Advertisement

No “Bullshit”: Rigor and Evaluation of Applied Theatre Projects

  • Dani Snyder-Young
Chapter
Part of the Landscapes: the Arts, Aesthetics, and Education book series (LAAE, volume 22)

Abstract

Applied theatre practitioners embark on projects with goals of transformation. Given that these projects are explicitly framed as intervention, practitioners need to be able to demonstrate that projects have achieved their stated goals. Often, this leads to evaluation discourse steeped in, as Frankfurt puts it, “bullshit” (On bullshit, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), as practitioners articulate goals that are vague and/or abstract, eliding the problem of proving if transformation has or has not actually occurred. This chapter will examine rigor and specificity in the evaluation of applied theatre projects, offering specific strategies practitioners can use in organic, rigorous assessment of projects.

References

  1. Balfour, M. (2009). The politics of intention: Looking for a theatre of little changes. Research in Drama Education, 14(3), 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baños Smith, H. (2006). International NGOs and impact assessment. Can we know we are making a difference? RiDE: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 11(2), 157–174.Google Scholar
  3. Belfiore, E. (2009). On bullshit in cultural policy practice and research: Notes from the British case. International Journal of Cultural Policy., 15(3), 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowles, N., & Nadon, D.-R. (2013). Staging social justice: Collaborating to create activist theatre. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. www.corestandards.org. Retrieved October 9, 2015.Google Scholar
  5. de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Etherton, M., & Prentki, T. (2006). Drama for change? Prove it! Impact assessment in applied theatre. Research in Drama Education, 11(2), 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Howe, Kelly. (2015). ‘To in the present: What was political yesterday is not necessarily political today’. Unpublished conference paper presented at Pedagogy and Theatre of the Oppressed Conference, Chicago, IL, June 13.Google Scholar
  9. Iverson, S. (2013). Inspiring change and action: Measuring the impact of theatre for social justice. In N. Bowles & D.-R. Nadon (Eds.), Staging social justice: Collaborating to create activist theatre (pp. 66–75). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Jennings, M., & Baldwin, A. (2010). “Filling out the forms was a nightmare”: Project evaluation and the reflective practitioner in community theatre in contemporary Northern Ireland. Music and Arts in Action, 2(2), 72–89.Google Scholar
  11. Nadon, D.-R. (2013). Sympathy vs. stigma: Writing the “victim”. In N. Bowles & D.-R. Nadon (Eds.), Staging social justice: Collaborating to create activist theatre (pp. 76–83). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Taylor, P. (Ed.). (2006). Assessment in arts education. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  13. Omasta, M., & Snyder-Young, D. (2014). Gaps, silences and comfort zones: Dominant paradigms in educational drama and applied theatre discourse. RiDE: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 19(1), 7–22.Google Scholar
  14. Thompson, J. (2009). Performance affects: Applied theatre and the end of effect. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Walvoord, B. E. (2010). Assessment clear and Simple: A practical guide for Institutions, departments, and general education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. White, G. (2015). Applied theatre aesthetics. London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dani Snyder-Young
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of TheatreNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations