An Investigation into How Engagement with the Context and Processes of Collaborative Devising Affects the Praxis of the Playwright: A Practice-as-Research PhD Volume 2 223 Practice-As-Research: The 9.21 to Shrub Hill (Devised Production) Playground (Non-Devised Production) and Accompanying Exegesis 224 Chapter Five Exegesis of the Processes of Creating a Devised Script (The 9.21 to Shrub Hill) and Non-Devised Script (Playground) Introduction The preceding chapters have created a framework for the analysis of my own experiences as a writer-deviser. Without this framework, it would be difficult to situate my practice within a theoretical context, since a similar academic discourse, placing the writer-deviser at the heart of the study, does not exist. As highlighted in the Introduction, the central query of this dissertation is how engagement with devising affects a playwright. This is a query with important ramifications for pedagogical practice and the discourses of devising and playwriting in general, but also represents a significant investigation in the development of my own artistic practice. As previously discussed, my methodological approach encompasses both research-led practice, and practice-led research.1 The preceding chapters have informed the development of the two scripts contained within this volume, and the development of the two scripts directed the focus of my research. As with most PaR investigations, the findings resulting from the practice share equal weighting (if not, in the case of some researchers, more) with those discoveries made from traditional, text-based research methodologies. Whilst I explore the ramifications of devising practice on my writing, I am also placing it within the context of the previous chapters’ revelations, finding resonances with the work of other writer-devisers, and testing out the theories presented of both devising and writing in my own work. 1 Hazel Smith and Roger T. Dean, ‘Introduction’ in Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative Arts, ed. by Hazel Smith and Roger T. Dean (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), p. 7. 225 A reasonable query that could be asked of this dissertation is why employ a practice- as-research approach? A simplistic response is that it has never been done before, and a first- hand, reflective account of the playwright embedded within a collaborative context, investigating the long-term effects of the devising processes on non-devised work, can offer insight that is lacking in existing discourse. More complex justifications include the suspicion that most of the accounts provided by writer-devisers of their experiences are filtered through the outside eye of the interviewer/researcher, who may have a particular argument not explicitly linked to the writer-deviser experience, whilst a practice-as-research approach provides a first-hand account, closely connected to my own professional practice. My practice, as a playwright creating work for the professional theatre, interested in collaborative methodologies, is not unique, and therefore the discoveries and findings have important implications for playwrights, particularly those who feel that their training has not provided them with an adequate understanding of devising methodologies. As my survey in Chapter Two revealed, there was a significant number of those writers surveyed who fall into this category. Therefore, in undertaking a research query specifically detailing the experience of a playwright creating work in and out of the devising process, I am both exploring consequences for my own work, and starting a conversation with resonance for many other playwrights. John Freeman writes of performance-as-research that it should be concerned ‘with application: with the ways in which research can be used to develop performance’.2 Indeed, not only were my chosen methods of documenting my experience through the practice elements in this dissertation selected for the purposes of this particular study, but also to provide me (and, potentially, other writer-devisers) with tools and considerations for future work. From the beginning of work on both plays these methods included: observations and 2 John Freeman, Blood, Sweat & Theory: Research Through Practice in Performance (Faringdon: Libri Publishing, 2010), p. 64. 226 documentation of rehearsals and creative processes, with reflections after the fact in the form of journals; experimentation with practical techniques and games to develop work; examination of the redrafting process; and the inclusion of reflective feedback from collaborators and audience members, in order to introduce some degree of objectivity (though, as is discussed below, true objectivity is neither possible nor desirable in a PaR investigation). In this way, when embarking on future writing projects, I have a collection of possible exercises, observations, and suggestions for areas of exploration to draw upon when planning work. This primary evidence works with my text-based research to provide the ‘multi-mode’ approach favoured by Robin Nelson.3 Following his framework for evidence within a PaR submission (which, as mentioned in the Introduction to this dissertation, includes a ‘product’; ‘documentation of process’; and ‘complementary writing’), in the case of this PaR dissertation, the product is the two scripts.4 Given that the focus of this investigation is on how engagement with devising affects the writer-deviser, the most logical product to provide is a written script, as opposed to a DVD recording, as a written script is the product with which the writer is most closely identified, and elements of the script which are connected to the devising process can be easily distinguished. The ‘documentation of process’ is included in the pages of this chapter, incorporating the elements of primary notation mentioned above. This documentation is intertwined with reflective commentary, closely linked to the ‘complementary writing’ included in Volume One. Thus, this chapter charts and considers my involvement as writer in a devised play, The 9.21 to Shrub Hill, placing it within the context of academic and practical discourses on devising; this discussion is expanded via commentary on the lasting effects of the devising process through an examination of my non-devised play, Playground. This investigation 3 Robin Nelson, Practice as Research in the Arts: Principles, Protocols, Pedagogies, Resistances (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), p. 6. 4 Nelson, p. 26. 227 considers both the context of the creation of the two scripts (a collaborative group and working on my own), and the processes involved (including development exercises and explorations, redrafting, and production), in line with Bruce Barton’s distinctions between the two.5 The presentation of two plays links to the central research query in that this PaR investigation does not merely detail a writer’s involvement in a particular moment of devising; it considers how this experience extends out to influence writing practice generally, even in contexts when the writer has not worked with other creative artists from the beginning of the process. Though the subheadings of this chapter, based on temporal divisions, are somewhat imposed on chronologies which often overlapped (for example, writing and redrafting took place during rehearsal periods on The 9.21 to Shrub Hill), it is useful to place both processes side-by-side in order to make cogent links between them. As such, the commentary on both aspects of my practice (The 9.21 to Shrub Hill and Playground) includes observations of how the plays developed, and my shifting perceptions of how, as a playwright, I fit into the frameworks of production. Backgrounds to the productions and my involvement are provided, preceded by timelines outlining the processes for easy reference. Elements of processes themselves are described, within the context of the research provided in previous chapters, concluding with an assessment of the work and my involvement. This commentary is not a review of the resulting plays, but rather an account of my development as a writer-deviser within the context of specific productions. The two playscripts are included in a separate section to allow for the connection of elements within the plays to the processes and contexts which created them, and to place the work within the greater context of this PaR dissertation. As explicated in the Introduction to this dissertation, this is not a positivist, scientific examination; the focus in this exegesis is on my own experience (within the greater context of the previous volume’s research), with the suggestion 5 Bruce Barton, 'Introduction: Devising the Creative Body', in Collective Creation, Collaboration and Devising, ed. by Bruce Barton (Toronto: Playwrights Canada Press, 2008).pp. vii-xxvii (p. viii). 228 that this experience may have implications for other writer-devisers and the general discourse on devising and playwriting methodologies. Therefore, a ‘Toolkit’ of suggestions for the writer-deviser is included at the end of this chapter. Before proceeding with the exegesis, it is important to reflect on the duality of my position as both researcher (outside observer) and creative artist (inside participant). In many ways, the PaR section of the dissertation aligns with theories of ‘action research’, a framework developed by sociologist Kurt Lewin, whereby investigations are ‘conducted upon current activity by those involved in the activity to better understand it and to develop