Impact Of Critiquing Across Difference On The Reflective Practitioner

As a reflective practitioner engaged in a critique across a landscape of ‘difference’, the questions raised in the data collated in the English sites do not limit themselves at source. They are also valuable as reflexive interrogation of my own embedded knowledge and experience, which has hitherto affected the way I interacted with the theatre artists in both the English and Singapore sites. This reflexive interrogation is demonstrated in the memo of 20 January 2012. In it, I documented my reflections on the resonances felt in the narratives of the four participants.

Gunther Kress (1994) suggests, unlike the written text, the flow and direction of speech, and in this case conversations within the process of unstructured interviews, rely on implicit knowledge shared between speakers. The implicit acknowledgement of ‘knowing what the other means by’ saying what is said, generates moments of ‘complicité’ and ‘empathy’ whose alternatives are ‘surprises’ and ‘puzzlement’. In

the in-between moments of pauses, raised and falling tones of each theatre artists as well as the expressions on their faces and hands, I found myself experiencing moments of empathetic understanding. This happens despite my presence of ‘otherness’ as a theatre practitioner from a geographically and culturally (political, social, economic and history) different landscape. But what are the conditions that influenced these moments?

Memo, 20 January 2011

The empathetic resonance I felt towards aspects of their journeys was also met with moments of distance, when practices appear ‘different’. Several moments in the interviews were illustrative of the distance mentioned. For example, when Rona mentioned “inclusive projects”; or her accounts of drama as a point of interest in a university application; and the presence of choosing appropriate programmes to be trained as a drama specialist. These pieces of information revealed the development, establishment as well as opportunities available for professional development and training in drama and theatre education in England as opposed to Singapore. But more often than not, there were more instances of resonance rather than alienation, particularly the ‘text- book’ vocabulary of terms in drama education such as “process drama” (Rona, Rita and Reese); “ensemble” (Rona, Rita); or iconic names of drama practitioners such as “Dorothy Heathcote”, etc. These resonances suggest a connection to and awareness of drama and theatre education canon. But does knowing such canon determine and frame the way Singapore theatre artists practise theatre education? Or do Singapore theatre artists utilise practices and discourses outside of these ‘canon’? How about my own practice? Am I now, with my increasing work with drama ‘in’ education, more influenced by drama education theories rather than my own theatrical rehearsal room practices? What was it like when I first began teaching in schools?

As a theatre artist, my sudden realisation of my ‘schooling’ and perhaps embodiment of a largely English drama in education canon surprised me. These reflections highlight the evolution of my practice. But a greater concern is the supposition of such a ‘drama in education lens’ would have on my research participants in Singapore. How would this knowing affect the way I view the work of the Singapore theatre artists who may not have had the same drama in education exposure as I have?

Additionally, Rona’s provocative response to my research raises questions on the “blind spots” of assumptions framing the vocabulary used during the interviews.

I am wondering where your question about the dichotomy between teacher and artist is coming from in a way. Because my experience as a teacher came after my experience as an artist, I think I’ve always done that. And I think the lecturer at Manchester whom I learnt about drama in education from I suppose. And the books like Jonothan’s books like Structuring Drama Work or you know or the books that I read at that time . . . all of these were very much you know they were all on the same agenda. I’ve never really myself have any kind of division . . . between the two. It’s like common sense. (DC400046).

Returning to her profile, Rona had pedagogic training with a specialisation in drama teaching. As such, Rona’s understanding of the term “teacher” refers to her training and position as a drama teacher, which conflates the idea of ‘general’ and ‘drama’

education as one. While in my line of questioning, I perceived teaching as ‘general’ teaching, something separate from drama teaching. This reflects our different systems of reference (Goodman 1978) as well as experiences.

Additionally, this incident of misinterpretation of terminology is a lesson in reflexive listening (Bourdieu 1996b). When working with interviews, sensitivity to misinterpretation of what seemingly appears to be common terminology is needed. In this instance, understanding what Rona meant by artistic–education symbiosis as “common sense” requires an unpacking of what is said in relation to her embodied system(s) of knowledge and practices (Archer 2000). In other words, a thorough listening to the audio recording and a conscientious reading of the interview transcripts are necessary in picking up the nuances embedded in her narratives. Rona’s comments may be interpreted as a revelation of her successful embodiment of two worlds and roles, meaning, drama teacher and theatre artist. She also inhabits two different organisational structures: her full-time positions in various arts organisation and the occasional teaching projects with different educational institutions. Both occurred, at times, simultaneously over the span of her adult working life. As such she embodies a nested relationship of theatre/artist and education/teacher training and practices within a nexus of arts and educational institutions. All of which may contribute to her successful position-taking and consequently identity as a teaching artist. In that respect, her understanding of the term ‘teaching’ may be understood as a reflection of her seemingly successful theatre-artistic-education-teaching symbiosis.

However Rona’s experience may not be a logical outcome for all theatre artists who navigate between these two worlds. The discussions in the later sections indicate that Rona’s seemingly successful nexus of theatre and education may be an ‘ideal’ position, one which is not necessarily experienced by all theatre artists who teach. This evidence concurs with Britzman’s (2003) conclusion that teaching practices are not only about the strategies. It is a social relational process whose success is contingent upon various factors. These include perceived status and expertise and contextual circumstances, including school support, available facilities and student

dynamics. In the next section, I explore the theatre artists’ negotiations between ‘worlds’ and by extension, the systems of knowledge they embody.