Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Research-based Theater (RbT) is shaped by both the form of theater, as an embodied, gestural, spatial, imaginative multi-dimensional art form, and traditions of research surrounding knowledge production, specifically qualitative research. When ethical tensions and questions arise in RbT they are often framed as a dichotomy, such as the ways aesthetic or artistic interests of creating a compelling piece of theater for audiences contrast with responsibilities to research. By drawing on the frame of an aesthetic of relationality, and an example from my work as an RbT playwright from the project Cracked: new light on dementia, I consider the ways both theater and research might be more clearly aligned. This includes how relational and aesthetic accountabilities can offer an important foundation for considering how RbT might be rooted in caring practices and might influence theater-making and the traditions of scientific research more broadly.

Keywords

research-based theater relationality aesthetics dementia accountability

Research-based Theater (RbT) is shaped by both the form of theater, as an embodied, gestural, spatial, imaginative multi-dimensional art form (that is both process/inquiry-oriented and a form of cultural production), and the traditions of research surrounding knowledge production, specifically qualitative research (such as research questions, methodological design, and dissemination plans). Aligned with other interdisciplinary forms of arts-based research, RbT has been taken up by researchers and artists across disciplines to engage broader publics in research processes and findings, for example, from nursing, medical sociology, education, obstetrics, public health, rehabilitation sciences, among others, in addition to theater and performance studies (e.g., please see Belliveau et al., 2020; Belliveau & Lea, 2016; Bird & Donelan, 2020; Eakin & Endicott, 2006; Gallagher & Kushnir, 2020; Goldstein, 2012; Gray et al., 2011; Harris & Sinclair, 2014; Jonas-Simpson et al., 2012; Kazubowski-Houston, 2010; Kontos et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2006; Nisker et al., 2006; Schneider, 2017; Schott et al., 2016). However, beyond being interdisciplinary, RbT is also often taken up across paradigms. These paradigmatic differences are most pronounced in the field of health, where research is almost always in conversation with positivism regardless of the particular moorings of the researchers themselves. These paradigmatic differences have implications for expectations around an RbT project’s process and outcomes, including conflicting assumptions of performance processes as translating scientific research findings with linearity (or not) as well as the ways certain forms of knowledge production are valued over others (Gray & Kontos, 2015, 2019).

When ethical tensions and questions arise in RbT, they are often framed as a dichotomy, such as the ways aesthetic or artistic interests of creating a compelling piece of theater for audiences contrast with responsibilities to research. Through this article, I move beyond this binary to consider the ways both theater-making and the traditions of research might be more clearly aligned. This includes considering how both theater-making and research involve interpretation, analysis, and representation, have an interest to engage different audiences, and how both have problematic histories around attending to power, including blurred lines between caring and oppressive processes and labor practices. As such, I consider the ways both theater-making and research, through the practice of RbT, might be aesthetically and relationally accountable.

To mobilize these aims, I draw on a theoretical frame I developed called an aesthetic of relationality (Gray, 2019; Gray & Kontos, 2018) to consider the ways RbT’s ethical deliberations might be reviewed through the notions of relationality and aesthetics. I consider how an aesthetic of relationality offers a conceptual frame for practitioner-researchers to push against some of the oppressive structures that have traditionally been embedded within both theater-making and research.

Across the academy, the problematic roots of research linked with control and power have been recognized. This includes how research has been taken up as a tool for control and to further colonialism (e.g., Bhattacharya, 2016; Smith, 2013; Tuck & Yang, 2012), and continues to thrive on problematic hierarchies and practices including valuing certain forms of knowledge production over others as well as uplifting certain people over others (e.g., Ahmed, 2012; Denzin, 2017; Loveless, 2015). In the critical social sciences, such as anthropology and sociology, there have been important advancements in thinking around the crisis of representation, including attention to the ways researchers invent “partial truths” through their writing rather than representing “culture” as an “object of description and critique” (Clifford, 1986, p. 3). In addition, critical disability scholars remind us of the ways that biomedicine, and even health care more broadly, have problematic histories of engaging transactional, alienating, and mechanistic processes of medicalized care. In these circles, “care” can be viewed with suspicion, and can often be understood to prize normative, neoliberal productivity and efficiencies at the expense of people’s pain, social exclusion and even death (see e.g., Gibson et al., 2015; Kafer, 2013).

Theater-making is not immune to some of these critiques. For example, it is recognized in the theater about the problematic ways that certain groups of people control stories about other groups of people, including cultural appropriation (Freeman, 2017; Knowles, 2010; Snyder-Young, 2020), and how rehearsal and creative processes can be rife with power inequities leading to oppressive situations (Meerzon & Pewny, 2019; Rudakoff, 2021).¹ However, there can be lessons from theater-making too. For example, theater and performance studies scholar Shannon Jackson (2011) reminds us of how theater collaboration is rooted in interdependence, cross-disciplinarity, and systemic coordination in time and space. Jackson specifically discusses how political art discourses often celebrate social disruption while losing sight of the centrality of social coordination within theater-making processes. “Whether cast in aesthetic or social terms, freedom and expression [as potentially disruptive] are not opposed to obligation and care, but in fact depend upon each other; this is the daily lesson of any theatrical ensemble” (p. 14). It is these reminders of the interrelationships among disruption and coordination, as well as expression and care, rooted in collaborative theater-making practices that ground this writing project.

This article unfolds thus: First I provide an overview of the frame and an aesthetic of relationality for contextual purposes. Next, I draw on writings from Indigenous research and ethics of care to think through how this frame might support caring research and theater practices, and the ways these practices might be aesthetically and relationally accountable. I then put these ideas to work by drawing on an example from my work as a playwright: specifically, from the research-based play Cracked: new light on dementia. I conclude by considering the centrality of collective work and embodiment (including emotions and senses) to RbT, along with recognizing that vulnerabilities and failures are important and unavoidable, and how these might be centered as part of institutional and Research Ethics Board considerations.

An Aesthetic of Relationality and Ethics

While this article focuses on my process as an RbT playwright, which could be construed as a singular or even isolated process, an aesthetic of relationality can help to think through the relational aspects of this process, including accountability to multiple people and contexts. An aesthetic of relationality is a frame that articulates RbT as an aesthetic space within which the embodied interpretive work of artist-researchers is extended into spatial, relational contexts, formed through three interrelated modes of practice: playful extending, foolish disrupting, and inventive disrupting (Gray, 2019; Gray & Kontos, 2018). RbT that aligns with an aesthetic of relationality is a performance methodology that is uniquely collaborative and relational; in this way, this work takes its bearings from multiple people, factors, and traditions and is situated in broader social, cultural, historical, and political contexts. This frame helps to consider the interrelationship among these multiplicities, including the ways that the actions of people (what we do and the ways we act) shape and make up the world, with the possibility to disrupt and change those actions. Through the example of my process as an RbT playwright, I aim to highlight some of these interrelationships.

Within an aesthetic of relationality, artist-researchers start explorations in their own bodies. They additionally turn, in that they shift their orientation, which enables them to find their way by situating themselves in relation to social/cultural/historical spaces. From this point, they then attend and engage with imaginative “wide-awakeness” (Greene, 2001, p. 11) to extend beyond their own “bodily horizon” (Ahmed, 2006a, p. 562) toward the stories and experiences of other people (such as research participants and community members), continually and foolishly allowing “[them]selves to fail while remaining always alert, ready and willing to try” (Salverson, 2006, p. 155). They do these things to create theater for their audiences, while still committed to those original stories shared by others, to provoke and support an embodied, imaginative, and foolish engagement on the audience’s part.

For the purposes of this article, I focus on the first two modes of practice: playful extending and foolish disrupting. By playfully extending, an artist-researcher imaginatively and actively starts with but moves past their own “bodily horizon” as a space for action (Ahmed, 2006a, p. 562). From this starting point, they enact gestures of embodied, imagined understanding of the experiences of other people (e.g., people whose experiences informed the play). Gesturing in a particular way, through one’s posture, movement, vocal tone, facial expression, word choice, among others, can be understood as a kind of directing toward a particular line of thought. In this way, the experimental, playful gestures are the artist-researchers but informed by research participants’ stories among other considerations, such as social, cultural, and historical contexts. Given the exploratory and experimental nature of playful extending, an artist-researcher also foolishly disrupts their own bodily horizon, as part of doing or enacting their own bodily horizon differently. These vulnerable and brave disruptions “offer more creative, more cooperative, more surprising ways of being in the world” (Halberstam, 2011, pp. 2–3) with the potential for an artist-researcher to understand other people’s experiences differently.

An aesthetic of relationality can help those of us working in RbT to think about the ways we might be responsible and accountable for our actions in relation to RbT’s “multiple commitments” (Goldstein, 2008); this includes multiple factors and people while simultaneously remaining attentive to shape and form, with sensitivity, openness, and feeling (Gray, 2019; Gray et al., 2020; Gray & Kontos, 2018; Thompson, 2015). To address this, I will consider how the frame of an aesthetic of relationality might be bolstered by both Indigenous research approaches and philosophical writings in ethics of care.

Cree scholar and researcher Shawn Wilson’s articulation of relational accountability within an Indigenous research paradigm serves to think about how different aspects of a story are intertwined and buoy each other. Drawing from the teachings of Cree Elder Jerry Saddleback, Wilson (2008) writes of the ways that who tells a story is interwoven with who receives a story, as the listener, and how a story is shaped and formed, along with the history , culture and context of the story. Within these interrelations of a story are also the ideas, morals or lessons , as well as the sharing of other people’s stories as part of counseling or teaching (p. 98). These relations, Wilson discusses, are sacred, as a deep and sincere service, and hold great responsibility. For a research methodology to be relationally accountable (including storytelling), Wilson articulates how it “needs to be based in a community context (be relational) and has to demonstrate respect, reciprocity and responsibility (be accountable as it is put into action)” (p. 99). Wilson’s suggestions around relationality are not explicitly linked with aesthetics, but his discussions around the attention to the form of a story, intermingled with a range of people, including their presence, emotions, and experiences, signals the centrality of how connected relationality and aesthetics are in practice. Wilson’s discussions of relational accountability, as underpinned by an attention to aesthetics, help to think about how an aesthetic of relationality and RbT might be informed by practices of care and responsibility.

Within Indigenous epistemologies, the self of the storyteller is importantly interwoven within the storytelling process, which is useful in thinking about the playwright in RbT. As Sium and Ritskes (2013) note a storyteller is positioned “outside the realm of ‘objective’ commentary” (p. iv), which then includes, even centers, the subjectivity of the storyteller within the shape and action of the story itself. Secwepemc scholar Georgina Martin (2018) discusses the ways a researcher (and/or storyteller) must validate stories reciprocally and relationally with people who first shared their stories. This validation is part of an ethical obligation to cultural belonging and identification of everyone involved in both research and storytelling processes. These insights about the multiple relations as part of storytelling, including among the storyteller/researcher herself and those who first told stories, helps to think through the ways RbT might invite belonging through reciprocity and validation.

While a departure from Indigenous research, feminist ethics of care also centers on relating. Ethics of care tends to address the question of how shall I act? in the context of situations, settings, and relationships. This work is aligned with questions of whether acting in the world is always taken up by an autonomous subject engaging in solely rational processes, as opposed to considering the ways actions might be relational and interdependent, morally and epistemologically (Held, 1993, p. 13, cited in Stuart Fisher, 2020). Care is enacted between people as a responsibility including personal encounters, as well as wider sociopolitical considerations (Stuart Fisher, 2020). Feminist philosopher Maurice Hamington (2004) discusses the centrality of embodiment to care, and the ways care “is committed to the flourishing and growth of individuals yet acknowledges our interconnectedness and interdependence” with others and the world (p. 3). In addition, Hamington asserts that care ethics must consider “context, relationships, and affective knowledge” as part of care’s embodied dimension (p. 3).

Bringing these ideas from Indigenous research and from an ethics of care in conversation with an aesthetic of relationality is meant to open up thinking about how both research and theater-making might be grounded in notions of care. Hamington asserts that the imagination is central to change and what he terms “caring habits” or actions (Hamington, 2004, p. 74), as it allows us to make empathetic linkages with others, rooted in embodied experiences and “what the body knows” (Hamington, 2004, p. 4). Aligned with this, applied theater scholar and practitioner Julie Salverson cites the importance of humility, imagination, and emotion-centered practice as she advocates working as a “foolish witness” when attending to a multiplicity of people with a range of emotional and sensory needs without self-erasure (Salverson, 2006). These connections open up questions about how playful extending, as experimental gesturing toward experiences of other people, might be enacted with care, as committed to everyone’s flourishing and growth. Or, given the potentially disorienting aspects of foolish disrupting, as interrupting and changing one’s own body with bravery and vulnerability to experience and enact differently, how might these aspects of working be supported with responsibility, as reciprocal and in community context? How might theater-making and research be artful/aesthetic, responsive, and reciprocal, contributing to caring, and even loving, societies?

Example: Working as an RbT Playwright

To put these ideas in context, I draw on an example from an RbT project called Cracked: new light on dementia. Specifically, I use an example from my own process as the project’s playwright—creating a scene called Tom is Lost. It might be easiest to comprehend the work of actors as being situated within an aesthetic of relationality, as their work is most obviously embodied (in that their bodies are quite literally their artistic and exploratory instruments). However, by drawing on my work as playwright, my aim is to highlight the ways that a range of people engaged in RbT processes also foolishly and imaginatively engage their embodiment, as part of caring research and theater practices that are aesthetically and relationally accountable.

Cracked was created to disrupt normative assumptions which posit that persons living with dementia are irrevocably tragic, which can lead to social stigma and isolation as well as have implications for policy and professional care practices; our team has discussed this as “the tragedy discourse of dementia” (Mitchell et al., 2013, 2020). The play is based on the programs of research of Drs. Sherry Dupuis, Pia Kontos, Christine Jonas-Simpson, and Gail Mitchell whose work focuses on dementia care, relational caring, aging, and all of whom have experience in arts-based research; I was the lead artist-researcher as the project’s playwright and director. Also included on our team were actors Susan Applewhaite, Lori Nancy Kalamanski, Tim Machin, Mary Ellen MacLean, Claire Frances Muir, Mark Prince, and Jerrald Karch.²

Our process took place over several years; we first met as a team in 2011, first public performances were held in 2013, and a film version was produced of several live performances in the summer of 2017, which launched in January 2018 at the Ted Rogers Hot Docs Cinema in Toronto, Canada (Dupuis et al., 2016; Gray et al., 2020). Drawing on stories told to us by people with dementia and their families, our own experiences, critiques of the tragedy discourse, and theory and research developed by the team, we engaged in a “theatrical devising” process, which involved a collaborative, improvised creative process among those working in-studio (Barton & Wells, 2008; Filewod, 1987); further details about our process and the play can be found in several publications and in the published script (Collective Disruption, 2017; Gray et al., 2017, 2020).

Despite that we engaged in a theatrical devising process, as playwright I occasionally wrote independently and brought that written work to the group. I draw on one of these instances to highlight the ways I tried to engage in a caring writing practice, as relationally and aesthetically accountable, as well as how I felt cared for by others on our team. In sharing my own experiences of writing, I also draw on data collected as part of my doctoral studies,³ including my own director/playwright creative notebooks and interviews with actors involved in the process for Cracked (Gray, 2016).⁴

The scene Tom is Lost takes place between Vera, a woman in her 70s who is in the early stages of dementia, and Tom, her husband of over 40 years. Before writing this scene, I discussed with health researchers, Dupuis, Kontos, Jonas-Simpson, and Mitchell, about how people with dementia and their partners spoke about the ways dementia had changed rather than eradicated their relationship, specifically related to intimacy and sex. Sometimes this was positive (such as “I forget we just had sex, so we’re doing it all the time!”) to the more difficult (e.g., “it can be disorienting, and my wife doesn’t really have the interest and wants more hugs than anything else”). As a team, we felt this change in intimacy was important to explore in the play; specifically, we wanted to work through the difficulty of the shift in physical and sexual intimacy that many partners expressed.

As I sat down to write this scene, truthfully, I was at a loss about how to begin. I do not have dementia. I am also middle-aged. In listening to the stories of others, I wondered if it was presumptuous of me to write about such an intimate loss that I had not experienced. I felt a deep sense of responsibility but was concerned I would not act with sufficient care, nor support the “flourishing and growth” of others in re-telling their stories (Hamington, 2004, p. 3). Following Wilson, I understood that I was working in service of others through my storytelling, and I felt uncertain and humbled. I let this uncertainty sit in my gut for many weeks before attempting to put anything on paper.

As I sat with this, I imagined what I might feel like if my own partner did not recognize me. At this thought, I felt very lost; in many ways, I would feel disoriented without his recognition. In addition, I imagined if I had dementia with moments of not recognizing the people around me, how disorienting this might be too. By imagining with “wide-awakeness” (Greene, 2001, p. 11), I was disorienting my immediate experience of not having dementia. Through interviews as part of my doctoral work, a fellow artist-researcher described this imaginative work as: “I don’t think I can understand. . . but I can imagine.” I imaginatively approached the experiences of people with dementia and their family members not as a way to finitely know how a person with dementia feels not recognizing her partner, but to open up possibilities for me that might otherwise remain closed. As Hamington discusses: “My imagination call[ed] on the bodily resources I do have to give me a glimmer of understanding” (Hamington, 2004, p. 74).

I have chosen my husband as a life partner because of how he relates to me, how he sees me, and how he touches me—in part, as an aesthetic engagement. His aesthetic engagement with me is also, in part, how I come to understand myself. We emotionally, sensorily, and physically extend toward each other through the space of our friendship, and as such our bodily horizons impress upon and shape each other. Through our friendship, our co-habitation, and our sexual intimacy, we have directed our actions toward each other, we have committed, taken a promise toward the future, extending from our bodies as starting points, from our past histories. We are two others reaching out to each other, and through our reaching we in part become ourselves. My partner’s otherness, or, as Ahmed discusses, his ““not me” is incorporated into [my] body, extending [my] reach” (Ahmed, 2006b, p. 115). The way we extend toward each other, the intention and nature of our actions, both create the space of our friendship through which we continue to extend and shape each of us as individuals. In addition, as a straight, White, middle-class couple, our actions of extending into the space between us are oriented along particular points of alignment that allow for a normative extension into the social world. Our relationship, as well as both of us as individuals, is shaped by this orientation and commitment to each other as individuals and our alignment within social/cultural/historical spaces.

As I imagined what it might be like if my partner did not recognize me, my sense of self, shaped in part by this chosen orientation and commitment toward my partner, was shaken. Ahmed discusses how orientation is about “making the strange familiar through the extension of bodies” and how “disorientation occurs when that extension fails” (Ahmed, 2006b, p. 11). As I imagined failure of recognition, as a disruption in my partner’s regular extensions toward me, the tragic discourse of dementia, as seeing the person with dementia as only filled with loss, became tangible.

In pondering how to approach writing the scene, my imagined reflections combined with my feelings of disorientation gave me a starting point. I imagined that, not only was the character Vera lost in her orientation to her husband because of her dementia, but Tom was lost too—he became disoriented by their changing relationship.

The first incarnation of the scene was very short and involved Tom and Vera coming into an embrace, only to have Vera become confused and disoriented, pushing Tom away with the fear of not recognizing him. This brings Tom to tears and, when Vera comes back into the present moment and recognizes Tom again, he confesses to her that it is he who is lost.

We played this in-progress scene to an audience of members of the dementia community at a preview presentation in November 2013. As seen in my hand-written notes, many, especially partners and family members, felt it was too intimate a moment, too raw, and very dark. Audience members said it was too difficult to watch the loss for Tom as he struggled with the change in their relationship.

As a creative-research team, we agreed that our intention with the overall play was not to dwell in the tragedy but to move through it to find hope and new ways of engaging with people with dementia. As a playwright, I understood that in writing this scene, in playfully extending toward the experiences of persons with dementia and their partners through the scene’s structure and word choices, I had failed. I had worked with some care, in that I had intentionally set out to be attentive and sensitive to these stories. Aligned with Sium and Ritskes (2013), I importantly drew on my own subjectivity to relate to the stories of others, including my embodiment and imagination, but my crafting had overtaken the experiences of others. In addition to witnessing the scene, audience members’ responses affirmed what was created, in that audience members identified with this loss and struggle. However, as a team we understood that audience members did not validate what was created or our aims to offer new possibilities of flourishing for persons with dementia and their partners; what was created did not invite cultural belonging, but rather continued to exclude (Martin, 2018).

It was with the involvement of other people, including the actors performing the in-progress scene, and audience members receiving the story, that I came to understand that my crafting was not contributing to the flourishing of people with dementia and their partners. Indeed, my imagined understanding of becoming disoriented in living with dementia, as both the person with dementia and partner, had not disrupted the tragedy discourse but reproduced it. My responsibility, then, was to use these audience members’ responses to reattend with humility and to shape the scene differently.

In returning to rewrite the scene, my colleagues and cocreators never admonished me, but rather invited me to flourish and grow by working with softness as I moved forward. Buoyed by their emotional attention and joint vulnerability, again I turned inward and was at a loss about where the hope was in this scene. I deeply explored my own perceptions of dementia and how I was taking on the discourse of tragedy that we were aiming to challenge. How were my own deeply engrained assumptions about dementia shaping the play? In what ways were my imaginings of living with dementia, as disorienting, contributing to the tragedy discourse and causing further harm?

I began to imagine where the hope was in this scene and to work toward seeing possibilities of an imagined future relationship with my partner. I asked myself: What would I need from my partner if I become disoriented? Or what kind of support or physical touch would I want to provide to my partner if he did not recognize me? How might the imagined lack of recognition not be a failed extension toward the space of our friendship, but rather what Ahmed calls “a wonky moment” (Ahmed, 2006a, p. 562), a crack, that can offer insight? As queer and cultural theorist Jack Halberstam offers: How might the failure of this moment of lack of recognition, the “losing, forgetting, unmaking, undoing, unbecoming [and] not knowing,” in fact, hold the potential to “offer more creative, more cooperative, more surprising ways of being in the world” (Halberstam, 2011, pp. 2–3). As I reflected, I contemplated how I might use this process of overturning and imagining possibilities of hope to help me playfully extend differently, or full of reciprocal care to allow for everyone to flourish, through a new scene structure and word choices.

The next incarnation of the scene started the same way: with Vera and Tom coming into an embrace, to have Vera push Tom away. Tom again confesses to Vera that he is lost when she comes back into the present moment. But next Vera pushes Tom to explain himself. He repeats a line from earlier in the play, a line that was originally said by a character with dementia: “I am losing track of what I should do, or should not do. It makes it difficult to be steady.” Tom confesses to Vera that he misses how they used to engage with each other, sexually and otherwise. She assures him that he does not need to be steady, that he does not need to dwell on the past, or tomorrow, but to be with her as she is now in the present moment. And, inspired by Leonard Cohen’s poem Anthem, she tells him that “cracks are how the light gets in” (Cohen, 1993, p. 373).

It was important to our entire creative-research team that support for Tom come from Vera as the person with dementia. In this way, dramatic structure guided our interpretive approach and helped us shape the scene; we felt it was stronger dramatically and spoke to our goals of critiquing the tragedy discourse that the person with dementia, as the one who is disruptive, be the person to support Tom’s growth by “offer[ing] more creative, more cooperative, more surprising ways of being in the world” (Halberstam, 2011, pp. 2–3). It is Vera who suggests that cracks, as a metaphor for disruption, are what allow us to be in light, as a metaphor for creativity and surprise. It is Vera who suggests that Tom not be steady; that he could fail, un-become, and lose his way. That their extensions toward each other through the space of their friendship could still be filled with surprises and the unexpected; but they must be receptive to that surprise, and support those moments of not knowing and disruption.

The response to this version of the scene through additional previews and final performances was much more hopeful. In post-performance discussions, audience members from the dementia community have told us that, while the scene is still difficult, they appreciated the guidance and care in the scene offered by Vera, the person with dementia. Audience members spoke about the importance of being in the present moment with the person with dementia and following their lead. They shared how they appreciated the reminder about each of our cracks and imperfections as integral to who we are as human beings. They validated that the scene (and the play more broadly) left them feeling hopeful and with a sense of belonging.

Conclusion

In reflecting on my process as an RbT playwright, and the ways I playfully extended and was foolishly disrupted, it is important to recognize that being wrong, being vulnerable, or risking being ridiculous and “failing” (or being foolish), were integral to writing the scene with care. While I did not gesture in the ways that actors might—through their physical bodies—I playfully extended through the structure of the scene and word choices. I drew on my own “bodily horizon” as a resource (Ahmed, 2006a), imagined beyond my immediate experience of not having dementia, and gestured through my writing toward a particular line of thought. It was in writing the scene wrong at first, by reproducing the tragedy discourse in the first incarnation and having the scene not validated by members of the dementia community, that I was able to understand the ways I was implicated in the tragedy discourse and the ways these assumptions were shaping the scene and play. But this wrongness or failure did not happen in isolation. It was in additionally sharing the scene-in-progress with the support of a team of caring, emotionally attentive, and equally vulnerable fellow artist/social/health researchers that I could fail and be wrong as part of working with and toward care.

As part of complicating dichotomies often associated with RbT’s ethical tensions, specifically that aesthetic/artistic interests conflict with responsibilities to research, I have suggested a refocus of RbT toward caring practices that invite flourishing and growth. I have demonstrated how those of us engaging in RbT practices might be accountable for a range of relations and aesthetic considerations, such as attention to multiple people, broader contexts, as well as emotions, senses, and form. As part of this are the embodied, imaginative and foolish foundations of the RbT work. Both theater and research are collective endeavors and ways of engaging community members (as research participants and/or audiences) despite that both traditions customarily prize the singular, independent genius. Here I join colleagues in theater and research across disciplines who work with care, and additionally aim to be relationally and aesthetically accountable (for some examples, please see Baer et al., 2019; Bhattacharya, 2016; Gallagher & Kushnir, 2020; Goldstein, 2012; Kontos et al., 2021).

These understandings have implications for institutional Research Ethics Boards that aim to support RbT, including considerations for consent processes. Here I invite Research Ethics Boards to consider how researchers and partners might be caring as well as relationally and aesthetically accountable, throughout a particular RbT process. Considering the centrality of collective work and embodiment (including emotions and senses) to RbT, along with recognizing that vulnerabilities and failures are important and unavoidable, will be important as part of developing Research Ethics Board guidelines. Rather than exclusively considering how to avoid harmful practices throughout RbT, can the support of caring ones also be considered? I would suggest these considerations should reach beyond (while including) the ways community members and research participants are engaged in RbT, to also include each other as artist/social/health researchers. Through the frame of an aesthetic of relationality, relational and aesthetic accountabilities can offer an important foundation for considering how RbT might be rooted in caring practices, and might also influence theater-making and the traditions of research more broadly.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Julia Gray

Notes

Author Biography

Julia Gray, PhD, is a performance and cultural studies scholar, an artist (playwright / theater director), and a critical social scientist. Her award-winning work spans the arts, humanities, and social and health sciences to elucidate social experiences and overturn the ablest cultural assumptions of aging and disability. She also works to theorize arts and critical qualitative methodologies across disciplines.

References

Ahmed

(2006a). Orientations: Toward a queer phenomenology. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 12(4), 543–574.

Ahmed

(2006b). Queer phenomenology: Orientations, objects, others. Duke University Press.

Ahmed

(2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke University Press.

Aristotle. (1982). Poetics ( Hutton

, Trans.). W.W. Norton and Company.

Baer

Salisbury

Goldstein

(2019). Pairing verbatim theatre and theatre of the oppressed to provoke startling empathy. The Educational Forum, 83(4), 418–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2019.1626961

Barton

Wells

(2008). Forewords: Theatrical devising. Canadian Theatre Review, 135(Summer), 1–5.

Belliveau

Cox

Nichols

Lea

G. W.

Cook

(2020). Examining the ethics of research-based theatre through Contact! Unload. In Prentki

Breed

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to applied performance (pp. 141–148). Routledge.

Belliveau

Lea

G. W.

(2016). Research-based theatre: An artistic methodology. Intellect Books.

Bhattacharya

(2016). The vulnerable academic: Personal narratives and strategic de/colonizing of academic structures. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(5), 309–321.

10.

Bird

Donelan

(2020). An interactive ethnographic performance: Using research-based theatre and drama pedagogy to enhance meaning making. Research in Drama Education, 25(2), 218–235.

11.

Brecht

(1964). Brecht on theatre: The development of an aesthetic ( Willett

, Trans., & Willett

, Ed.). Hill and Wang.

12.

Clifford

(1986). Introduction: Partial truths. In Clifford

Marcus

G. E.

(Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 1–26). University of California Press.

13.

Cohen

(1993). Stranger music: Selected poems and songs. Random House.

14.

Collective Disruption. (2017). Cracked: New light on dementia. In Gray

(Ed.), ReView: An anthology of plays committed to social justice (pp. 67–138). Sense Publishers.

15.

Denzin

N. K.

(2017). Critical qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 8–16.

16.

Dupuis

S. L.

Kontos

Mitchell

G. J.

Jonas-Simpson

Gray

(2016). Reclaiming citizenship through the arts. Dementia, 15, 358–380.

17.

Eakin

J. M.

Endicott

(2006). Knowledge translation through research-based theatre. Healthcare Policy, 2(2), 54–59.

18.

Filewod

(1987). Collective encounters: Documentary theatre in English Canada. University of Toronto Press.

19.

Freeman

(2017). Staging strangers: Theatre and global ethics. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

20.

Gallagher

Kushnir

(2020). The aesthetics of ‘Towards Youth’: Making relations in and through theatre. Theatre Research in Canada, 41(2), 204–220.

21.

Gibson

B. E.

Teachman

Hamdani

(2015). Rethinking “normal development” in children’s rehabilitation. In McPherson

K. M.

Gibson

B. E.

Leplege

(Eds.), Rethinking rehabilitation: Theory and practice (pp. 90–103). CRC Press.

22.

Goldstein

(2008). Performed ethnography: Possibilities, multiple commitments, and the pursuit of rigor. In Gallagher

(Ed.), The methodological dilemma (pp. 101–118). Routledge.

23.

Goldstein

(2012). Staging Harriet’s house: Writing and producing research-informed theatre. Peter Lang.

24.

Gray

(2016). An aesthetic of relationality: Exploring the intersection among embodiment, imagination and foolishness in research-informed theatre [Doctoral dissertation, Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. University of Toronto].

25.

Gray

(2019). Working within an aesthetic of relationality: Theoretical considerations of embodiment, imagination and foolishness as part of theatre making about dementia. Research in Drama Education, 24(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2018.1535270

26.

Gray

Dupuis

S. L.

Kontos

Jonas-Simpson

Mitchell

(2020). Knowledge as embodied, imaginative and foolish enactment: Exploring dementia experiences through theater. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-21.3.3444

27.

Gray

Kontos

(2015). Immersion, embodiment, and imagination: Moving beyond an aesthetic of objectivity in research-informed performance in health. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-16.2.2288

28.

Gray

Kontos

(2018). An aesthetic of relationality: Embodiment, imagination and playing the fool in research-informed theatre. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(7), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417736331

29.

Gray

Kontos

(2019). Working at the margins: Theatre, social science and radical political engagement. Research in Drama Education, 24(3), 402–407.

30.

Gray

Kontos

Dupuis

S. L.

Mitchell

G. J.

Jonas-Simpson

(2017). Dementia (re)performed: Interrogating tensions between relational engagement and regulatory policies in care homes through theatre. In Chivers

Kreibernegg

(Eds.), Care home stories: Aging, disability, and long-term residential care (pp. 111–126). Transcript.

31.

Gray

Rossiter

Colantonio

Kontos

Gilbert

Keightley

James

Machin Gale

Nacos

Prince

(2011). After the crash: A play about brain injury. Canadian Theatre Review, 146, 66–86.

32.

Greene

(2001). Variations on a blue guitar: The Lincoln Center Institute lectures on aesthetic education. Teachers College Press.

33.

Halberstam

(2011). The queer art of failure. Duke University Press.

34.

Hamington

(2004). Embodied care: Jane Addams, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and feminist ethics. University of Illinois Press.

35.

Harris

Sinclair

(2014). Critical plays: Embodied research for social change. Sense Publishers.

36.

Held

(1993). Feminist morality: Transforming culture, society, and politics. University of Chicago Press.

37.

Jackson

(2011). Social works: Performing art, supporting publics. Routledge.

38.

Jonas-Simpson

Mitchell

G. J.

Carson

Whyte

Dupuis

S. L.

Gillies

(2012). Phenomenological shifts for healthcare professionals after experiencing a research-based drama on living with dementia. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(9), 1944–1955.

39.

Kafer

(2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Indiana University Press.

40.

Kazubowski-Houston

(2010). Staging strife: Lessons from performing ethnography with polish Roma women. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

41.

Knowles

(2010). Theatre and interculturalism. Macmillan International Higher Education.

42.

Kontos

Miller

K.-L.

Gilbert

J. E.

Mitchell

G. J.

Colantonio

Keightley

Cott

(2012). Improving client-centered brain injury rehabilitation through research-based theater. Qualitative Health Research, 22(12), 1612–1632.

43.

Kontos

Radnofsky

M. L.

Fehr

Belleville

M. R.

Bottenberg

Fridley

Massad

Grigorovich

Carson

Rogenski

Carpenter

K. S.

Dupuis

Battalen

McDonagh

Fassbender

Whitehouse

(2021). Separate and unequal: A time to reimagine dementia. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 80(4), 1395–1399. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-210057

44.

Loveless

N. S.

(2015). Towards a manifesto on research-creation. RACAR: Revue D’art Canadienne| Canadian Art Review, 40(1), 52–54.

45.

Martin

(2018). Storytelling and narrative inquiry: Exploring research methodologies. In McGregor

Restoule

J. P.

Johnston

(Eds.), Indigenous research: Theories, practices, and relationships (pp. 187–199). Canadian Scholars.

46.

Meerzon

Pewny

(Eds.). (2019). Dramaturgy of migration: Staging multilingual encounters in contemporary theatre. Routledge.

47.

Mitchell

G. J.

Dupuis

S. L.

Kontos

(2013). Dementia discourse: From imposed suffering to knowing other-wise. Journal of Applied Hermeneutics, 1–19. Article 5. https://doi.org/10.11575/jah.v0i2.53220

48.

Mitchell

G. J.

Dupuis

S. L.

Kontos

Jonas-Simpson

Gray

(2020). The dehumanizing patterns of modernity and the therapeutic culture for persons with dementia: A complex and intersectional alternative view. International Practice Development Journal, 10(1), 1–15.

49.

Mitchell

G. J.

Jonas-Simpson

Ivonoffski

(2006). Research-based theatre: The making of I’m Still Here! Nursing Science Quarterly, 19(3), 198–206.

50.

Nisker

Martin

D. K.

Bluhm

Daar

A. S.

(2006). Theatre as a public engagement tool for health-policy development. Health Policy, 78(2–3), 258–271.

51.

Rudakoff

(Ed.). (2021). Performing #MeToo: How not to look away. Intellect Books.

52.

Salverson

(2006). Witnessing subjects: A fool’s help. In Cohen-Cruz

Schutzman

(Eds.), A boal companion: Dialogues on theatre and cultural politics (pp. 146–156). Routledge.

53.

Schneider

(2017). Evaluation of the impact on audiences of inside out of mind, research-based theatre for dementia carers. Arts & Health, 9(3), 238–250.

54.

Schott

N. D.

Spring

Langan

(2016). Neoliberalism, pro-ana/mia websites, and pathologizing women: Using performance ethnography to challenge psychocentrism. Studies in Social Justice, 10(1), 95–115.

55.

Sium

Ritskes

(2013). Speaking truth to power: Indigenous storytelling as an act of living resistance. Decolonization, 2(1), i–x.

56.

Smith

L. T.

(2013). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books.

57.

Snyder-Young

(2020). Privileged spectatorship: Theatrical interventions in white supremacy. Northwestern University Press.

58.

Stuart Fisher

. (2020). Introduction: Caring performance, performing care. In Stuart Fisher

Thompson

(Eds.), Performing care: New perspectives on socially engaged performance (pp. 1–17). Manchester University Press.

59.

Thompson

(2015). Towards an aesthetics of care. Research in Drama Education, 20(4), 430–441.

60.

Tuck

Yang

K. W.

(2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization, 1(1), 1–40.

61.

Wilson

(2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood.

Relational and Aesthetic Accountability: Considerations of a Research-Based Playwright

Abstract

Keywords

An Aesthetic of Relationality and Ethics

Example: Working as an RbT Playwright

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author Biography

References