Interviews - Progress Report...

I chose the interview as my primary research tool for my professional inquiry. I have been talking to actors who are 'polymaths', for example an actor who also produces, and an actor who also directs and writes plays. So far I have conducted around half of my interviews, and I am really enjoying them. As a reflective tool to help me improve upon my technique and analyse my process, I thought I would blog today about how I am getting on so far....

Planning

When looking at ethical frameworks in module 2, I realised that it was vital to appreciate that my participants are giving up valuable time to help me in my research, and as such I must be respectful of that. I have endeavored to work around my participants' busy working lives, which has meant conducting interviews at some un-sociable hours. I set myself one hour for each meeting, which I felt was a reasonable length of time and I have ensured that I stick to this.

Perhaps inevitably, I have had participants cancel or postpone appointments due to their ever-changing working lives. So far this has not been a problem, although it is forcing me to explore means of interview technique other than face-to-face. I now plan to conduct at least one of my interviews via skype - Paula's post about skype interviews was a really useful point of reference when planning this, as the article she references talks about the potential differences in behaviour whilst communicating 'online' and I should be aware of this when analysing my data. I still believe that skype is preferable to a telephone call, as I feel am able to communicate more freely with participants and put them at ease.          

As with my pilot interview, I decided to email all the participants beforehand, to make sure they were clear of arrangements and to ensure I was sticking to the professional and ethical code I have set myself. Many of the participants are known to me personally, so I feel that a certain element of formality is helpful, to set up the interviewer/participant dynamic. I used the email from my pilot interview as a template:

".....As discussed on the phone, I am writing to confirm our interview appointment at 11:00am on the 25th November, 2011. The interview will last 1 hour and refreshments will be provided by me. With your consent, I plan to record the session on a dictaphone; this recording is purely for my own purposes and will not be passed on to any third parties. The purpose of the interview is to gather information and opinion on your lifestyle as a creative polymath. The information that I collect will form part of a professional inquiry I am undertaking, in association with Middlesex University Institute for Work Based Learning. Thank-you for offering your time - please do give me a call if you find that you are unable to make it...." (Thomas, 2011)    

Interviewing

I have really enjoyed the interviews I have done so far, and have found my 'semi-structured' approach has worked well. Had I planned a series of set questions, it would not have given me the freedom to pursue lines of inquiry that developed organically throughout the meeting. Each participant has their own unique story to tell, and I wanted to gain as detailed an insight as possible into their thought process. As I mentioned in a comment on one of Simone's posts, the only difficulty I had was continually reminding myself to phrase questions in a way that was not 'leading' - I did not want to bias the results, so I did find myself having to be very careful, and remember that I was there in the capacity of a researcher not a friend.

On a practical level, as planned, I used a recording device during my interviews, so that I could give the  participants my full attention. This has worked very well, although I have already suffered one technical set-back....one of the interviews had to be conducted in a fairly busy cafe, as the original venue we had planned was unavailable. When I got home, I found that it was very difficult to make out what was being said because of the background noise - a fairly obvious mistake to make, but one that could cost valuable time. I am going to be extra cautious from now on to do a recording check at the beginning of the interview, and if necessary use a notepad as backup. Hopefully this won't be needed but I don't want to risk loosing precious data! I find it also helps to transcribe/notate the interview whilst it's still fresh in your mind.    

Transcribing

After reading Ahmet Ahmet's post along with a comment from Adesola, I decided to opt for a kind of shorthand way of transcribing my interviews. Ahmet had described how lengthy he was finding the process of writing up his interviews, and Adesola shared a technique she uses, of making only basic notes, along with the time on the interview tape that it was discussed. So, if for example, my notes say that a participant discussed struggling with prioritsation at 5.25 mins, and I want to use that in my final written piece, I will know exactly where I need to go and get a quote. I think for the purposes of what we are doing, this will be fine, and as time is short, it'll be great to free up some valuable time to continue looking at literature sources. For anyone who hasn't written up interviews yet, I would definitely recommend this method; I do think it's important to have a record of research data gathered though, so I will ensure I keep copies of the recordings securely stored, after all, they are my evidence and proof of my findings.

What now....

I have collected a wealth of information, but in order to properly analyse my data and come to meaningful conclusions, I am going to have to better organise my findings. I am yet to decide whether to do this thematically, or by other sub-group headings. What's important to me is that when I am writing up my research, I am able to efficiently compare and contrast opinions. I still have half my interviews to conduct, so much more to do, but I'm very confident that a qualitative approach has been the most valuable method. The subject of career fulfilment is impossible to quantify numerically, so the detailed insight that an interview allows has been very useful.

I'd love to hear how others are getting on with their interviews!....

High Achiever or Wide Achiever?....

I stumbled across this interesting article today from the author of "How to find fulfilling work", Roman Krznaric. My professional inquiry is looking at 'polymath' actors (actors who do more than one thing, such as write or direct), so I found it very inspiring.

The article questions the value of specialism using the example of a pin factory during the industrial revolution, the thought being that if each worker specialised in just one aspect of pin making, rather than learning the whole process, the work would get done more efficiently and the factory become more productive. This may be so, economically speaking, but I doubt that the workers were fulfilled and happy in their jobs!

Krznaric suggests that choosing to be a 'wide achiever', rather than a 'high achiever' in one field, helps to 'nurture the many sides of who we are and to use our multiplicity of talents' (2012). It raises some interesting questions about how we measure success and fulfilment, and whether attitudes towards this are changing. I recently spoke with an ex-teacher of mine, who strongly felt that a good actor could never be a great actor whilst they were distracted by pursuing other things. I understand her thinking, but again leads me to question the way we measure what is 'great' and, 'does it matter'? If an actor never quite achieves the success and leading roles he might have had, because he was also busy writing plays, but he was fulfilled and stimulated by his work, who's to say which was the better choice? I'm quickly realising what an intangible subject I am studying! 

Krznaric mentions that there currently seems to be a growing trend of 'portfolio working' - people choosing to work part-time across multiple jobs, rather than just pursuing one full-time profession. It's seems quite a radical change from my parents' and grandparents' generation, who generally saw a profession as 'for life' and hoped for gradual promotion and financial stability. Perhaps the uncertain economic times, and the pace of globalisation and technological advancement is leading us to be increasingly imaginative and risky in our career choices? Most of my peers see getting on the property ladder as way out of reach, and across many industries, the threat of redundancy is often just around the corner....perhaps this lack of economic stability has encouraged us to develop more of a 'what the hell' attitude towards work? If we can't have a stable job, we might as well do something(s) we enjoy?  

I questioned in a previous blog post, whether 'polymathy chooses you, or do you choose it?' (Thomas, 2012); Krznaric's article has made me think for the first time about the roots of specialisation and the impact of the industrial revolution. For many specialisation was not actually a 'choice' but rather imposed upon them. It seems to me that to create and craft a whole product, such as a pin, seems a more more natural and fulfilling way of working, than to repeatedly produce just one part and never get the satisfaction of the finished product. Perhaps this explains some performers' desire to 'create' on a bigger scale, through directing or choreographing, they don't just want to be a cog in the machine.   

This was a really useful find for me in terms of literature review material, and the article also pointed me in the direction of some other writers/thinkers who's work I can look at, some of whom I hadn't thought of. For example Karl Marx, who advocated a lifestyle of multiple pursuits, and fifteenth century Italian polymath Leon Battista Alberti.    

Follow the link below if you'd like to read the full article - I'd love to hear any thoughts or comments about whether you think it's better to achieve 'high' or 'wide':

http://www.romankrznaric.com/outrospection/2012/07/10/1659

Module 3 - Initial Thoughts

Starting on on module 3 has been a bit tricky for me, as it has been such a long time since I completed module 2. I decided to start, as suggested, by reviewing my inquiry plan from the previous module and sending my advisor my thoughts and ideas, including any changes that I plan to make. I have decided to share this on my blog, in case any other students/advisors have any comments. I'd love to hear from you if you do!

I am still satisfied with the inquiry question I proposed in my professional inquiry plan, ‘Actors as polymaths: Is finding multiple forms of expression the key to creative fulfillment and career longevity, or does the creative polymath risk becoming ‘the jack of all trades and the master of none?’. This is a question that interests me more than ever, and it seems an increasing number of my professional peers are turning to ‘polymathy’ as a way to control their creative development and earn a larger portion of their income from creative pursuits. I have identified this as a trend which is backed up by the media; everywhere I turn there are articles about people who choose to start their own businesses, or multi-task in their careers, and the arts are no exception. Just this week at the BAFTA awards, we saw Ben Affleck nominated in the best actor and best director categories, for ‘Argo’, a film also produced by an actor polymath, George Clooney. This is a high profile example of how actors are increasingly taking control of their own work and multi-tasking. The digital age has made it easier for people to create, edit and promote their own work, as well as providing solutions for flexibility, which enable people to pursue multiple interests and manage their own time. I am keen to find out what the benefits and problems are of this approach to work in the arts, especially for people like myself, who are at an early stage of their career.

As I have had a long break between modules 2 and 3, I am acutely aware of the need to reassess my research methods and tools of inquiry, as changes are happening so quickly, especially where social media and technology are concerned. When I first began the BAPP course, web 2.0 platforms, youtube and blogging were all very new to me, but I now find myself using them on an almost daily basis, both for professional and personal reasons. I have therefore decided that I would like to explore ways I might be able to utilise multi-media tools in my inquiry, particularly in my final professional artefact. However, I must first carefully consider the ethical implications this may have on my research.

My chosen primary research tool is the interview, which I still believe to be the best way of gaining a detailed insight into the world of polymaths. In my professional inquiry plan, I stated that I would protect the identity of my subjects, granting them anonymity. I now recognise this as a potential problem, as in order to use any multi-media approach, such as video or podcasts, I would have to identify my sources in order for the presentation of my findings to be meaningful. It’s a difficult ethical dilemma, for two main reasons; the first is simply that an actor’s image/voice ‘are’ their business, and as such they may not take too kindly to those being used without financial remuneration. This I take very seriously, as I know from my own experience that actors are often expected to give up their time for free in fringe productions etc. It’s a sensitive subject but I do feel I have enough polymaths who are personally known to me as friends, to get around this issue by appealing to their goodwill. The second problem is that if my subjects know that their interview will be recorded for publication, they may be less open and my research findings could therefore be biased or invalid. As figures in the public eye, I believe actors to be unlikely to speak completely openly about negative experiences, for example, particularly if this would involved naming industry peers.

So, my first task will be to review my ethical planning and whether or not it will be possible for me to use a more multi-media approach. I plan to do this by both referring to the ethical frameworks studied in module 2, and ‘sounding out’ people within my professional network to see what their thoughts are. Needless to say, respect for and protection of my sources is at the forefront of my mind. The second task I plan to be getting on with is finding more literature sources to review; in module 2, I identified that there was something of a lack of books relating to polymathy specifically, and that the best information may be found in actors biographies, as well as magazine/newspaper interviews. These are a little trickier and more time-consuming to find, so I must get on with that swiftly, in order that it may not delay my time-management plan. 

Starting Module 3

It's been a long break for me since module 2, as I deferred by a year, so I just wanted to re-start my blog by saying hello and introducing myself. I am an actor, mainly working in theatre at the moment, but I am also very interested in other creative fields such as photography and theatre production. My professional inquiry is going to be centered around actor 'polymaths'...those who do more than one thing within the arts, such as actors who also write, direct or produce.

I'd love to hear from other students on module 3 or those with similar careers and interests. On the first 2 modules, I found the blogs a really useful source for sharing and bouncing ideas around, so please become a 'follower' and I'll do the same vice versa!