Diseño propuesto de almacén (SLP – ABC LAYOUT)

Before discussing the final coding structure, it is important to examine the sensitising concepts that were present from the beginning of analysis. A sensitising concept is an idea “identified from the research, popular, or practice literature that, in the researcher’s mind, seems salient” (Schreiber, 2001, p.59). While these must not be allowed to ‘force’ the data, they can be useful in creating the first set of questions for early participants, and in generating initial codes. As discussed in Chapter 1 and the sample memo in Chapter 3, I began the study with four key assumptions which have impacted on the course of its development:

§ radicalism of practice

§ the centrality of developmental milestones in creating praxis

§ Scottishness as a key identity for participants

As will be outlined below, the interplay between these concepts and the emergence of entirely unexpected codes from the data resulted in new and surprising conceptual hierarchies.

4.5.1 A crisis of legitimation?

Scholars have claimed that children’s theatre is “often insufficiently assertive when it comes to the promotion of its own values and societal benefits beyond the entertainment function” (Klaic, 2012, pp.74–5). As noted in Chapter 1, this has led to artists and critics alike referring to children’s theatre as “the Cinderella sector” (Reekie, 2005, p.38; Brown, 2012, p.x), and it is arguable that TEY is even more marginalised. As one participant stated:

“…the danger is that we in the young people’s performing arts sector get ignored. It’s still seen as not as important, not as necessary, not needing as much in terms of funding, so the work for very young children suffers from that, but even more so.”

Theatre for the youngest audiences has struggled with legitimation since the inception of children’s theatre as a discrete art form. It has been noted that “despite its educational and social potential, performance to and for the very young has frequently been portrayed as frivolous, risky, meaningless, impossible or potentially damaging to the emerging creative minds of infants and toddlers” (Fletcher-Watson et al., 2014, p.132). When combined with issues such as the struggle for funding and a lack of support from peers, TEY could be said to be wrestling with a crisis of legitimation.

The sensitising concept “lack of legitimacy” has been present in my readings of the literature from the beginning of this project, as I noted in an 8 Minute Memo dated 19th January 2012 (see figure 15 in Chapter 3). I therefore chose to address this explicitly within the questions for the earliest participants, asking variously, “How do you think arts for Early Years is perceived – by other Early Years artists, by artists in other fields, by the public?” The data produced were rich, containing both anecdotes about specific moments of prejudice from peers and wider consideration

of the shifts in perception observed over time. During analysis, codes derived from this concept included emphasising the struggle, overcoming prejudices and knowing better than peers. However, it also became apparent that many responses to different questions which at first appeared to be focused on practice were in fact variations on this theme; thus newer codes emerged to expand this topic, including craving kudos, circling the wagons and evangelising. Gradually, the strategies employed by artists to legitimise their practice (to themselves, to peers, to funders, to audiences) began to appear. For example, numerous participants criticised adult theatre as remote or stale, critiquing its failure to connect with audiences, the common modes of delivery (“things being declaimed”) and the “precious” or “guarded” behaviour of its actors. In so doing, they sought to emphasise the innovative practices inherent in TEY, such as the use of test audiences, often reflecting that adult theatre could be improved by adopting Early Years practices. This will be discussed further in section 5.3 relating to the core category retaining artistic integrity.

4.5.2 The radicalism of TEY?

From my first encounter with TEY in 2007 (see 1.3.2), I perceived performance for the very young as avant-garde and radical by comparison with the more traditional forms of theatre for older children, or even for adults. In many cases, I have argued, “its heterogeneous forms – variously rejecting temporality, narrative, illusion, or even presence – resemble postdramatic theatre” (Fletcher-Watson, 2013b, p.17). However, this remains contentious, with both scholars and practitioners questioning the theatricality of TEY experiences, especially those resembling free play (Goldfinger, 2011). It was likely that asking explicit questions about radical practice would produce affirmative answers which would not challenge my assumptions, as participants sought to emphasise their artistic integrity and skills. Therefore I chose to ask interviewees to compare TEY with other forms in order to explore their perceptions of practice in the genre: “What differences or similarities do you perceive compared with theatre for older children?” As expected, many responses focused on practice, producing initial codes such as giving and receiving gifts, engaging the whole body or making the space safe. In response, the interview questions were revised to include specific queries about these unique stage effects such as creating boundaries between auditorium and acting space, or welcoming audiences via “airlocks” (Brown, 2012). For example, I asked, “How do you handle the ebb and flow of boundaries?” However, broader themes quickly also emerged, as artists

repeatedly chose to reflect on the differences in audience, producing a string of codes concerned with equality, duty of care and the role of parents. Unexpectedly, in response to questions derived from the sensitising concept of “radicalism”, almost all interviewees chose to explore their relationship to their audiences. As will be explored in section 5.2, this culminated in the core category treating children as equals.

4.5.3 Developmental psychology as a foundation?

The literature on TEY, including my own contributions, suggests that artistic practice is rooted in an understanding of developmental milestones, and that collaboration with educational or child development specialists is a common approach (Young and Powers, 2009; Dunlop etal., 2011; Fletcher-Watson et al., 2014). This is not to claim that a common praxis yet exists, as artists’ training, influences and preferences still define their individual practices. Even so, two distinct approaches have been identified within which most artists can be categorised: inductive practice, where close scrutiny of the very young is allied with testing during rehearsal, and deductive practice, where artists work alongside developmental specialists to integrate theatrical moments with age-specific milestones (Dartnell, 2009; Knight, 2011). Rather than asking interviewees to self-categorise, which would produce simplistic results, I elected to ask, “Do you think of young children as having needs or abilities that you accommodate?” The aim was to encourage each participant to reflect on their own knowledge of infant development, whether derived from research or observation.

As expected, many responses focused on practice, with initial codes emerging such as learning from children and making everyone feel comfortable. In this case, however, unlike the other sensitising concepts, there were relatively few unanticipated codes; instead, a complex interplay between developmental psychology, legitimation and radicalism began to appear. Themes such as being non-judgmental emerged with regularity across all three areas, and an underlying tension between artistic integrity and equality became apparent. The hierarchies of open, axial and core codes were constructed slowly over time, but even within individual questions such as the ones above, micro-hierarchies which mirrored the overall structure were present. It is to be hoped that this reflects an inherent robustness within the analysis process.

4.5.4 The importance of Scottish identity?

As noted in my positioning statement (section 1.3.1), residency in Scotland has an impact both on my attitudes to performance and the scope of the study. Trish Reid has discussed “what is now generally acknowledged to be a renaissance in Scottish theatre” (2013, p.177) or even a “golden age” (2014, p.ix), leading me to predict a degree of national pride amongst participants. The timing of the Scottish independence referendum in the final months of the project meant that many interviews and informal discussions before or after the recorded conversations contained references to devolution, Scottish identity, Holyrood politics and the future of TEY post-referendum. Furthermore, the majority of participants were educated or trained in Scotland, and thus brought their own cultural perspectives to our discussions, for example contrasting the funding bodies Creative Scotland and Arts Council England.

The question “Do you think it’s possible to talk about a Scottish way of making art for Early Years?” featured in the interview protocol from the very beginning of the study (reproduced in Appendix A.1), and produced many lengthy responses. Within these, as well as basic codes such as peer critique, several open codes concerning identity became apparent: promoting Scotland, being political, struggling for funding (later abbreviated to funding). While not all artists espoused a nationalistic model of Scottish TEY, there was a general agreement that an overtly national ‘style’ was perhaps materialising, or about to materialise, and that this differed from an English or European style. Artists cited concepts such as “humour”, “camp” and live or specially composed music which were not present as often in performances they had seen from England and abroad. Those participants with the greatest political engagement (such as lobbying Holyrood or Creative Scotland) also tended to cite socioeconomic data to support their assertions, such as economic productivity studies which argue for greater investment in Early Years (Heckman and Masterov, 2007). This is in contrast to other artists, who tended to refer to child development studies.

However, unlike the other sensitising concepts discussed above, Scottish identity did not eventually feed into axial coding in any meaningful way. For artists, their national identity was only a small part of their artistic practice, or maybe completely separate. Nonetheless, it is possible that the Grounded Theory resulting from this study was informed to an extent by concepts of nationhood. For example,

the open code being seen to succeed suggests an arena within which an artist’s skills are critiqued, and this arena is likely to be regionally-defined, rather than international. The resulting axial code emphasising the struggle remains culturally- located to an extent, as theatre-makers struggle for Creative Scotland funding, or stress the extra hardships of making work in the Highlands, or compare themselves with more highly regarded peers in Belgium. Finally, the grounded dramaturgy of TEY proposed in section 5.9 is arguably a Scottish dramaturgy, drawn as it has been from Scottish respondents. It is to be hoped that it has a wider applicability, but its culturally-located status cannot be ignored. Section 7.2 discusses this issue further.

The four sensitising concepts inevitably affected each aspect of the study, from protocol design to interview questions and the analysis of responses. I am hopeful that by memoing rigorously throughout to reflect on my preconceptions (Charmaz, 2006), ‘forcing’ of the data has been avoided. The next section discusses the axial coding process which condensed a large body of codes into a manageable framework.