This blog is written by Josie Lena Davies, who is undertaking an AHRC-funded Midlands4Cities Collaborative Doctoral Award: a PhD research project embedded in China Plate’s practice. If you haven’t read Josie’s first blog, which introduces her research proposal and questions, you can read it via News & More.
How has the first year of the PhD been?
It’s gone really fast! I can’t believe it’s already October.
I was given some brilliant advice at the start of the year by my supervisors – to initially follow my interests. This was a useful starting point; it’s exciting to be able to be led by your curiosity in that way. I think one of the challenges that comes with that in the early stages is not knowing which direction to pursue, because you kind of need to gain a relatively solid grounding of lots of different things before you can make many strong claims. And in the process of doing that, it can feel at times like you’re going down rabbit holes. In some ways, I now have even more questions than I did when I started, but I think that’s still a good thing at this point.
The best way I can describe my first year of the PhD is like week one of a ‘Research & Development’ phase of making a new show: the bit before you start rehearsals, when you’re just playing with ideas, everything’s up for grabs, and it’s all very exciting. If you’re lucky, there are usually insightful people in the room with lots of ideas floating around, and you need to take some time exploring each of them to figure out which are worth pursuing and which are the red herrings that could take you down the wrong path. Sometimes you have to let the ideas grow before you can start refining them – so you can end up generating a vast amount of content that you know you’ll need to edit and organise at some point.
In a similar way to the start of a creative process, I’m in the big ideas phase at the moment, and I feel invigorated and slightly overwhelmed by all the possibilities.
What were some of your highlights from the year?
Having access to the expertise and resources of two universities and a doctoral training programme (M4C), as well as the knowledge of the China Plate team, has been phenomenal. At risk of sounding clichéd, I feel incredibly lucky to have this opportunity. I’ve really enjoyed reading and finding new frameworks to apply to the things I’ve been thinking about for a long time. I’ve also had so many fantastic conversations over the course of the past year with my supervisors, China Plate, friends, colleagues and through people getting in touch. I really enjoy big chats and appreciate anyone willing to humour me by listening to me talk about the PhD.
I think the biggest highlight has been seeing China Plate’s work up close. The press night for Please Do Not Touch was the first thing I attended after starting this research project, and I remember watching the show and thinking, “it’s a really good job I still like this theatre company’s work because I’m about to spend eight years looking at it.” Since then, I’ve seen examples of the breadth of China Plate’s programme – from watching the development of To The Streets! at the National Theatre Studio to meeting some New Producers at Wolverhampton Arts Centre. I am constantly struck by the tireless work, care and talent of the people involved, and observing activities with a bit of critical distance only makes that clearer to see.
© Jessy Zschorn
What are some of the practical considerations you’ve made?
A big practical consideration of any research project is the ethics of what you’re doing. When you do a PhD, the university quite rightly asks you to go through a necessarily rigorous process of applying for ethical approval before you can start your research activities. It’s essentially an application that asks how and why you’re doing the activities you’re doing. There are tick boxes asking if there’s any chance your research might be used to create nuclear weapons, or if you’ll be collecting and storing human cells or tissue, so it really covers all grounds.
And obviously, compared to nuclear weapons, researching a theatre company feels fairly low risk. But I think when you’re doing any research that involves communities, the stakes of that research are quite high in terms of how you represent those communities, how you include those communities in the research, how the research benefits the people taking part, and how we ensure that we are approaching all of that in the most equitable and meaningful way possible.
From a practical perspective, I’ve worked really closely with members of the China Plate team on embedding consent processes across all upcoming projects in different ways. It’s not a one-size-fits-all approach, as each of China Plate’s projects and the people involved are unique. But the principles are consistent: it’s important that anyone interacting with the research has all the information available to be able to meaningfully consent to being involved. This includes knowing how they might be represented in anything that’s published, choosing how they might take part, and understanding how to withdraw from it if they change their mind. It’s really just about trying to be honest and transparent with people about why I’m there and what I’m trying to learn.
What are the differences between being a theatre maker and a theatre researcher? Does objectivity play a different role?
When I’m making theatre, I’m usually led by my instincts, values and taste, rather than starting from a purely intellectual place. Of course, those things absolutely still exist in my academic thinking and writing, but I’m finding myself having to unpack my assumptions a lot more. It’s been forcing me to evidence, articulate, and substantiate my observations more rigorously.
I started out thinking that I’d maybe find a way to be objective as a researcher. There’s an argument that the ‘scientific method’ is quite entrenched in Western perceptions of research, even arts-based research, and I’d probably been influenced by that tradition more than I’d realised.
But I don’t necessarily think you can or should be fully objective. Firstly, because I stand by the sentiment that to be neutral is to accept the current status quo or to side with the oppressor. And when you look at the world right now, that doesn’t feel good enough. Also, because my values and experiences will inevitably inform my writing, whether I lay claim to them or not. So, I’m trying to find a way of conducting this research that is reflexive and allows there to be a sense of self within it, hopefully without becoming indulgent or narcissistic. I’ve therefore found it more useful to aim for criticality rather than objectivity.
Of course, there’s more nuance to it than I could cover here, but you’re probably getting a sense of some of the rabbit holes I referenced earlier…
What are your aims for year two?
Ultimately, I’ve got 80,000 words to write. So I’ve definitely got lots more reading and writing to do!
I’m also excited to be on the ground more – meeting people, conducting interviews, and witnessing more of China Plate’s work. There are some community-focused projects that I’m particularly looking forward to, as that’s one of my areas of interest, and I think I’ll learn a lot from observing that process from a very early stage.
I am also looking to connect with arts and community workers, activists, academics and anyone with insights on my research questions. If you’re interested in chatting, feel free to drop an email to [email protected]
You can also follow this blog, where I will be posting updates on my work – my first blog provides an introduction to my research proposal.