Research-based Theater (RbT) combines research and theater to create novel opportunities for inquiry and knowledge translation. Ethical tensions are part of this process. We explore some tensions that can emerge through three types of ethics: professional ethics, institutional research ethics, and everyday ethics. We then propose a series of ethical guideposts developed by engaging RbT practitioners in reflecting on their practice. Like signs on a highway, ethical guideposts do not mandate a destination but rather flag that an approaching decision needs consideration. These guideposts seek to encourage greater attention to ethical aspects of RbT projects and to support ethical decision-making.
BeckJ. L.BelliveauG.LeaG. W.WagerA. (2011). Delineating a spectrum of research-based theatre. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(8), 687–700.
2.
BelliveauG.CoxS.NicholsJ.LeaG. W.CookC. (2021). Examining the ethics of research-based theatre through Contact! Unload. In PrentkiT.BreedA. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to applied performance (pp. 141–148). Routledge.
3.
BishopK. (2014). Six perspectives in search of an ethical solution: Utilising a moral imperative with a multiple ethics paradigm to guide research-based theatre/applied theatre. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 19(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2013.872426
4.
BoltB. (2016). Whither the aesthetic alibi: Ethics and the challenge of art as research in the academy. In WarrD.GuilleminM.CoxS.WaycottJ. (Eds.), Ethics and visual research methods: Theories, methodologies, and practice (pp. 187–199). Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
BoydellK. M.HodginsM.GladstoneB. M.StasiulisE.BelliveauG.CheuH.KontosP.ParsonsJ. (2016). Arts-based health research and academic legitimacy: Transcending hegemonic conventions. Qualitative Research, 16(6), 681–700. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116630040
6.
BoydellK. M.VolpeT.CoxS.KatzA.DowR.BrungerF.ParsonsJ.BelliveauG.GladstoneB.Zlotnik-ShaulR.CookS.KamensekO.LafrenièreD.WongL. (2012). Ethical challenges in arts-based health research. International Journal of the Creative Arts in Interprofessional Practice, 11, 1–17.
7.
BuckleyJ.ArchibaldT.HargravesM.TrochimW. M. (2015). Defining and teaching evaluative thinking: Insights from research on critical thinking. American Journal of Evaluation, 36(3), 375–388.
8.
ConradD. (2006). Entangled (in the) sticks: Ethical conundrums of popular theater as pedagogy and research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(3), 437–458.
9.
CoxS.DrewS.GuilleminM.HowellC.WarrD.WaycottJ. (2014). Guidelines for ethical visual research methods. Visual Research Collaboratory.
10.
CoxS. M. (2016). From adversaries to allies: Ethical review in the context of visual and other innovative methods. In WarrD.GuilleminM.CoxS.WaycottJ. (Eds.), Ethics and visual research methods: Theory, methodologies, and practice (pp. 251–262). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54305-9_19
11.
Fischer-LichteE.ArjomandM.MosseR. (2014). The Routledge introduction to theatre and performance studies (1st ed.). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
12.
FraserK. D.al SayahF. (2011). Arts-based methods in health research: A systematic review of the literature. Arts & Health, 3(2), 110–145.
13.
GoldsteinT.GrayJ.SalisburyJ.SnellP. (2014). When qualitative research meets theater: The complexities of performed ethnography and research-informed theater project design. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 674–685.
14.
GrayJ.DupuisS. L.KontosP.Jonas-SimpsonC.MitchellG. (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
15.
GrayJ.KontosP. C. (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
16.
GrayJ.KontosP. C. (2019). Working at the margins: Theatre, social science and radical political engagement. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 24(3), 402–407.
17.
GuilleminM.CoxS. (2017). Audience engagement and impact: Ethical considerations in art-based health research. Journal of Applied Arts & Health, 8(2), 141–153.
18.
GuilleminM.GillamL. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280.
19.
LeaG.BelliveauG. (2016). Research-based theatre: An artistic approach to research. Intellect Books.
20.
MitchellG. J.Jonas-SimpsonC.IvonoffskiV. (2006). Research-based theatre: The making of i’m still here!Nursing Science Quarterly, 19(3), 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318406289878
21.
PattonM. Q. (2018). A historical perspective on the evolution of evaluative thinking. New Directions for Evaluation, 2018(158), 11–28.
22.
PrendergastM.SaxtonJ. (2016). Applied theatre second edition: International case studies and challenges for practice. Intellect Books.
23.
SindingC.GrayR.NiskerJ. (2017). Ethical issues and issues of ethics. In KnowlesJ. G.ColeA. L. (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 460–468). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226545.n38
24.
TrontoJ. C. (1993). An ethic of care. In TrontoJ. C. (Ed.), Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care (pp. 125–155). Routledge.
25.
WehipeihanaN.McKeggK. (2018). Values and culture in evaluative thinking: Insights from Aotearoa New Zealand. In VoA. T.ArchibaldT. (Eds.), Evaluative thinking (Issue 158, pp. 93–107). Wiley Online Library.
