Interactive theatre
Interactive theatre is a powerful educational tool. One valuable tool for better understanding and dealing with unintended obstacles to career success is through interactive theater. Interactive theatre uses a solid foundation of research on faculty and student experiences to develop and present provocative vignettes that engage the audience in thinking and talking about issues of diversity, pedagogy, and inclusion. Sketches draw the audience into a scene with a mix of comedy and drama designed to portray the complexities and challenges of everyday academic situations. After each sketch, audience members engage in dialogue with the actors who continue to play their roles, answering questions and making comments to audience members. The actors are UM students and faculty, and a trained facilitator provides professional expertise and guides the dialogue. Theatre skits can facilitate the transformation of climate. Once developed, this resource will be expanded to address additional issues crucial to both faculty and students. Download article on Using Theatre to Stage Instructional and Organizational Transformation
Presentation of the SEEDS Interactive Theatre at the SEEDS Annual Dinner, October 19, 2009, and the prior dress rehersal (below). The sketch presented was The Mid-Term Review for Tenure. It portrays an interaction between the junior faculty member and the department chair and then goes back in time to show interactions during a faculty meeting that is evaluating an assistant professor’s progress toward tenure.
For abundant photos of the event, click here.
The Skits: candidate and chair; prior faculty meeting
SEEDS Interactive Theatre at the Annual Networking Dinner, October 19, 2009
| Questions about the sketch and interactions (n = 34 responding) | % agree |
| Overall, the sketch and interactions were effective | 100% |
| The issues raised in the sketch were important | 94% |
| The performance made me think about some familiar interactions and situations in new ways | 88% |
| The issues raised reflected issues I have observed at UM | 85% |
| The audience/actor interactive discussion enhanced my understanding of the issues | 82%
|
| What was the most significant thing you learned from the performance? | |
| • My reality is common • Issues in my department are not unique, “Leadership” was important to this department • I might have an enemy in the review committee • Should not behave as if supervisor is extremely busy • I sometimes do what “James” does, finish on the computer as someone enters, which I won’t do anymore! • Chairs need more guidance on mentoring and feedback • Your midterm and tenure review will be very difficult. You probably can’t please all of them. It is also important to focus on independent research that is different from your previous mentor. • Some great strong opinions among our faculty • There are some faculty who do not understand your research making negative comments about it • Need to have advocates for P + T process • How complicated department meetings of this sort are. It’s amazing how little junior Faculty known about how the process really works • Individuals need multiple mentors • People have their own agenda and are not objective • The lack of care that went into the review process – some faculty were not prepared • I am glad this chair was not mine at the time of promotion! • Communication skills are important • Maybe disconnect between evaluation process and what is communicated to a faculty member • I am not experienced with the tenure process (yet) but this was the first I had heard about obtaining outside letters • I was aware of how the mid-term review goes. I think being a team player is very important to get promoted in any group • “Jackie” needed to work on that point (team player). Otherwise find another place to work. • It creates opportunities to have discussions • How much personalities impact important decisions in career • You need strong advocates for you on the committee • The aggressiveness shown by “Frank” • The mentoring process was lacking • Chair and faculty interaction. This was an example of how not to behave. • Chairs need to show more empathy and have better communication skills • Interactions • The mid-term review of faculty for promotion is important but it should be a source of encouragement and inspiration | |
| What worked best about the SEEDS sketch presentation for you? | |
| • The play between the committee meeting and chairs meeting at the junior faculty • The chair was exactly perfect • The post presentation discussion • Actors were excellent. The audience was engaged. Great questions. • The discussions afterwards was beneficial • The interactions among the committee members were spot on. • I love the real situations • The scripted part actually worked better than the interactive part. A good mirror! • “James” was particularly effective as a harried chair • Participation of audience • Questions to one or more particular actors is effective • Opportunity to ask actors questions “aside” • Interaction is great to highlight the significant issues. • Need to know these dialogues can lead to change • Each actor was consistently in his/her portrayal of character type and that helped to clearly demonstrate specific issues • Touches nerves with humor • Departmental policies and subtle psychology at play • Good acting! Good depth of knowledge regarding situation and character background • The interaction with the audience • It was fun! I liked it! • It was engaging and funny – just enough to highlight issues • Actors staying in role – answering questions • DID NOT WORK WELL: a little over done, less realistic as to her qualification issue that chair had and did not resonate as well as other issues like funding, publication or teaching • Possibly a realistic reenactment • A chair with no guts • The “turn in” “turn on” of people • The characters stayed in character very good! • Though as a combination of problems it may not be real, these were real (truths) in each issue which was worth highlighting • The two time spans (later/earlier) • The reviews for promotion of faculty have similar conflictive opinions of the reviewing faculty |
|
| What worked least well? | |
| • Microphones – difficult hearing • Problems with audio • “Time in” and “time out” were not effective • This candidate is too well qualified • % of women on ‘panel’ seemed to high but later Chris’ relationship with John was a good addition • Chris’ perspective regarding mentoring seemed strange coming from a woman, but I suppose that actually made it more interesting • It was very well done • Too long. The case was unrealistic: the candidate was superb but just did not get a fair review. A more realistic applicant would have provoked more thoughts and discussions. • The final decision for promotion of “Jackie” |
|
| Did anything particularly strike you or surprise you in the audience discussion or reactions to the sketch? | |
| • Good and interactive real time discussions and concerns for promotion for faculty who are productive members of the department • Personal responses • A few seemed to think this was not real. It may have been exaggerated but it was full of truths • How drastically people reacted to the sketch • How much some disliked the chair • A woman is not a good mentor for another woman • The range of respondents who thought it was an accurate portrayal and who didn’t • Not really good participation • I was angry! • Pro-active challenges from junior Faculty • I was pleased that all the women in the audience spoke up and called out all the bad behavior of the panel. I’ve just come to expect it and I was reminded that we can expect better, more fair behavior of faculty • Many people took the one criticism as fatal • It was surprising how emotionally invested the audience was in the story • Some faculty felt this was “typical” at UM ☹ |
|
Do you have advice about how this presentation might be used in the future, particularly settings where it might be usefully presented? |
|
• In other departments other than sciences! Same issues in other fields would only need minor modifications. • As many untenured faculty members as possible should see this sketch • Every school and department would benefit from this exercise! • Junior faculty should see this – worst case scenario preparation. It will light a fire under them. • Some follow up suggestions as to how chairs and/or other voting faculty can respond to problematic comments and/or reactions • Should be spread as widely as possible! How about faculty retreats! • To faculties of each department • Can be used in a variety of different settings • P + T committee – mock • NIH study panel – very useful! • Show it in all schools/departments. Shortly before the tenure review period • A little unrealistic. If you have grants to do research, you need to pursue that research. Thus “Jackie” will continue to research and the department does not respect • How would the review of the faculty be if the candidate was a male faculty member? |
|
Presentation of the SEEDS Interactive Theatre dress rehearsal, October 15, 2009
| Questions about the sketch and interactions (n = 6 responding) | % agree
|
| Overall, the sketch and interactions were effective | 100%
|
| The issues raised in the sketch were important | 100%
|
| The performance made me think about some familiar interactions and situations in new ways | 33% |
| The issues raised reflected issues I have observed at UM | 100%
|
| The audience/actor interactive discussion enhanced my understanding of the issues | 90%
|
| What was the most significant thing you learned from the performance? | |
• The review was an accurate representation of what actually happens |
|
| What worked best about the SEEDS sketch presentation for you? | |
| • It was a very accurate reflection of such meetings in our department . They touched on behaviors I have seen in meetings. I actually tagged actors to individuals in our department. The notion of familiar, expected/predictable discussion by individuals was an important detail. • Realism very well done, showed care, anger, and when needed confusion • Realistic inclusion of these small events/mannerisms • The thinly-veiled prejudices against young (and possibly female) faculty . A taboo subject, so incredibly difficult to combat. • Text-a-holic chair was funny and disturbing |
|
| What worked least well? | |
| • Some of these discussions seemed a bit vague (Re: Actual research area). It might not be easy or possible to be more specific about actual research area, but might make it more believable. • Some lack of realism. The actors need some understanding of the subject • Question and answer session (interactive part) • The issue of maternity leave and the expectations of people who are on family leave should be developed more. There are written and unwritten expectations on this. |
|
Do you have advice about how this presentation might be used in the future, particularly settings where it might be usefully presented? |
|
• Should be performed for entering faculty • Should be presented to every faculty of each department meeting preceding the actual promotion & tenure meeting each year • All faculty should be invited to attend • Faculty meeting by surprise so that people can’t decide not to come because the people who don’t attend willingly are possibly those who can most benefit from attending |
|
