Literature Review 3

The final piece of literature I have looked at is the chapter 'Macbeth - 1970' from Steven Berkoff's autobiography 'Free Association'. It describes Berkoff's experience of producing, directing and acting in the lead role of a production of Macbeth.

Berkoff has written, acted, produced and directed and is one of the most well-known examples of a 20th century theatrical polymath. He certainly has the experience to be qualified to comment, although we must be mindful of the likelihood of bias as he is discussing his own work.

The actor's reasoning for putting on his own Macbeth appears to be quite simplistic, stating that 'to do it yourself seemed to be the obvious way to do anything'. He describes his frustration at waiting for work to come, only to find that when it did, the experience of working with the director would be 'less than satisfying'. Berkoff raises the point that sometimes necessity can 'unlock' creativity and seems to believe that truly great directors are very rare. We certainly sense Berkoff as a creative individual, who does not like to be restricted or bound by directors whom he does not respect. The rewards of creative freedom do seem to have been balanced out by the responsibilities of running a company; he describes on the first day being nervous at having to 'earn respect on two levels', both as the lead actor and the person who had to ensure the sandwiches were ready at lunchtime. 

The difficulties of the project are openly discussed, for example that he found it was easy to find actors, but much more of a problem to keep hold of them, as they were not being paid and would often disappear to go and do other jobs. This lead to a cast which was constantly changing, and sometimes numbers were too low to conduct proper full rehearsals. Consequently the process took much longer than usual, but Berkoff describes all the time spent as useful and states that at each rehearsal felt 'blessed that I was no longer out of work'. Throughout the chapter, he comments on how actors are happiest when honing their craft. As the company were essentially creating their own work, for no money, this raises an interesting question; do 'creative people' relate success more to personal fulfilment rather than financial reward? Is work of any less perceived value if you have 'invented' it yourself? 

He goes on to describe how various factions 'threatened to tear the company apart' and how shocked he was, having considered the company a 'great team of friends and allies'. This 'them and me' theme is recurrent in the literature; it seems Berkoff must have had a very thick skin and immense determination to  persevere with the project. It raises the difficulty of achieving a balance when performing multiple job roles, and trying to be the boss, as well as part of the team. 

I think Berkoff has given us a very insightful account of the highs and lows of an actor producing their own work. He is obviously not without bias, and is somewhat notoriously opinionated, but I believe his level of experience as a theatrical polymath makes him a vital figure to consider.   

Source: Berkoff, S. (1996) Macbeth 1970 p.296-303, Free Association London: Faber & Faber

Literature Review 2

The second piece of literature I have decided to review a blog post from the website 'Feelgooder' (www.feelgooder.com) entitled, 'The Rise of the Renaissance Man: Why people with multiple passions will lead tomorrow's world'. I was attracted to the piece as it clearly fits in with my inquiry topic, and I was interested to review a piece of writing that is clearly biased; the writer's purpose is to persuade the reader that their hypothesis is true.

This piece of writing is written by a guest contributor, known only as 'Kirsten', a graduate student in public health who considers herself a polymath and states that she believes '...passioneers are essential to solving the problems humanity is facing today'. She begins by arguing that children are 'polymathic' by nature, and that the education system and society are what forces us to specialise and become content with following just one passion. I found a very similar argument in the first piece of writing that I looked at (Literature Review 1), and so I see some patterns beginning to develop in the existing literature exploring where the urge to multi-task stems from, and why it is stifled.

The writer asserts strongly the notion that there is nothing wrong with pursuing multiple passions, '...we are not flaky, or unsettled. We do not have attention deficit disorder...'. It's clear from the language being used that the writer has probably experienced a lot of negativity towards their lifestyle choice, and as such the researcher cannot expect to read a balanced account of pros and cons. However, the piece is a valuable insight into the mindset of an individual.

As with the first piece of literature I reviewed, the writer looks back to the past and questions when and why society stopped exalting gifted polymaths, and started advocating a greater and greater degree of specialism. Through looking at existing literature, I am realising that my own study must contain a degree of historical comparison, in order to fully appreciate 'where we are now'. Attitudes towards polymathy are not fixed; the writer uses a Jane Austen quote to prove their point, and this made me think about how fictional literature may also be a useful source for me.

The writer believes that people with multiple interests will have a greater variety of experiences to draw on, and therefore greater knowledge. She uses a persuasive example of the successful IT giant google allowing their employees to work on their own projects for 2 hours out of 10, to stimulate creativity. I would need to do further research to ensure that this piece of information is valid, but it's a strong argument, as we all know google to be a super successful and inventive company.

Finally, the article acknowledges the difficulties many polymaths may have finding the correct employment, as their CVs may be 'too scattered' and seen as flaky. The writer offers some helpful and inspiring words on approaching potential employers, but does not offer any examples of these 'in-action'. In my research, I will of course be looking at fulfilment and the ideals of polymathy, but also the practical consequences on one's career; I am beginning to realise that this tends to be where the gap in the literature is.

As this piece was written on a blog, there were many comments left by members of the public. They were generally very positive; people found the article inspiring and related to writer (I must of course be aware that only sympathetic readers/those with an active interest in polymathy are likely to be reading in the first place). Two themes came up, which again, were similar to those explored in my first literature review. It seems that many of the 'commenters' had experienced negative attitudes towards their ability to be good at more than one thing, often perceived as jealousy or dis-belief; the second recurring theme was that of polymathy as a natural progression, rather than a choice. Most of the people leaving comments described their experiences as simply following their passions through from childhood to adulthood, rather than making a conscious decision to 'become' a polymath.

I found it very poignent that I have already identified several themes/arguments that occur in both pieces I have reviewed so far. I can definitely see the clear benefit in using existing literature as a foundation from which to find out which questions need asking, and where the gaps are in current knowledge.

Source: 'Kirsten' (2010) The Rise of the Renaissance Man: Why people with multiple passions will lead tomorrow's world. Available at: http://www.feelgooder.com/renaissance-man/ (accessed 12/12/2011)

Literature Review 1

The first piece of literature that I decided to review is the article from The Evening Standard magazine, that first inspired me to think about creative polymathy as a potential line of inquiry. It's entitled 'The Return of the Renaisaance Man' and was written by journalists Richard Goodwin and Hannah Nathanson.

The article begins by asserting the notion that we all begin life as polymaths; as children we 'are' many things simply through the power of our imagination, and have no problem with following multiple areas of interest. Goodwin argues that when we reach adulthood, we become self conscious and feel the need to restrict ourselves and fit into a certain box. We cease to develop new and varied skills.

I would certainly agree with this; the structure of our education system means that as we grow up, the subjects we study becoming gradually more specialised. At primary school, the focus tends to be on being an 'all-rounder' and experiencing exposure to as many things as possible. However, by the time we reach secondary education, we are quickly expected to begin the process of eliminating certain subjects, in order to develop more in depth knowledge in the areas we choose. It is an expectation that by the time we leave the education system, we have a clear idea of what we want to do. From this point on many people will never return to actively 'learning' new skills, and may remain in the same profession for their whole lives.

The article then goes on to describe the achievements of several modern day polymaths who have 'rebeled' against this pigeonholing. Goodwin mentions several figures, including actor/folk musician Johnny Flynn and Hollywood star James Franco, who has also published stories, launched a modelling career, and taken several academic graduate courses. As a reader, my response to this is somewhere between admiration and jealousy; these people seem to 'have it all', and interestingly this is the next point that Goodwin raises. He describes how polymaths are often envied, and can fall victim to mocking reviews and even sometimes a sor of 'boycott' of their work. It seems that the general public are unable to accept that someone really could be that talented at more than one thing.

I found this extremely perceptive of the writer; I myself can think of several times when I have dismissed an actor's attempt to launch a career in music before I have even heard their material, probably because I am sub-consciously envious of their opportunities. For the purposes of my research, this lead me to an interesting area for consideration, which is to what extent will the industry/public/critics allow someone to succeed as a polymath? I hadn't really thought about this before, but I now realise that exploring the biases/support of others will form a vital part of my polymath inquiry.

The writer goes on to explore the idea that for most, polymathy is not so much a choice, so much as simply allowing interests to continue to develop, not closing doors on things that you enjoy. One person interviewed for the article describes pursuing his multiple interests as 'the path of least resistance'; this again raises an interesting point for me to explore in my research. Does polymathy choose you or do you choose it?

Finally, the writer talks about some great Renaissance polymaths such as Pico della Mirandola and Blaise Pascal, and asserts that the achievements are today's polymaths are nothing in comparison. Whilst this may be true, I feel a weakness of the article is that it makes no attempt at deducing why this might be. Again, this is a potential line of inquiry for me. Is it that gifted artists and scientists no longer attract rich patrons who support their work financially? Or perhaps a change in society's attitude towards 'success'? A lot of food for thought.

In reviewing the piece, I had to be aware of the fact that it was written by journalists, and therefore any account of the subject of 'polymathy' is second, rather than first hand experience. As it comes from a magazine, it is obviously written to entertain and therefore could be biased towards portraying polymathy as 'glamourous' and exciting. There was little discussion of the struggles or negative experiences of polymaths, which I would have expected in a piece of more academic research. However, the piece is a very useful source for me as it provides examples of polymaths that I can research further; it also touches on some very interesting themes, such as the public perception of multi-taskers, which will provide a useful starting point for me when designing interview questions etc.

Source: Goodwin, R., Nathason, H., (2011) The Return of the Renaissance Man, The London Evening Standard. Available at: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23926439-the-return-of-the-rennaissance-man.do (accessed 10/12/2011) 

Revisiting Reader 4 - Some theories explored

Whilst studying reader 4, I sometimes found it difficult to make a connection between the theories and concepts discussed, and my own work. So, with that in mind, I decided to note down some ideas that sprung up whilst re-reading this document....

'Self-Reflective Inquiry' - Judi Marshall

I was interested to come across a paper by Judi Marshall entitled 'Living Life as Inquiry' (1999); I think this phrase sums up the attitude that one must have when undertaking WBL, whether formally (as part of a course like BAPP) or informally, simply to improve our professional practice. We must develop an everyday attitude that is constantly questioning; I find keeping a journal and writing a blog for the course has greatly helped me with this. These tools force me to articulate the questions I have about my practice and begin to identify areas of tacit knowledge. I come across problems/issues daily in the rehearsal room or during shows, but unless I identify them and record them, I am unlikely to solve those problems, or even remember them at the end of a busy day!      

'Double Loop Cycle' - Argyris & Schon

My initial thought whilst reading about Argyris & Schon's 'Double-Loop Learning' cycle, was how true it was that a single loop learning cycle, like Kolb's, does not necessarily 'deliver the changes required in the workplace' (Nottingham, 2011). 

Diagram can be viewed at  http://www.cognitivedesignsolutions.com/KM/Learning.htm


I understand that Argyris & Schon were exploring the idea that a deeper level of thinking is required for change to happen, what they call 'Mental Models' in the diagram above. I found a useful definition of the term 'Mental Models' on the website of Cognitive Design Solutions (www.cognitivedesignsolutions.com):


"Our mental models are our paradigms, our values, our beliefs and assumptions about how the world works or about ourselves or other people, These are beneath our conscious awareness for much of the time..." (Cognitive Design Solutions, 2003)


On the same website I also discovered Einstein's Dictum:

"The significant problems we face can not be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. You have to rise above it to the next level." (Cognitive Design Solutions, 2003)


This really struck me as a way of thinking we need to embrace whilst carrying out a work based inquiry. Speaking subjectively, the problems I have been experiencing in my professional life have remained the same for some years despite trying to solve them, which tells me I may need to break the cycle and formulate new ways of thinking in order to stimulate a positive change. 


Although Argyris & Schon may have been referring more to our own way of thinking, the term 'double loop cycle' also made me think about the importance of external input; a circular framework is essentially closed to new ideas coming in from the outside, and as such is limiting to the company/individual employing it as a model. Just as an organisation may want to employ an independent consultant, or encourage feedback from outsiders, self employed individuals may also benefit from outside input. For example, if I want to progress into working on screen, but my experiences are not allowing for that, I may want to take a tv acting class, or seek advice from a professional mentor. I think the most successful model for learning would be one that demonstrates this outside knowledge entering the cycle.     

Disciplinary/Transdisciplinary Knowledge


My initial training at drama school related to the specific discipline of acting. 3 years of focusing solely on the skills required to do my job well was invaluable, and each production or exercise we did acted as a 'lense' by which to focus on a particular skill. However, even within the single 'discipline' of acting there are many sub-categories;  for example, acting for different mediums, voice and movement.


In my professional life at the moment I still work predominantly as an actor - I have not yet ventured into another discipline, such as teaching or directing. However, as a performer essentially operates as a self-employed freelancer, I would argue that there are many transdisciplinary aspects to my professional practice. To run my business I must have marketing skills to promote myself, business & finance skills to file tax returns and understand contracts, and excellent communication skills to speak to potential future employers. Not forgetting the fact that in every role I play, I have a different occupation, so I must also learn some of the skillset of the character I am playing. At the moment I am playing a waitress and we spent quite a lot of time with professionals learning the correct way to carry plates, lay out cutlery, take and deliver orders etc.


In the future I hope to operate in an even more transdisciplinary way, as I would like to perhaps direct or produce my own work at some point, which will require many new skills. The BAPP course has made me more focused on questioning other people about what they do within my industry, and I would certainly like my final inquiry question to broaden my range of knowledge and skills.

References:


Cognitive Design Solutions (2003), Learning and Knowledge, Available from www.cognitivedesignsolutions.com, (accessed 20 October 2011)
Marshall, J (1999) Living life as Inquiry, Systemic Practice and Action Research, vol 12(2), pp 155-171
Nottingham, P (2011) Reader 4 - Developing lines of Professional Inquiry, Middlesex University Institute for Work Based Learning

Pilot Survey - Collecting Responses & Analysis

A little while ago, I created a pilot survey on survey monkey - please see my original blog post below:

http://stephaniethomas-blog.blogspot.com/2011/11/pilot-survey-for-actors.html

I promoted my survey by sending out invitations via e-mail and facebook. As a result of this, I managed to get a good response rate, and I received positive feedback about how easy the survey was to fill out. I was pleased that I had decided to stick to multiple choice questions, and keep the length of the survey short, as my participants felt that this made them more likely to complete the survey.

However, there are some things that I think I would do differently next time. It had not occurred to me that in my first question, 'In addition to acting, do you practice any other creative line of work?', I should have had an option for people to tick if this does not apply to them (ie. 'not applicable'). It did not appear to be too much of a problem, as people seemed to simply skip the question if it was not applicable, but I identified that this could potentially cause confusion.

I found survey monkey very easy to use, and the results were easy to analyse, as the numerical information was right there in front of me. Should I decide to use this method again, I think it would definitely be worth upgrading my survey monkey account, so that I can take advantage of producing charts to easily display my data. I can see the benefit of quantitative methods like this, as you can reach a large amount of people with relative little effort; something that could be very useful if the researcher is short of time. I believe a survey could be a useful starting point for me from which to draw conclusions, but that those conclusions would need exploring in much more depth through qualitative methods, such as interviews. Another benefit that I became aware via comments from peers on my blog, was that sometimes you may be able to ask more personal questions when the participant feels they are 'at a distance'. I asked a question relating to financial circumstances which I felt was important, but certainly would not have found it appropriate to put a participant on the spot and ask them face to face. 'Distance' tools provide a greater sense of anonymity, which could produce more honest results.

One problem that I had when analysing my data, was that I could not work out who had said what. For example, of those that described their financial situation as 'very unstable' in question 5, it might have been useful for me to know which of these solely work as actors, and which are 'polymaths' (their answer to question 1). I am sure there must be a way to sort the information this way on survey monkey, but I couldn't find it. Anyone have any ideas of how to do this?