Performing 'impact': community theatre and the outcomes produced through narratives, texts and memories

我们的案头研究旨在为社区艺术影响的文献做出贡献，并为从业者的进一步工作提供信息。这是对公众和学术报告的回应，这些报告认为需要更好的证据来证明社区艺术的影响。它遵循通过参与式和女权主义戏剧实践的实证研究获得的见解（例如Hall & Thomson， 2010），并承认从业者对过程重要性的经验知识（Van Erven, 2001）以及过程与结果之间不可分割的联系（Kershaw, 1992）。通过使用非正式学习的镜头，我们能够关注社区戏剧实践中使用的参与性过程（McCarthy, 1994）、作为结果的文本和表演以及参与者的学习之间的联系（例如Wiles， 2011）。因此，我们可以考虑如何摆脱目前主导该部门的项目总结性评估模式（类似于期末考试），通过项目档案建设对非正式学习进行评估（类似于通过持续评估提供的学习的监测和跟踪）。我们理解社区艺术过程构成了一种公共教育学。这是一个模糊而有争议的概念（Sandlin, Schultz, & Burdick, 2010），但我们认为它是指通过事件，地点，话语，惯例和联想的签名模式提供的学习机会和支持（c.f. Ellsworth, 2005）。在这种情况下，学习者，即社区戏剧的参与者，总是在接受或不接受所提供的内容方面行使代理。提供一个学习的机会并不能保证它一定会发生。在参与性、康复性和女权主义戏剧的情况下，公共教育学签名模式的关键方面包括：个人和集体生活史叙事的产生，通过对话和故事制作活动的文本集体发展，关于地点和人物的现有档案材料的使用，以及在特定地点/时间内代表日常生活的表演的制作和上演。我们将使用教科文组织制定的“四大支柱”框架（德洛尔，1996年）——学习认识（对地点/时间和人的新理解）、学习行动（性格和技能，包括艺术方面的）、学习共同生活（协会、网络和参与性实践）和学习成为（新的体现、身份和可能性的视野）——作为组织通过参与性的过程所提供的潜在学习（即影响）的手段。康复和女权主义戏剧。我们的目标是利用课桌研究叙事，文本，作者，表演，通过放置和记忆来完善对过程的理解，然后确定(1)社区戏剧的公共教育（签名模式）对参与者的结果有何影响(2)因此在社区戏剧项目中可以记录和监控哪些内容，以跟踪和证明这些学习成果(3)(1)和(2)对社区戏剧的实践和表演的学术研究有何贡献。然后，我们将在为期两天的研讨会上与社区和女权主义戏剧从业者一起测试对跟踪学习/影响的潜在贡献。我们将要求他们询问框架，并考虑作为评估模式使用它可能意味着什么。我们特别感兴趣的是，持续监控如何与项目档案相结合，包括物质的和虚拟的，从业者已经例行维护的，并且潜在地改进他们已经做的事情。我们的目标是，其中一些从业者将继续与我们合作，在实际项目中测试实践中的影响框架，通过这种方式，我们将对衡量社区艺术对连接社区的贡献有一些相当实质性的说法。

Our desk study aims to contribute to the literatures on community arts impact and to inform further work with practitioners. It is a response to public and scholarly reports on the need for better evidencing of the effects of community arts. It follows insights gained through empirical studies of participatory and feminist theatre practice (e.g. Hall & Thomson, 2010) and acknowledges the experiential knowledge of practitioners about the importance of process (Van Erven, 2001) and the inextricable connectivity between process and outcomes (Kershaw, 1992). By using the lens of informal learning, we are able to focus on the connections between the participatory processes used in community theatre practice (McCarthy, 1994), the texts and performances that are the result and the learnings of participants (e.g. Wiles, 2011). We can thus consider how to move away from the model of summative evaluation of projects (analogous to a final examination) which currently dominates the sector, to the evaluation of informal learnings via project archive building (analogous to the monitoring and tracking of learning afforded through continuous assessment). We understand community arts processes to constitute a public pedagogy. This is a slippery and contested concept (Sandlin, Schultz, & Burdick, 2010) but we take it to mean the opportunities and affordances for learning made available through a signature pattern of events, places, utterances, routines and associations (c.f. Ellsworth, 2005). Learners, in this case, the participants in community theatre, always exercise agency in taking up aspects of what is on offer, or not. Offering an opportunity to learn is not a guarantee that it will happen. In the case of participatory, rehabilitative and feminist theatre key aspects of the public pedagogy signature pattern include: the generation of individual and collective life-history narratives, the collective development of a text through dialogue and story-making activities, the use of extant archival materials about place and people, and the production and staging of a performance which is a representation of everyday lives in a given place/time. We will use the 'four pillars' framework developed by UNESCO (Delors, 1996) - learning to know (new understandings of place/time and people), learning to do (dispositions and skills, including those in the arts), learning to live together (associations, networks and participatory practices) and learning to be (new embodiments, identities and horizons of possibility) - as a means of organizing the potential learnings (ie impact) afforded through the processes of participatory, rehabilitative and feminist theatre. Our aim is to use the desk study of narrative, text, authorship, performance, place and memory to refine understandings of process and then to determine(1) what it is about the public pedagogy (signature patterns) of community theatre that contributes to outcomes for participants(2) what therefore might be recorded and monitored during a community theatre project to track and evidence those learnings(3) what (1) and (2) contribute to the scholarship on the practice and performance of community theatre.We will then test out the potential contribution to tracking learnings/impact in two day workshop with community and feminist theatre practitioners. We will ask them to interrogate the framework and to consider what it might mean in use as a mode of evaluation. We are particularly interested in how continuous monitoring might dovetail with project archives, both material and virtual, that practitioners already routinely maintain, and potentially refine what they already do. Our goal is that some of these practitioners will continue to work with us to test out the impact framework in practice in real projects and in this way we will have something quite substantive to say about the measurement of the contribution of community arts to connecting communities.