dialoguing scripted data

DAVID BEARE AND GEORGE BELLIVEAU

DIALOCUINC SCRIPTED DATA

Iiili’odiction

[David and Geoige (lie (II a table disciosing it’a)w to engage in a li’iiting pm/eelthat adiresses issues oJscii/ilnig (lata for research purposes.]

David: George, as a way to further our LinderStanding about scripting researchdata, how about we engage in a dialogue about each other’s work on this topic?

George: You mean construct a script that examines our experiences ofdramatizing data in research?

David: Exactly. Through dialoguing we’ll share key moments in our script—writingprocess as we researched our students’ play—creating process: you with your pre—service teachers and mc with my secondary students. In the end, this will be areflective script about creating research scripts that were based on our students’creations of scripts.

George: A play within a play within a play—meta—metadrama! Talk aboutmultiple layers! Let’s begin!

Setting the Scene

David: In my multiple roles as teacher, artist and researcher of high school theatreeducation, I am interested in studying theatre for positive youth development.Based on research data spanning several years, I developed a theoretical modellinking theatre with youth development (Bearc, 2002). While the model was usefulto academically frame the process, I felt compelled to breathe life into the researchand to share the essence of the data in an artistic way. I did this by transforming thedata into a series of monologues and dialogues. Below, Mike (a/I character namesare pseudonyms) sharesa major theme—vision——which I discovered in theresearch and he describes the interaction between art and people.

Mike: The purpose of art is to question ourselves, to question how the worldoperates, to question how to make the world a better place. This questioning. thisdialoguing between people, within ourselves, is not limited to a theatrical creativeprocess, of course, but this is my tool of choice. For me, everything I create is a

S. Spr’nc’gav ci a!. (eds.), Being ivith A/r/1ograthv, t 41— I 49.2008 Sense Publishers. All rig/Its reserved.


that I exist, that I am not alone. It makes me feel like I am a part of’ something, partof humanity, part of the universe. I feel this on a very primal level. So when wework throLigh a collaborative play—creating process, the aim is to not reproduce art,but ather to create art...to work organically, starting the entire creative process atits grassroots.

George: As artist, researcher and teacher in theatre education, I constantly tryto find ways to weave these areas in meaningful ways for my university studentsand mysel 1 The latter part of a research project in drama and social justiceinvolved the creation of a research script. The project involved 12 pre—scrviceteachers collectively creating an anti-bullying play to be performed for elementarystudents. After writing four traditional papers about the learning and meaning thatemerged from the drama research (Belliveau, 2004a; 2004b; 2005: 2006b) Idecided to closely examine the pIe—service teachers’ journals, my icId notes, andthe script they developed, to then create a dramatized script of what emergedduring the play—building process (Bclliveau, 2006a). Traccy took on the leadershiprole of playwright in the collective writing process.

Tracey: A fter sharing our respective tableaux, we reworked them by expandingthem further using dialogue. Oh. by the way, I ‘iii Tracey, an elementary teacher,and one of my tasks during the project was to pull the group’s ideas together intoone script. I guess I’m the playwright of the collective, if that’s still the term to LISC

in a collective.’

IVriiiiig hound an liz(i—Bti//i’iiig ThL’nlL’

David: I was amazed at the different parallels between our scripted data. In bothcases our students wrote scenes around anti—bullying, and we both dramatized theresearch of the play creation process. When I read your piece, the inner voices ofyour pie—service teachers resonated with my experiences with the collaborativeplay—ceating process.

George: That’s how I felt, too, when I read about your students’ inner voices.[.et’s first look at what our students created. Below is a section from the preservice teachers’ script where Suzy bullies Lauren.

LAUREN: I’d be happy to share some of mine with you. (LAUREN sets herlunch down on the table and goes to sit down. As she does, SUZI E grabs thebag of chips that was liom LAUREN’s lunch.) Wow, this is great. Wehaven’t had lLineh together since grade 6... (SUZI E stands up and inspectsthe bag of chips, opens it up, takes 2 or 3, then crumples the bag and throwsit over her shoulder onto the floor and walks away.)

SUZY: Aie you comin’; Courtney, or what?

142

DIALOGUING SCRIPTED DATA

COURTNEY: (hesitates) Yeah, I’m comm. (looks back at LAUREN feelingguilty) Wait up Suze! (LAUREN obviously upset runs offstage.)

David: This scene represents what typical high school students would create onthe subject of bullying. While the practiccs of democratic decision—making andcritical inquiry are essential to learning (Gonzalez, 2006; Lazarus, 2004; Rohd.1998), I question f this type of script is too stereotypical for performancel’P°•

George: I agree that some of the scenes created by the pre-service teachers edgedon stereotypes and they could no doubt have been pushed further. However, there’sthe question of what is the goal of the activity and who are the participants. In yourcase, you’re working with theatre students who have a desire to perform. Mysetting consisted of teachers with very little theatre experience who wanted toexpand their comfort in communication and had a desire to address bullying inschools. So, from the outset, the issue (bullying) was driving the process(Goldstein, 2001; Gray & Sincling, 2002). In addition, because the project tookplace within a teaching practicum. I felt it was important for mc to guide theirwork rather than impose my theatre vision.

David: I agree. It comes down to intent (Jackson, 2005). Last year a group of mystudents created a similar three—person scene on bullying. Yet, in our case, theartistic storyline took higher priority over the subject of bullying (Schonman,2005). For example. in the scene below, the Master of Badlands flnds a lostteenage girl showing her sister’s ring to a homeless woman, known as the MadBride.

Master: Don’t listen to her rubbish, she’s insane. (MAD BRIDE panicS,grabs the ring from LADY VENGEANCE and attempts to hide it.) Now ifyou don’t mind Mad Bride, I’ll be takin’ that. Come on, hand it over. (MADBRIDE reluctantly gives MASTER the ring. MASTER pockets the ring.)

Lady Vengeance: Give me back my ring! (Holding her back.)Master: You must be confused. This is my ring. Crazy here works for me.She’s the hal f—time show. Completely lost her mind. The MacI Bride is purecomedic genius.

Lady Vengeance: But it’s mine. I mean, it’s my sister’s. I gave it to her. Seethe engraving. She must have found it.

Master: Uh—luih. But is your sister here to claim the ring?

Lady Vengeance: No, she’s dead.

Master: Sorry kid, finder’s keepers, loser’s weepers. (She takes out the ring,blows on it, and rubs it on her sleeve.) But if you want it you’ll hafta earn it.

David: This play continues by showing how this abused girl eventually turns intoLady Vengeance. Ottr intent was not to teach about bullying, but rather to capturethe essence of the topic.

143


George: So are you questioning how strong the playscript (and performance)needs to be in order to have a positive affect/effect on the participants?

Da id: Yes, and the audience, too!

George: So, it’s a question of intent and audience. For instance, in our currentdialogue that we are presenting in a reconstructed script form, our intent is not toentertain necessarily, but rather we wish to inform and share with our audienceaspects of dramatizing data. Whereas in a play geared towards performance, wewould likely include theatrical elements such as rising tensions and climax, in thiswork our interest lies primarily in the scripted data. Generally, theatre scripts areblueprints for perforniince, meant to be lifted from the page. So, can our currentengagement be called a play (Saldana, 2006)?

David: Not really. If we wish to engage an audience on various levels, we need toconsider performance aspects. For instance, this script lacks conflict our dialogueis likely too cooperative to become a play. It might be more interesting to read thisscript if our ideas were more at war with one another. In effect, do not people turnto theatre to watch someone prevail or falter over excruciating circumstances?

George: Perhaps we are not creating a playscript, but rather a carefully constructedtranscribed conversation. If that is the case, then maybe we need to prepilre ouraudience for the didactic, rather than artistic, nature of this work. Because inessence, our primary intent with this dialogue, and with our research scripts oncollective creation processes, is to he informative (M ienczakowsk, 2001).

David: With our secondary intent being to engage (and perhaps entertain) as muchas possible with the reflective and research material.

IVriling Scripted Daia

David: Whether our playscripts are didactic or artistic. I found that one of thebiggest challenges of writing scripted data is remaining true to the essence of theoriginal data. For instance, each of my characters represents a mixture of severalsources. No character speaks for one participant, but instead, each is an integrationof many voices linked by themes. In order to connect the voices together, I tooksome artistic license to/i/I in f/ic blanks. Sometimes I changed words, shortened along, rambling sentence, or even added a sentence. Should I have been totallyliitlif’til to the data?

George: What’s fascinating about your question about the debate (tension)between original data versus verbatim is that we are currently engaged in it. Thisscript is an edited version-—the essence of hat we have developed over a fewmonths of dialoguing, c—mailing, and phone conversations. As Saldana (2005)would suggest. we’re looking for “Uie juicy stuff” (p.16) and we have left the so—

144


called boring stuff out. Plus, oir playbuilding work with our students—the actualplays they developed—constantly involved the editing of their stories to find theessence. Your point about merging various voices resonates with my researchscript as well. The fictional character. Traccy, represents at least three voiceswithin the group who playcd signi [leant roles in the writing )roce.

Tracey: I sometimes wonder how close the play we created elates to us as agroup. We’ve invested so much in this as teacher/actors that we’re maybe writingour story, without realizing it. The bullying we’re presenting, which we think isbased on research—what we read and experienced in schools- may be bullyingtendencies and bullied experiences from inside us.

David: I noticed in your research play that you used monologues more thandialogues. Why’s thaf?

George: I guess that since the original data was based on individual journalresponses, interviews, and field notes. this naturally matched the one—waydirectional flow of monologues (Saldana, 2005).

David: My research script, as you noticed, is mostly monologues, and thesesections seem to remain truer to the spirit of the original data. The dialogues, onthe other hand, appear more disconnected. In hindsight, I maybe should haveinterviewed small groups or conducted more focus groups in order to capture thenatural dialogue between people. This would possibly help in adding morebelievability and dramatic tension to the dialogue components ofthe script.

George: The approach I took to build tension, for dramatic effect, came throughthe use of a chorus (Prendergast, 2003). I used this device for a variety of reasons,most importantly because the pre-service teachers actually created a chorus in theplay. In addition, the device allowed me to represent dramatically a nLmmber ofperspectives in a short time tiame. Historically, choruses in plays, in particularGreek plays, tended to have a dialogic voice within them. The dialogic tensionrepresented the spirit of our groLip, in that there were varying views working in thecollective. As I have argued elsewhere (Belliveau, 2006). this tension can be usedproductively for play creation.

Chorus: The scene in the lockers is much better now that we have thecalculator in it.The movement is confusing. We seem to be losing lots oft/me words./ like the action—kids will prçfei’ that to too much talking./ don t know if! can mnemoi’ize all those lines./ nm glad all those long monologues are cut.We on/v have two weeks to relmea,’se this play!I thought including the parents was a good idea.. but that s cuLThe plaj’ is way less confusing with on/v six characrem’s... nc needed to nix theparents.

145

I)A VID BLARE AND GEORGE 13E LLIVEAU

1 IUI1i/)/L’ lOILC’S

David: Your use of ChorLis lends itself nicely to multiple voices. I chose tointroduce the characters and central theme of the collaborative play—creatingprocess iii a sinli lar fashion.

Daniel: It is [JELL!Mike: It’s incredible!Steven: It’s so gay.Pam: It feels satisfying, challenging, and invigorating.Daniel: It is meaningless, frustrating, and tedious. Can’t we for once do anormal play?Kristy: It’s hard.Steven: It’s boring.Shelly: It’s FUN!Karen: It’s not fun when your friends hate you for getting a part.Pam: I have all these ideas buzzing around in my head.Mike: It is the most incredible hcling!Shelly: Ofcourse, if I don’t get this part. I will simply die!Karen: Maybe I should just let her have the part?Paul: What? You’re changing theSte en: Again?Kristy: I wish I could say I love it but it’s really stressing me out.Mike: I love it!Shelley: I absolutely love it!Daniel: I hate it! Despise it!Pam: It has really opened me tip.Paul: It changed me.Mike: It changed my Ii

David: Even though I want to provide many perspectives, I see how therearrangement of data shows my bias on this subject. I sense that I am trying topersuade the audience in certain directions. Notice how the flrst half of thedialogue focused more on negative comments. bLit by the end, there is a shifttowards more positive ones.

George: I think it’s inev table and essential for us to manipulate the data as weshape our scripts, because in the end we are playvriting, turning the research itoan art form ( Saldana, 2005). I Iowever, there is an ethical obligation to stay true tothe essence of what was said or recorded during the research. For instance, if 50%of the responses were negative thoughts towards the process, then I think we’reethically obligated as researchers to represent that within our scripts. If not, we’dnot only be creating a script, but fabricating data. Our goal is to representdramatically the multiple voices of participants’ experiences in an honest, truthful,and e ftic i ciii manner.

146


David: To that end, I tried to captLlre the spectrum of students’ lived experiencesduring the process, by including shadow voices—moments where students sharedwhat c/id not work in the play—creating process.

Daniel: Writing this script was so bloody tedious! We were all over the map,with no sense of direction, everybody lighting over these petty powerstruggles... I mean, I had this real cool ending where the main characterdisappears after a big tight and the audience is left wondering if he’s dead ornot. Now that would have gotten the audience talking. Isn’t that the point ofart? To get people talking, stir things up? (I-Ic locks his locker and continueswalking.) Whatever, it doesn’t matter, most of the people in the group votedfor Karen’s ideas. Don’t you see what’s really happening here? In the end,after all the talking, after all the wasted hours spent on writing, aftereverything! It’s still [the teacher’s] ideas that are being expressed, not ours. Ifyou ask me, this whole process is one big cliché.

George: The shadow voices not only offer another perspective of the process butthey breathe life into what took place. They offer some of the tension you suggestshould take place within a script. So, as we dramatized our data within our researchscripts, did we seek the controversy within the data for dramatic effect, or were wetrying to represent the lived experience of the participants?

Diveigiiig Peis’peciii’es

David: I think your script partially addresses this question, in that it represents thelived experiences as well as (lie inner tensions of the pie—service teachers in theirprocess of co-creating an original script.

Chorus: Great to have rfIrvt drafiJ17e can fInally start rehearsing./ can ‘t believe she cut out Lauren ‘s monologue.It was one of the best parts oft/ic play.S/ic c/ic/n ‘I nicorporcite any of mt suggestions!The gtmj’ parts are pretty s/un.All oiim ideas cire nicely meshed in this script, but we still c/on ‘I have cmii em/jug.We need something cit i/ic beginning.

David: Still, is the inner tension created for dramatic effect?

George: By positioning diverging voices side by side, I no doubt aimed fordramatic effect; nonetheless, that’s what was happening—their visions, feelings,ideas, etc. often did collide in the collaborative process.

David: The colliding of ideas is echoed in my research script, especially throughKaren and Pam who discuss the process of deconstructing and reconstructing ideasto shape a scene.

147

DAVID BIEARE AND GEORGE BELLIVEAU

Karen: I kept at [script—writing] because I like the idea of creating somethingfrom nothing—a bunch of people sitting around brainstorming ideas, playingmental volleyball. You know, exploring options, trying out different thingsuntil you come up with something new. Brainstorming in a group is I ike anengine piston reaction—there’s an explosion at one end and this force is sentto the other end and it fires back and so on, you know, a chain reactionsetting ideas i ito motion.

Pam: You know, it’s really about sharing ideas. And knowing that ideasaren’t bad; they either fit or don’t fit. It’s really “Survival of the Fittest ofIdeas”—where the weak ideas get weeded out and the stronger ones moveforward. It’s just a matter of not taking it personally, even though it’sextremely personal. It’s a matter of trusting the vision.

David: The freedom you gave your pre—service teachers to figure out the scriptsfor themselves is striking. Joan Lazarus (2004) advocates for learner—centredpractice and lbr high school theatre teachers to view theatre as a learninglaboratory. I struggle with my role as theatre teacher/artist, and often wonder if Iam too involved in the students’ learning process. I edit and workshop thestudents’ work numerous times. Pam describes how 90% of all writing nevermakes it to the stage.

Pam: . . most of the ideas were just there in order to get to better ideas, andthen to get to even better ideas after that. It’s hard to do this without hurtingpeople’s fee Ii ngs we get so attached, you know, Sometimes [our teac icr]e en had to override our decisions and cut something we all liked or addsomething we didn’t like and he’d say. “You know what guys, you’re justgoing to have to trust me on tins one.” Some didn’t like it when lie did that,but Ibr me, I really appreciated his leadership. 1—lis guidance and honestysomehow challenged me. It forced me to think differently about art. It forcedme to go places I wouldn’t have gone on my ovv ii.

David: Oflen I question: “Do I let students figure the script out for themselves andprogress from there, or do I challenge them and impose my expertise andexperience? \Vhich is more pedagogically sound?

George: No doubt there’s a balance of guiding the process and allowing theparticipants to discover the pioc. Jonathan Needlands (2006) shares similarconcerns regarding sharing po’cr and knowledge: “I-low do I ensure that my workis progressively challenging so that there is a movement, over time, from teacher—led to individual autonomy?” (p. IX) It seems to me that vvlii Ic you inspire yourhigh school studcnts to go outside of their comfort zone. I encourage my pre—service teachers to (10 this for one another.

Tracey: From the various ideas generated through the interactive tableaux,we developed sonic dialogue. One member of the group wrote a first draft,then c—mailed it to someone else in our small group, and so on, until all fourof us that were working on this scene had a chance to give our insight. It’s

I 4S


amazing how rich our scene became after that one session and some e—mailexchanges! And, it was truly collaborative.

David: A similar collaborative spirit emerged with my high school students. but itoccurred more through peer—mentori ng.

M ike: When I was in grade 9, I thought Derek was the coolest actor in theentire play! I idolized him. I loved everything about his style. Everybodywanted to be like him. Me, I even dressed like him... It’s funny, as I’mtalking about this, I’m just starting to realize that as I’m going into my finalsenior year, that I’m going to be a Derek for someone else. It’s weird to thinkthat i ‘iii going to be this role—model and someone’s going to look up to meand, for better or worse, I am going to have all this power to affect them, theway Derek impacted on me. Weird, huh?

George: It seems to me that the dialogue between participants is crucial, not onlyfor ownership in the work, but also to foster sustainability of such creativeendeavours. Collaborative creation environments foster leadership, and isn’t ourrole as educators to share knowledge but also to create environments wherelearners can discover and build knowledge and understanding!

David: And create a community. Dialogue seems to be at the root of all ourmultiple scripts. We use dialogue to create our scripts, and we use scripts toexpress our dialogues. We write dialogue about our dialogues. As-irtists,researchers, and teachers we mix, reposition, shape, bend, play with, and tear apartdialogue to examine, highlight, question, honour and inspire further dialogue.

George: Let us temporarily end our dialogue and give voice to Tracey and Mike. Ithink their process of co—creating scripts resonates with the challenges and rewardsof scripting data as a form of research and art—and this might hopefully inspirefurther dialogue on this topic!

Traeey: I feel kind of like what I assume George must feel like. I know hehas ideas about what the play might look like, yet he is holding back on hisvision in order to allow us to create it collectively. I’m finding it incrediblychallenging to let go of my own ideas and include all the other voices. Thereare so many great ideas, and... I can’t include them all. Yet, I fear otherswon’t feel validated if I don’t use their suggestions. Somehow, I have tofunnel and blend all the ideas into our 30—minute piece.

Mike: You see, we’re actually experiencing what art wants us to do-unifying people to discuss and exchange ideas—to question ourselves. Andthe questioning and dialoguing is happening as we’re creating the piece itself.It’s a double whammy! It’s a multiplication of something that is alreadygreat! You’re multiplying everything by the number of people involved.You’re connecting minds, connecting hearts, connecting ideas. .. all comingtogether to create a play all squished into a two—hour show.

149

dialoguing scripted data

Documents