Performance, Identity and Community (2017)
Full Name: Dr Marissia Fragkou
Annual Conference Theme (if applicable): Frames of Legibility
What were the main points that emerged from your WG this year?
Our four panels revolved around the following areas: legibility, representation and rhetoric; legibility, gender and sexuality; legibility, permissibility and the institution; legibility, justice and agency. Some emergent themes across the conference concerned: ways in which frames of recognizability can be critically interrogated by performance strategies (e.g. laughter and irony) and pedagogies of resistance in HE (e.g. fugitive knowledge, ethics of care, voice); optimism and a critique of neo-liberalism as a non-totalizing regime; the instrumentalization of data and how they relate to institutional frameworks; the (il)legibility of the ‘radical’ in performance.
What was discussed at your business meeting?
Our business meeting focused on the emergent themes and ideas that would shape next year’s call for papers and interim events. Some key tropes identified were: cautious optimism; agency and voice; censorship and erasure; anarchy and structure. We also received good feedback about our chosen format (fewer papers followed by longer discussions) and plan to continue in the same spirit in future conferences. Members also suggested that more explicit instructions about expectations from shorter papers (provocations) need to be more firmly outlined in advance.
Types of contributions:
Contributions were either 15 minute papers or 5 minute provocations.
Number of formal contributors (those listed in book of abstracts) 15 contributors across 4 panels in total.
Approx. overall number of delegates who attended your WG Sessions On average, each session was attended by 27 TaPRA members; our Open Panel attracted over 45 attendees and our Business Meeting 7.
Composition of WG (PG, ECR, etc.)
Our WG usually attracts scholars from all levels. In terms of the composition of the presenters there were: 6 PG; 4 ECRs; 5 more established scholars.
Did you have any non-UK participants? No
If your WG hosted an Open Panel, do you have any feedback?
We hosted a very successful Open Panel on the last day of the conference which attracted a large number of attendees (see numbers above). Paper presentations were followed by a lively discussion which continued well beyond the allotted time. Convenors were also approached separately by many Open Panel attendees who shared their enthusiasm and support about the level of work carried out in the WG.
Any additional points or feedback not covered above?
Overall, this was a very successful conference for the WG in terms of the quality of proposals received, the strength and cohesiveness of the papers presented, the number of attendees, and the level of discussion generated. All the above contributed to expanding the group’s ideas to future directions.
