Book contents
- The Cambridge Guide to Mixed Methods Research for Theatre and Performance Studies
- Reviews
- The Cambridge Guide to Mixed Methods Research for Theatre and Performance Studies
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction:
- Part I Planning
- Part II Doing
- Part III Interpreting
- Chapter 11 Methodologies Dialogue:
- Chapter 12 Non-linear Methodologies for Researching Early Modern Performance:
- Chapter 13 Taking Your Time:
- Chapter 14 Not Here for the Disciplines:
- Chapter 15 Methodologies Dialogue:
- Conclusion:
- Index
- References
Chapter 13 - Taking Your Time:
Research in Learning-Disabled Theatre
from Part III - Interpreting
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 February 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Guide to Mixed Methods Research for Theatre and Performance Studies
- Reviews
- The Cambridge Guide to Mixed Methods Research for Theatre and Performance Studies
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction:
- Part I Planning
- Part II Doing
- Part III Interpreting
- Chapter 11 Methodologies Dialogue:
- Chapter 12 Non-linear Methodologies for Researching Early Modern Performance:
- Chapter 13 Taking Your Time:
- Chapter 14 Not Here for the Disciplines:
- Chapter 15 Methodologies Dialogue:
- Conclusion:
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter examines how the research methodology of learning-disabled theatre requires a different consideration of temporality. Tony McCaffrey draws on eighteen years’ work with Different Light Theatre in Christchurch, New Zealand to show how epistemic inequity between non-disabled and disabled participants inflects the outcome-led temporality of ‘inclusion’. He articulates that shifts need to occur from the rush to emulate non-disabled performance towards more speculative practice. The research methods of this practice encompass a more elastic notion of time, allowing for non-verbal, dysfluent rhetoric and a non-linear chronology of development in order to admit the possibility of learning from learning-disabled artists.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Calvert, D. (2020). ‘Convivial Theatre: Care and Debility in Collaborations between Non-Disabled and Learning Disabled Theatre Makers’. In Stuart Fisher, A. & Thompson, J., eds., Performing Care: New Perspectives on Socially Engaged Research. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 85–102.Google Scholar
DLT (Different Light Theatre). (2007). Ship of Fools. Devised by the ensemble, directed by T. McCaffrey. Awakenings Festival, Horsham, Victoria, Australia, 13–15 October.Google Scholar
DLT (Different Light Theatre). (2010). The Wizard of Oz. Devised by the ensemble, directed by T. McCaffrey. NASDA Theatre, Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology, Ignition Creative Festival, Christchurch, New Zealand, 18–21 November.Google Scholar
DLT (Different Light Theatre). (2011–12). Still Lives. Devised by the ensemble, directed by T. McCaffrey. Society for Disability Studies, 24th annual conference, San Jose, CA, 15–18 June 2011; Ludus Festival Leeds and Performance Studies International (PSi), 18 Riley Smith Hall, University of Leeds, 28–30 July 2012.Google Scholar
DLT (Different Light Theatre). (2012). Rebuilding Christchurch: A Different Soap Opera. Devised by the ensemble, directed by T. McCaffrey. Arts Access Australia conference, Concourse, Chatswood, Sydney, 30 October.Google Scholar
DLT (Different Light Theatre). (2012–13). The Lonely and the Lovely. 2 parts. Devised by the ensemble, directed by T. McCaffrey. Arts Access Excellence Concourse, Chatswood, Sydney, Australia, 30–31 October 2012; Disability Studies in Education conference, Jack Mann Auditorium, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, 7–9 June 2013.Google Scholar
DLT (Different Light Theatre). (2019). The History of Different Light. Devised by the ensemble, directed by T. McCaffrey. Christchurch Arts Festival. NASDA Theatre, Ara Institute, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1–3 August.Google Scholar
Falkenberg, P., dir. (2013). Canterbury Tales. Free Theatre Christchurch, FESTA (Festival of Transitional Architecture), Christchurch, New Zealand, 25–28 October.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (2005 [1961]). Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. Trans. R. Howard. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grotowski, J. (2002 [1968]). Towards a Poor Theatre. Ed. Barba, E.. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hargrave, M. (2009). ‘Pure Products Go Crazy’. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 14(1), 37–54.Google Scholar
Hargrave, M. (2015). Theatres of Learning Disability: Good, Bad, or Plain Ugly? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Harney, S., & Moten, F. (2013). The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning and Black Study. Wivenhoe, UK: Minor Compositions.Google Scholar
Hickey-Moody, A. (2009). Unimaginable Bodies: Intellectual Disability, Performance and Becomings. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
Hickey-Moody, A. (2017). ‘Integrated Dance as a Public Pedagogy of the Body’. Social Alternatives, 36(4), 5–13.Google Scholar
Lipari, L. (2014). Listening, Thinking, Being: Towards an Ethics of Attunement. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
McCaffrey, T. (2019). Incapacity and Theatricality: Politics and Aesthetics in Theatre Involving Actors with Intellectual Disabilities. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCaffrey, T. (2023). Giving and Taking Voice in Learning Disabled Theatre. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McRuer, R. (2018) Crip Times: Disability, Globalization, and Resistance. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Mingus, M. (2011). ‘Access Intimacy: The Missing Link’. Leaving Evidence (blog), 5 May. Accessed 11 October 2023. https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/access-intimacy-the-missing-link.Google Scholar
Puar, J. (2009). ‘Prognosis Time: Towards a Geopolitics of Affect, Debility and Capacity’. Women and Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory, 19(2), 161–72.Google Scholar