Volume 6

Bad Facilitation or the Wrong Approach?: Unpacking the Failure of a Theatre for Health Project

By Teresa A. Fisher

BRONX COMMUNITY COLLEGE

INTRODUCTION

Much work goes into the planning of applied theatre projects including what activities to use and when to use them, how to best establish an environment in which participants feel confident and supported in exploring the given subject, and the practicalities of securing appropriate space and needed materials. How much focus, though, is given to the role of facilitation? How are facilitators chosen for particular projects? What skills, characteristics, and other criteria do organizations use when hiring facilitators for their applied theatre projects? What happens when a facilitator is determined simply because she created the project and thus seems to be the logical facilitator for it? Additionally, how is an applied theatre approach determined to be the most appropriate one for that particular subject, venue, and participants? What criteria are utilized to determine appropriateness? After a recent failed theatre for health project, these questions arose as I explored what went wrong and what could have been done to avoid the failure.

In my research exploring weight and body image, I have chosen theatre for health as my preferred approach. In so doing, I am following not only a rich tradition of theatre artists utilizing theatre to explore social issues, but also a belief that theatre is a useful approach for doing so. Theatre for health is a branch of applied theatre that utilizes theatre strategies to explore a health topic. It is not therapy, but an opportunity to learn about, understand, and connect with others on a particular health topic. Veronica Baxter and Katherine E. Low (2017) review the role of theatre in exploring and understanding health in their book, Applied Theatre: Performing Health and Wellbeing and Emma Brodzinski (2010) also helpfully explores the field in her book, Theatre in Health and Care. Theatre for health allows participants to embody their experiences and feelings beyond merely talking about them. Given that weight is experienced in the body, it seems logical to utilize an art form that also requires the use of the body to explore it.

I thus begin from the belief that theatre for health itself is an appropriate, reliable, and respected method of inquiry and approach for encouraging connection, engagement, participation, and even advocacy. However, it isn’t the right approach for every situation. How does one determine, then, if theatre for health is the correct approach? Much depends on the intention of the work as well as the skills of those facilitating it. When my most recent theatre for health project failed, it prompted me to reflect not only on that project, but on the projects that preceded it to determine if I was indeed making the right choice not only for my research area, but for my abilities as a researcher/facilitator. While a lack of funding and institutional affiliation to support the work also contributed to the challenges faced, the overwhelming conclusion from this reflection was that the facilitation was a fundamental challenge that both contributed to the other challenges and ultimately created an insurmountable obstacle to success. From this examination and subsequent research on facilitation, I conclude that facilitation training as well as facilitator personality play key roles in determining the success of theatre for health projects. In this article, I interrogate the role of the facilitator in theatre for health and offer suggestions for enhancing our understanding of that role in the process. I begin this discussion with a brief overview of my previous research focusing specifically on the role of facilitation within it.

THE INTERVIEW/ETHNODRAMA PROJECT AND PREVIOUS PROJECTS

In previous research projects studying the experience of being “fat”, my intention was to both broaden and deepen our understanding of how people experience weight in society. Thanks to two 2010 participants who came into the workshops having lost significant weight, I learned that those who lose weight must renegotiate not only their bodies and body image, but also their connection to and with the world. To better understand this experience and see how it informs how we understand weight and body image, I created an interview project to gather firsthand experience from those who had lost weight. The second part of the project was to shape the data into an Ethnodrama, a performance in which the interviewees’ words would be respectfully and creatively represented on stage by actors in front of audiences. Those actors and audiences would have the opportunity to absorb the interviewees’ experiences, and thus expand their understanding of what it means to lose weight.

While as the primary (sole) investigator I had envisioned a relatively easy process in securing participants, this was not the case. Despite casting a wide net, utilizing weight loss organizations and social media groups as well as a network of list serves and colleagues, after months of recruitment, I had only secured three interviews. The first interview went very well. The second, however, was a person who warily shared upon meeting that she’d never actually lost weight and proceeded to talk about her eating disorder history. The third interview participant had lost weight on and off over many years but was not the desired demographic. After making adjustments and another round of recruitment, no new participants emerged, and the project was terminated.

As I began to reflect on the research to determine next steps, that reflection led to a review of prior theatre for health projects. My 2010 dissertation project was a series of workshops in which fourteen adult women who self-identified as interested in exploring what it means to be fat participated in a combined Theatre of the Oppressed and Rainbow of Desire approach that culminated in a performance (Fisher, 2011). On the surface, this project was successful in that all objectives were met. However, several participants dropped out during the process for various reasons including one participant who felt her experience was not reflected in the work. Additionally, in retrospect, having a public performance disrupted the flow of the work as we had to turn our attention to creating that performance during the final workshop sessions.

In 2015 and 2016, I replicated that project, but with various reconfiguring to fine tune the work. The 2015 project was divided into two sections—one a series of standalone workshops exploring weight and body image on an urban community college campus; the other a series of sequential workshops held in a rehearsal space with adult women. The 2016 project was a shorter series of workshops held on the same urban community college campus with adult women interested in exploring weight and body image (Fisher, 2016). None of these later projects included a public performance.

The 2015 project was the most problematic as the off-campus workshops were canceled due to a lack of participants. Approximately six women showed interest, but only three showed up, one of whom arrived after the second workshop had ended. That person revealed she was interested in the subject, but anxious about what she would be expected to do and reveal during them. Unlike the 2010 project, I had not included a pre-workshop interview for this series, as that had been described as an obstacle to that prior project. However, not having the pre-interview meant participants were unable to have their questions and concerns answered prior to the workshops.

The on-campus workshops were also problematic as there was a mismatch between the project aims and the participants’ reasons for attending. Thanks to grant funding, participants were lured in with the promise of snacks, extra credit, and $10. As this project was run as a series of 90-minute stand-alone workshops, the participants changed each week. None of the participants had prior experience with theatre as well as were new to each other as a group. Many if not most participants came not to explore bodies and weight, but for the snacks and $10. As Cecily O’Neill (2015) observes about drama in education but which also pertains to theatre for health,

…unless the students become really engaged in the material, or we are prepared to adapt our plans to accommodate student responses, there is likely to be little sense of the collaboration or transformation that is at the heart of our endeavors. (p. x)

In one example, when asked to use tableaux to tell a story about oppression, the group members created a story of a bank robbery. Other groups chatted amongst themselves rather than follow the requested activity. Ultimately, the final two sessions were canceled.

Thus the 2016 project was developed to more closely follow what worked and avoid what did not work with the 2010 project including holding pre-interviews and eschewing a public performance. As a lack of time was a frequent 2010 complaint, the 2016 series took place with a closed group of women over three two-hour sessions. With the same grant funding, snacks and $100 were provided for each participant. The group was a mix of students and staff, nine in total. Unfortunately, the time frame wasn’t long enough to delve into the topic and the participants appeared uncertain about the work as well as, to be fair, my enthusiasm had waned. Indeed, it was that lack of enthusiasm that prompted me to explore my facilitation within the process as a potential stumbling block in these projects. To better understand my facilitation, I began by researching facilitation itself to better recognize the skills and characteristics needed to be an effective facilitator.

UNDERSTANDING FACILITATION

The success or failure of a theatre for health project, or any applied theatre project, rests considerably if not primarily on the facilitator and that person’s ability to lead the participants. If the facilitator is also the primary researcher who designed the project, its success rests even more assuredly on her shoulders.

Christine Hogan (2002), who researches and teaches facilitation, defines a facilitator as, “A self-reflective, process-person who has a variety of human, process, technical skills and knowledge, together with a variety of experiences to assist groups of people to journey together to reach their goals” (p. 57). Hogan notes, “It is the role of the facilitator to challenge assumptions and to create an environment that is conducive for people to move out of their comfort zones” (p. 30). She adds, “Facilitators need to be able to build secure, trusting environments where participants can experiment and break out of or rewrite the scripts that inhibit their growth and learning” (p. 30). In other words, facilitators utilize a wide variety of skills to push willing participants into exploring new ways of thinking and being.

Looking specifically at facilitation in applied theatre, Prendergast and Saxton (2016) note that the “applied theatre facilitator is a multidisciplinarian who must know about theatre and how it works, as well as have an understanding of teaching and learning” (p. 15). Similarly, Veronica Baxter (2017) also notes the importance of “the facilitator to be extremely skilled at theatre and to understand the subject matter [health subjects] in all its complexities” and “to have extensive knowledge of theatrical and performance forms that are both local and global (p. 70). She goes on to suggest, “The skill of facilitation rests on the ability to ask questions to probe the subject matter through a problem-posing performance, or literal questions in a participatory process” (p. 68).

Prendergast and Saxton (2016) further note that “a facilitator knows how to do something, why it is appropriate, when it needs to be done and how to do it in the most effective way” (p. 15). As Michael Balfour (2016) describes it, “An experienced facilitator, it could be argued, is someone who can pick up, identify and work with all the various complexities that exist in a group in a way that is respectful, flexible and structured” (p. 153). Balfour (2016) also explains this includes balancing the social needs of the group and the aesthetics of theatrical work, “What makes the role of an Applied Theatre facilitator so challenging is that there is a living interplay between the social and aesthetic instincts. Switching, aligning and integrating the different responses is where the art of facilitation resides” (p. 160). This is a lot to manage and an intimidating description of what an applied theatre facilitator does. In speaking about her experience as a facilitator, Sarah Woodland (2016) observed that facilitation is a, “… bewildering dance of success and failure that we as facilitators must learn and relearn with every new song” (p. 108).

Indeed, facilitators need a plethora of skills. These include communication (both in speaking and listening), group dynamics, theatre knowledge and skills, pedagogical knowledge, improvisation, conflict resolution, resilience, self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and cultural knowledge (Prendergast & Saxton, 2016; Balfour, 2010, 2016; Preston, 2016; Cohen, 2016; Hepplewhite, 2016; Hogan, 2002). Facilitators must also be cognizant of the potential emotional impact of the work on participants as well as develop trust between the participants and facilitator (Prendergast & Saxton, 2016; Fisher & Smith, 2010). If that weren’t overwhelming enough, Balfour (2016) also notes the importance for the facilitator to “bring their own identity into the process, not just a professional ‘facilitator’ identity, but one that is reflective of their own approach, style and humanity” (p. 151).

Kay Hepplewhite (2016) observes, “The qualities of a facilitator in Applied Theatre are notoriously difficult to describe and can appear daunting to a novice practitioner” (p. 165). From her study of facilitators, she proposed a concept she calls “responsivity” as “a way to reveal the more enigmatic sensibilities” of facilitation which includes the ability to respond in the moment to what is happening in the room using “a complex combination of skills and judgement” (p. 165). As do others, Hepplewhite notes the importance for facilitators to know when to stick to the plan and when to adapt to what is happening in the moment, “The ability to allow space and time to respond to the unknown/unplanned can be seen as a key characteristic of good facilitation in Applied Theatre contexts; it values the creative role of participants and shows a developed level of responsivity” (p. 175).

So given all of these qualities and skills needed, how does one become a skilled facilitator? Balfour (2016) notes, “Training, observing and working with other facilitators can help a facilitator hone their instincts. Key to this is having mechanisms for reflection and debriefing as an element of the automatic part of running a workshop” (p. 157). Hepplewhite (2016) observes from her research, “…expertise is composed not just of what the practitioner does, but also by an ability to grow the work and grow within the work” (p. 179). It’s not enough to receive training, one must continually evaluate one’s work so as to grow in both experience and expertise.

REFLECTING ON MY FACILITATION

Sheila Preston (2016) suggests, “a critical facilitation practice requires the facilitator to practice deep honesty, humility, buoyancy, and courage in difficult contexts” (p. 228). I interpret this to mean taking a realistic look at one’s abilities and knowledge. Despite years of training and experience, I am still sorting out my facilitation style and do not yet feel completely comfortable as a facilitator. Given the failure of this recent theatre for health project and struggles with the ones that preceded it, taking a step back to reflect on my facilitation was not only prudent, but a necessary step before moving forward. As Michael Balfour (2016) notes, “Learning about failing is an important element of the process, and discovering your own social blind spots and inadequacies is an important development in becoming a skilled facilitator” (p. 155). It is important to note that this reflection on facilitation is not a condemnation of facilitators or to place blame on them when the work fails, but to acknowledge that the facilitation within a project plays a role in how the work progresses and thus must be examined both when the work is successful and when challenges are faced.

Facilitators are a combination of their training, experience, and personality. I have been fortunate to receive training from a variety of respected facilitators including my instructors at NYU (including Nan Smithner, Joe Salvatore, David Montgomery, and Christina Marín), Augusto Boal and his jokers at CTO Brazil, Julian Boal, Rosa Luisa Márquez, Javier Cardona, Cecily O’Neill, Dorothy Heathcote, and Chris Vine among others. As an emerging facilitator, I have had many opportunities to put that training into practice. However, I am a slow learner and found myself more often mimicking what I had seen others do but without the insight into why it was done. I watched colleagues and others successfully facilitate workshops and wondered if I was alone in my feelings of uncertainty.

Adding to my anxiety, while the notion of running workshops appeals to me, I get flustered by their messiness. I struggle with how to quickly process the information I receive from participants and use that to advance the work. Preston (2016) cites the importance for facilitators of knowing how to stay in the “mess” (p. 70) and deal with the discomfort in the room that may not be a sign of a problem so much as an opportunity (p. 74). Julie Dunn (2015) reminds that mistakes in facilitation happen at one of two levels—macro (pre-planning) or micro (during the workshop). Dunn observes, “No amount of planning at the macro level can ever make micro planning redundant, for micro level planning is mostly driven by, and dependent upon, the spontaneous actions, ideas and responses of the students/participants” (p. 186). As Dunn notes,

…mistakes at the micro level are far more frequent and are inevitable, for the improvisatory nature of process drama makes high demands on its facilitators. Across each session a continuous flow of spontaneous decision is needed. Facilitators draw upon reflection-in-action (Schön 1983) and their understanding of dramatic form to make on-the-spot decisions about enacting, modifying, extending or even completely ignoring their plans. (p. 186)

Dunn also notes a third “category of mistakes” which occurs “when the facilitator intentionally ignores what has taken place within the drama experience in order to push on with their original planning” (p. 187).

Dunn identifies this third category of mistakes as a “conscious and considered decision to ignore the participants’ responses and choices” (p. 187). In reflecting on my facilitation, I realized I often let my goals and plans override what happened in the room. I either kept moving forward or disengaged from the work. To that point, Taiwo Afolabi (2017) notes that true participation in theatre-based projects is a façade more than a reality as participants have less agency within these programs. Indeed, there was very little agency for my participants.

When I try to micromanage the work and fail to appreciate that it’s not the structure or order of the activities that matter but the process, I lose sight not only of the overall research objective, but of the participants’ needs. For example, in both 2010 and 2016, I became frustrated when participants wanted to chat instead of get into the work. But had I used what they were talking about to, for example, create tableaux of those situations and then explore them visually as well as engage them with the notion of embodied exploration instead of forcing them to begin with exercises I wanted them to do, their investment in the work may have deepened. Rather than privileging the activities over the participants, I needed to focus on what the participants brought to the room using the activities to help further their exploration. While this may seem obvious, it was not so to me. As I note in my 2016 research journal after the first session, “When we sculpted oppression, it wasn’t about bodies and weight, but about things like domestic violence, bullying, illiteracy, and navigating the welfare system.” Indeed Juliana Saxton (2015) observed that, “When you take the time to move more slowly, to get to know your students as individuals and as a collective, you also learn to listen more deeply and observe more acutely” (p. 261). My natural inclination is to dive into the work rather than spend that community-building time. Had I instead spent time getting to know the participants, I might have been better able to actually structure the work in ways that spoke to their interests and experiences.

As I reflect back, the more difficult I found the process, the greater my reticence to engage with it. I came into the workshops with carefully planned activities and when those didn’t work, I struggled to adapt. Many of my research journal entries reflect my inexperience and lack of skill as a facilitator, as well as my tendency to keep talking instead of listen when I’m not sure what to do in the session.

When I look back on how I was taught facilitation, I remember it as a combination of theory and practice. We read books about and watched examples of master facilitators in action then did small group activities in which we put those skills into practice. While I found this approach engaging, I struggled to connect the theories I was taught to the practical application of them. This begs the question, what did I need to better prepare? How could my training have provided me the additional tools I needed? Interestingly, I don’t recall learning about various facilitation styles during my training or discussion of how to adapt one’s facilitation to one’s personality. Balfour (2010) discussed the challenges of teaching applied theatre facilitation and observed that, “preparation is often confined to training students in a repertoire of exercises and games, contextualized within broad approaches in facilitation and managing groups, and reflective feedback on context experiences” (p. 55). Are students leaving training well-prepared to juggle the varied theatrical and facilitation skills they will need? To that point, Preston (2016) observed that fewer theatre artists today are trained in teaching. This has led, she noted, to a piecemeal approach to learning how to teach/facilitate drama with a “delivery-focused approach” taking precedence over deeper engagement and technique taking precedence over the artistic craft (Preston 2016: 44).

When it comes to facilitation, part of my challenge is endemic to who I am on a fundamental level which includes the impact of being an introvert, which adds an additional challenge as I get easily overwhelmed by the energy in a room. I share this and previous personal information not to overly personalize this discussion, but with the knowledge that the universal is often found in the specific. Recognizing how my personality contributed to my facilitation struggles allowed me to rethink and reconsider my research approach, a process that is on-going.

While I have turned more of my focus to other research areas, I have not abandoned my interest in how weight and body image are understood and experienced in society. Nor have I abandoned my belief that there is a way to utilize theatre in this exploration. I believe theatre for health projects hold value both for what they can provide for participants as well as for what such experiences can teach us about weight and body image. But I cannot do that without fine tuning how I facilitate taking into account not just my training, but a more reflective interpretation of my prior facilitation experience and a clearer understanding of how my personality influences my facilitation.

CONCLUSION

This article has explored the failure of one theatre for health research project and the effect the facilitation had on that failure. I offer my experience as a way of broadening our understanding of facilitation and theatre for health projects. I was pleased to discover, as I looked into the subject of failure in applied theatre, that there were more discussions than I’d expected to find. As Saxton (2015) observed, “But learning, it seems to me, is an ongoing process of explorations in which failure is built in and I am not quite sure why educators are not more transparent about this incontrovertible fact” (p. 261).

While my initial inclination was to identify my facilitation as the sole problem with this particular project and with the projects that preceded it, the reality is more complicated than that. Theatre for health and the applied theatre field in which it lives are rich sources for exploring a variety of health concerns as well as other social issues, but need the right context in which to flourish. In failing both to recognize the challenges inherent in my proposed interview project (i.e., convincing people to participate) and my inability and/or unwillingness to resolve them, the project was doomed to fail. Additionally, my missteps as a facilitator also revealed flaws in previous projects. Before moving forward, those issues must be addressed or future projects will face similar disappointing results.

It is my hope that this article will engender conversations about facilitation and how beginning and emerging facilitators can structure training and experiential opportunities that enhance their skill sets in ways unique to their strengths and weaknesses as well as their personalities. I believe it important for us to explore the various personality types of facilitators there are and how we can better meet their needs. At the very least, to have more conversations about facilitation and how individuals can navigate their way through the process of becoming more skilled and confident as facilitators.

Additionally, I hope this article sparks conversations about how theatre for health can find ways to expand further into exploring issues of weight, weight loss, and body image to provide opportunities for people to share their experiences and understand others’ experiences through embodied activities that honor the wide spectrum of bodies in the world.

SUGGESTED CITATION

Fisher, T. A. (2019). Bad facilitation or the wrong approach?: Unpacking the failure of a theatre for health project. ArtsPraxis, 6 (2), 95-109.

REFERENCES

Afolabi, T. (2017). Theatre and participation: Towards a holistic notion of participation. Applied Theatre Research, 5 (2), 67-82.

Balfour, M. (2016). The art of facilitation: “Tain’t what you do (it’s the way that you do it). In S. Preston (Ed.), Applied theatre: Facilitation: Pedagogies, practices, resilience (pp. 151-164). London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama.

Balfour, M. (2010). Developing the capacities of applied theatre students to be critically reflective learner-practitioners. Australasian Drama Studies, 57, 54-67. Accessed 7 March 2019.

Baxter, V. (2017). Aesthetics, instrumentalism, and ethics in health and wellbeing. In V. Baxter & K. E. Low (Eds.), Applied theatre performing health and wellbeing (pp. 41-73). London and New York: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama.

Baxter, V. and Low, K. E. (Eds.). (2017). Applied theatre: Performing health and wellbeing. London and New York: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama.

Brodzinski, E. (2010). Theatre in health and care. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cohen, C. (2016). “Ain’t you got a right to the tree of life?”: Facilitators’ intentions towards community integrity and justice. In S. Preston (Ed.), Applied theatre: Facilitation: pedagogies, practices, resilience (pp. 207-224). London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama.

Duffy, P. (2015). Introduction. In P. Duffy (ed.), A reflective practitioner’s guide to (mis)adventures in drama education or what was I thinking? (pp. 1-10). Bristol: Intellect.

Dunn, J. (2015). Democracy over-ruled, or how to deny young children’s agency and voice through drama. In P. Duffy (ed.), A reflective practitioner’s guide to (mis)adventures in drama education or what was I thinking? (pp. 183-198). Bristol: Intellect.

Fisher, T. A. (2016). When diet and exercise are not enough: How theatre for health helps resolve gaps in current programs addressing obesity. Journal of Applied Arts and Health, 7 (3), 313-25.

Fisher, T. A. (2012). Every body has a story: Exploring the experience of obesity for women through theatre for change (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (3493851)

Fisher, T. A., & Smith, L. L. (2010). First do no harm: Informed consent principles for trust and understanding in applied theatre practice. Journal of Applied Arts and Health, 1 (2), 157-164.

Hepplewhite, K. (2016). More than a sum of parts? Responsivity and respondability in applied theatre expertise. In S. Preston (Ed.), Applied theatre: Facilitation: pedagogies, practices, resilience (pp. 165-188). London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama.

Hogan, C. (2002). Understanding facilitation: Theory & principles. London: Kogan Page.

O’Neill, C. (2015). Foreword. In P. Duffy (ed.), A reflective practitioner’s guide to (mis)adventures in drama education or what was I thinking? (pp. ix-xi). Bristol: Intellect.

Prendergast, M. & Saxton, J. (2016). Applied theatre: International case studies and challenges for practice (2nd ed.). Bristol: Intellect.

Preston, S. (2016). Introduction to facilitation & Afterword. In S. Preston (Ed.), Applied theatre: Facilitation: pedagogies, practices, resilience (pp. 1-15 & 225-230). London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama.

Saxton, J. (2015). Failing better. In P. Duffy (ed.), A reflective practitioner’s guide to (mis)adventures in drama education or what was I thinking? (pp. 253-266). Bristol: Intellect.

Woodland, S. (2016). All our stress goes in the river: The drama workshop as a (playful) space for reconciliation. In S. Preston (Ed.), Applied theatre: Facilitation: pedagogies, practices, resilience (pp. 107-130). London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama.

Teresa A. Fisher, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences at Bronx Community College (CUNY). Teresa’s research interests include post-show discussions, new play development, bodies and weight, health communication, and theatre for health. She is Producer/Production Manager of New Plays for Young Audiences at New York University. She is the author of Post-Show Discussions in New Play Development (2014, Palgrave). She is also the Assistant Editor for the Journal of Applied Arts and Health (Intellect).

• Return to Volume 6, Issue 2
• Return to Volumes 5 & 6
• Return to ArtsPraxis Home