Performance and Science
Full Name: Paul Johnson
Annual Conference Theme (if applicable): NA
What were the main points that emerged from your WG this year?
With an open call this year there were papers that covered a broad spread of both science and performance, with topics such as theatre and public health, self-experimentation and biohacking, Scottish space plays and the aesthetics of mathematics. The types of performance practices explored ranged from textual/performance analysis of plays, to high-energy physical performance, to DNA based performance storytelling through a board-game. There were a number of papers which were scoping out the initial ideas for research or performance projects, or initial responses to questions that had been raised at the previous interim event, and that seemed to work well. Also, there were a range of perspectives as to the application (social, educational, etc.) of the performance practice, which was also valuable.
What was discussed at your business meeting?
The following items were discussed:
Convenorship – Alex Mermikides stepped down and was thanked for the tremendous work she had done setting up the working group and helping it to develop. A number of members expressed a desire to contribute, but were worried about the ongoing nature of the commitment as convenor, particularly with the timing of the conference as it currently is being very difficult with the start of the school year. Simon Parry agreed to act as co-convenor for the next conference, and Alex Kelly also expressed a willingness to support the activity of the working group.
Publications – members were updated as to upcoming publication opportunities, in particular the Performance and Medicine and Performance and Science Routledge companions.
Interim events – there was discussion of a variety of possible interim events focussed around other events, such as DNA day or the Gravity Fields Festival.
The potential link with the BSLS was also discussed.
It was also felt that the quality of papers this year was very high.
Types of contributions:
Papers
Number of formal contributors (those listed in book of abstracts) 10 + 3 in joint session with Performance and Body group
Approx. overall number of delegates who attended your WG Sessions Average of 12 per session and approx. 80 for joint open panel.
Composition of WG (PG, ECR, etc.)
Approx 20% PG
Did you have any non-UK participants? No
If your WG hosted an Open Panel, do you have any feedback?
The Open Panel was very well attended, and worked well (though the space and AV wasn’t very good!) – we would be keen to have joint sessions at future conferences and I think there are a number of working group members who sit between groups, and who might find more collaboration between groups valuable.
Any additional points or feedback not covered above?
Thanks to Exeter and the Exec for enabling the conference to take place! It was felt that the AV equipment was often a bit problematic, and the timings were difficult getting up and down the hill for lunch. Also, there didn’t seem to be many places to sit at the breaks. (But we don’t want to seem ungrateful, because it was amazing that the conference took place at all!)
