatrical portion of the project.  Using a combined:collective/playwright approach, I developed a script which I will refer to as CtHS to distinguish it from the larger study.  The script was performed twice as part of the exploratory workshop, once for the original research participants and once for members of the workshop.   As a playwright in the combined:collective/playwright approach, I attempted to create an “entertainingly informative” (Saldaña, 2003, pp. 220) production.  However, while developing the script I encountered a significant tension – should my role be that of a scribe or an artist.  This chapter will explore this tension through existing theatre and research-based theatre productions as well as through specific examples from the script of CtHS.  These examples will be used to develop a scribe   artist continuum, which may be used to navigate and clarify the possible roles of the playwright and the complexities of adding a playwright to the collective approach to research-based theatre. Approach and Development The combined:collective/playwright approach used to develop CtHS is a weaving of the collective exploration and the single author of the collective and playwright-centered approaches.  In describing the development of I’m Still Here, a research-based theatre production developed through this approach, Mitchell, Jonas-Simpson, & Ivonoffski identify three development phases for the approach, the first two of which resemble the collective approach and the third, the playwright-centered approach. 1. Data Immersion in which a development team of actors, playwright, and researchers familiarize themselves with the data and their own experiences with the topic,  53  2. Improvisatory Exploration as the playwright guides improvisations through pivotal concepts, and  3. Scripting during which the playwright weaves “transcripts of scenes, silent improvisations, highlighted sections of the research interviews, and notations of aha moments that the playwright and the others found useful,” along with actor journals, original research, and the theoretical framework of the research” (2006, pp. 200-201).   Gray et al. (2000) describe their similar process as taking place “over a series of weeks, [in which] we experimented with all manner of physical response. . . .  After six months of intermittent meetings, the group then met for several weeks almost every day” (2000, p. 139).  Based upon this work the playwright, again Ivonoffski, wove the script Handle with Care?. While CtHS was based upon this model, financial and temporal concerns restricted the time the development team had to theatrically explore the data.  Phases one and two of Mitchell, Jonas-Simpsons & Ivonoffski‟s model were condensed into two development sessions of two-and-a-half hours each.  Response to the e-mail call for actor/researchers was positive and each development session had six actor/researchers, three of whom attended both sessions.  I attended both sessions as a participant-observer, facilitating the sessions and taking observation notes in preparation for the scriptwriting phase.  Darquise Lafrenière, a member of the larger Centering the Human Subject project, attended the sessions to explain the overall project, explain its ethical concerns, administer consent forms, and to act as a non-participatory observer.   Each development session theatrically explored two of the four themes (see Table 3).  Actor/researchers self-selected into two groups each exploring one of the themes being explored in the session.  They were then presented with hard-copies of the coded data with the suggestion that while reading they look for “significant lines and images for theatrical development” (Lea, 54  2009a).  Lafrenière observed that the actor/researchers “seem very enthusiastic about the tasks to perform.  They seem to be interested in the project . . . [and] show a look of deep concentration when reading the transcripts.  They are really focussed on the task” (March 27, 2009). Session Themes Explored 1 Relationships Reasons for Participating 2 Trust  Practical Costs Table 3 Themes explored in the two development sessions As actor/researchers finished reading the data, they began to discuss and theatrically explore the data.  The form of theatrical exploration was not dictated and it was “very interesting to observe that the two sub-groups have taken two very different approaches” (Lafrenière, March 27, 2009).  Some groups used verbatim text to create monologues or choral text, some used images either directly in or inspired by the data to create tableaux, and some improvised around a moment in the data.  As she observed the creation, Lafrenière noted she was “impressed with how creative those guys [actor/researchers] are!  They can translate so fast the data into images.  It‟s almost as if the ideas were already there in their head and they just have to press a button to retrieve all the images and „tableaux‟ they need” (April 9, 2009).   After approximately thirty minutes of discussion and theatrical exploration, actor/researchers were asked to present their work to each other.  The scenes shared in the process ranged from funny to poignant, literal to metaphorical, verbatim to invented, physical to verbal, and monologue to dialogue to choral.  As they presented to each other I took notes on the form and content of their presentation as well as impressions that came to mind such as references to other plays and possible staging ideas.   I used these observation notes, the actor/researchers‟ notes, the original data, and my theatrical background and aesthetic to weave together the first draft of CtHS.  To honour the original thematic coding, the script was divided into six scenes: 55   i. Commencement ii. Trust iii. Practical Costs iv. Relationships v. Reasons for Participating vi. Re-Commencement After the first draft of the script was written, the original actor/researchers, as well as other interested parties, were invited to a script reading session where the script was read and discussed.  Based upon comments from this session a second draft of the script was developed.   The trust scene was presented as part of a presentation at the 10th Annual Advances in Qualitative Methods Conference in Vancouver, BC in the fall of 2009.  The scene was further revised through the rehearsals for the conference; lines were cut and clarified as they were continually spoken aloud and some stage directions were added.   The final version of the script was woven with the poetry, music, and visual art components of the project.  This production was performed as part of the Arts-Based Methods in Health Research exploratory workshop at the Peter Wall Institute of Advanced Studies on November 19th and 20th, 2009.   Identifying the Tension As I developed the script for CtHS, I became aware of a key, unexplored tension, inherent in the combined:collective/playwright approach.  Had the playwright-centered approach been used for this project, I would have developed a script based upon the coded transcripts; adding 56  the collective development sessions compounded the data.  There were now two data sets which I had to negotiate: 1. the original data consisting of coded, transcribed interviews of the research participants, and  2. my observations of the development sessions and the notes taken by the actors during their process.   Complicating these two data sets were my impressions and thoughts which built upon the work of the actor/researchers.  For example, during the development sessions, one group devised a scene in which one actor sat in the centre with researchers quickly “passing off [the] participant” (Lea, 2009b).  I noted that this was very “machine like, [that the] tempo has to be fast . . . and slow;” the character is being made to “hurry up [and] wait” (Lea, 2009b).  As I observed this scene I was reminded of Raymond Scott‟s Powerhouse (1999, track 1) which is often associated with assembly line scenes in Warner Bros. cartoons.  When writing the scene based upon this improvisation I used the music to help convey the machine-like feeling expressed in the development session.  This music however was not part of the development session, nor was it present in the original data; it emerged from my own artistic identification with the material.  The addition of my artistic voice into the script problematized my role as playwright in the combined:collective/playwright approach.  I had to decide if I would work as a scribe, copying the work that emerged from the development sessions, or as an artist, being inspired but not necessarily copying the work from the development sessions.  Rather than a binary relationship between the scribe and artist identities, the scriptwriting became a process of negotiating a scribe   artist continuum (see Figure 20).  As a playwright in the 57  combined:collective/playwright approach I was fluidly situated in the space between scribe and artist.  The scribe will always be artistic and the artist will always be scribing the results of the development sessions.  Figure 20 The scribe   artist continuum Situating the Tension In the introduction to the published version of the Canadian collective play The Farm Show (Theatre Passe Muraille, 1976), Ted Johns suggests that “usually a script is the first hint of a play‟s existence.  In this case it is the last” (Johns, 1976).  The Farm Show was created through the collective research and theatrical development by the actors of Theatre Passe Muraille led by Paul Thompson.  The script was “not written down; it developed out of interviews, visits and improvisations” (Thompson, 1976).  The published script states that “this version [was] assembled by Ted Johns” who “prepared” the script (Theatre Passe Muraille, 1976).  This wording suggests that Johns, a member of the collective creation team, created a written record of The Farm Show as performed by the collective.  While in its performed state, The Farm Show would be considered to have followed a collective approach, the published version was of the combined:collective/playwright as Johns, rather than the collective, assembled and prepared the script for publication.  By acting as an assembler or preparer, Johns‟ work would fall on the scribe end of the continuum (see Figure 21) as one who attempts to prepare a script that captures as directly as possible the work of the collective development team.5                                                  5 The Farm Show inspired Michael Healey‟s award winning play The Drawer Boy (Healey, 1999).  Two members of the original production of The Drawer Boy, director Miles Potter and actor David Fox, were both members of the original The Farm Show collective (Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia, 2009). 58   Figure 21 The scribe   artist continuum in theatre Unlike The Farm Show, The Joint Stock Theatre Group, a non-defunct British theatre company, used three-stage process:  1. workshop,  2. script-writing, and  3. rehearsal; in which the playwright had significant artistic freedom.  During the workshop stage participants including the playwright, actors, and director research and theatrically explore the subject matter of the proposed play.  Then during the script-writing phase, the playwright develops a script for production.   This is not, as is sometimes assumed, a question of scripting improvisations or following instructions drawn up by the group.  The writer‟s work remains an independent creative act and the result may have no obvious relationship to the material yielded by the workshop.  (Ritchie, 1987, p. 18)   The Joint Stock playwright is not bound as a scribe but rather works as an artist influenced by the work of the development sessions.  Unburdened and unrestricted from transforming the development sessions into a script, the Joint Stock playwright is allowed to explore the work inspired by, but not restricted to, re-creating the work developed collectively in the workshop stage. 59  David Hare, playwright for the Joint Stock production Fanshen, notes that “in shaping the play, I was very little influenced by any particular discovery in the workshop, but I was crucially affected by its spirit” (Ritchie, 1987, p. 107-108).  Rather than recreating the workshop, Hare used the process to learn about “Chinese prostitutes, peasant eating habits, and the dramatic interest of dialectical debate” (Ritchie, 1987, p. 18).  In the preface to the published version of Fanshen, Hare notes that “the final text is mine alone” (Hare, 1976, p. 8).  The artistic freedom afforded Hare indicates that Fanshen would be placed toward the artist end of the scribe   artist continuum (see Figure 21).   Similar scribe   artist balances are evident in the research-based theatre literature.  Ross Gray describes the result of the development processes for Handle with Care? and No Big Deal?  as creating “a menu of images, scenes, and quotes drawn from the improvisation exercises, from the stories of those participating in the script development groups and from the interview transcripts from the original research” (Gray, Ivonoffski, & Sinding, 2002, p. 65), from which scripts were drafted.  Ross and Ivonoffski co-wrote No Big Deal? while Handle with Care? was “woven [by Ivonoffski] from the material the [development] group had generated” (Gray et al., 2000, p. 139).  As these scripts were shaped by Gray and Ivonoffski, they would be placed toward the artist end of the continuum.  However, “because the group contribution was less extensive and rich for No Big Deal? than it had been for Handle with Care?, it was problematic to determine scene content and tone, leaving more for the scriptwriters to work out on their own” (Gray et al., 2002, p. 65).  This implies that the development process for Handle with Care? would be placed further on the scribe end of the continuum while No Big Deal? would be placed toward the artist side (see Figure 22).   60   Figure 22 The scribe   artist continuum in research-based theatre Ivonoffski also worked with Gail Mitchell and Christine Jonas-Simpson on the creation of I’m Still Here which explores the experiences of living with dementia (Mitchell et al., 2006).  As in her previous work with Gray on Handle with Care? and No Big Deal?, Ivonoffski used a combined:collective/playwright approach to develop the script.  She led actors through improvisatorial explorations of “pivotal concepts” in the data (Mitchell et al., 2006, p. 200) which “helped the playwright prepare for the final phase of the play development – weaving the script” (Mitchell et al., 2006, p. 201).  To weave the script, Ivonoffski had “transcripts of scenes, silent improvisations, highlighted scenes of the research interviews, and notations of aha moments that the playwright and others found powerful,” as well as the journals maintained by the actors through the process (Mitchell et al., 2006, p. 201).  Despite the wealth of information, the sensitive nature of living with dementia made it difficult to develop a script.  Ivonoffski stated to Mitchell that “I don‟t know how to do this play without hurting people” (cited in Mitchell et al., 2006, p. 201).  She eventually overcame this difficulty finding an “open sesame” into the script: the difficulty that people have when dealing with “dis-ease” (Mitchell et al., 2006, p. 201).  This entry into the script came not from the script development sessions or the original data but rather from Ivonoffski as playwright.  This suggests that I’m Still Here would fit on the artist end of the continuum (see Figure 22).  Further supporting this placement, the authors note that “some of the material [in the first draft of the script] was discarded because it had evolved 61  from the playwright‟s additional exploration into dementia and was not directly linked to the research” (Mitchell et al., 2006, p. 201).  By discarding the playwright-added material, the authors suggest that the placement of a piece of research-based theatre along the scribe   artist continuum is not necessarily static; a piece may move along the spectrum as the playwright balances scribe and artist identities.  This variance is not limited to the development process; placement of a combined:collective/playwright-based script on the scribe   artist continuum may vary internally.  Examples in the existing literature point only to an overall placement on the scribe   artist continuum.  However, while developing CtHS, I found at times I was working much like Johns creating the publication script for The Farm Show, transcribing what transpired in the development sessions.  At other times, my work on this script was, like Hare‟s work on Fanshen, inspired by but not a representation of the development sessions.  For the purposes of this chapter, I will focus on scene ii, dealing with the theme of trust.  To facilitate detailed discussion, the scene will be broken into four sections which are included through the chapter. Playwright as Scribe Scene ii opens with section one in which a chorus recites interview data taken from the coded data provided to the actor/researchers. SECTION ONE (As each actor speaks their first line, they enter and form a line DS.  NOTE: ACTOR 4 should be in the centre of the line) ACTOR 1 They were just nurses administering the stuff. 62  ACTOR 2 I never saw a doctor, or any of the investigators. ACTOR 3 They didn‟t have answers to any of my questions. ACTOR 4 They couldn‟t share results with me. ALL My trust in them was much lower. ACTOR 1 It took two-hours to get there.  Once a month ACTOR 2 It was getting in the way of work. ACTOR 3 It was getting awkward to explain. ACTOR 4 The ONLY thing that kept me coming back was that literally …  ALL There was no other alternative.  (ACTOR 4 sits) ACTOR 1 It was either this or “You‟re gonna get sick „n die quicker” ACTOR 2 That‟s what it took to keep me going back  63  ACTOR 1 I was quite suspicious – ACTOR 2 of what they were doing – ACTOR 3 of what I was on – ACTOR 4 of what they might KNOW. ACTOR 3 They REFUSED to answer my questions around the side effects ALL It was not a climate of trust.  (Lea et al., 2009)  In this section I attempted to re-create as closely as possible, the work of one of the development sessions.  During the session, the group exploring the theme of trust presented a similar scene in which they formed a line and read chorally based on the following passage from the data. PARTICIPANT 203: The nurses there really didn‟t/ they were just nurses administering the stuff, I never, ever saw a doc/ any of the investigators, so they didn‟t have answers to any of my questions, and they couldn‟t share results with me.  Uhm, my trust level in them was much lower.  What kept me coming back wasn‟t because I liked them.  I mean, I was making a very, very onerous trip, you know, once a month that was getting in the way of work, and becoming awkward to explain.  Uhm, and uh, the ONLY thing that kept me coming back was that, literally, there was no other alternative.  You know, the other alternative was, 64  “You‟re gonna get sick „n die quicker,” so/ but it took THAT to make me keep going back, and I was quite suspicious of what they were doing.  I was suspicious of what their [sic] might KNOW, I was suspicious of what I was ON.  They REFUSED to answer my questions around the side effects.  (Centering the Human Subject, 2006) The scripted lines were woven from the coded data, my notes, and the annotated data created by the actor/researchers while developing and rehearsing the scene.  The attempt to re-create the work of the development session indicates that section one would be placed on the scribe end of the continuum (see Figure 23).  Figure 23 CtHS placement along the scribe   artist continuum  Section one‟s use of edited verbatim text reflects Saldaña‟s suggestion that “you don‟t compose what your participants tell you in interviews, but you can creatively and strategically edit the transcripts” (Saldaña, 2003, p. 223).  Mienczakowski and Morgan (2001) also emphasise the importance of using verbatim text recommending that when possible, an ethnodrama script will incorporate as much verbatim narrative as possible.  Characters may speak the words and thoughts of several informants and fictionalized passages may also be included.  However, no fictional characters, dialogue or scenarios are permitted unless they can be validated by informants and researchers as reasonable, likely, typical and representative of the range of behaviours and outcomes experienced in the setting.  That is to say we do not create fictional accounts to serve a 65  form of poesis or to satisfy aesthetic or dramatic need. . . .  In all events, this is not theatre for artistic pretention, aesthetic appeasement or entertainment.  (pp. 220-221) Saldaña suggests further limitations on the form of the script based upon the method of data collection proposing that “interviews with one participant generate transcript data suitable for transformation into one-person reflections” (Saldaña, 2003, p. 223).  The original data collection for Centering the Human Subject was conducted through one-on-one interviews.  Using Saldaña‟s suggestion CtHS would have been written as a series of monologues.  However, CtHS intentionally deviates from Saldaña‟s suggested monologue form as neither the script nor the project attempts or is able to tell the story of each participant as an individual but rather explores the experiences of all participants involved in the project.   Playwright in the Middle While the chorus in section one is situated at the scribe end of the continuum, the chorus in section four is placed further to the artist side of the scribe   artist continuum.  The reuse of the chorus to close the scene was not suggested during the development sessions.  Instead, it was based on my theatrical preference for book-ends in which the beginning and ending of a scene or play reflect each other to create an opening for audience members to reflect upon the theatrical journey taken with the performers.  While the use of the chorus at the end evolved from my identity as an artist, the text was inspired by notes taken by one of the actor/researchers which pointed to a bi-directional trust relationship among the participants and researchers.  This relationship required both the participants to trust the researchers and the researchers to trust the participants.    66  PARTICIANT 212: I have to say that uh, having to give PERSONAL details, and then you know, I‟ll be very honest, lying a little, because not really wanting to (laughing)/ to go in that type of details, with uh, an interviewer with whom I was not finally that comfortable. . . .  PARTICIANT 203: They had to just trust that I was gonna turn up every month for blood work.  (Centering the Human Subject, 2006) As the bi-directional trust relationship was not explored in the development sessions I had to write rather than scribe the script for section four.  To do this, I adapted the following interview segment: PARTICIPANT 822: Oh, it‟s VERY important, you know, to uh/ yeah, to be able to trust the person that‟s told you certain things, and expecting things of you.  You need to be able to trust that they are who they say they are, and they‟re gonna do what they say they‟re gonna do.  (Centering the Human Subject, 2006) The participant appears to be speaking of the need to trust the researchers; however, in light of the bi-directional trust relationship, the need to trust expressed in the quote could also reflect the need of the researcher to trust the participant.  To adapt to highlight the bi-directional relationship, I divided the interview segment into a choral reading adding two lines at the end for emphasis.   67  SECTION FOUR ACTOR 2 (ACTOR 2 and 3 enter SL) Oh, it‟s VERY important to be able to – ACTOR 2 and 3 trust – ACTOR 1 the person that‟s told you certain things –  ACTOR 4 and expecting things of you. ACTOR 1 and 4 You need to be able to – ACTOR 2 and 3 trust –  ACTOR 4  that they are who they say they are – ACTOR 1 that they‟re gonna do what they say they‟re gonna do. ACTOR 2  (ACTOR 1 turns to ACTOR 4) You need to trust them.   68  ACTOR 3 (ACTOR 4 turns to ACTOR 1) And they need to trust you.  (Lea et al., 2009) The process of writing section four resembled Hare‟s work on Fanshen, in which he did not re-create the actors work but was “affected by its spirit” (Ritchie, 1987, p. 108).  As inspired by, rather than recreating, the work of the development sessions, section four would be placed on the artist side of the continuum (see Figure 23).   While sections one and four are relatively easy to place on the continuum, sections two and three were both inspired by and attempted to re-create the work of the development sessions.  This duality makes them more difficult to place on the continuum.   SECTION TWO (ACTORS 1-3 put on masks and surround ACTOR 4 facing outward.  ACTORS 1-3 rotate around ACTOR 4, stopping for each line, and speak in a very monotone voice.) ACTOR 1 Congratulations, you‟re eligible.  We would like to invite you to participate in randomized control trial number 34624.  Will you participate? ACTOR 4 Number what?  How‟s this gonna help me?  Who else might it help? ACTOR 2 You have been deemed eligible to participate in randomized control trial number 34624.  Will you participate? ACTOR 4 Is it going to be dangerous?  What might happen to me? 69  ACTOR 3 Our computer simulations have deemed you eligible to participate in randomized control trial number 34624.  Will you participate? ACTOR 4 No!  (Lea et al., 2009) Section two attempts to recreate the work of one development session in which the performers circled around a single character who continually denied their machine-like requests to participate in a survey.  The monotonous request used in the script was taken from a line in one of the actor/researcher‟s notes: “Congratulations we have found you eligible and we would like you to participate in randomized control trial 34624” (Lea, April 9, 2009).   While attempting to re-create the development session would place section two on the scribe end of the continuum, the use of masks complicates this placement.  In another actor/researcher‟s notes, the researcher is referred to as “faceless” (Lea, April 9, 2009).  I theatricalised this faceless researcher by having the researchers in this section wear a white mask.  Aside from creating a literally faceless researcher, the researcher was able to remove the mask in section three to become more personable, encouraging the prospective participant to participate.  The mask becomes a physical embodiment of the need to trust.  In section three, the researcher passes the mask to the participant reinforcing the bi-directional trust relationship between participant and researcher.  SECTION THREE ACTOR 1 (Taking off mask, places it on lap or between ACTOR 1 and 4, sits beside ACTOR 4; ACTORS 1 and 2 exit)  Hello, my name is Dr. _____, thanks for coming in today.  Your 70  participation in this study is completely voluntary but means that you may have the opportunity to try new and potentially more effective treatments.  But, we don‟t know all of the benefits and side effects – or if you would in fact receive the medication or a placebo.  (ACTOR 4 reacts)  I realize this is a big decision, and taking part carries potential personal risk.  (ACTOR 4 reacts audibly)  I want you to know that if problems occur, we will reassess your participation in the study and provide you with the best care possible.  But, if you are responding well to the medication, you will be able to continue it beyond the trial.  Do you think you may be interested in participating? ACTOR 4 I . . .uh . . . I think so. . . .  ACTOR 1 Please don‟t worry.  Everything you say here is completely confidential.  We will assign you a random number and all of your information will be aggregated on the computer.  (Gives mask to ACTOR 4)  There are all kinds of protections in place to ensure that you cannot be identified.  ACTOR 4 (takes mask and puts it on) I cannot be identified? ACTOR 1 I know this is difficult but we need your help.  (If LX, fade CS, bring up DSR)   71  ACTOR 4 (takes a bottle of pills out of pocket)  These pills they gave me, I think they‟re making me sick!  I should just flush „em right now . . . things tastes like rat poison.  I could flush „em and just tell them I‟ve taken „em all.  (Lea et al., 2009) While developing sections two and three, I acted as both a scribe and an artist re-creating part of the development session and augmenting it by including the mask and using it to reinforce the bi-directional trust relationship evident in the data.  As such these sections would be placed in the middle of the scribe   artist continuum (see Figure 23). Playwright as Artist  Irwin notes that a/r/tographers must seek out “creative friends who can inspire us to work creatively . . . by [for instance] going to arts-based gatherings like exhibits & performances in order to understand contemporary trends in the arts and to inspire one‟s one artistic engagement” (Irwin, 2008, p. 76).  While preparing the production draft for CtHS, heeding Irwin‟s advice I attended a staging of MK-Woyzeck presented by the University of British Columbia theatre department.  The show explores a fictional Project MK-Woyzeck, using the theatre as a laboratory to explore the question “What is it in man that lies murders and steals” (Scholte, 2009) raised in Georg Büchner‟s unfinished play Woyzeck.  Through the show, the researchers  SIX: will demonstrate for you the provisional findings of our intensive research project. ALL: MK – WOYZECK ONE:  Provisional in that a single, definitive conclusion has not yet made itself known to us. TWO: We are, in fact, six scientists in search of a hypothesis. 72  . . .  FOUR: The research methods of Project MK – WOYZECK take, as their inspiration, a notion put forward by the protagonist of Büchner‟s play himself, Friedrich Franz Woyzeck.  Quote. FIVE: “It‟s all in the toadstools.” SIX: “Have you ever noticed how the toadstools grow in patterns?” ONE: “If only we could read them.” FOUR: End quote TWO: Here are the toadstools currently under our consideration. . . .  THREE: These five compounds have been combined and recombined within the confines of our laboratory utilizing all the technological means at our disposal and employing the various catalytic agents developed within our particular branch of science. FOUR: This process has been undertaken in the hopes that any patterns inherent within this particular batch of toadstools may rise to the surface of our hybridized creation. ALL: We invite you to read them now.  (Scholte, 2009)  At the end of MK-WOYZECK, the researchers acknowledge that the use of theatre as a research tool is not as “exact a science as we might wish” (Scholte, 2009). ONE: This concluded this evenings [sic] research demonstration. TWO: We sincerely thank you for your time and attention. 73  THREE: As we at the outset of this evening‟s proceedings, we, regretfully, are unable, at this time, to offer a conclusive hypothesis based on our findings which all members of this research team would feel unanimously confident in endorsing. FOUR: It seems we must accept the fact that the reading of toadstools is, perhaps, not as exact a science as we might wish. THREE: In any event, the research goes on. FOUR: The project continues.  (Scholte, 2009)  While watching the production, I was struck by the similarities between the fictional process undertaken by these six researchers and the development process for CtHS.  Like Project MK-Woyzeck, CtHS used theatre as a laboratory in which research/actors explored the experiences of human subjects in health research.  In both cases, the results of this theatrical experimentation did not provide conclusive hypotheses on the phenomena being studied.  However, both were able to present understandings of the research in question.  Inspired by the researchers in the prologue and epilogue of MK-Woyzeck, I added two short scenes to the script, a commencement and re-commencement which situate the research and development process while highlighting that the actors were attempting to depict “a relationship to or reflection on the phenomenon rather than a display or „reproduction‟ of the thing itself” (Gallagher, 2007, p. 107).   The commencement and re-commencement scenes did not evolve out of the development sessions, nor were they inspired by the development sessions.  I created the two scenes inspired not by the data or development session, but by existing in a community of “creative friends” (Irwin, 2008, p. 76).  As such, these two scenes would be placed on the artist end of the continuum (see Figure 23). 74  Playwright as Data The multiple influences informing sections two and three make them problematic to place along the scribe   artist continuum.  The participant agreeing to participate for a non-machine-like researcher came from the development sessions.  This would indicate that the section would be placed on the scribe end of the continuum.  The dialogue used in the section was not a direct transcription of the development sessions; however, it was strongly influenced by the development session.  As such, it too would be placed on the scribe end of the continuum, but slightly more toward the artist end.  However, the addition of the masks, while inspired by the actor/researcher notes, was an artistic creation and thus would be placed toward the artist end of the continuum.  Figure 24 Dissecting sections 2 and 3 These sections‟ varied placement along this continuum indicate the slipperiness of working in the combined:collective/playwright approach to research-based theatre.  The playwright has to continually navigate the sometimes conflicting scribe and artist identities.  At the scribe end of the continuum the playwright attempts to re-recreate as directly as possible the work from the development sessions; thus the principle data set is the development sessions and the original data.  As works move toward the artist end of the continuum, the playwright has increasing influence on the work, troubling the data.  At the artist end of the continuum the 75  playwright weaves the original data and the data from the development sessions with his or her own artistic vision.  The playwright/researcher becomes more than researcher as data collector, gatherer, or analyst; he or she, becomes an integral component of the data being developed for the theatrical production (see Figure 25).  The playwright becomes data.   Figure 25 The playwright becomes part of the data  Authorship The complex development process inherent in the combined:collective/playwright approach problematizes how authorship is attributed: does the authorship lie with the playwright or with the development group?  Applying the scribe   artist continuum to works such as The Farm Show, Fanshen, and The Laramie Project can provide a framework for attributing authorship in the combined:collective/playwright approach.   The Farm Show, as described earlier, sits on scribe end of the continuum.  The show is credited as a “collective creation by Theatre Passe Muraille” (Theatre Passe Muraille, 1976) indicating that the authorship of the work resides with the entire group.  While the published 76  version of the script was “prepared” by Ted Johns, a member of the collective, he was credited as an assembler rather than an author of the text (Theatre Passe Muraille, 1976).   In 1998, members of the Tectonic Theatre Company travelled to Laramie, Wisconsin to document the aftermath of the murder of Matthew Shepherd.  The interviews conducted and notes taken by the members of the theatre company became the basis for The Laramie Project.  During the collective development process, all participants, including writers, designers, actors, and director Moisés Kaufmann, used these interviews and notes as they worked as “„performance writer‟[s] . . . [using] use all the tools of the stage to generate individual theatrical Moments” (Brown, 2005, p. 51).  This process resembles the collective creation of The Farm Show, but while The Laramie Project is created by a collective of performance writers, the “final production is strongly guided by [Kaufman‟s] artistic vision and the techniques he has developed” (Brown, 2005, p. 61) and it is Kaufman who moves the work from the development into the production phase based upon his “determination of completeness, [at which point] traditional roles are reinstated for the rehearsal process” (Brown, 2005, p. 60).  Kaufmann‟s central artistic role in the development of The Laramie Project indicates that it would be placed centrally on the scribe   artist continuum.  This is reflected in the authorship of The Laramie Project which is credited to “Moisés Kaufman and the Members of Tectonic Theatre Company” (Kaufman, 2001).  While the collective remains a significant component of the authorship, it highlights the more central and artistic role of the playwright in the development of the script.   David Hare‟s work on Fanshen was, as described earlier, placed on the artist end of the continuum as he wrote the script inspired by the development session rather than from the development session (Ritchie, 1987, pp. 107-108).  Reflecting this, the published version of the 77  script contains no mention of the members of the development session; the authorship of Fanshen remains Hare‟s alone (Hare, 1976, p. 8).   These three scripts demonstrate a possible model for assigning authorship of works developed using the combined:collective/playwright approach.  The closer to the artist end of the continuum, the more individual distinction is given to the playwright as author.  Of the three, the approach used to develop CtHS most closely resembles the process used by Kaufmann while developing The Laramie Project.  To reflect this, I retained first authorship on the script followed by the members of the development team and the original participants.  The inclusion of the original participants as authors was not present in any of the three scripts, but was deemed important as the original participants helped write the script through the verbatim interview data.  Ethics What’s in a Name? Sections two and three show the participant declining to participate in studies when asked by dehumanized, machine-like, researchers; but agreeing when asked by a “real person . . . describing [the] study” (Lea, 2009b).  This contrast was developed by the actor/researchers in the development sessions.  To emphasize this contrast, I had the more humanized researcher remove her mask, sit down with the participant, and introduce herself.  To facilitate the introduction and emphasise the more personal relationship among researcher and participant, I wanted to have the researcher introduce herself by name.  In the original draft I invented character names for the researcher and participant.  However, I was uncomfortable with inventing names.  We were not privy to the names of the research participants and the names created could, by chance, be names of the participants.   78  For a solution, I turned to the musical Godspell.  Through much of its development, Godspell‟s actors were referred to “clowns one through ten” (Nina Faso qtd. in de Giere, 2008, p. 59).  As the show neared production, the authors named the characters.  However, instead of inventing names as I had done in CtHS, the actors used their own: Jeffery Mylett played JEFFERY, Gilmer McCormick played GILMER and so forth (de Giere, 2008, p. 52).  These character names remain in the published version of the script.  I adapted Godspell‟s use of the actor‟s own name as a character name.  In the script, where a character name would be used, I inserted a blank such as “Dr. _____,” indicating that the actor is to use his or her own name to fill in the blank.   The decision for the actors use their own names was intended to foster intimacy among the characters while limiting the possibility of accidentally using the name of a research participant.  However, having the actors use their own names also reinforces Goldstein‟s suggestion that “ethnographers [researchers] invent rather than represent ethnographic truths” (Goldstein, 2001, p. 294).  By using their own names, the actors indicate to the audience that they are not attempting to recreate or become the characters; rather that they are performers presenting their understandings of the essence of the data (Beare & Belliveau, 2008). Whose Story is It? Canadian playwright Kent Stetson began to write The Harps of God intending to faithfully recreate the survivors‟ accounts of what happened.  However, despite the large assortment of data, he was unable “to be faithful to the survivors [sic] accounts of The Great Newfoundland Sealing Disaster of 1914” (2001, p. 129).  Instead, his extensive research on the topic became the groundwork for a tragedy in the mytho-poetic realm (Stetson, 2001, p. 129).  Stetson used the data to create a world that, while true to the data available, created a story that 79  was not a recreation of that of the participants but rather was of Stetson‟s creation.  The Harps of God does not tell the story in or of the data, rather it uses the data to tell the author‟s story.   Stetson‟s journey from telling the story in the data to telling his story with the data suggests an important caution when working in the combined:collective/playwright approach.  Beare and Belliveau suggest that research-based theatre should “share the essence of the data in an artistic way” (2008, p. 151).  While artistry may be involved in sharing the essence of the data, the essence of the data must drive the development work.  The further the playwright positions him or herself to the artist side of the scribe   artist continuum, the more danger there is of having the data tell the playwright‟s story rather than the playwright telling the data‟s story.  Thus the more playwrights must be aware that while they “have an opportunity to reclaim lost cultural spaces and even rewrite histories, . . . their work still needs strong reflexivity in order to ensure that an ethically conscientious stance is taken and experienced by those with whom they work” (Irwin, 2008, p. 79).  While the playwright on the artist side of the continuum has more individual artistic freedom so too are they more individually responsible that their work remains true to the essence of the data. Implications The collective creation inherent in the combined:collective/playwright provides the opportunity to explore the data theatrically.  This theatrical exploration builds upon Norris‟s claim that “the potential of drama as research is fully realized, not when one translates data into a play but when the dramatic activities shape the presentation in the same way as quantitative research uses numerical data through all stages” (2000, p. 45).  However, the attempt to integrate a playwright onto the collective process creates new problems which may be understood through the scribe   artist continuum. 80  The experience developing CtHS demonstrates that positioning oneself on this continuum is not a static decision made at the outset of the script development process guiding the development of the piece.  Rather, the playwright must constantly be aware of placement along this continuum and the implications that has for the research project being undertaken.  When developing I’m Still Here Mitchell, Jonas-Simpson, and Ivonoffski noted that “some of the [script] had to be discarded because it had evolved from the playwright‟s additional exploration into dementia and was not directly linked to the research” (2006, p. 201).  To remedy this, the authors suggest that they “might not have defined the parameters of the play sufficiently” (2006, p. 201) .  This suggests that research teams proposing to employ the combined:collective/playwright approach to research-based theatre need to carefully consider the role of the playwright and provide (creative) constraints on the playwright that reflect the demands and goals of the particular research project.  The scribe   artist continuum provides a framework upon which discussions between research teams and playwrights may be negotiated.    81  Chapter Five  Reflections and Projections Preface The three preceding chapters independently explored particular examples of creating research-based theatre using the three identified approaches.  This concluding chapter will reflect upon some of the commonalities among, and issues which cut across, the three approaches.  Part of this reflection will include suggestions for further research.  To honour the theatrical and academic elements of the research, and my contiguous artist and researcher identities, the writing of this a/r/tographically inspired chapter alternates between script and prose.  What results is intended to be neither a performed script nor a traditional chapter; rather, it bridges the two much like the thesis bridges the manuscript and traditional thesis.   Introduction (At rise: SET: There is a chair, a desk, and a short bookshelf on stage.  The bookshelf has some books and articles.  On the desk are an open box, masks, shadow puppets, coloured binder dividers, brightly coloured scarves, and a thesis in progress.  LIGHT: The stage is lit in a warm wash.  Note: this warm light should slowly cross-fade to a very cool, clinical light which will then cross-fade to a neutral light – the points will be noted in the script.    GRAHAM is sitting at the desk, writing.)  VOICE OVER (male voice)  Can you present that again at the conference closing?  (GRAHAM places the shadow puppets and binder dividers into the box)  VOICE OVER (female voice)  This should be seen by research ethics boards –   VOICE OVER (female voice) by hospital architects –  82   VOICE OVER (female voice) by researchers.  (GRAHAM places masks in the box)  VOICE OVER (male voice)  Wow . . . I mean . . . wow  VOICE OVER (female voice)  I am not sure if this is research (GRAHAM places the scarves in the box, closes the box, and places it by the bookshelf.)  GRAHAM (exhales and turns so back is to desk)  Three shows.  Research, analysis, creation, rehearsal, performance.  Done.  A lot of ways to go wrong.  A few ways for it to work – maybe.  A lot to do.  A lot to write.  Articles, chapters . . .   MAHARG (emerges from behind the desk)  You‟re right.  But remember there are other ways.  GRAHAM  (jumps up startled)  Who are . . .  How?  . . .  What are you doing here?  MAHARG Relax.  I‟m here to help.  You have a thesis to finish right?  GRAHAM Um, yeah – how‟d you know that?  MAHARG Wouldn‟t you like to know?  GRAHAM Do you think I wouldn‟t?  MAHARG Do you think I am going to give you an easy answer?  GRAHAM Look, can we stop asking questions?  MAHARG Why?  GRAHAM Asking these questions isn‟t getting me anywhere.  I gotta get back to the computer.  You just said it – I have a thesis to write.   83   MAHARG Precisely.  How are you going to get anywhere without asking questions?  GRAHAM But I need to answer them too.  MAHARG Yes, and you have.  You‟ve already written four chapters doing that.  Now it is time to start asking more.  Where can all this go?  GRAHAM Fine!  I have to ask questions.  First one.  How did you get in and why are you here?  MAHARG Hold on now, that‟s two!  Relax.  In good time your questions will be addressed.  GRAHAM Addressed?  You mean answered?  MAHARG Some of them, maybe.  Not all.  Can‟t do that.    GRAHAM Look, you said you were here to help.  If you can‟t answer my questions all you‟re doing is distracting.  Just what can you do to help?  MAHARG Not a lot by myself.  But we may be able to help you a bit.  GRAHAM We?  There‟s no one else here.  In fact, I am not so sure you‟re here.  MAHARG Oh, I am always here.  We all are.  Always ready to help, to confound, and maybe even to move forward.  GRAHAM What are you talking about?  There is no one else here!  Enough!  Either do something useful like write this last chapter or get out!  MAHARG  Tell me, what‟s it about?  Maybe then I can help you out.  84  Weaving the Three Approaches GRAHAM Fine.  (Reading from the thesis as if bored)  Through the thesis I have identified three approaches to research-based theatre.  The collective, the combined:collective/playwright, and the playwright-centered.  I used three productions with which I was involved to form a case study exploring some of the challenges and possibilities of each approach.  MAHARG So there are three distinct approaches to creating theatre from research.  GRAHAM Well maybe not distinct.  Rather than distinct approaches maybe they are stops along a continuum of research-based theatre creation.  MAHARG So, three approaches.  Hmm.  Okay (yells off stage) I need three of you.  And bring a rope.  (SALDAÑA, IVONOFFSKI, and NORRIS run in with a rope).  Great.   GRAHAM Okay, now who are these guys?  What are they doing here?  MAHARG Just play along.  You, you‟re Saldaña (points to SALDAÑA).  Take this end of the rope and go down there.  (Points DSR.  SALDAÑA runs DSR with one end of the rope).  You, Ivonoffski, you go here (Points IVONOFFSKI DSC where she takes the middle of the rope).  Norris, you go down there (NORRIS goes DSL with the other end of the rope).  Okay now, let me see if I got this right.  Three approaches (points to NORRIS) collective (points to IVONOFFSKI) combined:collective/playwright – now there‟s a mouthful – and (points to SALDAÑA) playwright-centered.   GRAHAM Yeah, that is the basic idea, but maybe a bit too simple.  In chapter three I described my feeling of moving along a scribe  artist continuum.  So, Ivonoffski, (Moves IVONOFFSKI along the rope SR toward SALDAÑA) sometimes you develop your scripts loosely based upon the work created by performers in the development sessions.  IVONOFFSKI Yeah, they inspired me but I was not restricted by them, sort of like the Joint Stock Theatre Company (Ritchie, 1987).  GRAHAM Right.  So while you were still in the combined:collective/playwright you were closer to the playwright-centered side of the continuum.  While sometimes, you moved over here (moves IVONOFFSKI SL) working together as a collective.  85  IVONOFFSKI So I am always moving along this continuum.    GRAHAM Yup.  You aren‟t in a static position.  But neither are they.  (moves IVONOFFSKI back into the middle of the rope).  Saldaña, you write that “most playwrights don‟t enact their own scripts; they rely on collaborative efforts . . . to realize their visions.  Each artist brings his or her own talents and gifts to the mix whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts” (2003, p. 230) While you as an ethnodramatist write the script, it is interpreted by many others including actors, directors, designers, stage-managers, and the audience.  In Second Chair (Saldaña, 2008b) you were the writer, actor, and participant.  Pretty playwright-centered there, but Finding My Place: The Brad Trilogy (Saldaña, 2003) while written by you was based on another‟s research and also involved actors, and designers in the creation.    NORRIS Including me, I did the lighting design for the Canadian production.  We worked collectively to create a piece of theatre.    SALDAÑA That‟s true.  So for Finding My Place should I move toward the collective a bit?  GRAHAM Yeah (SALDAÑA does so).  See there is always movement along the continuum created by these three approaches.  They are not hard and fast rules.  More like guide posts to creating research-based theatre.  (Moves SALDAÑA back SR.  Takes NORRIS’s hand leads him through the space between SALDAÑA and IVONOFFSKI and NORRIS takes SALDAÑA’s place.  IVONOFFSKI and SALDAÑA follow holding on to the rope.  This in essence turns the line around so that NORRIS is SR and SALDAÑA is SL).  The approaches weave among each other, in, out, and around.    NORRIS The collective may have elements of the playwright-centered.  SALDAÑA And the playwright-centered may be influenced by the collective.  MAHARG So this is a bit more complex than three approaches.  All three ways of working can be used to inform a piece.   GRAHAM The three approaches provide a structure to describe ways of working – they provide a common language amongst practitioners.      86  MAHARG Your thesis explores some of the benefits and drawbacks of using each of these approaches.  But when should researchers use the playwright-centered approach?  When is it best to work in a collective?    GRAHAM Well, I don‟t know.  There are so many factors.  The research group, the research participants, the time available . . . so many unknowns.   MAHARG So, do you have a question for further study?  GRAHAM You mean, when should your work be based in which approach?  MAHARG Sounds like an area for further study to me.  You have identified the approaches.  Now we need to know when best to use them.  (GRAHAM returns to his desk and writes in his bound thesis)  Okay.  Thanks Saldaña, Ivonoffski, and Norris, you‟re free to go.  (Holding on to the rope, NORRIS tries to exit SR, SALDAÑA tries to exit SL, and IVONOFFSKI tries to exit USC.  This forms a triangle with the rope).  Hmm, this gives me an idea.  Graham, you go in here.  (Places GRAHAM in the middle of the triangle) and Norris, give me the end of the rope (Takes the end of the rope and passes it to SALDAÑA, completing the triangle with GRAHAM inside).  GRAHAM (Moving around inside the triangle)  So, these three approaches form a space of research-based theatre creation.  I am always working in all three approaches just sometimes like with Centering the Human Subject I worked most closely to Ivonoffski here, on Drama as an Additional Language we worked most closely to Norris, and the playwright for Naming the Shadows would have been somewhere over here close to Saldaña.  (GRAHAM notes this in his thesis)  MAHARG Okay, you three take a break – the green room is off that way (they exit).  So was that any help?  GRAHAM  What do you mean?  MAHARG Well, I said that I would be here to help.  Was that helpful?  GRAHAM  I like seeing how the three approaches may work together to form a space of research-based theatre creation.    87  MAHARG And you used theatre to indentify and express that space.  No computer diagrams like the rest of your thesis, just visualizations using human bodies in a three dimensional space.  Theatre.  Or at least the beginnings of it.  GRAHAM So writing theatre to explore writing theatre?  MAHARG Indeed, you have always liked meta-theatre!  GRAHAM True.  MAHARG So, where to next?  Where do we go from here?    GRAHAM Well, I‟m going to go back to work on that last chapter.  MAHARG Don‟t you see?  You are working on it.  We are working on it.  We are here to help.  Use us.  Write those ideas with us.  This IS your last chapter.  Where do you see us, this research, going?  What more needs to be done?  GRAHAM Well I can‟t do much with just Norris, Saldaña, and Ivonoffski.   MAHARG Why is that stopping you?  You conjured them; conjure whomever you need.  GRAHAM So, if I want to talk about some verisimilitude I could have say, Mienczakowski and Schonmann appear and wonder with them.  (SCHONMANN and MIENCZAKOWSKI enter behind GRAHAM)  MIENCZAKOWSKI Hi.  SCHONMANN You beckoned?  GRAHAM (turns around, startled)  I don‟t know if I‟m ever going to get used to this!    MAHARG Well? 88  GRAHAM Well what?  MAHARG You called them here.  Make some use of them.  GRAHAM You mean talk to them.  MAHARG No, I mean talk with them.  Ask a question, see where they take you. Art, Data, and the Dramaturge GRAHAM Fine!  Ok!  One thing that has been bothering me about this whole process is what exactly are we doing?  Should we be making an attempt to re-create what appeared in our research?  Saldaña hints at this when he suggests creating the sense of “being here” rather than “being there” (2005, p. 141).  SALDAÑA (Enters with a coffee and a sign with the text “(2005, p. 141)” displayed so the audience can see)  Did I just hear my name?  GRAHAM Yeah, umm . . . Just sit on the desk there for now.  I want to finish with these two here.  (SALDAÑA sits on the desk drinking coffee.  GRAHAM returns to MIENCAZKOWSKI and SCHONMANN).  Okay so do we try to create his sense of “being here”?  SALDAÑA When I directed Street Rat I went to New Orleans to do “„quick ethnography‟ (Handwerker, 2002)” (2005, p. 140) to help recreate the world of the research on stage.  I even had the actors view “documentary videos . . . and [read and discuss] articles about homelessness including Finley and Finley‟s original research.  The principle actors, on their own initiative . . . talked to homeless youth in the area, slept outdoors with them for a night and gave up showering and grooming the week before and during performances” (2005, p. 141)..  All this to create a sense of “being here” rather than “being there” for the audience.  SCHONMANN But I think the power of Readers Theatre is precisely that it does not attempt to create a sense of “being here.”  Can we use this in our understanding of research-based theatre?  No matter how detailed the production, no matter how invested the actors, it will never recreate exactly what happened in the research.  Instead research-based theatre presents research to audience members.  The theatrical “images are formed not on the stage but in the minds of the audience and the readers themselves; that is where the action takes place.  The audience, therefore, is as much involved in the performance as are the readers” (2001, p. 139). 89  GRAHAM Does the idea of presenting rather than representing the research provide freedom for the creators of research-based theatre to understand their research theatrically rather than try to recreate their research on stage?      NORRIS (runs in)  Precisely, to use “dramatic activities shape the presentation in the same way as quantitative research uses numerical data through all stages.”  This way, “drama becomes a complete research activity [as] data is collected, analyzed and presented in dramatic fashion” (2000, p. 45).  MIENCZAKOWSKI Remember though that this is research and should always try to “incorporate as much verbatim narrative as possible . . . Fictionalized passages may be included [but must] be validated by informants and researchers as reasonable, likely, typical, and representative of the range of behaviours and outcomes experienced in the setting” (2001, p. 221).  SCHONMANN But if this were always the case then you wouldn‟t exist!  MIENCZAKIOWSKI I know, I know, I am a fictionalized character based on some of the writings of Jim Mienczakowski.  But I am not a completely invented character.  Our playwright created me from my ideas and even used some of my words verbatim.    SCHONMANN And like any other playwright, ours is still creating as he shapes us out of verbatim text.  If we were ever to be performed, your verbatim writings will be further interpreted by the actors, directors, and designers.  “The act of interpretation is built into the system of the oral presentation” (2001, p. 134).  Even text taken directly from an interview is interpreted as the actors speak it.    GRAHAM So while we may strive toward “being here” as he (Points to SALDAÑA) suggests, supported by a strong use of verbatim dialogue, we are still always interpreting?  So how do we find a balance among verbatim and invented text in our research-based theatre scripts?    MAHARG It sounds like what we need to understand is exactly how the data (MAHRAG calls a dancer from stage right and names her TRUTH) and the theatrical (MAHRAG calls a dancer from stage left and calls him FANTASY) elements of a production might function together.    GRAHAM Exactly.  As researchers we have an ethical responsibility to the data, to the research participants with whom we are working.  But as artists, we have to also respect the art form we are working in.  Are there guidelines that can be developed for research-based theatre practitioners to help 90  guide them as they strive to balance between the aesthetic and the data?  (GRAHAM writes in his thesis)   MAHRAG Okay, two dancers . . . and I need musicians.  (The actors on stage grab musical instruments and perform Truth and Fantasy by the Perth County Conspiracy (1970, track 4).  A transcription of the lyrics appears as Appendix F.  This song describes a possible relationship between truth and fantasy and the need for the two to work together.  Through the piece, the two dancers dance elegantly around the stage.  At times, TRUTH leads, at times FANTASY leads.  In the bridge of the song, the music chances to a tango.  The tango dance is dominated by dips by both dancers.  The depths of these dips vary.  The deeper dips should be noted with some strain on the dancer’s faces.  Toward the end of the dance break TRUTH dips FANTASY so far that they both fall to the floor.  The two dancers get up and FANTASY dips TRUTH again the two dip such that they both fall to the floor.  This may be vocalized by the dancers)  GRAHAM (going over to help the two dancers)  What happened?  FANTASY I just couldn‟t hold her up any more.  We dipped too low.  I wasn‟t strong enough to hold her up.  TRUTH Same.  Things were working really well.  But when he dipped me so far that I was not able to provide any support, we fell.  GRAHAM So the more Fantasy is dipped, the more Truth needed to support him.  MAHARG And the more Truth dips, the more weight Fantasy must support.  TRUTH If we rely on one too much  FANTASY we fall.  But the more we work together,  TRUTH the more easily we dance around the stage.  (the song continues as the two dancers dance around the stage and exit.)  MIENCZAKOWSKI But where do we draw the line?  How far can we move away from the data and still call our work research-based theatre?  How do we distinguish between theatre and research-based theatre?  (GRAHAM writes this in his thesis) 91  Romantic Realism MCCONNELL (entering)  And how do we know when those two dancers will fall again?  When too much truth or fantasy will actually derail the work?  GRAHAM Okay, now who are you?  MCCONNELL I‟m McConnell.  I did the set design for a show you worked on years ago, remember.    GRAHAM Here on the Flight Path (Foster, 1997)?  MCCONNELL That‟s the one.  Remember the show was set on two adjoining outside balconies.  One of them had a barbeque?  GRAHAM Yes, and you were not happy with the propane tank I found.  MCCONNELL Right.  You brought a rusted old tank, looked like it has been out on the balcony for years.  I made you paint it black.  GRAHAM Well, I thought I should find something that looked authentic to the world of the play.  The guy was a slob.  He would never have taken care of his tank.  Besides, propane tanks are never black.  MCCONNELL True.  But that was not the point.  Sometimes, trying to recreate the world on stage can be distracting.  The old tank you used, it pulled focus and distracted from the romantic realism I was trying to establish in the set design.  GRAHAM Romantic realism?  MCCONNELL I use the term to describe staging something to a heightened level of reality.  “It is depicting things as they appear in reality, but in a parallel universe where things are more perfect – cleaner, more colourful, more visually composed.  There is no trash.”  The old barbeque, while creating a sense of verisimilitude distracted the audience and distracted from the character.  He viewed the world through rose coloured glasses.  He would never have seen the rusty propane tank.  That was not part of his reality even if it was part of his physical existence.  The unrealistically black propane tank tells us something about its owner. 92   GRAHAM Well, can we adapt this idea of romantic realism to research-based theatre6?  (GRAHAM writes in his thesis)  SCHONMANN It is a way of presenting research to the audience.  You are not recreating not representing the world of the research – you are presenting them with a heightened reality in which everything has the potential to be informed by your understandings of the research and in turn everything can inform the audience‟s understandings of the research.  MIENCZAKOWSKI But we must strive for the highest verisimilitude to the data as possible.  Romantic realism and presenting research may be freeing for the artist but they are an act of interpretation.  Care must be taken not to distort the world of the research to suit the artist.    GRAHAM But if we are trying to understand more about a character or a situation, should we not use all of the theatrical devices at our disposal to express our understandings as clearly and precisely as possible?  MIENCZAKOWSKI The danger is that we begin to “create fictional accounts to serve a form of poesis or to satisfy aesthetic or dramatic need” (2001, p. 221).    GOLDSTEIN (entering)  Remember that according to Clifford (1983) “ethnographers invent rather than represent ethnographic truths.  Ethnographies [are not the] transparent mirrors of culture that realist ethnographers presumed them to be (Behar 1995)” (2008).   MIENCZAKOWSKI But we have an ethical obligation to tell the story of the participants.  The further we move away from verbatim, the more the risk of telling the researcher‟s story not the participant‟s story.  GRAHAM But then may that not be a distinction between research-based theatre and theatre?  That the obligation for research-based theatre is to the data where as the obligation for theatre is to the art.  But how can we make that distinction?  How do we draw the line?  MAHARG Maybe there is not a line to be drawn.  It may be another continuum.  Theatre will involve research and research-based theatre will always incorporate art.                                                   6 The discussion of romantic realism is based upon personal communications with the set designer (W. S. MacConnell, personal communications, summer 2004, January 14, 2010). 93  GRAHAM But will the artists and researchers always agree on how to create this balance?  Will they understand each other?  MAHARG Ah, I know someone that might be able to help?  Come on in here (ROSSITER enters).  You had an idea about how to facilitate communication between researchers and artists when creating research-based theatre?  ROSSITER Oh yeah, I thought we could adapt the theatrical role of the dramaturge.  GRAHAM Wait a sec!  I think I wrote about this already.  (GRAHAM flips through his thesis)  Yeah, I did.  But I think it would work better here.  (GRAHAM rips a page from his thesis and hands it to ROSSITER to read).  ROSSITER A balance must be maintained between the ethical responsibilities of the researcher to his or her data and the artistic responsibilities of the playwright to the art form.  Saldaña describes the process of ethnodramatic playwriting as extracting the “juicy stuff” from ethnographic data (1998b, p. 192).  However, the ethnodramatist “is not a storyteller, she‟s a story reteller.  You don‟t compose what your participants tell you in interviews, but you can creatively and strategically edit the transcripts assuming you wish to maintain rather than „re-story‟ their narratives” (Saldaña, 2005, p. 20).  Mienczakowski reiterates this suggesting that it is the “verbatim nature of the presentations themselves which lends meaningful authority, import, and significance to the resulting realizations?” (2001, p. 468).   While the use of verbatim in ethnodrama may lend veracity to research-based theatre, being bound by the data may limit the aesthetic potential of a script.  Anthony Jackson suggests that if we “lose sight of the aesthetic, the capacity of such theatre is diminished” (2005, p. 106).  In After the Crash: A Play About Brain Injury, Gray et al. integrated dance to “capture physically and non-verbally some of the core emotional realities expressed in the focus groups, found often 94  in the tone of the words spoken opposed to just the words themselves” (2008, p. 283).  In the development of the dance, the playwrights noted a tension between the duty of the researchers to faithfully interpret their data, and representations of the data that are deliberately left open to interpretation (Rossiter et al., 2008, p. 283).  However, navigating the space between the aesthetic and the data is a difficult task and at times “in order to create a more artistically sound product there may be a danger of misrepresenting the data” (Sinding et al., 2008, p. 465).  Beare and Belliveau suggest that navigating the balance between art and “staying true to the essence of the data” may be “one of the biggest challenges of writing scripted data” (2008, p. 144).     To help navigate the epistemological divide between research and art, Rossiter, Gray, et al. suggest integrating a dramaturge, “a member of the production team who is concerned with the manner in which the ideas, themes and concepts are represented,” into the process of developing research-based theatre (2008, p. 279).  In order to act as a bridge between the researchers and artists, the research-based theatre dramaturge should be fluent in the languages and epistemologies of both research and theatre.  The familiarity would allow the dramaturge to navigate and translate the “interdisciplinary and epistemological issues” introduced when transforming data to theatre.  In research-based theatre, a dramaturge could help to “bridge the disparate disciplines of theatre and applied health research serv[ing] as a kind of „guardian‟ (Cardullo, 1995) for the ideas, concepts, and goals of the production and, as such, works to maintain the productions integrity on these fronts” (Rossiter et al., 2008, pp. 278-9).  By working with a dramaturge while developing research-based theatre, artists and researchers would have a person able to translate the ideas between their often disparate disciplines helping to maintain an ethically and artistically sound production.  95  GRAHAM (GRAHAM takes the ripped page from ROSSITER and tapes it in the back of his thesis)  But there are so many people already involved in developing research-based theatre.  Wouldn‟t adding a dramaturge into the process further complicate the process?  Add another lens to the data?  ROSSITER Well, like everything, there is a balance to be achieved.  Adding another may, you‟re right, further complicate the process, and obfuscate the data.  But the dramaturge may also help negotiate the complex process of simultaneously developing theatre and engaging in social science research.  Knowing just how and when to integrate the dramaturge into the development of research-based theatre is still an open question.  GRAHAM And should a dramaturge be used in all of the approaches to research-based theatre?  Does the dramaturge‟s role change depending upon which approach a development team leans most closely?  (GRAHAM writes in his thesis)  MAHRAG Ah, see we are helping.  You are getting a lot of questions lined up here.  But what is the effect?  GRAHAM What do you mean? Does it Work?  Evaluating the Efficacy of Research-Based Theatre MAHRAG Well you are doing all of this work on research-based theatre in education.  Has anyone studied the efficacy of the approach in education?  GRAHAM Well, not to my knowledge, no.  So I could be doing all this for naught?  MAHRAG I doubt it.  You have seen it, you can sense it.  This has an effect on audiences.  But what is it?  How can we understand it?  GRAHAM Not just on audiences.  What is the effect of using research-based theatre on the researchers, the artists, the participants?  This all needs further research.  MAHARG And not just “is there an effect?” but how effective is research-based theatre as a means of knowledge development, creation, and exchange in education research?     96  ROSSITER (Grabs the thesis and flips through the pages.)  This sounds familiar.  Aha!  Here it is.  (Rips out some pages from the thesis and hands them to GRAHAM who reads . . .)  GRAHAM While there have been, to my knowledge, no systematic studies evaluating the efficacy of research-based theatre in education, there is a body of evaluative research emerging from research-based theatre projects within health research (Colantonio et al., 2008; Cox, Kazubowski-Houston, & Nisker, 2009; Gray, Fitch, LaBrecque, & Greenberg, 2003; Kontos & Naglie, 2007; Mitchell et al., 2006; Rossiter, Kontos et al., 2008).  This body of research has been surveyed by Rossiter, Kontos, et al. (2008) and may provide a framework for the evaluation of research based theatre in education.        Rossiter, Kontos, et al. identify “three major methodologies [that] have been used [to evaluate research-based theatre] including unstructured forms of feedback, . . . structured but open-ended questionnaires, and highly structured quantitative surveys” (2008, p. 139).  Nisker, Martin, Bluhm, and Daar (2006) utilized unstructured feedback in the evaluation of the play Sarah’s Daughters.  After each of the twelve performances, the authors conducted and recorded discussions with the audience (2006).  This discussion, along with “audience member comments forwarded to [the researcher] following the in-theatre discussion orally, or in electronic or paper mail” and demographic information of audience became the dataset upon which Nisker et al. evaluated the efficacy of Sarah’s Daughters (2006, p. 230).  However, Colantonio et al. note in their evaluation of After the Crash: A Play about Brain Injury that the use of  post-show focus groups may not be “feasible as many audience members chose not to stay after the performance” (2008, p. 183).  To address this, the evaluation of After the Crash: A Play about Brain Injury (Colantonio et al., 2008) and I’m Still Here (Mitchell et al., 2006) evaluated the efficacy of their research-based theatre productions through a post-show questionnaire structured by Likert-scale 97  questions with spaces after each question for open-ended responses.  While such structured but open-ended surveys allowed audience members to participate quickly in the analysis without having to commit to a lengthy post-show discussion, the audience may not have had the opportunity to properly reflect upon the performance.  If a production is aesthetically strong, audience members may be influenced by the aesthetic quality of the production and rate the efficacy of the performance higher than they may given the opportunity to reflect upon the performance and material.  Surveys conducted immediately post-performance such as those conducted for After the Crash: A Play about Brain Injury and I’m Still Here are unable to explore potential long-term impacts of theatre as a medium for research dissemination.  Gray, Fitch, LaBrecque, and Greenberg addressed this limitation by studying the long-term impact of their production No Big Deal?, a play about men dealing with the effects of prostate cancer treatment (2003).  The authors invited health researchers to participate in one pre and two post performance interviews the first two weeks post-performance, the other six months post-production.  This design allowed the authors to examine the long-term perceptions and effects of research-based theatre; however, the participants were all health-care providers who had agreed to participate in the study possibly indicating that they “were likely more receptive to innovative methodologies than most, and may therefore have been prone to responding positively to viewing a dramatic production” (Gray et al., 2003, p. 227). Exclusively post-performance surveys and questionnaires are not able to consider how an audience is engaged throughout the performance.  Cox, Kazubowski-Huston, and Nisker addressed this gap in the assessment of the research-based theatre production Orchids.  The musical was designed as a method of engaging the public in the development of health policy on 98  preimplantation genetic diagnosis.  Complementing the public engagement component of the project, Cox, Kazubowski-Huston, and Nisker used pre, during, and post show methods in an attempt to “understand how the shared experience of seeing the play and participating in post-performance discussion contributed to audience members‟ identification of salient issues and perspectives” (Cox et al., 2009, p. 1475).  During the performances, observers were placed in the audience to note “audience responses, using an agreed upon protocol for notations on auditory aspects, facial expressions, and body language” (Cox et al., 2009, p. 1476).  Integrating the observations of the audience during the production allowed Cox, Kazubowski-Huston, and Nisker a larger window through which to understand how their audiences engaged with the performance.  Similar observation methods may be useful to the evaluation of future research-based theatre projects.  While the audience response has been favourable to both productions and use of research-based theatre as a mode of disseminating research data, Rossiter, Kontos, et al. identify three areas where research is lacking: the long-term effects of theatre as a tool for disseminating data, the “aesthetic quality of the productions,” and “sustained quantitative inquiries” (2008, p. 139).  Colantonio et al. suggest that “a randomized control trial that would expose an experimental group to the theatre production and a control group to the same ideas through a traditional form of knowledge. . . would facilitate a greater understanding of the effectiveness of this type of educational intervention” (2008, p. 184).  Further, they suggest that a qualitative exploration of the “interdependence of the educational and aesthetic elements” (Colantonio et al., 2008, p. 184) of research-based theatre should be undertaken to further the understanding of the efficacy of research-based theatre. GRAHAM (Taping the pages at the back of the thesis)  You are right, this is better here. 99  ROSSITER And maybe you could build upon the framework for understanding the efficacy of research-based theatre in health research (2008) to develop something for education research.  (GRAHAM notes this in his thesis)  GRAHAM But there is just so much to do.  I just want to do some theatre and maybe say something meaningful while I‟m at it.  It is just so complicated, so many variables . . .  (The following lines are repeated and overlap as the characters begin to encircle GRAHAM.  One of the performers brings the chair to GRAHAM; another forces him to sit.)  MIENCZAKOWSKI Verbatim  Verisimilitude  SCHONMANN Representation     Presentation  SALDAÑA Being here  Being there  GOLDSTEIN Invented truths  MCCONNELL Romantic realism  IVONOFFSKI The open sesame.  NORRIS Dramatic activities shape the presentation.  ROSSITER Dramaturge  Evaluation (The above lines continue and increase in intensity as the actors except MAHARG, who appears to be leading the others, encircle GRAHAM.  By this time the warm light has cross-faded to become very cool)  GRAHAM (GRAHAM stands on the chair)  STOP!  How am I supposed to get anything done?  So many questions.  So many things to think about.  Just get out of here.  (All but MAHARG exit.)   MAHARG (Beat.  Takes the thesis from the desk and places it in GRAHAM’s lap.  GRAHAM appears to not want to have anything to do with it.)  Just look.  (The lights slowly cross-fade to a neutral wash.) 100  GRAHAM I feel like this process has turned me inside-out.  MAHARG It has.  (MAHARG goes behind GRAHAM, reaches over him and opens the thesis)  Where do you think I came from?  Just look.  (GRAHAM looks at the thesis as MAHARG turns the pages)  GRAHAM (Reading lines from the thesis as MAHARG turns the pages)  “These three approaches weave together to form a space of research-based theatre creation.”  “Are there guidelines that can be developed for research-based theatre practitioners to help guide them as they strive to balance between the aesthetic and the data?”  “But where do we draw the line?  How far can we move away from the data and still call our work research-based theatre?  How do we distinguish between theatre and research-based theatre?”  “Can we adapt this idea of romantic realism to research-based theatre?”  “Knowing just how and when to integrate the dramaturge into the development of research-based theatre is still an open question.”  “How effective is research-based theatre as a means of knowledge development, creation, and exchange in education research?”  (MAHARG closes the book)  So, I do have questions, areas for further research.  MAHARG Yes.  They are there waiting for you and for others.  Sometimes you need to stop, take a break.  That is what this is – a resting point.  GRAHAM To reflect on what I have done, see how it relates to what others have done.  MAHARG And figure out where you might want to go in the future.  (Takes the thesis and puts one of GRAHAM’s hands on the thesis.  MAHARG leads GRAHAM to the bookshelf holding the thesis between them.  MAHARG releases the thesis and crosses behind the bookshelf).  Now, it is time to put this away – (GRAHAM places the thesis on the bookshelf as MAHARG disappears behind)  GRAHAM (GRAHAM exhales and looks front) and get back to the theatre.  (GRAHAM exits as the lights fade.)   101  References Barone, T. (2000). Aesthetics, politics, educational inquiries: Essays and examples. New York: Peter Lang.  Barone, T. (2008). Going public with arts-inspired social research: Issues of audience. In J. G. Knowles, & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 485-491). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.  Barone, T., & Eisner, E. W. (1997). Arts-based educational research. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complimentary methods for research in education (2nd ed., pp. 73-98). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.  Beare, D., & Belliveau, G. (2008). Dialoguing scripted data. In S. Springgay, R. L. Irwin, C. Leggo & P. Gouzouasis (Eds.), Being with A/r/tography (pp. 141-149). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.  Beck, J., Belliveau, G., Lea, G. W., & Wager, A. (2009). Drama as an additional language: Creating community, confidence, and comfort. Victoria, BC: International Association of Performing Language.  Belliveau, G. (2006). Engaging in drama: Using arts-based research to understand a social justice drama process in teacher education. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 7(5), April 26, 2009. Retrieved from http://ijea.asu.edu/v7n5/  102  Belliveau, G. (2008a). You Didn't Do Anything!: A research play on bullying. Educational Insights, 12(1), January 25, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.ccfi.educ.ubc.ca/publication/insights/v12n02/articles/belliveau/index.html  Belliveau, G. (2008b). [Drama education students' journals]. Unpublished raw data.  Belliveau, G., Shira, A., Lea, G. W., Wager, A., Prasertsintanah, L., & White, V. (2008). [Exploring an elementary class's journey with A midsummer night's dream]. Unpublished raw data.  Bickel, B. (2008). Unveiling a sacred aesthetic: A/r/tography as ritual. In S. Springgay, R. L. Irwin, C. Leggo & P. Gouzouasis (Eds.), Being with A/r/tography (pp. 81-94). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.  Brown, R. (2005). Moisés Kaufman: The copulation of form and content. Theatre Topics, 15(1), September 30, 2009. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theatre_topics/v015/15.1brown.html  Butt, D. (2001). Introduction. The harps of God (pp. ix-xi). Toronto, ON: Playwrights Canada Press.  Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia. (2009). The drawer boy. Retrieved December 12, 2009, 2009, from http://www.canadiantheatre.com/dict.pl?term=The%20Drawer%20Boy  Carter, R. (2008). A midsummer night's dream. Lincon, NE: iUniverse.  Centering the Human Subject. (2006). [Coding summary report]. Unpublished raw data.  103  Colantonio, A., Kontos, P. C., Gilbert, J. E., Rossiter, K., Gray, J., & Keightley, M. L. (2008). After the crash: Research-based theatre for knowledge transfer. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 28(3), 180-185.  Cox, S. M., & Belliveau, G. (2009). Arts-based methods in health research: Exploratory workshop. Unpublished manuscript.  Cox, S. M., Kazubowski-Houston, M., & Nisker, J. (2009). Genetics on stage: Public engagement in health policy development on preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Social Science & Medicine, 68(8), 1472-1480.  de Giere, C. (2008). Defying gravity: The creative career of Stephen Schwartz from Godspell to Wicked. Milwaukee, WI: Applause Theatre & Cinema Books.  Denzin, N. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.  Donmoyer, R., & Donmoyer, J. Y. (2008). Readers' theater as a data display strategy. In J. G. Knowles, & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 209-224). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.  Finley, M. (2000). Street rat. Detroit, MI: Greenroom Press, University of Detroit Mercy.  Finley, S., & Finley, M. (1999). Sp‟ange: A research story. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(3), 313-337.  Foster, N. (1997). Here on the flight path. Toronto, ON: Playwrights Union of Canada.  104  Gallagher, K. (2007). Theatre pedagogy and performed research: Respectful forgeries and faithful betrayals. Theatre Research in Canada, 28(2), 105-119.  Gay, J. (1974). The Persian, the sun and the cloud. In V. A. Dearing, & C. E. Beckwith (Eds.), John Gay: Poetry and prose (pp. 339-340). Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Goldstein, T. (2001). Hong Kong, Canada: Playwriting as critical ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(3), 279-303.  Goldstein, T. (2002). Performed ethnography for representing other people's children in critical educational research. Applied Theatre Researcher, 3.  Goldstein, T. (2008). Multiple commitments and ethical dilemmas in performed ethnography. Educational Insights, 12(2), February 20, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.ccfi.educ.ubc.ca/publication/insights/v12n02/articles/goldstein/  Gray, R. E. (2000). Graduate school never prepared me for this: Reflections on the challenges of research-based theatre. Reflective Practice, 1(3), 377-390.  Gray, R. E. (2003). Performing on and off the stage: The place(s) of performance in arts-based approaches to qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(2), 254-267.  Gray, R. E., Fitch, M. I., LaBrecque, M., & Greenberg, M. (2003). Reactions of health professionals to a research-based theatre production. Journal of Cancer Education, 18(4), 223-229.  105  Gray, R. E., Fitch, M., Phillips, C., Labrecque, M., & Fergus, K. (2000). Managing the impact of illness: The experiences of men with prostate cancer and their spouses. Journal of Health Psychology, 5(4), 531-548.  Gray, R. E., Ivonoffski, V., & Sinding, C. (2002). Making a mess and spreading it around: Articulation of an approach to research-based theatre. In A. P. Bochner, & C. Ellis (Eds.), Ethnographically speaking: Autoethnography, literature, and aesthetics (pp. 57-75). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.  Gray, R. E., Sinding, C., Ivonoffski, V., Fitch, M., Hampson, A., & Greenberg, M. (2000). The use of research-based theatre in a project related to metastatic breast cancer. Health Expectations, 3, 137-144.  Hare, D. (1976). Author's preface. In D. Hare (Ed.), Fanshen (pp. 7-10). London: Faber and Faber.  Hasebe-Ludt, E., Chambers, C., Oberg, A., & Leggo, C. (2008). Embracing the world, with all our relations: Métissage as an artful braiding. In S. Springgay, R. L. Irwin, C. Leggo & P. Gouzouasis (Eds.), Being with A/r/tography (pp. 57-68). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.  Healey, M. (1999). The drawer boy. Toronto, ON: Playwrights Canada Press.  Henry, M. (2000). Drama‟s ways of learning. Research in Drama Education, 5, 45-63.  Holland, P. (1994). Introduction. In P. Holland (Ed.), A midsummer night's dream (pp. 1-117). Oxford: Oxford University Press.  106  Hugo, V. (1967). Les misérables. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion.  Irwin, R. L. (2004). A/r/tography: A metonymic métissage. In R. L. Irwin, & A. de Cosson (Eds.), a/r/tography: Rendering self through arts-based living inquiry (pp. 27-38). Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press.  Irwin, R. L. (2008). Communities of A/r/tographic practice. In S. Springgay, R. L. Irwin, C. Leggo & P. Gouzouasis (Eds.), Being with A/r/tography (pp. 71-80). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.  Irwin, R. L., & Springgay, S. (2008). A/r/tography as practice-based research. In S. Springgay, R. L. Irwin, C. Leggo & P. Gouzouasis (Eds.), Being with A/r/tography (pp. xix-xxxiii). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.  Jackson, A. (2005). The dialogic and the aesthetic: Some reflections on theatre as a learning medium. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 39(4), 104-118.  Jansen, A. (1991). Airborne: Radio plays by women: Anthology of plays originally broadcast on CBC's Morningside program. Winnipeg, MB: Blizzard Publishing.  Johns, T. (1976). Introduction. The farm show (pp. n.p.). Toronto, ON: The Coach House Press.  Kaufman, M. (2001). The Laramie project. New York: Vintage Books.  Kerry-Moran, K. J. (2008). Between scholarship and art: Dramaturgy and quality in arts related research. In J. G. Knowles, & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative 107  research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 493-502). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.  Knowles, J. G., & Cole, A. L. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.  Kontos, P. C., & Naglie, G. (2007). Expressions of personhood in Alzheimer's disease: An evaluation of research-based theatre as a pedagogical tool. Qualitative Health Research, 17(6), 799-811.  Lafrenière, D. (2009). [Centering the human subject development session observer notes]. Unpublished raw data.  Lea, G. W. (1999). The genesis of Hamlet. Unpublished manuscript.  Lea, G. W. (2009a). [Centering the human subject development session itinerary]. Unpublished raw data.  Lea, G. W. (2009b). [Centering the human subject development session observations]. Unpublished raw data.  Lea, G. W. (2009c). [Drama as an additional language research log]. Unpublished raw data.  Lea, G. W., Beck, J., Belliveau, G., Carter, M., Deschambault, R., Henderson, J., et al. (2009). Centering the human subject: A short play in four related themes. Unpublished manuscript.  MacKenzie, D. (2009). Naming the shadows. Unpublished manuscript.  108  Mienczakowski, J. (2001). Ethnodrama: Performed research – limitations and potential. In P. Atkinson, A. J. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland & L. H. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (SAGE Publications ed., pp. 468-476) Thousand Oaks, CA.  Mienczakowski, J., & Moore, T. (2008). Performing data with notions of responsibility. In J. G. Knowles, & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 451-458). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.  Mienczakowski, J., & Morgan, S. (2001). Ethnodrama: Constructing participatory experiential and compelling action research through performance. In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 219-227). London: SAGE Publications.  Mitchell, G. J., Jonas-Simpson, C., & Ivonoffski, V. (2006). Research-based theatre: The making of I'm Still Here . Nursing Science Quarterly, 19(3), 198-206.  Nisker, J., Martin, D. K., Bluhm, R., & Daar, A. S. (2006). Theatre as a public engagement tool for health-policy development. Health Policy, 78(2-3), 258-271.  Norris, J. (2000). Drama as research: Realizing the potential of drama in education as a research methodology. Youth Theatre Journal, 14, 40-51.  Norris, J. (2002). The use of drama in teacher education: A call for embodied learning. In B. Warren (Ed.), Creating a theatre in your classroom and community (2nd ed., pp. 299-330). North York, ON: Captus Press.  109  Palys, T., & Atchison, C. (2008). Research decisions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives (4th ed.). Toronto, ON: Nelson Education.  Perth County Conspiracy. (1970). Truth and fantasy. On Does not exist [CD]. Columbia.  Ritchie, R. (Ed.). (1987). The joint stock book: The making of a theatre collective. London: Methune.  Rossiter, K., Gray, J., Kontos, P. C., Keightley, M., Colantonio, A., & Gilbert, J. (2008). From page to stage: Dramaturgy and the art of interdisciplinary translation. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(2), 277-286.  Rossiter, K., Kontos, P. C., Colantonio, A., Gilbert, J., Gray, J., & Keightley, M. (2008). Staging data: Theatre as a tool for analysis and knowledge transfer in health research. Social Science & Medicine, 66(1), 130-146.  Saldaña, J. (1998a). "Maybe someday, if I‟m famous …": An ethnographic performance text. In J. Saxton, & C. Miller (Eds.), The research of practice, the practice of research (pp. 89-109). Victoria, BC: IDEA Publications.  Saldaña, J. (1998b). Ethical issues in an ethnographic performance text: The 'dramatic impact' of 'juicy stuff'. Research in Drama Education, 3(2), 181-196.  Saldaña, J. (1999). Playwriting with data: Ethnographic performance texts. Youth Theatre Journal, 13, 60-71.  110  Saldaña, J. (2002). Finding my place: The Brad trilogy. In H. F. Wolcott (Ed.), Sneaky kid and its aftermath: Ethics and intimacy in fieldwork (pp. 167-210). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.  Saldaña, J. (2003). Dramatizing data: A primer. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(2), 218-236.  Saldaña, J. (Ed.). (2005). Ethnodrama: An anthology of reality theatre. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.  Saldaña, J. (2008a). Ethnodrama and ethnotheatre. In J. G. Knowles, & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 195-207). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.  Saldaña, J. (2008b). Second chair: An autoethnodrama. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(2), 177-191.  Saldaña, J., Finley, S., & Finley, M. (2005). Street rat. In J. Saldaña (Ed.), Ethnodrama: An anthology of reality theatre (pp. 142-179). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.  Scholte, T. (2009). MK Woyzeck. Unpublished manuscript.  Schonmann, S. (2001). Beyond readers theatre: A perspective on research in aesthetic inquiry. Arts and Learning Research Journal, 17(1), 132-154.  Scott, R. (1999). Powerhouse. On Reckless nights and Turkish twilight: The music of Raymond Scott [CD]. New York: Columbia.  111  Shakespeare, W. (1994). A midsummer night's dream. In P. Holland (Ed.), A midsummer night's dream (pp. 127-256). Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Sinding, C., Gray, R. E., Grassau, P., Damianakis, F., & Hampson, A. (2006). Audience responses to a research-based drama about life after breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 15(1), 694-700.  Sinding, C., Gray, R. E., & Nisker, J. (2008). Ethical issues and issues of ethics. In J. G. Knowles, & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples and issues (pp. 459-467). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.  Springgay, S., Irwin, R. L., & Kind, S. (2008). A/r/tographers and living inquiry. In J. G. Knowles, & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 83-91). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.  Springgay, S., Irwin, R. L., & Kind, S. W. (2005). A/r/tography as living inquiry through art and text. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(6), 897-912.  Stetson, K. (2001). The harps of God. Toronto, ON: Playwrights Canada Press.  Stetson, K. (2004). Horse high, bull strong, pig tight: A play for one actor in two acts. In B. Barton (Ed.), Marigraph: Gauging the tides of drama from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island (pp. 395-423). Toronto, ON: Playwrights Canada Press.  Theatre Passe Muraille. (1976). The farm show. Toronto, ON: The Coach House Press.  Thompson, P. (1976). Introduction. The farm show (pp. n.p.). Toronto: The Coach House Press.  112  Wager, A., Belliveau, G., Beck, J., & Lea, G. W. (in press). Exploring Drama as an Additional Language through research-based theatre. Scenario: Journal for Drama and Theatre in Foreign and Second Language Education,  Walker, R., Pick, C., & MacDonald, B. (1991). 'Other rooms: Other voices' - A dramatized report. In I. F. Goodson, & R. Walker (Eds.), Biography, identity and schooling: Episodes in educational research (pp. 80-93). London: Falmer Press.  Winston, J. (2006). Researching through case study. In J. Ackroyd (Ed.), Research methodologies for drama education (pp. 41-61). Stirling, VA: Trentham Books.  Winters, K., Belliveau, G., & Sherritt-Fleming, L. (2009). Shifting identities, literacy, and A/r/tography: Exploring an educational theatre company. Language & Literacy, 11(1) Retrieved from http://www.langandlit.ualberta.ca/Spring2009/Winters.htm  Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.  Wolcott, H. F. (2002). Sneaky kid and its aftermath: Ethics and intimacy in fieldwork. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.    113  Appendix A: Ethics Certificate    114  Appendix B: Project Timeline Date Project Goal January 22, 2009 Initial meeting for Drama as an Additional Language March 5, 2009 Drama as an Additional Language presented for the department of Language and Literacy Education at UBC.  Vancouver, BC. March 7, 2009 Drama as an Additional Language presented as part of the International Association for Performing Language conference.  Victoria, BC. March 26, 2009 Initial meeting for CtHS March 27, 2009 Theatrical exploration session #1 for CtHS April 2, 2009 Preliminary planning begins for Naming the Shadows April 6, 2009 Drama as an Additional Language presented for CUST 570 at UBC.  Vancouver, BC. April 9, 2009 Theatrical exploration session #2 for CtHS April 10, 2009 Scriptwriting for CtHS begins May 1, 2009 First draft of CtHS complete May 10, 2009 Script for Naming the Shadows complete May 14, 2009 CtHS table read of first draft May 23, 2009 Present Naming the Shadows at the Canadian Society for the Study of Education conference.  Ottawa, ON. May 24, 2009 Present Naming the Shadows at the Canadian Association for Theatre Research conference.  Ottawa, ON. July 19, 2009 Present Naming the Shadows at the International Drama in Education Research Institute conference.  Sydney, Australia. October 9, 2009 First scene from CtHS presented November 10 – 19, 2009 Rehearsals for CtHS November 19, 2009 Present CtHS for participants in study November 20, 2009 Present CtHS at Peter Wall Institute November 26, 2009 Present CtHS at LLED theatre evening   115  Appendix C: Poem Used to Introduce Drama as an Additional Language Together we are becoming an a/r/tographic community of inquirers.  What you will see here today our research, our art, our teaching, comes not from us as individuals but emerges from the spaces between us.   The work of each individual reverberates and we create something more than ourselves.  In creating and investigating, we become contiguous: a community working together and apart, with varied skills and talents, with unique lived experiences we gaze at the same data.    Together we push beyond, beyond our comfort, we extend our gaze, we look toward excess  This is not a heroic journey.  There are barriers on the way: In the project                         In our research                                     In ourselves. We push beyond to understanding.  Today we will become metaphors. Today you too may become a metaphor.    We invite you to join our community of theatrical inquiry; we invite you to explore Drama as an Additional Language.   116  Appendix D: Drama as an Additional Language Moment Flowchart  117     118      119  Appendix E: Centering the Human Subject Script Centering the Human Subject A Short Play in Four Related Themes  (General Setting: Three areas SR, SL, CS.  SR and SL areas each feature a desk and 2 chairs.  CS features a medical cart and two chairs.  If possible, chairs should be wheeled (raked stage?). There should be a projection screen USC on which each theme can be projected using a white font on a black background.  Lighting: Each area should be lit independently so that each can be isolated.  Costumes: All actors in black.  Note: Blank spaces indicate where ACTORS should use their own names as in Godspell. Note: all props, projector, computer, lighting, sound effects, etc.  Should be visible to the audience)  I - Commencement (Preshow: Actors enter approx 5 minutes preshow, placing props, setting up the projector and screen etc.  This should be done so that the audience is comfortable to continue conversation while actors prepare.  When all is set, actors encircle the audience)  ACTORS (Each line spoken by a different person) Four actors (projection “4”) Sharing a script written by one (projection “1”) playwright Developed by ten (projection “10” replaces the “6” which crosses into the centre) researcher / actors  POETRY READERS Two (projection “2”) readers Reading nine (projection “9”) of thirty-nine (projection “39”) poems Written by thirty-six (projection “36”) poets  VISUAL ARTIST One (projection “1”) visual artist displaying four (projection “4”) pieces  MUSICIANS Two (projection “2”) singers One (projection “1”) pianist And one (projection “1”) dancer Performing two (projection “2”) songs  ACTORS Based on interviews taken by two (projection “2”) interviewers. Who listened to, and recorded, the experiences of forty-one (projection “41”)  120  All distilled into four (projection “4”) themes  We invite you into a conversation among  (Projection fades out.  Slow fade up on stage lx.  With each line actors go on stage, stand in front of their chair around periphery of the stage.  As each actor goes on stage they turn off their flashlight)  ALL (overlapping and repeating until all actors are onstage) The participants The researchers The actors The poets The readers The visual artist The musicians The playwright The production team The dancer The composers The musicians  ACTORS Not to represent (projection “represent” cross out animation) To present (pronounced as a gift.  Projection changed to present)   To present for you To reflect with you To converse with you  (actors sit.  Projection “Centering the Human Subject”) To Center the Human Subject    121  II - TRUST (Projection: “TRUST” SFX: Hospital sounds. As each actor speaks their first line, they enter and form a line DS.  NOTE: ACTOR 4 should be in the centre of the line.)  ACTOR 1 They were just nurses administering the stuff.  ACTOR 2 I never saw a doctor, or any of the investigators.  ACTOR 3 They didn‟t have answers to any of my questions.  ACTOR 4 They couldn‟t share results with me.  ALL My trust in them was much lower.  ACTOR 1 It took two-hours to get there.  ACTOR 2 It was getting in the way of work.  ACTOR 3 It was getting awkward to explain.   ACTOR 4 The ONLY thing that kept me coming back was that literally …   ALL There was no other alternative.  (ACTOR 4 sits)  ACTOR 1 I was quite suspicious –  ACTOR 2 of what they were doing –  ACTOR 3 of what I was on –   122  ACTOR 4 of what they might KNOW.  ALL It was not a climate of trust.    (ACTORS 1-3 put on masks and surround ACTOR 4 facing outward.  ACTORS 1-3 rotate around ACTOR 4, stopping for each line, and speak in a very monotone voice.)  ACTOR 1 Congratulations, you‟re eligible.  We would like to invite you to participate in randomized control trial number 34624.  Will you participate?  ACTOR 4 Number what?  How‟s this gonna help me?  Who else might it help?  ACTOR 2 You have been deemed eligible to participate in randomized control trial number 34624.  Will you participate?  ACTOR 4 Is it going to be dangerous?  What might happen to me?    ACTOR 3 Our computer simulations have deemed you eligible to participate in randomized control trial number 34624.  Will you participate?  ACTOR 4 No!  ACTOR 1 (Taking off mask, places it on lap or between ACTOR 1 and 4, sits beside ACTOR 4; ACTORS 1 and 2 exit)  Hello, my name is Dr. _____, thanks for coming in today.  Your participation in this study is completely voluntary but means that you may have the opportunity to try new and potentially more effective treatments.  But, we don‟t know all of the benefits and side effects – or if you would in fact receive the medication or a placebo.  (ACTOR 4 reacts)  I realize this is a big decision, and taking part carries potential personal risk.  (ACTOR 4 reacts audibly)  I want you to know that if problems occur, we will reassess your participation in the study and provide you with the best care possible.  But, if you are responding well to the medication, you will be able to continue it beyond the trial.  Do you think you may be interested in participating?  ACTOR 4 I . . . uh . . . I think so.  ACTOR 1 123  Well, if you are sure, I have to have you sign a consent form.  (Hands a pile of paper to ACTOR 4.  ACTOR 4 skims quickly through the paperwork, signs on the line.)  ACTOR 4 Thank-you.    ACTOR 1 Great.  Now, I need to collect some information from you, if that is okay.  ACTOR 4 Umm . . . sure  ACTOR 1 Okay, question one . . . (Lighting change)   ACTOR 4 (aside)  I don‟t really know how much I am comfortable telling him.  Where is all this information going to go?  Who will have access to it?  Is it safe?  I don‟t really even know this guy – I just don‟t know if I can tell him that.  (To ACTOR 1)  You know, that is a tough question.  ACTOR 1 Please don‟t worry.  Everything you say here is completely confidential.  We will assign you a random number and all of your information will be aggregated on the computer.  (Gives mask to ACTOR 4)  There are all kinds of protections in place to ensure that you cannot be identified.    ACTOR 4 (takes the mask and puts it on.). I cannot be identified?  ACTOR 1 I know this is difficult but we need your help.  (If LX, fade CS, bring up DSR)  ACTOR 4 (takes a bottle of pills out of pocket)  These pills they gave me, I think they‟re making me sick!  I should just flush „em right now . . . things taste like rat poison.  I could flush „em and just tell them I‟ve taken „em all.  (PAUSE)  But, maybe they‟re helping; and you know I‟m in this study; maybe I‟m helping other people too.  (Takes a pill)   ACTOR 2 (ACTOR 2 and 3 enter SL)  Oh, it‟s VERY important to be able to –  ACTOR 2 and 3 trust –   124  ACTOR 1 the person that‟s told you certain things –   ACTOR 4 and expecting things of you.  ACTOR 1 and 4 You need to be able to –  ACTOR 2 and 3 trust –   ACTOR 4  that they are who they say they are –  ACTOR 1 that they‟re gonna do what they say they‟re gonna do.  ACTOR 2  (ACTOR 1 turns to ACTOR 4) You need to trust them.  ACTOR 3 (ACTOR 4 turns to ACTOR 1) And they need to trust you.    125  III - PRACTICAL COSTS  (Projection: “Practical Costs” At Rise: Chair CS, Medical dolly with syringes, blood pressure cuffs, papers, knee knocker, eye drops, drug bottles, etc.  Most of these items may be mimed.)  ACTOR 3 (Offstage)  The doctor will be with you shortly.  (ACTOR 1enters and sits on chair.  Looks around, at watch, etc.    SFX: sound of ticking clock creeps in)  ACTOR 1 What is taking so long?  If I keep showing up late for work like this, people will start to wonder.  I can‟t take another sick day . . .  (Ticking clock continues)  Much longer I‟ll have to put more money in the meter.  This is getting expensive.  (Ticking clock continues, fades into B section of Powerhouse at 1:12.  Lines in the following section denote units in the B section of Powerhouse.   Through this section dialogue should be improvised and actions may be mimed but timing is essential.)  ACTOR 2 (Enters SR) Thanks for coming in.  Sorry to be so long.  The doctor got tied up – there was nothing we could do.  Someone will be with you shortly.  (Exits SL)  ACTOR 3 (Enters SR as ACTOR 2 exits) Hello, I need to test your reflexes.  Just let me tap here on each knee.  Great looks fine, the nurse will be right in. (Exits SL)  ACTOR 4 (Enters SR as ACTOR 3 exits) Oh, looks like we need a blood pressure reading, if I could just get your arm.  (Places blood pressure cuff around the arm of ACTOR 1)  ACTOR 2 (Enters SL) Nice to see you again.  Looks like we need some blood.  (ACTOR 2 ties tourniquet around the free arm of ACTOR 1, taking blood)  Great job we have all we need in this vial . . . just 2 more.   126    ACTOR 3 (Enters SL) Okay, I need to put some of these drops in your eyes (ACTOR 3 gets eye drop bottle and places drops in the eyes of ACTOR 1.  ACTOR 2-4 continue to fuss around ACTOR 1, looking in ears etc.  One of the actors places a “toilet hat” on the lap of ACTOR 1.  NOTE: someone should at the end look in ACTOR 1’s eyes)  ACTOR 1 Wow, that‟s bright!    ACTOR 2 Thank-you very much for your time.  ACTOR 4 This is important work that you are helping us with.  (ACTORS 2-4 exit leaving ACTOR 1 alone again.)  ACTOR 1  (Referring to the “toilet hat”)  What I am supposed to do with this?  ACTOR 4 (re-entering or being caught exiting) Oh that, it‟s for measuring your liquid outflow.  You need to use it each time you go.  (Exits)  ACTOR 1 Damn thing looks like a hat.  What am I supposed to do with this at work?  (SFX: clock ticking.  ACTOR 1 gets up, looks around; walks around chair.  After a few dead seconds, ACTOR 2 re-enters, pleasant, taking off the medical paraphernalia)  ACTOR 2 (SFX: fade out)  ____Sorry about the last time you were in; things were a bit hectic around here.  I am glad that you are willing to participate in this study.  I just have a few consent forms for you to sign.  (ACTOR 2 starts handing papers to ACTOR 1).  And here are the study protocols.  And here is what you are asked not to eat.  Now, here is the first dose of the medication you will be taking during this study.  These two drugs you can get at your regular pharmacy.  (Hands some more pills)  These you will have to get at the research office upstairs.  I realise that you are busy and need to get back to work; so, unless you have any questions . . .   ACTOR 1 Uh, no, thank you.     127  ACTOR 2 Great, I look forward to seeing you again ____.  (Exits taking medical trolley)  ACTOR 1 (Stands x DSR tries to open the pill bottle)  I know these have to be childproof, but do they have to be adult proof too?  (Opens the pill bottle takes pill)    Oh, god, this stuff tastes like rat poison.  (lies down on desk)  Oh, I must be in one of the treatment arms, placebos won‟t make you this sick?  And I am going to need to go in every month.  This will start controlling my life.  But you know, this is better for everyone and it may be better for me.  So, I guess I‟ll grin and bear it.  (Groans)  (Clock tick resumes)  ACTOR 2 (Enters with medical dolly)  Hello again, _____, nice to see you.  How have you been over the last few months?  ACTOR 1 It‟s been rough.  I think I must be in one of the treatment arms.  The medication is making me sick and I have had breakthrough bleeding for the past seven months.  ACTOR 2 Oh that is fine, it‟s normal, and as long as you have a healthy diet, you should be FINE.  ACTOR 1 Well, you know I am a vegetarian?  ACTOR 2 You‟re a VEGETARIAN?  Oh my goodness, well this is . . . well I didn‟t realize!!  Look, you will need to go on some iron supplements.  I am a vegetarian too, I‟m so sorry, I just . . . I just didn‟t ask.  We will take some blood here just in case instead of having to go down the hall.  I‟m sure things should be fine; but you need to take these supplements.  ACTOR 1 Okay so, I will take the supplements and see you next month.  ACTOR 2 Yes, and _____, please don‟t hesitate to call if you have any concerns.  ACTOR 1 (As if closing a door)  Thanks I will.  (ACTOR 1 exits – time passes – SFX: clock ticking.  ACTOR 2 looking through notes.  ACTOR 1 enters, sits)  128  ACTOR 2 _____, I am so glad that you could come in on such short notice.  ACTOR 1 That‟s fine . . . is there . . . uhh . . . is anything wrong?  ACTOR 2 (moves chair beside ACTOR 1)  , I have had a chance to look at your most recent blood work.  It appears as if you may be developing one of the potential side-effects.    ACTOR 1 Uh. . .  I mean . . . well, what does this mean?  ACTOR 2 I don‟t think it will mean anything.  We have been monitoring things closely and think we have caught the development early.  Don‟t worry, we will discontinue you from the study but will continue to watch for any adverse reactions.    ACTOR 1 I . . . uh . . . wow . . . what should I do . . . ?  (fade to Black, strike medical dolly)   129  IV - RELATIONSHIPS  (Projection: “Relationships” Setting:  SR: researcher office.  A table is set with papers all over the place.  Disorder.   SL: researcher office.  A table is neatly set and organized.  Order. SR: ACTOR 3, Research Assistant, sits behind the desk sorting through papers.  ACTOR 4 enters SL: ACTOR 1, Research Assistant, sits behind the desk.  ACTOR 2 enters  For the most part, the action SL acts as a foil to that on SR.  ALTERNATIVE STAGING:  ACTOR 3 and ACTOR 4 could be a pre-record while the actions of ACTOR 1 and ACTOR 2 could be physicalized - juxtaposition)    SR SL ACTOR 3 Oh, _____,   ACTOR 4 Hi  ACTOR 3 Come on in, take a seat.  Make yourself comfortable.  Just let me find the paperwork here.  (Shuffles through paperwork to find correct forms) Ah here we go.  (taking chair around to sit beside ACTOR 4)  I have a consent form here for you to fill out.  Now, it is a standard consent form but I realise that it can be a bit intimidating if you are not used to them so I‟ll help you go through it.  Please stop me if you have any questions.  I‟ll answer what I can, and find answers for what I can‟t.  ACTOR 4 Oh, thanks.  But I don‟t have to sign do I?  ACTOR 3 No.  Not at all.  You fit the criteria for the study so naturally, we would appreciate your participation, but if you choose not to be part of the study that is fine too.  ACTOR 4 Great.  Well, let‟s have a look at this thing then.                                130    ACTOR 3 The study is a cooperative between the University . . . (Fade as the two continue to read through the consent forms.  ACTOR 4 exits.  ACTOR 3 returns chair behind desk)      ACTOR 3 (Picks up phone) Hello ____.  Yes.  How has your day been?  Oh, good.  You aren‟t feeling weak from the blood work?  Excellent.  Look, about that . . . do you have your blood with you?  Oh, oh dear . . . hmm . . . Well, where did it GO?  I can‟t find it.  Oh, okay, I will look there and go back and check the lab again.  I will call you if there are any problems.  Have a good weekend.  (hangs up phone)       ACTOR 3 _____, come on in, take a seat.  First, I must apologize.  Sorry for calling you about your blood work.    ACTOR 4 That‟s okay.  It was kind of funny actually.  ACTOR 3 I did find the blood and get it to the lab.  The results are back.  Unfortunately, I have some bad news.  It appears as if you may be developing one of the potential side-effects of the medication.    ACTOR 4 Uh. . .  I mean . . . well, what does this mean?           (ACTOR 2 enters and ACTOR 1 pushes a consent form to ACTOR 2 across the table.  ACTOR 2 signs the consent form an exits.  ACTOR 1 exits)             (ACTOR 2 enters, sits.  Looks at watch.  Waits.  Waits.  ACTOR 1 enters indicates more time and exits.  ACTOR 2 Waits.  Waits.  ACTOR 1 finally enters and sits.)          (ACTOR 1 pulls chair up beside ACTOR 2)        131   ACTOR 3 We have been monitoring things closely and think we have caught the development early.  We will discontinue you from the study and will continue to monitor you for any adverse reactions.    ACTOR 4 Will I be okay?  ACTOR 3 Oh, I am sure everything is going to be fine.  Aside from continuing to follow up, is there anything else we can do for you?  ACTOR 4 Well, actually, could I get a copy of the report after you have finished with it?  ACTOR 3 Oh, sure (Making a note) We will send you a copy.  (Places note among others on the desk)    ACTOR 4 Thanks.   ACTOR 3 Thank-you for coming, we really appreciate your time.  ACTOR 4 Thank-you.          (ACTOR 2 looks in disbelief and starts to cry.  Pause.  ACTOR 1 rolls chair beside ACTOR 2 and hands tissue.  They cry together.)           (ACTOR 1 hands ACTOR 2 a copy of the report)     ACTOR 1 Thank-you for coming, we really appreciate your time.  ACTOR 2 Thank-you.    132  V - REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING  (Projection: “Reasons for Participating” Setting: ACTOR 1 and 2 sitting in a doctor’s office CS)  ACTOR 2 (LX fades up in conversation)  Unfortunately, the best treatment at this time is to take this, and this, and 4 of these three times a day, then this and this at bedtime.  This one when you wake up, . . . (Continues piling medication up on ACTOR 1 who is becoming more and more laden.  If there is time / budget, large exaggerated Papier-mâché pills of different colours reminiscent of the pills from Dr. Mario.  If ACTOR 1 can juggle, he/she should juggle the medication.  ACTOR 2 exits leaving ACTOR 1 alone with the pile of medication)  ACTOR 3 (Enters SR) You know, I‟m gonna be dead in a couple of years MAX.  What‟s it going to hurt?  Somebody‟s gotta do it and I might just help myself; I‟ll definitely be helping lots of others, helping understanding.  All that talk of possible side-effects – what does it matter?  Only two years, there‟s no treatment.  It‟s either this or “You‟re gonna get sick „n die quicker.”  I mean, what can I say except yes.  If it is killing me faster I‟m sure they‟ll take me off.  And maybe I‟ll get some more time.  I mean why anybody WOULDN‟T say yes under these circumstances.    ACTOR 4 (Enters CS researcher)  Hello, I may be able to help you with those.  I am studying a new treatment that will drastically reduce the number of medications you will have to take.    ACTOR 1 Oh, please, all these horse pills are getting hard to handle.  ACTOR 4 Here, throw some of those over here.  (If capable, ACTOR 1 and ACTOR 4 co-juggle the pills)  ACTOR 2 (Enters SL) Oh, this is clearly an ego piece.  I mean, I get to talk about my favourite subject: ME.  I mean I have an interest in doing it but I‟m not gonna spend a thousand bucks on it.  And as part of the follow-up study I get a low-density CT scan.  You know I‟m an ex-smoker and if this helps find cancer earlier than a regular x-ray . . . well, I hope I don‟t GET lung cancer, but if I DO, I‟d like to know about it in time to intervene.  Well, that is enough payoff for me.  If it has an incidental benefit of y‟know helping other ex-smokers, great but it‟s ME.  This one‟s me.  A tiny bit of altruism, and a big hunk of selfishness.   (ACTOR 4 keeps dropping pills until only one or two are left, at which point ACTOR 1 starts juggling the pills alone)   133   ACTOR 3 My mother had breast cancer when I was seventeen.  We were told this is IT; BUT . . .    ACTOR 4 “we have this DRUG, and we‟re doing a double-blind study, and we don‟t know whether you‟re gonna get it or NOT, but are you willing to TRY this?”   ACTOR 3 And my mother said “YES, I‟ll DO it.”  And she‟s with us today.  Not to say that, you know, the drug was what DID IT, but it could have.     ACTOR 1 (Stops juggling.  With each line the ACTORS form a line across the stage) I didn‟t expect to learn anything.  ACTOR 3 I don‟t expect to find anything important from you.  ACTOR 4 I don‟t know what kind of final report you can give, anyway.  ACTOR 2 I hope that you researchers learn something.    ALL I just hope that it will help.  (Fade to black)  134  VI - Re-Commencement  ALL (actors repeat the four themes as they move off stage to re-encircle the audience, stool is placed CS) Trust Costs Reasons for Participating Relationships  (Each ARTIST says one of the following lines) Human Subjects four themes.  Explored through art     shared with you.  To understand  To reflect   together  To see differently To feel To know    To re-center  ALL (Projection “Centering the Human Subject”) The Human Subject.   135  Appendix F: Truth and Fantasy Truth and fantasy Truth and fantasy Truth and fantasy live together.  Truth and fantasy Truth and fantasy Truth and fantasy live forever.  Truth and fantasy live together in a never again to be The same way place Waiting for the light to dawn, Passing through the dreams we sleep upon.  “Why don‟t you look” said the truth. “Can‟t” said fantasy. “Hope” they cry together. Hoping they would ever and a day Be passing through the universe of play.  “I cannot stay this journey,” Stated fantasy at last, “I will not be brought down thus forsaken. Release me from your aura and awaken To the heartening of ways.”  “I hold not the power,” Said the truth in perfect grace, “For you could not exist without my essence Yet I only live forever through your presence  In the universe of play.”  . . .   Would that you could be drifting on the leeside Sailing on the seaside of the moon.  Floating in a seashell You can watch the seas swell And fall broken to the sand.  The sun is rusting away in the western sky Reminding me of why I fear the tomb.   136  The goddess Fantasia Bore a child of whimsy Playing on a flimsy bed of leaves.  The goddess Fantasia Bore a child of whimsy Playing on a flimsy bed of leaves.  Truth and fantasy live forever in a never again to be The same way place Waiting for the light to dawn, Passing through the dreams we sleep upon.  “Why don‟t you listen” said the truth. “Sing” said fantasy. Love they sang together  Knowing they would ever and a day Be passing through the universe of play.  Truth and fantasy Truth and fantasy Oh truth and fantasy live together.  (Perth County Conspiracy, 1970, track 4)   Transcription by: Graham W. Lea    

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 26 5
Canada 20 12
Germany 8 13
China 7 19
Unknown 4 0
Ghana 3 0
Republic of Lithuania 2 0
Iran 2 1
Taiwan 2 0
France 2 1
Australia 2 0
Romania 1 0
South Africa 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 38 35
San Francisco 9 0
Ashburn 6 0
Shenzhen 5 19
Vancouver 5 0
Richmond 3 0
Brisbane 2 0
Phoenix 2 0
Central District 1 0
Nchelenge 1 0
Chennai 1 0
Guangzhou 1 0
Wheeling 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0071129/manifest

Comment

Related Items