Yesterday I carried out my pilot investigation. The reason I waited so long was because I wanted to do an observation of a class but needed to wait for the holidays to end first. The class I chose was a musical theatre performance class which involves a group of students rehearsing a musical theatre number from a show to performance level.
I decided I would need to make my observation a simple and structured one because I only had the opportunity to watch one class and therefore didn't have the luxury of waiting for meaning to evolve over time. I therefore started by working out exactly what it was that I wanted to know and concluded that as my interest lies in the balance of musical theatre curriculum I would like to know if emphasis was given to a particular discipline within the class.
I would firstly record how often the teacher gave dance notes, how often they gave singing notes, and how often they gave acting notes. I would also record how often the students asked questions about choreography, how often they asked questions about vocals, and how often they asked questions about characterisation. I hoped that at the end I would have some data that showed whether the class was being taught with a bias towards a particular discipline and whether this rubbed off on the questions asked by the students.
I created two simple grids, one for the teacher and one for the students (I originally thought about doing a grid for each of the students but I didn't know the class well and thought I may get confused with names. I also thought that my interest was more about the bias of the class as a whole so recording individual students wouldn't add much insight at this stage), and each was split into three sections (one for dance, one for singing and one for acting). Every time one of the disciplines was mentioned by teacher or students a mark would be made on the correct box on the grid.
The recording of the data proved to be fairly easy because I was listening out for very specific things and a rehearsal environment is one that I am used to. I am glad I decided on a structured approach because it enabled me to stay focused for the entire class, stopping my attention wandering to more interesting things.
It had been a concern of mine that my presence in the classroom would be a distraction to the students or that perhaps they might change their behaviour. This however didn't seem to be the case. The class is a very involved and busy one so perhaps they just didn't have the time to worry about me. I spoke to the teacher afterwards and he said that they behaved as they always do.
Another thing that particularly worried me was that the teacher, knowing that I was looking at how often each discipline was mentioned, would consciously make more effort to talk about all three so as to seem 'better'. I therefore decided to only give the teacher an overview of my aims rather than the exact specifics of what I was recording. I concluded that this was still ethically sound as the teacher consented and was given the reasons why he wasn't being informed more deeply. I also let him know that he could look at the results after as it might be useful to him.
My real problems came when analysing the results. Looking at my final grid for the teacher it showed that he gave notes on choreography 33 times during the class, he gave acting notes 8 times, and he gave singing notes only twice. The final grid for the students showed that they asked 15 questions about choreography, 2 about characterisation, and 0 about the vocals of the piece.
From the data it looks clear that there is a strong bias towards dance in this musical theatre class but I am unsure if in reality this is true. I remember the first things the teacher spoke to the students about was the importance of characterisation in this particular number, and almost every time he mentioned it he stressed that it was the most important thing. So if it is the most important thing why did he give more notes on the dance and why were more questions asked about the dance? This could be down to a number of reasons. It was early in the rehearsal process and steps were still being learnt so dance was at that point the focus. You have to know the steps before you can layer it with character. It could be that getting everyone to physically do the same thing takes more verbal correction than getting people to discover their character. It could also be that the acting and singing were already at a very high standard because of previous work and now it is the dance that needs to be improved.
Perhaps if I had been able to watch the class over a whole term and seen the process from start to finish then the data I gathered would be more fairly representative of what was going on. I must admit that I didn't find observation to be the most reliable of tools. It is probably due to my inexperience and the amount of time I have to spend on it but I think that the results I got were too open to interpretation. Observation is supposed to be about looking at what actually happens rather than what people say happens which I think is valuable. In reality however discovering what happens doesn't help you discover why it happens so the results are still very open to interpretation.
Wednesday 27 April 2011
Monday 25 April 2011
Survey
A few weeks ago I carried out a survey entitled 'The Effectiveness Of Your Training' and this blog aims to analyse the effectiveness of that survey.
When I created the survey my intention was to discover how well people felt their training had prepared them for their career and particularly what aspects they felt were most beneficial or lacking. I also wanted to investigate what people saw as important measures of success.
I initially posted my survey (created using Survey Monkey) on my blog and I got a reasonable response of about ten people from the BAPP course but I felt I wanted more people involved so I decided to also post the survey onto Facebook. I didn't ask anyone specifically to fill in the survey I just left it on my wall but the response number significantly increased to thirty four by the end of the survey period. I would definitely use Facebook again as a way of getting any future surveys to the maximum number of people. It would be possible to use contacts on Facebook to post the survey on their walls too so that people beyond your direct network could respond. Obviously the more people that respond to the survey the more relevant and accurate the information becomes. I understand the argument that this rules out anyone who doesn't have a Facebook account or a computer but I still feel I would be able to get enough of a cross section of the populations that I am interested in to make the method worthwhile and fair.
I would also use Survey Monkey to create any future survey because I felt it was easy to use and the graphs it creates are really useful in giving a visual overview of particular trends of thought. I would however consider paying the fee to create a survey that was slightly longer as I felt restricted by the limit of ten questions.
When I first created my survey I was aware of the ten question limit and tried particularly hard to only include questions that I thought would help me find out what I wanted to know. After looking at my results however I still created several questions that were completely pointless. The question 'Where did you train?', although interesting, gave me no specifically useful information. Also the question 'Are you currently working or have you ever work in the field you trained in?' was not useful. 97.1% (33) of respondents were working or had at some point worked in their chosen field so from this I could read that the training of most people was successful because it enabled them to work. The question however gave no insight into the type, length or regularity of work.
There is one other question that I would not ask again an that is the name of the respondents. Carly Osbourne and Ellie Sykes both commented that they thought respondents were more likely to be honest and forthcoming with their answers if they were anonymous. I absolutely agree with them. I think for the pilot survey it was fine to ask for names because we are comfortable with each other and it gave me the opportunity to follow up any queries I had. If I were doing a larger survey in future involving people who I did not know and who did not know me I would give up the chance of being able to follow up for the increased possibility of truthful responses.
Something interesting that emerged from the survey is that 64.7% (22) of respondents were only partially happy with the training they received and 2.9% (1) not at all happy. This has made me keen to continue with my inquiry into vocational training to see what it is that performers feel they actually need that they are not currently getting. Again, however, I feel I could have worded this question better. I asked, 'How well do you feel your vocational training prepared you for your chosen career: Not at all, Partially, Completely?' 32.4% (11) of respondents said they were completely happy with their training but when asked if they felt if anything could have done anything to prepare them better they all gave an answer. This made me think that perhaps they were not 'completely' happy meaning I should have given them a different option, such as 'very well'.
When asked what they felt (if anything) their college could have done to prepare them better 17.6 % (6) of respondents thought that audition technique could have been improved, 17.6% (6) of respondents felt that more information on self-employed business issues (i.e. tax and marketing) should have been given, and 20.6% (7) felt that the acting training could have been improved. These insights have made me want to ask specific questions around these particular issues.
When asked what aspect of their course (if anything) they felt was vital for their training 35.3% (12) thought that the discipline of the course was vital.
When asked to rate the importance of certain factors in determining how successful a performer is, quality of work and happiness came out marginally higher as the most important factors. If I were to ask this question again I would ask the respondents to rate them in order of importance. I think this would give a much clearer indication of what people think is the most important factor in determining success.
With regards to my pilot survey one of the things I found most beneficial was the mix of quantitative and qualitative information. It was useful to ask a quantitative question and then give people room to expand their answer, enabling me to find out why they thought certain things. Any survey I do in the future will definitely contain a mix of quantitative and qualitative questions.
I found the survey process really interesting and will be using it in my actual inquiry because it is a way of getting information quickly from a large pool of people. However, this piloting process has made me appreciate the importance of getting the questions right. They need to be clear (making sure they mean the same thing to everybody) and specific (making sure they are aimed at collecting the information you actually want to collect). The next time I carry out a survey I will spend much longer on working out exactly what it is that I want to know.
When I created the survey my intention was to discover how well people felt their training had prepared them for their career and particularly what aspects they felt were most beneficial or lacking. I also wanted to investigate what people saw as important measures of success.
I initially posted my survey (created using Survey Monkey) on my blog and I got a reasonable response of about ten people from the BAPP course but I felt I wanted more people involved so I decided to also post the survey onto Facebook. I didn't ask anyone specifically to fill in the survey I just left it on my wall but the response number significantly increased to thirty four by the end of the survey period. I would definitely use Facebook again as a way of getting any future surveys to the maximum number of people. It would be possible to use contacts on Facebook to post the survey on their walls too so that people beyond your direct network could respond. Obviously the more people that respond to the survey the more relevant and accurate the information becomes. I understand the argument that this rules out anyone who doesn't have a Facebook account or a computer but I still feel I would be able to get enough of a cross section of the populations that I am interested in to make the method worthwhile and fair.
I would also use Survey Monkey to create any future survey because I felt it was easy to use and the graphs it creates are really useful in giving a visual overview of particular trends of thought. I would however consider paying the fee to create a survey that was slightly longer as I felt restricted by the limit of ten questions.
When I first created my survey I was aware of the ten question limit and tried particularly hard to only include questions that I thought would help me find out what I wanted to know. After looking at my results however I still created several questions that were completely pointless. The question 'Where did you train?', although interesting, gave me no specifically useful information. Also the question 'Are you currently working or have you ever work in the field you trained in?' was not useful. 97.1% (33) of respondents were working or had at some point worked in their chosen field so from this I could read that the training of most people was successful because it enabled them to work. The question however gave no insight into the type, length or regularity of work.
There is one other question that I would not ask again an that is the name of the respondents. Carly Osbourne and Ellie Sykes both commented that they thought respondents were more likely to be honest and forthcoming with their answers if they were anonymous. I absolutely agree with them. I think for the pilot survey it was fine to ask for names because we are comfortable with each other and it gave me the opportunity to follow up any queries I had. If I were doing a larger survey in future involving people who I did not know and who did not know me I would give up the chance of being able to follow up for the increased possibility of truthful responses.
Something interesting that emerged from the survey is that 64.7% (22) of respondents were only partially happy with the training they received and 2.9% (1) not at all happy. This has made me keen to continue with my inquiry into vocational training to see what it is that performers feel they actually need that they are not currently getting. Again, however, I feel I could have worded this question better. I asked, 'How well do you feel your vocational training prepared you for your chosen career: Not at all, Partially, Completely?' 32.4% (11) of respondents said they were completely happy with their training but when asked if they felt if anything could have done anything to prepare them better they all gave an answer. This made me think that perhaps they were not 'completely' happy meaning I should have given them a different option, such as 'very well'.
When asked what they felt (if anything) their college could have done to prepare them better 17.6 % (6) of respondents thought that audition technique could have been improved, 17.6% (6) of respondents felt that more information on self-employed business issues (i.e. tax and marketing) should have been given, and 20.6% (7) felt that the acting training could have been improved. These insights have made me want to ask specific questions around these particular issues.
When asked what aspect of their course (if anything) they felt was vital for their training 35.3% (12) thought that the discipline of the course was vital.
When asked to rate the importance of certain factors in determining how successful a performer is, quality of work and happiness came out marginally higher as the most important factors. If I were to ask this question again I would ask the respondents to rate them in order of importance. I think this would give a much clearer indication of what people think is the most important factor in determining success.
With regards to my pilot survey one of the things I found most beneficial was the mix of quantitative and qualitative information. It was useful to ask a quantitative question and then give people room to expand their answer, enabling me to find out why they thought certain things. Any survey I do in the future will definitely contain a mix of quantitative and qualitative questions.
I found the survey process really interesting and will be using it in my actual inquiry because it is a way of getting information quickly from a large pool of people. However, this piloting process has made me appreciate the importance of getting the questions right. They need to be clear (making sure they mean the same thing to everybody) and specific (making sure they are aimed at collecting the information you actually want to collect). The next time I carry out a survey I will spend much longer on working out exactly what it is that I want to know.
Friday 22 April 2011
Literature Review 2
I will be reviewing the Preface and Chapter One of Ruth Leon's book 'The Sound of Musicals'.
Ruth Leon argues that musical theatre is more than a contrived art form by an elite group of people for an elite group of people but is in fact a natural amalgamation of humans' basic need to dance, sing and tell stories. She believes that all musicals come form that desire and that the great musicals are the ones that do it best.
The greats may be different from each other in many ways but what they all have in common is that 'every element of the show contributes to the whole and where the whole is indivisible.' They change the way we think about musical theatre and also have a 'universal' way of 'speaking to something deep within each member of the audience.'
Ruth Leon is an established writer, lecturer and theatre critic amongst other things and has been a part of the theatre industry for a considerable number of years. It seems obvious then that she would refute that musicals are a contrived, elitist art form. I would argue that Leon is perhaps a member of the elite society that she denies and is therefore biased in favour of musical theatre as is anyone who writes about a subject they love.
Leon would no doubt deny this elitist view but when she goes on to discuss the merits of 'great musicals' and what a 'great musical' should be I think she gives herself away. She dismisses many commercial successes such as The Phantom Of The Opera and Les Miserables, saying they are popular but not great. Is a shows popularity not a measure of its greatness? I imagine that a member of the general public would think so but as a member of a more critical, elitist group Leon imposes different criteria.
Leon believes that 'any stage show stands or falls by its characters and their complexity is what gets us through to the end.' Would the audience of We Will Rock You, who voted it 'Most Popular Show' at the 2011 Olivier Awards, agree? The show is notoriously light on character but is funny and has unarguably incredible music. It is a critically panned success story. Have the critics got it wrong? Is there something they didn't see? Is it in fact a great musical? I don't think so but then I think I too am a member of the elitist group that Leon refutes.
What all this makes me question is should we continue to train students for the critical, elitist ideal or should we focus on what the general public decides is good? Should we be training students to belt high, or do tricks because it is entertainment that is really important and not the careful integration of acting, singing and dancing? Musical theatre started as Variety. It consisted loose stories that were held together by popular songs of the day, very much like We Will Rock You or Mamma Mia. The art form 'at its best' has evolved from its origins but it has perhaps evolved into something that is elitist and not always popular.
Leon's book is written by an musical theatre lover for musical theatre lovers. Its style is friendly but it assumes prior knowledge of the intricacies of the industry. As such it plays up the importance of the art form and its contributors, at times sounding almost reverential. In other words it tells its audience what it wants to hear. No lover of musical theatre would want to be told how irrelevant, or unpopular their ideal is and Ruth Leon doesn't disappoint.
As a critic Leon has seen a huge number of shows over the years and therefore should be considered an expert in distinguishing good theatre from bad. Unfortunately theatre is always subjective and what is desirable to one is not necessarily desirable to another. The chapters I have reviewed and the book as a whole are extremely useful at getting the expert opinion of Leon but it should be remembered that there is a huge 'general public' out there who disagree.
Leon, R. 2010, 'Why Musicals?' and 'Something Wonderful' in The sound of musicals. London: Oberon.
Ruth Leon argues that musical theatre is more than a contrived art form by an elite group of people for an elite group of people but is in fact a natural amalgamation of humans' basic need to dance, sing and tell stories. She believes that all musicals come form that desire and that the great musicals are the ones that do it best.
The greats may be different from each other in many ways but what they all have in common is that 'every element of the show contributes to the whole and where the whole is indivisible.' They change the way we think about musical theatre and also have a 'universal' way of 'speaking to something deep within each member of the audience.'
Ruth Leon is an established writer, lecturer and theatre critic amongst other things and has been a part of the theatre industry for a considerable number of years. It seems obvious then that she would refute that musicals are a contrived, elitist art form. I would argue that Leon is perhaps a member of the elite society that she denies and is therefore biased in favour of musical theatre as is anyone who writes about a subject they love.
Leon would no doubt deny this elitist view but when she goes on to discuss the merits of 'great musicals' and what a 'great musical' should be I think she gives herself away. She dismisses many commercial successes such as The Phantom Of The Opera and Les Miserables, saying they are popular but not great. Is a shows popularity not a measure of its greatness? I imagine that a member of the general public would think so but as a member of a more critical, elitist group Leon imposes different criteria.
Leon believes that 'any stage show stands or falls by its characters and their complexity is what gets us through to the end.' Would the audience of We Will Rock You, who voted it 'Most Popular Show' at the 2011 Olivier Awards, agree? The show is notoriously light on character but is funny and has unarguably incredible music. It is a critically panned success story. Have the critics got it wrong? Is there something they didn't see? Is it in fact a great musical? I don't think so but then I think I too am a member of the elitist group that Leon refutes.
What all this makes me question is should we continue to train students for the critical, elitist ideal or should we focus on what the general public decides is good? Should we be training students to belt high, or do tricks because it is entertainment that is really important and not the careful integration of acting, singing and dancing? Musical theatre started as Variety. It consisted loose stories that were held together by popular songs of the day, very much like We Will Rock You or Mamma Mia. The art form 'at its best' has evolved from its origins but it has perhaps evolved into something that is elitist and not always popular.
Leon's book is written by an musical theatre lover for musical theatre lovers. Its style is friendly but it assumes prior knowledge of the intricacies of the industry. As such it plays up the importance of the art form and its contributors, at times sounding almost reverential. In other words it tells its audience what it wants to hear. No lover of musical theatre would want to be told how irrelevant, or unpopular their ideal is and Ruth Leon doesn't disappoint.
As a critic Leon has seen a huge number of shows over the years and therefore should be considered an expert in distinguishing good theatre from bad. Unfortunately theatre is always subjective and what is desirable to one is not necessarily desirable to another. The chapters I have reviewed and the book as a whole are extremely useful at getting the expert opinion of Leon but it should be remembered that there is a huge 'general public' out there who disagree.
Leon, R. 2010, 'Why Musicals?' and 'Something Wonderful' in The sound of musicals. London: Oberon.
Literature Review 1
I will be reviewing the following article written by Adrian Jeckells, principal of The London School of Musical Theatre. The article was written for the UK Performing Arts Website which aims to give guidance to those who want to train for a performance career. The article can be found at: http://www.ukperformingarts.co.uk/musicaltheatre/the_right_training.asp
As head of LSMT Adrian Jeckells has a lot of knowledge about the musical theatre industry and about what is required when training students. He should be considered an expert in the field and the article gives his expert opinion. It should however be noted that the article is only giving his opinion and is not substantiated.
In the article Jeckells argues that musical theatre performers need strong skills in singing, acting and dancing and that a good course will provide training in all three. He believes that a 'balanced curriculum' is the key to improving their employability (Jeckells, 2011). He gives advice on the more practical side of the industry and says that a good course should aid students in this. He discusses the different types of course available to those looking to train and gives guidance on how to check the track records of particular courses.
This article was written for those who want to train in musical theatre. These people will want as much practical information as possible and will be looking to this site and article to supply that for them. The writing style is helpfully clear and there are lots of facts and useful tips to guide the reader, such as looking at biographies in show programmes to see where cast members trained. I do think however that because of this upfront approach some opinion is passed off as fact and can therefore be misleading.
Jeckells has made certain assumptions when writing this article that should be discussed. His main argument that musical theatre 'requires people with a strong skill-base in singing, acting and dancing' is not substantiated. There are many people who work successfully as musical theatre performers and who can only do one or two of the three disciplines. His opinion on this matter however is stated as fact and means we should proceed with caution.
When discussing three year and one year courses Jeckells also makes assumptions about the type of person that would be right for each. He assumes that those training on a one year course will have more natural talent than those on a three year course. He writes, 'for some individuals three years of training at a reputable establishment is imperative as they may have potential but limited stagecraft or technical foundation... for others a three course is neither necessary or desirable.' He goes on to describe the type of person who would be right for a one year course '(the person) is naturally talented... a mature individual who may have extensive non-professional stage experience, has privately embarked on singing lessons and dance classes and now wishes to pursue a professional career.' A person reading this would naturally want to see themselves in the best possible light and would therefore more likely than not think themselves right for the one year course.
When considering these assumptions I think it is important for us to look at the bias of the author. He is the head of LSMT which is a one year course and he therefore has an allegiance with that type of course. Given that the audience of the article is people looking to train it is in his best interests to promote one year courses in a favourable light. This does however mean we get a skewed and misleading impression of the types of people who train on each course. It is my experience that people on a three course will have had as many private singing and dancing classes prior to professional training as those on a one year course. It is also my experience that they are no less naturally talented.
It should probably be noted here that I am aware that I most likely have my own bias with regards to the training of musical theatre students. I trained on a three course and am therefore inclined to defend the course and the talent of those who choose to train there.
Another bias that I believe the author has and does a good job at concealing is to do with the importance of singing. Jeckells says that it is important to be a 'triple threat' but he makes several comments about the importance of singing without making similar comments on the importance of the other disciplines. For example, 'the minimum requirement for an individual embarking on a career in musical theatre today is a strong singing voice' and 'the course should not be an acting course with some token singing classes.' He even list 'singing' first when discussing the three disciplines which I believe can be very telling.
All these things give us a more true picture of what the one year course at LSMT will be like. It may have the intention of being a well rounded course but in reality it may have a singing bias. Interestingly a friend of mine auditioned for LSMT last week. Unlike most musical theatre courses which see you do all three disciplines before they recall or offer a place, LSMT only hear people sing before they make a cut. It appears that singing is more important to Adrian Jeckells than acting and dancing.
The article is very interesting and very useful but as I have said before it is only an opinion (all be it from an expert) and it is weighted by an obvious bias towards one year courses. It would perhaps have been useful for the website to ask the head of three year course to give their opinions on the subject so that the readers were provided with a more rounded impression when facing the decision of where to train.
Jeckells, A. 2011, The right training [online]. Available from http://www.ukperformingarts.co.uk/musicaltheatre/the_right_training.asp [last accessed 22 April 2011]
As head of LSMT Adrian Jeckells has a lot of knowledge about the musical theatre industry and about what is required when training students. He should be considered an expert in the field and the article gives his expert opinion. It should however be noted that the article is only giving his opinion and is not substantiated.
In the article Jeckells argues that musical theatre performers need strong skills in singing, acting and dancing and that a good course will provide training in all three. He believes that a 'balanced curriculum' is the key to improving their employability (Jeckells, 2011). He gives advice on the more practical side of the industry and says that a good course should aid students in this. He discusses the different types of course available to those looking to train and gives guidance on how to check the track records of particular courses.
This article was written for those who want to train in musical theatre. These people will want as much practical information as possible and will be looking to this site and article to supply that for them. The writing style is helpfully clear and there are lots of facts and useful tips to guide the reader, such as looking at biographies in show programmes to see where cast members trained. I do think however that because of this upfront approach some opinion is passed off as fact and can therefore be misleading.
Jeckells has made certain assumptions when writing this article that should be discussed. His main argument that musical theatre 'requires people with a strong skill-base in singing, acting and dancing' is not substantiated. There are many people who work successfully as musical theatre performers and who can only do one or two of the three disciplines. His opinion on this matter however is stated as fact and means we should proceed with caution.
When discussing three year and one year courses Jeckells also makes assumptions about the type of person that would be right for each. He assumes that those training on a one year course will have more natural talent than those on a three year course. He writes, 'for some individuals three years of training at a reputable establishment is imperative as they may have potential but limited stagecraft or technical foundation... for others a three course is neither necessary or desirable.' He goes on to describe the type of person who would be right for a one year course '(the person) is naturally talented... a mature individual who may have extensive non-professional stage experience, has privately embarked on singing lessons and dance classes and now wishes to pursue a professional career.' A person reading this would naturally want to see themselves in the best possible light and would therefore more likely than not think themselves right for the one year course.
When considering these assumptions I think it is important for us to look at the bias of the author. He is the head of LSMT which is a one year course and he therefore has an allegiance with that type of course. Given that the audience of the article is people looking to train it is in his best interests to promote one year courses in a favourable light. This does however mean we get a skewed and misleading impression of the types of people who train on each course. It is my experience that people on a three course will have had as many private singing and dancing classes prior to professional training as those on a one year course. It is also my experience that they are no less naturally talented.
It should probably be noted here that I am aware that I most likely have my own bias with regards to the training of musical theatre students. I trained on a three course and am therefore inclined to defend the course and the talent of those who choose to train there.
Another bias that I believe the author has and does a good job at concealing is to do with the importance of singing. Jeckells says that it is important to be a 'triple threat' but he makes several comments about the importance of singing without making similar comments on the importance of the other disciplines. For example, 'the minimum requirement for an individual embarking on a career in musical theatre today is a strong singing voice' and 'the course should not be an acting course with some token singing classes.' He even list 'singing' first when discussing the three disciplines which I believe can be very telling.
All these things give us a more true picture of what the one year course at LSMT will be like. It may have the intention of being a well rounded course but in reality it may have a singing bias. Interestingly a friend of mine auditioned for LSMT last week. Unlike most musical theatre courses which see you do all three disciplines before they recall or offer a place, LSMT only hear people sing before they make a cut. It appears that singing is more important to Adrian Jeckells than acting and dancing.
The article is very interesting and very useful but as I have said before it is only an opinion (all be it from an expert) and it is weighted by an obvious bias towards one year courses. It would perhaps have been useful for the website to ask the head of three year course to give their opinions on the subject so that the readers were provided with a more rounded impression when facing the decision of where to train.
Jeckells, A. 2011, The right training [online]. Available from http://www.ukperformingarts.co.uk/musicaltheatre/the_right_training.asp [last accessed 22 April 2011]
Tuesday 19 April 2011
Focus Groups
About three weeks ago I conducted a focus group but it is only now that I find the time to write about it. The group was made up of five musical theatre professionals at various stages in their careers. The process proved to be extremely interesting and I have learnt many things which I hope to outline in the following blog.
I approached the focus group in a very unstructured way. Instead of having a series of questions ready to put to the group I asked one main question at the beginning and then tried to guide the conversation to keep it vaguely on topic. Were I to attempt a focus group again I think I would prepare much more. I would have a list of important topics that I wanted to cover. There were times that the conversation naturally dried up and I would have been able to move it forward much more easily if I'd had a list in front of me. A list would also ensure that I covered all the necessary areas of the topic to help supply needed information.
The question I asked was 'What do you think makes a musical theatre performer successful?' I am interested in looking into the way musical theatre performers are trained and seeing what demands are made of them in the industry. It occurred to me that if I wanted to examine whether a particular way of training helped the success of a musical theatre performer then I would also need to examine what people within the industry defined as success.
The conversation covered many different areas of what people think contribute towards a persons level of success. As I mentioned before the group was made up of people at different points in their careers. A couple were seasoned professionals and one was yet to train. What I found particularly interesting is that people's perception of what constituted success changed with age and experience. It made me realise the importance in having a true cross section of the population (in this case musical theatre professionals) in the focus group. It is by having this diversity that contrasting ideas and perspectives come out and can be argued. I had a good age and experience range but I only had one woman to five men (including myself) and I think it should have been more balanced.
The person who had yet to train saw success in a very black and white way. If you worked in the West End in lots of different musicals you were successful and if you didn't then you were less so. The older members of the group were much less certain. Perhaps because they have more experience of the reality of the situation or perhaps because they didn't want to be judged on their own careers. The older members of the group felt that many aspects contributed to a persons level of success. They did feel that the consistency of employment did play it's part but that the variety of jobs was less important. If someone works in one show for five years are they less successful than someone who works in five shows over five years? They also felt that happiness was a very important part of a persons success. If you worked consistently but hated every minute they felt you were unsuccessful.
An interesting point that came up is that 'personal success' (the way you judge yourself) is different from success (how you are seen by others). One of the group gave a very good example of this. When working on a previous show they were asked to swing some of the dance tracks even though they aren't really a dancer. They agreed thinking they would never go on but eventually they did. They managed to get through the whole number without making a mistake and they viewed this as a personal success. They did however feel that had anyone watched who really knew about dance then that person would have found the performance unsuccessful.
This idea made us all reevaluate the question. We didn't want to admit it to ourselves but when looking at performers who are unknown to you their level of happiness is irrelevant to the way you view their success. Mainly because you have no way of judging it. If they have worked consistently, particularly in certain types of jobs you view them as successful.
We all realised that we were much harsher in judging others (particularly those people we didn't know) than we were in judging ourselves. This made me realise that when conducting and analysing a focus group you have to be aware of the personal biases of the group members, much as you would if you were reviewing a piece of literature written by them.
I found the focus group to be an interesting way of exploring ideas and considering things from different sides. It helped me to really explore the idea and people's views on it and raised issues that I had never previously thought of. The problem I found with it is that there was very little consensus on what people thought. The group was small which meant everyone's opinions were heard but people generally stuck to their initial ideas meaning that one viewpoint never had a majority.
I definitely extended my understanding of the issue but I don't think I am any nearer finding the 'answer' I was looking for. What has happened is that I am now in a more informed position to compare and contrast people's ideas and to from some of my own. I am starting to understand that qualitative data collection is not about finding conclusive 'answers' but is instead about mapping varying view points on a subject to give a clearer understanding of the whole.
I approached the focus group in a very unstructured way. Instead of having a series of questions ready to put to the group I asked one main question at the beginning and then tried to guide the conversation to keep it vaguely on topic. Were I to attempt a focus group again I think I would prepare much more. I would have a list of important topics that I wanted to cover. There were times that the conversation naturally dried up and I would have been able to move it forward much more easily if I'd had a list in front of me. A list would also ensure that I covered all the necessary areas of the topic to help supply needed information.
The question I asked was 'What do you think makes a musical theatre performer successful?' I am interested in looking into the way musical theatre performers are trained and seeing what demands are made of them in the industry. It occurred to me that if I wanted to examine whether a particular way of training helped the success of a musical theatre performer then I would also need to examine what people within the industry defined as success.
The conversation covered many different areas of what people think contribute towards a persons level of success. As I mentioned before the group was made up of people at different points in their careers. A couple were seasoned professionals and one was yet to train. What I found particularly interesting is that people's perception of what constituted success changed with age and experience. It made me realise the importance in having a true cross section of the population (in this case musical theatre professionals) in the focus group. It is by having this diversity that contrasting ideas and perspectives come out and can be argued. I had a good age and experience range but I only had one woman to five men (including myself) and I think it should have been more balanced.
The person who had yet to train saw success in a very black and white way. If you worked in the West End in lots of different musicals you were successful and if you didn't then you were less so. The older members of the group were much less certain. Perhaps because they have more experience of the reality of the situation or perhaps because they didn't want to be judged on their own careers. The older members of the group felt that many aspects contributed to a persons level of success. They did feel that the consistency of employment did play it's part but that the variety of jobs was less important. If someone works in one show for five years are they less successful than someone who works in five shows over five years? They also felt that happiness was a very important part of a persons success. If you worked consistently but hated every minute they felt you were unsuccessful.
An interesting point that came up is that 'personal success' (the way you judge yourself) is different from success (how you are seen by others). One of the group gave a very good example of this. When working on a previous show they were asked to swing some of the dance tracks even though they aren't really a dancer. They agreed thinking they would never go on but eventually they did. They managed to get through the whole number without making a mistake and they viewed this as a personal success. They did however feel that had anyone watched who really knew about dance then that person would have found the performance unsuccessful.
This idea made us all reevaluate the question. We didn't want to admit it to ourselves but when looking at performers who are unknown to you their level of happiness is irrelevant to the way you view their success. Mainly because you have no way of judging it. If they have worked consistently, particularly in certain types of jobs you view them as successful.
We all realised that we were much harsher in judging others (particularly those people we didn't know) than we were in judging ourselves. This made me realise that when conducting and analysing a focus group you have to be aware of the personal biases of the group members, much as you would if you were reviewing a piece of literature written by them.
I found the focus group to be an interesting way of exploring ideas and considering things from different sides. It helped me to really explore the idea and people's views on it and raised issues that I had never previously thought of. The problem I found with it is that there was very little consensus on what people thought. The group was small which meant everyone's opinions were heard but people generally stuck to their initial ideas meaning that one viewpoint never had a majority.
I definitely extended my understanding of the issue but I don't think I am any nearer finding the 'answer' I was looking for. What has happened is that I am now in a more informed position to compare and contrast people's ideas and to from some of my own. I am starting to understand that qualitative data collection is not about finding conclusive 'answers' but is instead about mapping varying view points on a subject to give a clearer understanding of the whole.
Tuesday 5 April 2011
Delicious
Hi everyone. I've started using Delicious and it's really good. I remember starting this course in September and reading about Delicious and thinking to myself, "Why is that useful?" Well I'm a convert. Not only can you see your bookmarks no matter what computer you are on, write yourself helpful notes so you remember what's on that page and tag it so you know what category it is in, but (and this is what I didn't get before) you can also share it with people. So this is me sharing some of the sites I am finding useful and if you guys have any sites you think others might benefit from then share them too. The link to my Delicious is: http://www.delicious.com/markiles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)