Performance and Science, 2017

Full Name: Gianna Bouchard and Alex Mermikides

Annual Conference Theme (if applicable): Performance and the Laboratory

What were the main points that emerged from your WG this year?

• Papers engaged with a pleasingly wide range of scientific disciplines with references to theoretical physics, this year’s LIGO events, voice science and a range of medical subjects.
• Presentations also represented a range of ways in which performance (as practice and as theoretical perspective) might engage with each other. So there were papers on theatre employed as scientific public engagement; on scientific practices and objects examined through the lens of performance; analyses of current theatre practices and performance that reflect scientific paradigms or engage with scientific communities.
• Unusually, we were not able to offer a practical presentation this year (practical/funding factors meant that the panel on ‘Going Beneath’ was skyped in and took a more conventional panel format).

What was discussed at your business meeting?

1. The exec asked us to consider future conference WG arrangements, as the numbers of groups and participants are reaching various limits:

The group felt that running some WG sessions every year, even if the number of sessions was reduced, was preferable to working on a biennial basis or disbanding. The group would be happy to explore some joint panels with other WG groups.

In line with this, we also talked about recruiting to the group, particularly PG students and ECR. The group has a small but loyal central core, with a wider pool of more loosely associated members. This mixed membership is very beneficial, but there is value is reaching out to new potential membership groups. To do this, we will aim to share our CFPs in future with the Medical Humanities Association and the Science in Public network, in order to broaden our reach. Other network suggestions would be most welcome.

2. CFP for TAPRA 2018

The group were invited to review our established practice of calling for papers around a central theme (‘the human’ in 2016 and ‘the laboratory’ in 2017), especially in the light of the question around group size. There was some anecdotal evidence of researchers submitting to other WGs this year because they felt that they did not align with the theme (although CFPs always state that themes can be interpreted quite inclusively). We agreed that next year’s CFP would invite both themed and open papers. We also agreed to encourage submissions from PG researchers, making reference to the PG bursary scheme.

3. Interim event planning

A strong contender for an event in the Spring emerged as a visit to the Jodrell Bank Observatory, which is part of the University of Manchester. This would be tied to discussion themes around questions of scale and perspective, with a potential provocation from an astrophysicist working at the observatory, as well as having a tour of the facilities and a talk from its director.

4. Conference 2017 feedback

• The group noted that many of the papers presented this years were of research in its early stages of development, which meant that responses and discussions were genuinely useful to the presenter and engaging to the audiences. Paul commented that listening to other people’s papers was much more important to him than sharing his own and that this was a welcome difference to other conference situations.
• The group also commented on the relaxed discussion and encouraged the convenors to continue scheduling the programme in a way that prioritized time for responses.

And finally, these are the comments that the group wants us to pass on about the conference organisation more generally:

• very happy with the room we were allocated
• very impressed by the student helpers
• conference as a whole was very well organised – well signposted, good packs and info
• the dinner and disco were great
• campus accommodation was good (though there were complaints about the breakfasts)
• the cultural envelop around the conference was good

Types of contributions:
Papers and one cross-disciplinary team Skype presentation

Number of formal contributors (those listed in book of abstracts) 14

Approx. overall number of delegates who attended your WG Sessions 29 delegates attended at least one session each.
Composition of WG (PG, ECR, etc.)
Mostly established academics, some PG and ECR in some sessions

Did you have any non-UK participants? Yes

If your WG hosted an Open Panel, do you have any feedback?

The Open Panel was very well attended (23 delegates) and two of the three speakers were new to the WG. The papers extended ongoing conversations in the group and also opened onto new ideas, appropriate to the WG core members and ‘visitors’ to the panel.

Any additional points or feedback not covered above?