The creation of the Mini Decolonial Transnational Dictionary represents an essential step in restructuring how performance studies engage with decolonisation. This project not only reflects a keen attunement to the complexities of cultural exchange and representation in theatre but also serves as a vital pedagogical tool for the challenges observed in our School of Performance. This reflection explores the rationale for the chosen methodologies, summarises the project’s findings, and examines how these align with relevant literature in the broader context of decolonial studies in performance.
Rationale for Research Methods
The methodological approach for the development of the Mini Decolonial Transnational Dictionary was primarily rooted in community engagement (at the moment, targeting the PGR community), co-creation, and a firm ethical framework. The project’s design called for active participation from early-career researchers with diverse cultural backgrounds. This inclusive approach was crucial for developing a resource that genuinely reflects the multiplicity of voices and experiences within the theatre community.
The decision to involve PhD candidates with varying research foci allowed for a rich tapestry of perspectives. I include myself in this diverse group of researchers, as our positionalities as academics and practitioners were the starting point of the work we proposed to do. By embracing this heterogeneity, all of us dictionary-makers could explore the nuances inherent in performance terminology, reflecting a non-homogenous understanding of cultural narratives. This aligns with the thoughts explored by Bhambra (2014), who argues for interconnected understandings of social realities that acknowledge the significance of diverse voices.
“Focus group interviews are particularly useful for exploring complex issues and gaining a deeper understanding of a particular phenomenon.” Vaughn (2013) p. 23
Incorporating focus group methodologies allowed the team to gather a wide array of terminologies and conceptual frameworks grounded in our lived experiences rather than traditional Western academic norms. Each workshop engaged participants in discussing terminologies relevant to their artistic practices while acknowledging the need for cultural specificity. The goal was not to create a singular definition, but to present a series of triggers for debate, that questions preconceived notions and absolute definitions, which can be quite limiting and not allow for questioning or updating as new information can be added onto it. As Spivak (1988) suggests, the complexities of voice and representation must be critically examined, and this collaborative structure exemplifies such scrutiny.
For instance, in the Melodrama sub-category, the group’s consensus was that none of them had been introduced to a timeline or overview of origin to Melodrama. This was evident in Olga’s reaction during the workshop, where she noted, “I missed my theatre history lessons on melodrama, but I know that Romanian playwrights are good at it!” This anecdote corroborates McAteer’s (2013) assertion that “the key to successful action research is to focus on the process of learning, rather than just the outcome“, highlighting the importance of prior knowledge and the need for contextual understanding in this context (also reflected in Alonson and Le’s (2020) research on transcending ideologies in bilingualism).
Moreover, the dictionary’s focus on positionality and intersectionality serves to deepen the analysis of cultural narratives in theatre. This methodological choice reflects the commitment to an action-oriented practice that acknowledges the intricacies of identity formation and representation in artistic contexts. The inclusion of terms that address power dynamics, such as “Curatorial Bias” and “Dramaturgical Intervention,” exemplifies the project’s alignment with postcolonial critiques, acknowledging that all performance practices are situated within larger socio-political frameworks.
Summary of Project Findings
The Mini Decolonial Transnational Dictionary was designed as a resource that articulates key concepts related to decolonial practice in the performing arts. The entries were divided into subcategories—Decolonial Approaches, Actor Training, Performance Making/Curating, Dramaturgy, and Melodrama—reflecting significant themes in contemporary theatre studies.
One of the most important findings was the recognition of the diverse interpretations of common terms across cultural contexts, which challenges the Eurocentric foundations of theatre education. For instance, the term “trained actor” varies vastly in significance depending on sociocultural backgrounds, calling into question traditional models of performance training. This finding parallels the work of Gonzalez & Marquez (2020), who argue for the necessity of decolonising educational frameworks to ensure inclusivity.
Furthermore, the dictionary aims to embody a collective ethos by crediting contributors, thus blurring the lines of authorship and ownership in the creation of knowledge. This principle is essential, as it emphasizes the communal nature of cultural narratives. By positioning the dictionary as a living document enriched by annotations from various contributors, the project acknowledges and celebrates the collective memory and identities of marginalised communities, aligning with the idea of ethical collaboration put forth by Alter (2016).
Another critical finding concerned the inherent challenges of representing diverse voices accurately. Issues surrounding representation necessitated robust discussions throughout the editorial process, leading to an ethical framework encompassing informed consent and collaboration. This aspect was proven particularly challenging given the very limited timeframe of this project, and the availability of all five participants (including mine) to meet and discuss. Despite thorough communication being continued via email and MSTeams group, we only had two organised sessions – one for the initial workshop and debate of topics, and a second to reflect on the editorial choices and any further collective input. I wanted to make sure the document produced would be reflective of all of the participants’ voices and knowledge exchange processes. This reflection on representation echoes the ongoing dialogue in decolonial theory which proposes a shift from viewing knowledge as individualistic, moving it toward a communal perspective.
Reflection on Theoretical Frameworks
The Mini Decolonial Transnational Dictionary’s relevance is amplified by its grounding in theoretical frameworks such as decolonial pedagogy and intersectionality. By adopting a decolonial pedagogical approach, the dictionary serves as a model for educating future theatre practitioners on engaging with layers of cultural representation, resonating with the pedagogical insights of Friedman (2017). A broader application of these frameworks not only fosters awareness about the impact of colonial legacies on contemporary artistic practices, but also encourages transformative approaches that integrate previously silenced voices. Notably, the serendipitous outcome of this study’s participant demographics, where participants who identified as queer or female were over-represented, underscored the importance of intentionally creating a space for marginalised voices to be heard and for knowledge to be co-produced in an inclusive way. This happy coincidence highlights the need to design methodologies that deliberately centre the perspectives of those who are often marginalised or excluded, thereby producing richer and more nuanced understandings of cultural representation and performance.
The emphasis on positionality and intersectionality helps clarify how multiple identities influence cultural interpretations and performance dynamics. As the dictionary outlines terms relevant to specific cultural and social contexts, it responds to the multifaceted nature of identity formation and representation in artistic pursuits. It reinforces the arguments presented by Taylor (2003), who contends that performance constitutes a means of negotiating cultural memory, thus making a compelling case for decolonising performance methodologies.
Moreover, the nuances intrinsic to the chosen terms serve as a mirror reflecting broader societal dynamics. This correspondence with the academic discourse on representation holds significant implications for the future of theatre-making practices. As practitioners adopt the language of the dictionary, they become empowered to engage more critically with the themes of power, identity, and representation within their own work, potentially sparking a transformative ripple effect throughout the School of Performance.
Conclusion: Implications for Future Research and Practice
The Mini Decolonial Transnational Dictionary is not merely a defined collection of terms; it represents a strategic intervention in the field of performance studies, encapsulating the urgency for decolonisation and ethical collaboration. The dictionary aspires to act as a foundational resource, transcending disciplinary boundaries and fostering an inclusive dialogue within the theatre community.
Moving forward, the dictionary can serve as a platform for ongoing discussions around terminology, representation, and cultural practice. Its interactive and evolving nature invites contributors and users alike to continuously engage with and adapt the content, ensuring its relevance in an ever-changing sociocultural landscape. Furthermore, it challenges theatre practitioners to adopt a more critically aware practice, one grounded in intersectional and decolonial principles.
In closing, the need for such resources continues to grow as the theatre community grapples with the implications of colonial histories. As this project unfolds, it is imperative to monitor its impact and adapt to the ongoing shifts in cultural discourse. Ultimately, the Mini Decolonial Transnational Dictionary aims to emerge not only as an educational tool but as a companion resource that champions ethical performance practices and a more inclusive theatre landscape.
References:
ALONSON, L. and LE, K. (2020) ‘The Language Warriors: Transcending ideologies on bilingualism in education.’ Action Research, 0(0), pp.1–21. DOI:10.1177/1476750320931155.
ALTER, N. Performance and the Politics of Freedom and Fear. TDR: The Drama Review, vol. 60, no. 2, 2016, pp. 18-33.
BHAMBRA, Gurminder K. Connected Sociologies. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014.
FRIEDMAN, Susan Stanford. Minding the Gap: Feminism, Transformative Critical Literacy, and Education. Teaching Educational Psychology, 2017.
GONZÁLEZ, M. S., & Marquez, D. “De-Colonizing the Body, Land, and Politics: Intervention, Response, and the Code of Ethics.” In Decolonizing the Academy: Interventions in the Academy. University Press of Colorado, 2020.
IPEK, Ö.F. and KARAMAN, A.C. (2020) ‘Systemic Change in a Higher Education Institution: Inquiring into Organizational and Instructional Transformation’, Systemic Practice and Action Research, 34, pp. 109-125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-019-09516-6.
MCATEER, M. (2013) Action Research in Education. London: Sage. https://methods-sagepub-com.arts.idm.oclc.org/book/action-research-in-education (Accessed: 10 June 2024).
REVANS, R. (1982) Origins and Growth of Action Learning. Bromley: Chartwell-Bratt Ltd.
SMITH, L.T. (2012) Decolonising Methodologies, research and indigenous people. London: Zed Books.
SPIVAK, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988.
TAYLOR, Diana. The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas. Durham: Duke University Press, 2003.
TUCK, E. & WAYNE YANG, K. (2012) ‘Decolonization is not a metaphor’. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), pp. 1‐40. Available at: https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck%20and%20Yang%202012%20Decolonization%20is%20not%20a%20metaphor.pdf (Accessed: 10 June 2024).
VAUGHN, S., SCHUMM, J.S. and SINAGUB, J. (2013) ‘Why Use Focus Group Interviews in Educational and Psychological Research?’, in Focus group interviews in Education and Psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://methods-sagepub-com.arts.idm.oclc.org/book/focus-group-interviews-in-education-and-psychology/n2.xml (Accessed: 10 June 2024).