‘The Audience Through Time’ Conference – by Mel Shearsmith

The ‘Audience Through Time: an interdisciplinary dialogue around spectatorship’ conference was established and run by doctoral student Christine Twite at Queen Mary University last December (Sat 3rd Dec 2011). The day presented interdisciplinary approaches in current research from practitioners, established and postgraduate researchers concerned with the spectrum of spectatorship, audience engagement and participation in theatre, film and contemporary performance.

The day was also an occasion for discussion, creating space to meet national PhD researchers engaged in investigating the roles of contemporary audiences, ‘liveness’ and to discuss the challenges and approaches inherent in practice led research across a range of institutions. The speakers explored a range of positions and the impact of participation upon audiences examining particular artists and performance companies, the specificity of the theatrical space and its implication, mediated performance via live-streaming to international audiences and an example of one of the first pieces of ‘invisible theatre’ or hoax to name a handful.

Professor Martin Barker (Emeritus Professor of Film and Television Studies at Aberystwyth University) whose paper ‘Catching Audiences in the Act of Changing: the Case of Streamed Performances’ explored a new aspect of spectatorship – going to the theatre at the cinema. Examining liveness through the medium of simultaneous live broadcasts creating international, collective, experiences using data recorded by NESTA and Picturehouse Cinema to gauge audience response to this phenomena.

His research offered another perspective on the expectations of the ‘theatre going audiences’ who wanted something new but also responded to the emotional intimacy afforded by the close-up camera shots and a ‘heightened’ experience in the knowledge that audiences were sharing the event across the globe simultaneously.

Penelope Woods, a PhD student based at Queen Mary University and The Globe Theatre, London, demonstrated in her evocative paper ‘The Realm of the Accidental and Outdoor Performance’ the impact the ‘accidental’ can have upon performance. Investigating the openness of the Globe Theatre to the elements (and the elements of chance) – weather, wildlife, external sounds, etc., the risk and the collision between the predictable and the unpredictable to create an unexpected mise-en-scene that is both porous in nature and to nature, where coincidences create or add magical qualities to performance. Recalling chance events where “effects are heightened when they appear to happen accidentally”, like the synchronicity of a single rain cloud hanging in a clear blue sky at exactly the moment when a rain cloud is heralded in the performance, a moment when the real and the fictional world bump into one another and co-exist. The risk of the unknown produces extra charge for the actors and astonishment in the audience when something as ordinary as a pigeon or a sudden rain shower breach the theatrical space seemingly to interact with the action or dialogue, producing an unexpected hyper-reality.

Professor Jim Davis from the University of Warwick introduced us to ‘Hoaxes and Fires: Extra-theatrical Spectatorship in nineteenth-century London’ and what could have been the first example of invisible theatre. His example was an event that took place in Berner Street, Westminster in 1809 and was later deemed a hoax instigated by Theodore Hook. A bet with a friend led Hook to plan an elaborate hoax whereby hundreds of people were invited to his home in Berner street to sell their wares or services whilst Hook and friends, who had hired an apartment opposite watched the spectacle unfold as fishmongers, chimney sweeps, shoemakers and a host of deliveries from wedding cakes, a fleet of coal carts and undertakers with a made-to-measure coffin, followed by doctors, lawyers, a dozen pianos, the Governor of the Bank of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Mayor of London and many more arrived at his home. The chaos of the day turned all the visitors into unwitting performers, participants in the unfolding events of the day that peaked with the closure of the road and a large area of London was caught in the standstill.

Rachel Gomme, artist and PhD researcher (Queen Mary) began her lecture ‘Sculpting in time: The experience of material temporality in durational performance’ with a pause. Gently, quietly she introduced us to a consideration, to “enjoy the time passing…” The whole auditorium gently settled into a thickened silence and gave their attention to the stillness as everyone appeared to consider ‘time’ passing through the room.

This was less a lecture and more performance.

Concerned with the physical shaping of time Gomme introduced several artists, nudging at their intentions, sharing her responses through an ephemeral unfolding of of their work. Clare Twomey’s ‘Is It Madness. Is It Beauty’ at Siobhan Davies Studios Gallery, durational installation of hundreds of unfired ceramic bowls as they are filled with water and the illusion of time as Gomme witnessed their slow, imperceptible collapse offering the audience the opportunity to luxuriate in the time-space, repetition and the succession of new instances she had created. In Jordan McKenzie’s ‘Drawing Breath’ at the Arnolfini’s InBetween Time Festival of Live Art and Intrigue, Gomme draws our attention to the breath changing from one form to another – breath to water, to ice, breath melting the ice and turning it back into breath again, the implication of the body sculpting time through these transformations, the materiality of time and time as presence to be manipulated and witnessed.

The day offered many perspectives, provoked conversations and allowed space between panels for discussion with speakers and attendees alike. Fundamentally it was a temporary space for researchers at various points in their careers to share their research in an environment of shared values, support and curiosity.

TAG Conference – by Neal Johnson

Last week I embarked on my annual pilgrimage to the conference of the Theoretical Archaeology Group (TAG), this year hosted by the University of Birmingham. Described by one popular archaeology magazine as “the permanent floating agglomeration of the best theoretical brains in archaeology” (Current Archaeology 2005), this end of year 3-day conference usually provides an opportunity for staff and students of Worcester’s Archaeology department to combine daytimes devoted to weird and sometimes wonderful research, with a lovely cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit in the evening. The timing of this year’s conference in the middle of the week rather than the weekend meant a smaller contingent from Worcester than usual (i.e. me), so I had to content myself with filling my pipe with a quality tobacco, reclining into a Queen Anne chair and recalling the glory days of empire with a genial cat called Darren.

TAG was initiated some 33 years ago to bring together archaeologists from around Britain, but also increasingly Europe and other parts of the world such as the US, to discuss theoretical issues surrounding the practice and interpretation of archaeology. This was a break with traditional conferences which concerned themselves with the presentation of new findings. Although this privileging of theory over data presentation still holds true, it has also evolved into a sort of training ground for post-graduate students to present papers. Whilst undoubtedly TAG is indeed the place where these papers should be presented, every year there are concerns that too many papers are given too early in the speakers’ research projects, so that sessions increasingly consist of statements of intent by new post-graduates. In itself this can of course be of interest, it allows the wider discipline to see where the latest research is going, yet the complaint is that many papers give little beyond a literature review of the broad subject matter they are researching, for example, a thematic, chronological or methodological reiteration of past research of which the majority of the attendees are familiar. This may perhaps explain the disparity in session attendance between those with papers delivered largely by established academics and those by early researchers (sessions run concurrently over the course of three days). This is unfortunate in that a session dominated by post-grads may be avoided because of the perception that it offers nothing new. I wonder if this is widespread throughout the other disciplines or if it is largely confined to archaeology?

The session of particular interest for me this year was entitled ‘How can we model Bronze Age society in Britain’? It has been over 30 years since the publication of the last grand narrative (Burgess 1980), an attempt to incorporate the data from the various strands which traditionally make up Bronze Age studies, i.e. funerary evidence, monumentality, ceramics, metallurgy, settlement and subsistence practices and so on. The narratives previously presented of these societies were initially explicitly, and latterly implicitly, based upon core-periphery models, the core being the Wessex region of southern England. A largely arable farming population was dominated by prominent male individuals and powerful elites controlling the distribution of Bronze and other exotic objects. This volume continued the theme and subsequent supposed representations of society across Britain and Ireland never really delivered on the promise; the data from the south was privileged, partly due to the simple explanation that this was a widely studied area, and partly because of the ‘richness’ of the material. In the meantime, scales of research have narrowed and focus has shifted so that over the last 15-20 years, research has centred on the agent, identity, the sensual world and meaningful landscapes. The scale of study is no longer that of pan-regional economic systems but of particularistic studies on a local or regional scale, of individuals and kin or family groups. The session organisers felt that such modes of enquiry, whilst important, did little to transcend the local context and the short term. A series of papers were offered by a mix of long standing academics and post-graduates. Some more successfully approached the problem than others, attempting to understand how new models could incorporate the masses of new data. Prior to the conference I was sceptical that any models offered for my period of study would be valid or useful.

The Bronze Age in Britain can be divided into two periods, the Early (c.2400 – 1500 BC) and Later Bronze Ages (c.1500-700 BC). The most distinctive element that divides these periods in the archaeological record is a concern with funerary monumentality for the Early Bronze age which disappears in the Later Bronze age to be replaced with visible field systems: from the open landscapes of the dead to the bounded landscapes of the living to coarsely generalize.

There is a problem with attempting to construct a model for Early Bronze Age society that goes beyond very broad generalisations. There are almost no houses, very little evidence for settlement, especially away from the ‘core’ areas, and crucially very few people as determined by their physical remains. The principle evidence for the Bronze Age comes from the ubiquitous monumental remains of what are considered to be funerary mounds, known as round barrows. It has been estimated that less than 5% of the population were buried in these mounds, we can only guess what happened to the rest. Of the mounds excavated, (the majority of which are concentrated in three regions; Wessex, the Peak District and North Yorkshire) less than 5% have any accompanying material culture. Any model of Early Bronze Age society is thus concerned with a minute fraction of the populace in geographically restricted areas with little beyond their cremated remains. Yes, we should still try to explain something of the lives and deaths of these people, but is it really feasible to create an all encompassing model that describes and explains their world when for the most part all we have is evidence of how some of their dead were treated?  At this stage I think we would be doing a disservice to the large proportion of the population who were not afforded barrow burial but had just as much a claim on their society.

Burgess, C. (1980) The age of Stonehenge.  London: Dent

Current Archaeology (2005) TAG: The Theoretical Archaeology Group [online] available from: http://www.archaeology.co.uk/join-in/research-body/tag-the-theoretical-archaeology-group.htm [accessed 19th December 2011]

 

 

Do you know what you want to do with your research degree?

A recent study commissioned by Vitae, entitled What do researchers want to do? The career intentions of doctoral researchers, suggests that a sizeable majority of you don’t.

The study, which surveyed 4500 current postgraduate researchers, revealed just 34% had definite career plans, 50% were undecided and 16% had little or no idea about what they wanted to do.  Of those who did have definite intentions just under half envisaged a role in HE, while just under a quarter were targeting a career in research outside of HE.

This didn’t come as surprising news to me.  If I’d been asked in the midst of my PhD what I wanted to do I would have probably mumbled something about wanting to be a lecturer but not really being sure about that and I think most of my immediate peers would have said much the same.  PhD students are often from the outset much more focused on their project and their subject, and their love of study itself than on how the doctorate fits into their personal and professional development.  This is borne out by this same study which shows that, while nearly three quarters of students did a PhD because they were interested in the subject and around 60% because they wished to study to a higher level, less than half saw it as vital to their career plans and just 32% thought it would help them get the job they wanted.

It is interesting to match up this survey with Vitae’s various studies of doctoral career destinations.  The most recent of these, What do researchers do? First destinations of doctoral graduates by subject, makes interesting reading.  Of PGRs surveyed between 2003 and 2007, 35% of UK-domiciled doctoral graduates were employed as researchers with about two thirds of those in the HE sector.  22% were in teaching professions with just under two thirds of those being lecturers in HE.  The remaining 43% were spread across a range of careers such as managers in the industrial or commercial sector, health professionals and marketing, sales, media and advertising professionals.

This study also reveals just how much variation there is between disciplines.  Arts and humanities students are much more likely, it would seem, to end up as a lecturer or teacher (48%) than the average PhD student, while just 9% of biological scientists end up in teaching professions but 64% as researchers (both within and outside HE).

You might wonder why I’m bombarding you with all these statistics.  The main reason is that one of the obvious outcomes of Vitae’s study of what researchers want to do is that research students would benefit from more career advice and information at the beginning and during their research degree.   And yet, another study from the Higher Education Careers Services Unit (HECSU), entitled From PhD to Researcher: becoming a researcher in HE, shows that the significant majority of PhD students either found advice from career’s advisers or focused training events unhelpful or simply not applicable to them.  In contrast, the study suggests that a significant majority (62%) found career-related advice from their supervisors helpful or very helpful.  It is fantastic that supervisors are providing such advice to their research students and that the students find this advice valuable.  But two things strike me: first, supervisors are not trained career’s advisers; and second, they are much more likely to envisage a career path within the university sector rather than outside it.  This is only anecdotal, but talking to some supervisors recently they were very surprised at just how high a percentage of doctoral graduates end up working outside of HE. 

All of which means what?  Well, firstly that we should be encouraging research students to make greater use of the University’s Careers Advisory Service – so consider yourself encouraged!  Secondly, that we need to be supporting our research degree supervisors as the front line of career’s advice for PhD students– this is something we started to do a while ago by making careers advice a focus of our Research Supervisor Forum and embedding it in training for our research supervisors but there is still more to be done.  Thirdly, we need to expand our programme of training workshops around the issue of employability and careers. There are a number of such workshops in the current research training programme – ‘Career Horizons’, ‘Beyond the PhD’, ‘Funding for Early Career Researchers’ –  so please do come to these sessions but we need you to help us develop this aspect of the programme further.  So come on tell us what kind of workshops, activities and support you would find helpful…

PhD Comics

I’m sure the old hands among you have already seen this but all research students should subscribe to PhD Comics.

A Blog post about Blogs

In preparing to re-launch our Blog I thought I’d look at how PhD students, researchers and those supporting PhD students and researchers were using their Blogs in the hope that this will inspire me.

First things first: when you put “PhD Blogs” into Bing don’t click on the first hit, unless you want to read about the training routine of Men’s Health models (what exactly is a ‘Glute-Ham raise’?!) -  PhD it turns out is a sports nutrition company providing ‘optimum dietary solutions for the modern athlete’!

Moving on…

Lots of PhD students write their own Blogs describing their experiences of being a research student as well as reflecting on their actual research.  My PhD Blog recounts the journey of Malene Charlotte Larsen a student in the Department of Communication at Aalborg University. Although this journey is over now – she successfully defended her thesis more than 12 months ago – her Blog stands as a fascinating record of her 4 years as a doctoral student; the trials and errors, the highs and the lows.  Andy Coverdale’s Blog, a current PhD student in Education at the University of Nottingham, equally captures the ups and downs of the experience; while Adventures in Gradland has a slightly greater proclivity for the downs.  The value of following such Blogs lies, I guess, in giving those in the early stages of their PhD a clearer sense on what lies ahead; those in the midst of the wilderness years – that period between ‘finishing’ the research and handing the damn thing in – the knowledge that they really aren’t on their own in this; and those of us who have made it out the other side a chance to reminisce about those long lovely days in the library and the many hours spent checking all the references were right – they weren’t by the way.

Blogs have also become a tool for supervisors and those generally responsible for researcher development to reflect and advise on the experience.  A favourite of mine is Robert Macintosh’s Blog, a Professor in Strategic Management at the University of Glasgow.  Set up as a way of addressing the FAQs of his own marketing students it actually provides a wealth of useful information on all aspects of doing the PhD for students of any discipline: check out, for example, the mechanics of doing a literature review; or your PhD contribution.  Unsurprisingly, Vitae also hosts a Blog entitled What’s Up Doc? offering all manner of advice, guidance and comments for and from PhD students.

The path to finding yet more PhD relevant Blogs lies with the Top 50 Blogs Every Graduate Student Should Read but I wondered whether anyone out there would like to recommend a Blog to follow or whether any of you keep a Blog yourself who would like to share how and why they do so…?