Performer Training 2018

Full Name: Kate Craddock

Annual Conference Theme (if applicable): Who are we training for?

What were the main points that emerged from your WG this year?
This year’s question/theme was purposefully designed to be quite playful and probing, and in so doing, we aimed to attract contributors who might come at this topic from the viewpoint of practitioner, theorist, from cultural policy, or from an education perspective. The main points that emerged from the conference were:

• – training as a wide ranging term which encompasses a number of activities in several different fields
• – the need to continue to challenge the trainer/student relationship/dichotomy/hierarchies
• – challenge preconceptions of the experiences of different training contexts/environments
• – examine issues of diversity and inclusion in performer training
• – the importance of integrated praxis and practice based approaches to teasing out and furthering research in the field
• – the integration, role and possibilities for new technologies on performer training
•  – the relationship between creative industries, education and training

Some of the sessions were reviewed by WG members and the reviews will soon be available to view on the Theatre, Dance and Performer Training blog Another key point to emerge was the ethos overall of the group, and this being a safe space to share and discuss research, especially for new researchers, as well as the amount of intersections with other WGs, particularly with New Technologies and Applied Theatre .  

What was discussed at your business meeting?

The supportive nature of the group and the encouragement of risk taking and openness that the group engendered. The group also discussed various ways to try and build on this in more meaningful ways (as support for one another with research) throughout the year. 

The group discussed the strength of the mix of approaches adopted by the WG: e.g. the mixture of practice demonstrations and traditional papers; the small break out groups after each panel to facilitate deeper discussions; the organising of social moments (e.g. WG dinner) and the inclusive approach adopted that helped make the experience welcoming and supportive for PGR and ECRs.

We also discussed opportunities for future collaborations, future interim and conference themes, and the possibility of considering a new name for the group that might better represents its breadth of focus. 

We also discussed opportunities (and support) for publishing papers in the Theatre Dance and Performance Training journal and blog.

Types of contributions:
Traditional papers, provocations, performance demonstrations, workshops, performances.

Number of formal contributors (those listed in book of abstracts) 25

Approx. overall number of delegates who attended your WG Sessions The largest session held around 50 people, the smallest was 18.
Composition of WG (PG, ECR, etc.)
Around 70% were new PG and ECR members

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, attracting members from the Applied WG and Directing and Dramaturgy amongst others. The breadth of papers in the Open Panel enabled those who attended from the other WGs to see the possibility of what Performer Training might encapsulate, and others commented on how exciting and refreshing this was, and also how supportive and open an environment the group had established. Others also commented on the success of the small group discussions to enable rich and fruitful conversations and feedback to take place. 

We also held a joint panel with New Technologies that was also really well attended (around 40 people) and was an interesting coming together of two groups. If we do a joint panel again in the future, it would also be helpful to think of ways to even further embed this opportunity of coming together. This was a very rich session, and would be a relationship to build on for the future. 

Any additional points or feedback not covered above?

There was excellent attendance overall, and this was much higher than last year with lots of new members who were new to TaPRA entirely and at a range of stages in their careers. This brought with it a real sense of dynamism and renewed energy which was palpable. Since the conference the WG members have already been sharing resources with each other and there is a strong will to remain more tightly connected.

Something that came up was the increased difficulty for members in gaining institutional financial support for attending TaPRA and also how the pricing made it inaccessible for practitioners whose voices we increasingly want to have in the room in our WG. This is something we will be more mindful of next year (e.g. the bursary for PGRs and artists). We were also acutely aware this year of the problematic timing of the event and the difficulty of navigating this with young children – something that we welcome as now being discussed at exec level.

Huge thank you to Maria Kapsali and Tom Cantrell who are now stepping down as conveners after a few wonderful years of developing the Working Group and co-convening with incredible warmth. Both will be deeply missed!