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]
Friday, 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
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Research Project Ethics
When starting to think about the ethical considerations of my research project I found reading 3 in the ethics reader particularly useful. Although I am not a full time teacher I will be carrying out interviews and surveys in several vocational colleges so lots of the information was relevant.
The first thing I will seek before conducting my research is 'voluntary informed consent'. I think the most important thing here is transparency. I will inform all participants what the inquiry is about, what my aims and objectives are, any detriment that may arise for them as a result of taking part, and how and where the information will be used. Hopefully by doing this I will not have any problems getting participants. Luckily my project doesn't involve anyone under the age of eighteen which makes obtaining consent much easier but still crucial.
The people I interview I will give a full list of questions in advance so they can veto any they think are inappropriate and do not want to answer. I will give them a copy of the transcript afterwards and give them the opportunity to clarify or remove information. I will also make sure I will inform them of any previously unforeseen issues that have arisen that could be detrimental to them.
I will make it very clear that all participants are free to withdraw their consent at any point. I will not put any pressure on them to stay involved. Hopefully if I have been transparent enough from the outset about the purpose and outcome of the research then this won't happen.
I am going to ensure the anonymity of all the people involved in the research and of the colleges themselves. Firstly I don't think the identities of the colleges or people will have an impact the findings of the research and secondly I intend to survey students who I believe will give more honest answers about their training if they know there is no way their answers can be traced back to them (particularly if want they want to say is something bad).
Importantly I want to make clear that when obtaining informed consent form the students that it is one hundred percent 'voluntary'. I want to make sure they in no way feel pressure from me or more importantly from their head teacher to be involved. It is important to be aware of the unbalanced power in this situation, where the teacher can significantly impact the success of the student. They must be told that nothing bad will happen to them if they do not become involved. I think that anonymity will also help here because it makes it impossible to tell who has answered and who hasn't. I intend to get consent from the head teacher to survey the students (with them acting as Gatekeeper) but I then intend to get individual consent from each student as well.
In my last blog I mentioned the word 'balance' and it is my intention within this research project to balance out any ethical conflicts that may occur between the 'importance and rights of the individuals involved' (ethics reader, 2010). Equal consideration must be given to the needs of all participants. I should not assume just because it is something I want to know that others should have to help me. I also should not assume that because a piece of information is useful to me that it is justifiable to use it. I intend to make everyone involved aware of these possible conflicts and they will therefore have the choice to proceed or not.
One of the conflicts of interest I can see already is as follows. There is no direct benefit for the graduating students who help me. If the aim of my project is to improve training in musical theatre then this could actually have a negative impact on these students' careers. Their training is over but future generations, and their direct competition, will hopefully be trained better and therefore will be better able to get the already scarce jobs. In helping me the students will be helping their competition. I will make the students aware of this but hopefully they will also see that better training will improve the industry as a whole. An industry that they love and that they want to thrive. Hopefully they will also see that change takes time so perhaps the direct impact on them will be less than initially thought.
Another conflict may be that the information the graduating students provide may conflict with the interests of the college. If a student were to say detrimental things about the training it could affect others' opinions of the college. Hopefully keeping all information anonymous will prevent this but there is the risk that the students will talk about what they said in their surveys. I think it also important therefore to make them aware of why the information should kept anonymous. I think also that by making the various colleges aware of the benefits they could receive from the completion of the project (for example, a stronger consensus on what is required of a musical theatre performer) they may decide that they outweigh any negative possibilities. Again, transparency.
I think finally it is worth mentioning reliability of information. It is important not to 'falsify, sensationalise or distort findings'. As a general rule all information that is gathered should be included. Evidence should not be removed because it doesn't match your desired pattern. Similarly something shouldn't be quoted out of context or highlighted if it goes against the general trend. However, it is important to consider whether it is justifiable to include information that is clearly detrimental to participants even if it is vital for the project. I want to make sure at the very least that i am not directly harming any of participants. So once again I will be using reasoned consideration to achieve a balance between conflicting agendas.
The first thing I will seek before conducting my research is 'voluntary informed consent'. I think the most important thing here is transparency. I will inform all participants what the inquiry is about, what my aims and objectives are, any detriment that may arise for them as a result of taking part, and how and where the information will be used. Hopefully by doing this I will not have any problems getting participants. Luckily my project doesn't involve anyone under the age of eighteen which makes obtaining consent much easier but still crucial.
The people I interview I will give a full list of questions in advance so they can veto any they think are inappropriate and do not want to answer. I will give them a copy of the transcript afterwards and give them the opportunity to clarify or remove information. I will also make sure I will inform them of any previously unforeseen issues that have arisen that could be detrimental to them.
I will make it very clear that all participants are free to withdraw their consent at any point. I will not put any pressure on them to stay involved. Hopefully if I have been transparent enough from the outset about the purpose and outcome of the research then this won't happen.
I am going to ensure the anonymity of all the people involved in the research and of the colleges themselves. Firstly I don't think the identities of the colleges or people will have an impact the findings of the research and secondly I intend to survey students who I believe will give more honest answers about their training if they know there is no way their answers can be traced back to them (particularly if want they want to say is something bad).
Importantly I want to make clear that when obtaining informed consent form the students that it is one hundred percent 'voluntary'. I want to make sure they in no way feel pressure from me or more importantly from their head teacher to be involved. It is important to be aware of the unbalanced power in this situation, where the teacher can significantly impact the success of the student. They must be told that nothing bad will happen to them if they do not become involved. I think that anonymity will also help here because it makes it impossible to tell who has answered and who hasn't. I intend to get consent from the head teacher to survey the students (with them acting as Gatekeeper) but I then intend to get individual consent from each student as well.
In my last blog I mentioned the word 'balance' and it is my intention within this research project to balance out any ethical conflicts that may occur between the 'importance and rights of the individuals involved' (ethics reader, 2010). Equal consideration must be given to the needs of all participants. I should not assume just because it is something I want to know that others should have to help me. I also should not assume that because a piece of information is useful to me that it is justifiable to use it. I intend to make everyone involved aware of these possible conflicts and they will therefore have the choice to proceed or not.
One of the conflicts of interest I can see already is as follows. There is no direct benefit for the graduating students who help me. If the aim of my project is to improve training in musical theatre then this could actually have a negative impact on these students' careers. Their training is over but future generations, and their direct competition, will hopefully be trained better and therefore will be better able to get the already scarce jobs. In helping me the students will be helping their competition. I will make the students aware of this but hopefully they will also see that better training will improve the industry as a whole. An industry that they love and that they want to thrive. Hopefully they will also see that change takes time so perhaps the direct impact on them will be less than initially thought.
Another conflict may be that the information the graduating students provide may conflict with the interests of the college. If a student were to say detrimental things about the training it could affect others' opinions of the college. Hopefully keeping all information anonymous will prevent this but there is the risk that the students will talk about what they said in their surveys. I think it also important therefore to make them aware of why the information should kept anonymous. I think also that by making the various colleges aware of the benefits they could receive from the completion of the project (for example, a stronger consensus on what is required of a musical theatre performer) they may decide that they outweigh any negative possibilities. Again, transparency.
I think finally it is worth mentioning reliability of information. It is important not to 'falsify, sensationalise or distort findings'. As a general rule all information that is gathered should be included. Evidence should not be removed because it doesn't match your desired pattern. Similarly something shouldn't be quoted out of context or highlighted if it goes against the general trend. However, it is important to consider whether it is justifiable to include information that is clearly detrimental to participants even if it is vital for the project. I want to make sure at the very least that i am not directly harming any of participants. So once again I will be using reasoned consideration to achieve a balance between conflicting agendas.
Ethical Frameworks
My next blog will be about my ethical considerations with regards to my research project but I thought I would give context to this by firstly summarising my feelings on the differing ethical frameworks in place.
Perhaps Deontology has the answer? Immanuel Kant (1779) argued that the 'only absolutely good thing is good will'. I think this is a much more appropriate and useful concept when dealing with ethical considerations. It is by looking at people's intentions that we decide whether an act is ethically right or not. Looking again at the examples above through the eyes of Deontology in both instances the actions of the rescuers can be thought of as ethically right because their intentions were to save a trapped man who would have otherwise died. The outcome is now irrelevant. This way of looking at things seems much more clear cut and absolute which is where the problem with Deontology lies. It is about absolutes. It is about black and white and yes and no which I believe goes against the very nature of ethics. If things were black and white we would have no need for ethics. We would just know that something was right or wrong. For example, in Deontology lying is always considered wrong. What if you are lying with the good intention of saving someone's feelings? Killing a man is always wrong, but what if you are doing it with the intention of protecting your children? Deontology on the surface seems to be about intentions but is too rigid in it's framework. It is too full of moral absolutes.
So does Virtue Ethics hold the answer? This is about the moral character of the individual which at first seems to me to be rather ambiguous. This is surely a hard thing to judge and to quantify. Its origins come from Aristotle who believed virtue to be a habitual action that was the 'mid-point between two extremes' (ethics reader, 2010). The example given in the reader is that the virtue of courage is half way between cowardice and foolhardiness. What about the virtue of honesty then? If it is a mid-point then what are the extremes? Presumably one end of the scale is lying but what about the other end? Could it be saying exactly what you think all the time with no consideration for feeling? In that case it would seem that to have the virtue of honesty you don't always have to tell the truth. Perhaps a comforting thought to those people who were trying to find a way to justify their white lies.
So Virtue Ethics appears to be about balance. A word that I've seen used on a few different blogs (apologies for not remembering who you all are now) and which I really think clarifies things. Ethics to me is about using a reasoned, considered approach to achieve balance between conflicting ideas. Whilst doing this a persons intentions are of more importance that the actual outcome of events.
I think viewing ethics in this way is very useful when approaching a research project. The ethical role of the researcher is to ensure that equal consideration is given to all participants and that any conflicting needs and wishes are balanced. The researcher's intentions should be good and they must make their intentions clear. It is not enough to act ethically, you must also be seen to act ethically. This will instill trust from you participants and give your research credibility.
It seems to me that ethics is about responsibility to a social good. It is rarely about yes or no, black or white. Instead it is to do with the way we approach those hard to answer questions. Those grey areas. I think Hobbes' (1651) idea that ethics is a 'practical solution to social harmony and good' (BAPP course reader 5; professional ethics, 2010) is very accurate. Simply put, we are all competing for the same things, we all have equal need for them, and we are generally not always altruistic. Ethics are in place to ensure that we act fairly and with thought to others, but also that they do the same. Hobbes' idea suggests that morality for mutual benefit is what keeps society steady. Is this on closer inspection however under selling why people act ethically?
I have looked into Consequentialism and into Deontology but I don't think either of them completely satisfy and support my ethical standpoint. Initially the Consequentialist idea of maximising good is a very appealing one. Surely if we do that then the world would become as good as it can be. However, I have a problem that the ethical stance on something should be decided entirely on the outcome. Here is an example.
I have looked into Consequentialism and into Deontology but I don't think either of them completely satisfy and support my ethical standpoint. Initially the Consequentialist idea of maximising good is a very appealing one. Surely if we do that then the world would become as good as it can be. However, I have a problem that the ethical stance on something should be decided entirely on the outcome. Here is an example.
A person is trapped under the rubble after an earthquake and four people decide to help get them out. It is very dangerous moving the rubble but they manage to free the trapped person and they all go on to live the rest of their lives.The outcome here is a good one. There were five survivors from the incident which is definitely maximising the good. Based on the outcome of this event it was ethically right for the people to help the trapped man but what if the outcome had been different?
A person is trapped under the rubble after an earthquake and four people decide to help get them out. It is very dangerous moving the rubble and in the process three of the rescuers are killed. The fourth rescuer and the trapped person go on to live the rest of their lives.The outcome here is less good. Only two out of the five people survived which is no longer maximising the good. Based on the outcome of this second event the rescuers were ethically wrong for attempting to help the man. In light of examples like this I begin to question whether Consequentialism is actually that satisfying.
Perhaps Deontology has the answer? Immanuel Kant (1779) argued that the 'only absolutely good thing is good will'. I think this is a much more appropriate and useful concept when dealing with ethical considerations. It is by looking at people's intentions that we decide whether an act is ethically right or not. Looking again at the examples above through the eyes of Deontology in both instances the actions of the rescuers can be thought of as ethically right because their intentions were to save a trapped man who would have otherwise died. The outcome is now irrelevant. This way of looking at things seems much more clear cut and absolute which is where the problem with Deontology lies. It is about absolutes. It is about black and white and yes and no which I believe goes against the very nature of ethics. If things were black and white we would have no need for ethics. We would just know that something was right or wrong. For example, in Deontology lying is always considered wrong. What if you are lying with the good intention of saving someone's feelings? Killing a man is always wrong, but what if you are doing it with the intention of protecting your children? Deontology on the surface seems to be about intentions but is too rigid in it's framework. It is too full of moral absolutes.
So does Virtue Ethics hold the answer? This is about the moral character of the individual which at first seems to me to be rather ambiguous. This is surely a hard thing to judge and to quantify. Its origins come from Aristotle who believed virtue to be a habitual action that was the 'mid-point between two extremes' (ethics reader, 2010). The example given in the reader is that the virtue of courage is half way between cowardice and foolhardiness. What about the virtue of honesty then? If it is a mid-point then what are the extremes? Presumably one end of the scale is lying but what about the other end? Could it be saying exactly what you think all the time with no consideration for feeling? In that case it would seem that to have the virtue of honesty you don't always have to tell the truth. Perhaps a comforting thought to those people who were trying to find a way to justify their white lies.
So Virtue Ethics appears to be about balance. A word that I've seen used on a few different blogs (apologies for not remembering who you all are now) and which I really think clarifies things. Ethics to me is about using a reasoned, considered approach to achieve balance between conflicting ideas. Whilst doing this a persons intentions are of more importance that the actual outcome of events.
I think viewing ethics in this way is very useful when approaching a research project. The ethical role of the researcher is to ensure that equal consideration is given to all participants and that any conflicting needs and wishes are balanced. The researcher's intentions should be good and they must make their intentions clear. It is not enough to act ethically, you must also be seen to act ethically. This will instill trust from you participants and give your research credibility.
Friday, 25 March 2011
Survey
Hi everyone. I have created a survey that I would love as many people to do as possible. It is designed for people who trained in some kind of performance (i.e acting/singing/dancing). I would also love any comments you might have on the questions I asked or the way they were phrased.
I used Survey Monkey and it is really simple once you get the hang of it. As a free user you are only allowed to ask ten question which at first annoyed me but which actually meant I had to really think about what I wanted to ask and what would be beneficial to my research.
Here is the link http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/S5LX8HP
Thanks for your time.
I used Survey Monkey and it is really simple once you get the hang of it. As a free user you are only allowed to ask ten question which at first annoyed me but which actually meant I had to really think about what I wanted to ask and what would be beneficial to my research.
Here is the link http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/S5LX8HP
Thanks for your time.
Award Title Rationale
This is something I have been thinking a lot about over the last couple of months but I realised recently that I haven't yet written anything down. Hopefully it will clarify my thinking now that I finally am.
My training at Arts Ed London was in Musical Theatre so I think a key element of my awards title has to be Musical Theatre. Joanna mentions a conversation she had with Alan (in a comment on her blog) where he pointed out that the work we are doing now only makes up a third of our degree. Our previous education and work makes up the other two thirds so I think it would be difficult for me to justify not including the words Musical Theatre.
It is important to me that my award title will help progress my career. In the future I would like to move into teaching on a vocational musical theatre course so I want my award title to somehow reflect and aid this.
As I am interested in musical theatre and the way it is taught I am basing my inquiry around the best way to train musical theatre students. I want to investigate what is established, if it works, if there is a better way, and even if there is a consensus. I am excited about my inquiry and think it will lead to benefits not only for me but also for future students and the industry as a whole.
Initially I thought a good title would be BA Hons Professional Practice (Education in Musical Theatre). I then read a comment by Alan (again on Joanna's blog) where he says that in using the word 'education' it perhaps implies that you have 'studied pedagogy and curriculum', which I of course have not. So how do I incorporate Musical Theatre as well as he work I am doing on vocational training, with the aim of looking impressive to future employers from vocational colleges? Perhaps BA Hons Professional Practice (Vocational Training in Musical Theatre)? Or does this perhaps sound like I have just had the training myself rather than being able to train someone else. Perhaps BA ........ (Teaching Vocational Musical Theatre) would be better?
Any thoughts or suggestions you might have would be hugely appreciated. It is amazing how changing even one word can hugely impact a person's understanding of what you are qualified in. I want my award to mean something. To really say something about me and my abilities and achievements so please give me your thoughts. Thanks.
My training at Arts Ed London was in Musical Theatre so I think a key element of my awards title has to be Musical Theatre. Joanna mentions a conversation she had with Alan (in a comment on her blog) where he pointed out that the work we are doing now only makes up a third of our degree. Our previous education and work makes up the other two thirds so I think it would be difficult for me to justify not including the words Musical Theatre.
It is important to me that my award title will help progress my career. In the future I would like to move into teaching on a vocational musical theatre course so I want my award title to somehow reflect and aid this.
As I am interested in musical theatre and the way it is taught I am basing my inquiry around the best way to train musical theatre students. I want to investigate what is established, if it works, if there is a better way, and even if there is a consensus. I am excited about my inquiry and think it will lead to benefits not only for me but also for future students and the industry as a whole.
Initially I thought a good title would be BA Hons Professional Practice (Education in Musical Theatre). I then read a comment by Alan (again on Joanna's blog) where he says that in using the word 'education' it perhaps implies that you have 'studied pedagogy and curriculum', which I of course have not. So how do I incorporate Musical Theatre as well as he work I am doing on vocational training, with the aim of looking impressive to future employers from vocational colleges? Perhaps BA Hons Professional Practice (Vocational Training in Musical Theatre)? Or does this perhaps sound like I have just had the training myself rather than being able to train someone else. Perhaps BA ........ (Teaching Vocational Musical Theatre) would be better?
Any thoughts or suggestions you might have would be hugely appreciated. It is amazing how changing even one word can hugely impact a person's understanding of what you are qualified in. I want my award to mean something. To really say something about me and my abilities and achievements so please give me your thoughts. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)