b) La Conferencia Ministerial de Seattle

Observation enabled monitoring and recording of ‘why’ and ‘how’ directorial interventions evolved in authentic working contexts. Fieldwork observation is recognised as a significant strategy with which ‘to gather live data from naturally occurring social situations’ (Cohen, et al, 2007: 396). The style of observation could have taken different forms: participant, non-participant, structured or unstructured. Whichever style chosen, the presence of the observer needed sensitive handling. The impact of the ‘observation effect’ had been previously considered and decisions taken in the design (Denscombe, 1998). All forms of observation can be beneficial, when selected for an appropriate context and linked to research aims (Bell, 2005: 185). As Cohen and Manion (1989) argue ‘Whatever the problem or the approach, at the heart of every case study lies a method of observation’ (1989: 125). However, the gathering of data within community contexts by observation and interview can be susceptible to subjective judgement and personal interpretation (Bell, 2005: 48). Agreement, with regard to

procedure, would be required. There would need to be understanding of the two positions; researcher and artist.

A non-participant approach was selected for practical reasons. Practically, it would be difficult to participate and record actions at the same time and there could be no guarantee that participation would always be convenient, since theatre-making would continue between visits. If the company was devising theatre, then any researcher contributions would disrupt continuity. Participation in such a process would make monitoring, reflection and recording very difficult to achieve; accurate recording was essential. In addition, quite long intervals might exist between the observation days and accurate field notes would be an important reminder of previous visits.

The rationale for the inclusion of three full days of non-participant observation stemmed from the following suppositions:

• Theatre-making can involve unpredictable changes of plan. It seemed prudent to allow for full single days of observation, as opposed to shorter periods of time, in order to glean a sense of the variations within the natural setting of the theatre-making. Shorter periods of observation could be more of an imposition at times when unforeseen matters needed to be addressed.

• Three days of observation within a project would facilitate research of contrasting stages of project development; beginning, middle and end (Brook, 1987: 17). Observations were negotiated with the director and three days offered a unique opportunity to observe development, priority changes and a variety of artistic and social responses.

• The realities and circumstances of the working context and social dynamics tend to make a full day easier for a) the company to

accommodate b) researchers to become less of a disruption and c) the potential to gather data from a comprehensive range of directorial action.

The three full days were calendar-flexible and allowed for adjustment and changing agendas.

A more positive view of observation recognises that it is a way in which researchers can experience the phenomena and gain a genuine sense of location and interaction. The need for clarity in respect of why observation is used and how data is gathered is essential. An observation schedule ensured focus. Bell (2005) recommends that researchers devise new recording approaches appropriate to the context of their research and recognise their existing knowledge of the situation. It was also an aid to achieving procedural consistency and objectivity.

The data was to be subject to analysis within and across the cases, therefore data-gathering needed to be systematic in each distinctive context. The observation schedule was constructed using key headings to maintain focus on directors’ actions, make recording manageable and prevent any temptation to observe everything that was happening. The two inherent difficulties of recording field notes accurately, misinterpretation and personal assumption, combine with the risks of personal interest, particularly ‘when it involves a single researcher observing work in their specialist field’ (Bell, 2005: 185).

The headings that were used are illustrated in Table 3.5

Time Narrative Invitations Interventions Techniques Decisions Form Other Activities

The justification for the selection of the headings was as follows:

Time: To record the time at which an activity begins and ends. It provides an accurate record of the chronology of activities and can prevent memory from distorting the degree of attention given to activities by maintaining a factual, descriptive record of the day (Denscombe, 1998: 211).

Narrative: This tells the ‘story’ of the day’s events. The director’s actions and activities are recorded in chronological order. The written text describes all the director’s interventions, without analysis. It provides a descriptive account for subsequent analysis.

For example:

10.30 Worked in groups to create images of house-

searching.

10.55 Company discussion took place about the context of the images.

11.15 Director asks the actor-teachers to re-run the images, requesting they remain mindful of how children might ‘read’ the characters in the images.

Invitation: A moment facilitated by directors to encourage participant contributions It might involve: expressing personal feelings; exploring themes; creating dialogue; developing new techniques.

For example: A director asks two actor–teachers: “What do you think your roles will offer the children, in terms of their learning and participation? Are there ways in which the children might have more control?”

Interventions: These are moments of critical reflection, mediation of ideas, instruction and clarification. Interventions provide data on how

directors interject and communicate ideas: through advice, theory, guidance or craft. In a sense, ‘invitations’, ‘techniques’, ‘form’ and ‘decisions’ are part of spectrum of ‘intervention’. A specific monitoring of each intervention facilitated an understanding of the structuring of interaction and how ideas are shared and generated.

For example: A director wanted to determine the identity of the six characters within the programme and to examine their relationships and motivation. In order to facilitate a consideration of each character, the director placed six sheets of paper on the floor, each paper represents a character. She positioned them spatially to locate and express relationships. This was followed by a discussion in which information and suggestions were placed on the six sheets by the whole company in discussion.

Techniques: This included established strategies and approaches that instigate, deepen, support, challenge and facilitate and further theatre- making. They enhance the process and, perhaps, focus on the development of new skills and understanding. Their value resides both outside and inside the fictional context.

For example: The director wanted the company to discover the ‘playable actions’ within a particular stimulus and asked them to divide the story into separate episodes and run-through the whole sequence using key episodes. The eventual analysis resulted in a classification of why techniques were used; see p.296.

Form: This category related to the use of theatre form by the director to create an experience for the audience-participants or actors. This recorded how form was used within the fiction. It was assumed that the director’s sense and selection of form permeates all theatre-making, but the recorded examples locate moments when form was introduced for a particular purpose.

For example: A director decided that the audience-participants (children) would be in role as anthropologists exploring a community that once lived at the foot of a giant mountain. Remains and maps have been found depicting where and how the people lived. The director asked the anthropologists to create stories which tell of the famine depicted in the parchment drawings. The story-telling form has been selected in accordance with the age of the children.

Decisions: The recording of decision-making monitored action which promoted settlement, agreement or resolution, including occasions when directors’ preference was imposed.

For example: A director worked on ‘actioning’ the text. The company sat around the table placing titles and headlines on the text to mark key moments. The director made a very explicit decision which changed the energy of the rehearsal by asking the actors to interpret the ‘headlines’ through action.

Other activities: This was an important ‘catch-all’ when actions and events occurred which had not been anticipated. This included additional notes, questions, interruptions and changes of plan. In fact, anything which did not fit into the seven defined headings was recorded here.

For example: The playwright of a Forum Theatre play attended a read- though of her text. After the read-through, the director focused on the need for authentic materials in the production; a tenancy agreement, social worker letters, a statement about squatter’s rights and notification of a Health and Safety inspection. This indicated an important emphasise in director thinking.

The same observation schedule was used in all fifteen days of observation. There were other, equally valid, directorial activities that

might have been allocated a specific heading and there are other sophisticated approaches available for observations of behaviour (Bell, 2005: 189). However, this process and the schedules allowed me to record events without restriction and with the flexibility to observe action at the same time.