Studies in Theatre and Performance Volume 27 Number 3 2007 Intellect Ltd Notes and Queries. English language.

. doi: 10.1386/stap.27.3.295/3

Understanding actor trainers articulation of their practice

Ross W. Prior Abstract
This paper extrapolates the findings of a three-year study into actor trainers articulation of their practice. The paper explores the predominant kinds of meanings generated by acting tutors from drama schools in Australia and England in the discussion of their practice. The paper reveals that the predominant kinds of meanings generated by acting tutors in the discussion of their practice were synnoetic, that is they were direct, personal, and experiential. However, meanings constructed about acting and actor training were known tacitly and therefore were difficult to communicate in conventional ways. This paper identifies the dominant knowledge(s) evidenced in this community of practice in order to further appreciate how teaching is understood within the contexts of actor training across these countries with largely Euro-centric approaches to actor training and with implications for practical knowledge(s) in Drama Education.

Keywords
community of practice tacit knowledge knowledge with, about, in and for synnoetics

Introduction
Although formalised Western acting dates from the fifth century B.C., actor training, as we know it today, is arguably a twentieth-century phenomenon. As such, many of the underlying assumptions and understandings of actor training may, in historical terms, be relatively recent. The emergent themes of actor training evidenced in this study largely affirm the premise that knowledge structures are cultural (Vygotsky 1986; Leontev 1981 [1959] et al.). The predominant kinds of meanings generated by acting tutors in the discussion of their practice appear to be synnoetic, that is they are direct, personal and experiential (Phenix 1964). Meanings constructed about acting and actor training are known tacitly and therefore are difficult to communicate in conventional ways. This paper identifies the dominant knowledge(s) evidenced in the hegemony of this community of practice in order to unravel how actor trainers understand teaching within the contexts of actor training. Although there is a distinct lack of literature on the pedagogy of actor training, this study brings together a range of theorists in an interdisciplinary approach. It builds upon the 1975 Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation Report Going on the Stage and a range of available literature on actor training (e.g. Harrop 1992; Rideout 1995; Zarrilli 1995, 2001; Cohen 1998; Hodge 2000 et al.).
STP 27 (3) 295305 Intellect Ltd 2007

295

In order to come to understand how much previous work on actor training was analysed without a deep concern and thorough analysis of the pedagogy [the canon mostly includes literature published as training techniques/exercises] it was necessary to examine recent literature on workplace learning (e.g. Engestrm 1987; Lave and Wenger 1991; Stevenson 2003), and the literature on knowledge construction (e.g. Dewey 1929; Phenix 1964; Leontev 1981 [1959], Elbaz 1983; Polanyi 1983 [1966]; Bruner 1986; Granzon 1990; Josefson 1991). The key concepts derived from literature and used in the study are synnoetics (Phenix 1964), knowledge-with (Broudy 1977), tacit knowledge (Polanyi 1983 [1966]), narrative (Bruner 1986), community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991), and knowledges about, in and for (Zarrilli 2001). This paper is derived from my own PhD research which examines how tutors in Australia and England characterise their teaching practice in actor training institutions. Qualitative enquiry was the key methodology guiding the research project, which included the use of qualitative case study and interpretive synthesis, as informed by van Manens (1990) notion of researching the lived experience. This was to assist in finding a way in in order to understand the complex nature of actor training and the personal meanings of the tutors themselves. The data collection process employed the use of tape-recorded interviews of thirteen tutors, heads of acting and principals/directors across five different drama schools in both Australia and in England. One major obstacle in researching actor training is in gaining access to drama schools. Obtaining data for the study was made difficult, in that many drama schools were simply not prepared to make their staff available for interview. There still exists a general suspicion about researchers and academics in the field of actor training. The final schools were therefore chosen as a result of their willingness to be included and also that they were different yet comparable sites. To preface this paper, it should be noted that this report is a synthetic rather than comparative case study; however, all of the general conclusions reported represent a consistency in findings across all cases, both in Australia and England. General commonality existed, even though one English drama school and one Australian drama school subscribed to explicit systematic training, and three other drama schools delivered eclectic training. Further, in the original research a representative sample of six key informants is profiled by the use of pen-pictures in order to give the reader a more intimate understanding of these people rather than presenting them impersonally in the study as mere research subjects. In a practical way it also serves to acquaint the reader with the thinking and modes of expression used by these tutors as the informants grapple to understand what it is that they comprehend when they engage in the training of actors. Given the limitations of the scope of this paper, these pen-pictures have been omitted.

296

Ross Prior

The themes
The findings of the research reported on nine themes that were revealed in the data. In general these themes reveal that informants display certain histories and ideologies in common. These were categorised in order to conceptualise the different dimensions of commonality. The nine emergent themes address the following: How the tutor is defined How the tutors emerged Qualities of effective tutor practice How acting is defined The training context Perceptions of effective drama schools How training is defined Key components of the training process Pedagogical and non-pedagogical beliefs/imperatives

These themes were then in turn clustered into three groups. These showed: how the tutors saw themselves as tutors; how tutors saw themselves in relation to the drama schools and industry/profession; and how the tutors saw themselves in relation to the training process. Each of these clusters of findings revealed situated and historically derived ideology that was understood within traditions of practice. For example, whilst it appears that most informants accepted the teacher label, their ideology that suggested that acting was not so much taught but inspired was at odds with the term. Traditional understandings of pedagogy were in the main foreign to the informants, which was revealed as they expressed a strong sense of knowing by doing. Conclusions of a more general nature derive from, but extend beyond, the nine themes and questions of meaning.

Engendering meaning
Dewey (1968 [1916]) recognises that meaning is the understanding which is born out of personally significant experience. Human existence according to Phenix (1964) consists of a pattern of meanings. Educating, for example, might therefore be seen as the process of engendering essential meanings (Phenix 1964: 5). The work of Phenix identifies six fundamental patterns of meaning which emerge from the analysis of the possible distinctive modes of human understanding. They are identified as Symbolics, Empirics, [A]esthetics, Synnoetics, Ethics and Synoptics (Phenix 1964). To some extent all of these meanings are identified in the talk of the acting tutors when discussing their practice. However the findings of this research reveal that the acting tutors essentially make meaning synnoetically, which is through direct personal experience. Synnoetics represents relational insight or direct awareness of a personal kind (Phenix 1964). Stevenson (2003) argues that meaning is in the capacity-to-do (p. 8) and this is

Understanding actor trainers articulation of their practice

297

primarily synnoetic. Dewey (1966 [1916]) also writes that what the participants must have in common in order to form a community or society are aims, beliefs, aspirations, knowledge a common understanding like-mindedness as the sociologists say (p. 4). That shared understanding within a community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991) consists in meaning, which is known originally and primarily synnoetically by the informants interviewed in this study.

Craft-based ways of knowing

In discussing their practice, the acting tutors communicate meanings that are essentially expressions of their craft-based ways of knowing. The term craft-based ways of knowing is defined in this paper as being, for the most part, those practical components accepted in actor training such as acting methodology, voice, movement and other skill-based considerations, where practices become habitualised, and includes the kind of knowing that is synnoetic and experientially derived. In general terms, this is evidenced in the way the tutors make meaning of their practice, both for themselves (Leontev 1981 [1959]) and for others such as their students, administrators, industry personnel, funding bodies and even for researchers! Such views of knowledge are reinforced or perhaps even influenced by Stanislavsky (1988 [1950]) who suggests in art to know means to be able to (p. 121), which he juxtaposes with the kind of general knowledge that he proffers is without feeling. He suggests that this kind of knowledge is of no use whatever to an actor who is also a creative artist (p. 121). Therefore Stanislavskys ideology is consistent with the informants revelations that view knowledge as the result of experience and also that knowledge(s) of acting are inextricably entwined with feeling. Part of becoming expert, or at least at one within a community of practice, involves moving from knowledge controlling and guiding the individual, to the individual controlling and selecting knowledge as required for him or herself (Bruner 1986). Bruner alerts us to the level of awareness the individual has in relation to this knowledge. He writes:
If he develops a sense of self that is premised on his ability to penetrate knowledge for his own uses, and if he can share and negotiate the result of his penetrations, then he becomes a member of the culture-creating community.
(Bruner: 132)

There has been a long-understood distinction between two kinds of meaning: knowing-that and knowing-how. Stevenson (2003) points out that theoretical work in universities favours knowing-that and skilled trades tend to favour knowing-how. Zarrilli (2001) puts forward the notion of knowledgeabout [knowledge about performance], knowledge-in and knowledge-for [knowledge gained in and for the relationship to practice]. Zarrilli suggests that experience and embodiment are central to the practices of theatre and performance (p. 35). It is through experience and embodiment that
298
Ross Prior

practices become habitualised. Zarrilli further argues for a more processual view of experience that raises questions of the consciousness of both the actors mind and body for engagement in doing generates certain experiences, meanings and awareness (p. 36). These are deeply internalised practices, which would again presuppose the engagement of feelings and emotions.

Theoretical and practical

The perceived separation of theory and practice is revealed in the data when a principal of one Australian drama school, for example, draws a distinction between university education and vocational theatre schools. According to this principal, his drama school is concerned with the quality of teaching, the imaginative work and the capacity to inspire and liberate young actors which is critical, not academic awards. He goes on to suggest that universities are concerned with the life of the mind and are led by intellectual enquiry (cited in Prior 2004: 288). These dichotomies might not, however, be so clearly separated. Lave and Wenger (1991) argue that the setting apart of these two kinds of knowledge is problematic, if not illogical:
[. . .] sequestering when it is institutionalised [. . .] encourages a folk epistemology of dichotomies, for instance, between abstract and concrete knowledge. These categories do not reside in the world as distinct forms of knowledge, nor do they reflect some putative hierarchy of forms of knowledge among practitioners. (p. 104)

Whilst Lave and Wenger point to this false hierarchy of knowing as either theoretical or practical, the informants in this study reveal a strong acceptance of this separation. Identified in this report are various knowledge types (Table 1) which can be approximately divided as either: theoretical [speculative ways of knowing] or practical [craft-based ways of knowing]. Whilst the informants largely demonstrate and advocate practical or craftbased ways of knowing, they do to some extent also rely upon theoretical or speculative ways of knowing which have generally been passed on through a narrative mode (Bruner 1986). Such polarisation of meanings appears to
Theoretical speculative ways of knowing Propositional Disembodied practices Artform-based Knowing-that Knowledge-about Knowledge-if Knowledge-of
Source: Prior 2004: 289.

Practical craft-based ways of knowing Experiential Embodied practices Craft-based Knowing-how Knowledge-in Knowledge-for Knowledge-with

Table 1: Theoretical and practical ways of knowing.

Understanding actor trainers articulation of their practice

299

derive from the informants relationship to their own past experiences: drama school experience [training-related], industry experience [work-related] and their artistic/creative experience [aesthetic-related]. For example, these are represented in their responses as inspiring versus teaching; conservatoire versus university; artist versus academic; systematic versus eclectic; trust versus scepticism; and experiential versus intellectual. However, Broudy (1977) introduces the notion of knowledge-with which is particularly useful in this research as it provides a framework for acknowledging an implicit knowing. Knowledge-with furnishes a context within which a particular situation is perceived, interpreted, and judged (p.12). Broudy identifies that given the importance of context for cognition, imagination, judgement, and decision, there is still much that is not known about the epistemology, psychology, and the pedagogy of contextual knowing or knowing with (p.13). The findings of my own research concur with Broudy and advance such understanding of how meaning and knowledge are seen in relation to acting tutor expertise.

Experiential learning and tacit knowledge

The acting tutors referred to in this paper talk about their practice in terms of what is experientially learnt, and through my questioning of them they attempt to reveal to me [as a researcher] what they can of this knowledge. What the acting tutors articulate and how they convey meaning is of particular interest to this research. However, inherent difficulty is encountered when asking tutors to articulate their practice since much of what is known to them remains largely inert or tacit. Therefore most tutors in this study find it difficult to critically discuss in detail their practice, particularly their explicit pedagogy. It is useful to be reminded that Polanyi (1983 [1966]) found that not all meanings can be made explicit through language. That is, some knowledge always remains tacit. By way of caution, it is essential to note that Polanyi argues that we legitimise the importance of language in constructing and communicating meaning to others. Because a great deal of the acting tutor knowledge represented in this study remains tacit and may not be readily discussable, it does not necessarily equate to those acting tutors being poor practitioners. However it does raise questions of teaching and learning efficiency and its ability to be reproduced an obvious implication of this research. In contrast, much educational thought views knowledge as empirical or analytical, and has traditionally placed a relatively low value on experiential knowledge (Elbaz 1983). This is exemplified in the report when one of my informants, for example, suggests that so much of this business depends on intuition (Prior: 290). The way in which the acting tutors may view their teaching and the teaching of others will, as a consequence, ultimately shape their own personal teaching philosophy. As mentioned, the data suggest that much of an actors synnoetic knowledge is usually in a tacit form. This report indicates that when these
300
Ross Prior

actors/directors make the transition to become acting tutors, they appear to continue to operate with this same kind of tacit understanding. A community of practice is therefore built around notions of tacit meaning (Polanyi 1983 [1966]). Essentially the acting tutors in this report talk about their practice synnoetically, in terms of their own experiential learning. For instance, the majority of tutors refer back to their own drama school training when discussing and justifying their own practice. There remains little doubt that many tutors are not only deeply but also profoundly affected and influenced by their own training. Many tutors feel that they carry on the legacy of that training. For example, two tutors from one English drama school with a systematic approach to actor training describe the great weight of responsibility in this regard (cited in Prior: 170). In similar ways the informants referred to past artistic and other work experiences to legitimise their knowing.

Co-constructed meanings
The findings suggest that, as this community of actors seeks to reproduce itself through the institutionalised training process, an accepted dialectic will develop. It appears from the research that in this community of practice the agreed ways of communicating tacit meaning are artefactual, metaphorical and anecdotal. For example, the data reveal uses of symbolic metaphors [e.g. broaden the acting muscle], references to grand styles, heroic archetypes and senses of the aesthetic. The informants are content to use explicit or declarative modes when making references to what I term heroic archetypes and grand styles [e.g. Stanislavsky and the Method]. The findings show that the tutors readily subscribe to [or dismiss] these influential people in the field and their theories or philosophies of acting. However, the informants only ever articulate general understandings of these approaches through a narrative mode. The majority of informants had digested the orthodoxy of internalised/psychological approaches, based particularly on their own understanding of the work of Stanislavsky. Much of what the tutors reveal is an eclectic mix of approaches which have become meaningful to them in their own acting and now in their own teaching. Anecdotal and metaphoric references appear to allow these tutors ways of giving examples of their practice, rather than discussing detailed theoretical [declarative] constructs that might underpin their teaching practice. One tutors reference to learning by anecdote is a clearly articulated observation of one teaching style employed. Throughout the training process the tutors appear to have co-constructed meanings, which is evidenced, across all the cases, by the similarity in ways the tutors speak about actor training. Originally, as actors or directors, they would construct meaning during their own artistic careers. Once becoming tutors with new and differing sets of responsibilities they would co-construct meaning between their art, their teaching and also between each other. These meanings are revealed as being contextual. Situated learning (Lave and
Understanding actor trainers articulation of their practice

301

Wenger 1991) conceptually explores the relationship between learning and the situation in which it occurs. Learning is therefore seen as a process that takes place within a participation framework. Balk (1991) writes:
Performers must come to know the information and instructions through direct and persistent experience with them. [. . .] The next step is interaction with others in the field including teachers, directors, and colleagues, as well as audiences in general for support, guidance, and [if appropriate] realignment with purpose. (p. 164)

Just as actors move through this trajectory of experience, so too it seems, the acting tutors in this research replicate these patterns of knowing. Similarly, this paper supports Lave and Wengers view that learning is not merely located in someones head, but is found in the increased participant access to expertise. However, this report has gone further to examine those conceptions that are in the heads of the informants in terms of how they actually know about their practice.

Implications for training

Most acting teachers have now completed foundation degrees, many in conservatoires but some in university drama departments. Inside these drama schools and universities exists a mixture of philosophies. To a greater extent, I would argue, these philosophies in university drama departments are frequently driven to some extent by a desire to emulate a form of actor training seen in conservatoires. This comes about through a variety of influences which appear to range from personal ideology and interest through to mixed conceptions of drama and acting. However, much of the actor training-type teaching is in danger of failing in its ability to articulate how learning takes place. How practice can be informed by explicit understandings of pedagogy remains in serious question. Without explicit education in this regard, tutor practice remains vulnerable to hit or miss approaches. Without an explicitly articulated pedagogy it would appear to be difficult to efficiently pass on a coherent body of teaching knowledge or for that matter devise ways to improve upon it. When meaning is known synnoetically, explanations of pedagogy may become difficult to articulate and are likely to be seen by the acting tutor as irrelevant in ones pursuit of creative endeavour. However, as acting tutors learn to discuss their practice in explicit and meaningful ways, models such as reflective practice (Schn 1983) may become more prevalent. OMara (1999) writes in her doctoral research that reflective practice has led her to interrupt some of [her] patterns of behaviour, particularly actions that are inconsistent with [her] beliefs (p. 319). She continues by arguing that the value of this as a practitioner cannot be underestimated (p. 319). Testimonials such as this give support to the value reflective practice has on processes associated with improving ones own professional practice. Reflective practitioner models may provide ways for acting
302
Ross Prior

tutors to communicate and think about their experiences in more organised ways. A further implication of this research might be to suggest a paradigm shift from traditional master-apprentice type models to newer apprenticeship models that allow for greater co-participation with working actors, and training models that are more clearly articulated. We may need to find places where meaning is constructed in more consequential ways, and where actors are allowed to fail that is, experiment and develop their art and craft as once they could when employment opportunities were more prevalent. Structuralist views of learning can be further challenged by suggesting that learning is a way of being in the social world, not a way of coming to know about it (Lave and Wenger 1991). The acting tutors in this research appear to have digested and even reinterpreted various theories of acting concerning the mind and body, but appear to demonstrate very little specific theoretical knowledge about training and education processes. What is known about acting and actor training is known through familiarity, gained by personal insight, experience or rapport. Brestoff (1995) suggests that actor training is highly teacher-dependent, however most teachers have the information about acting but not many are greatly gifted at communicating it (p. 198). The kinds of meaning the tutors in this research seek to communicate and aim to make legitimate are those that exist through experience that it is essential to have acted before one can teach acting. What actually is gained through experience needs to be harnessed and made more readily available to others. It would seem essential that tutor education be formalised so that close attention is given to more explicit and informed teaching practices. When a university graduate, actor or director moves into actor training in a drama school or university, it would be no surprise if they find what they know and understand of pedagogy to be limited. Many of us are able to recall anecdotal incidences of teachers emulating actor trainingtype exercises in the belief that they were teaching acting. Through much personal observation it would appear that beginning teachers are often unable to articulate how the subject matter is taught, forming a close parallel to the way actor trainers studied in this research are also unable to do so.

Conclusion
From these findings, this paper concludes that the knowledge structures inherent in drama school tutoring are developed through meanings of acting and actor training that were largely tacit and synnoetic direct, personal, and experiential. Whilst these meanings were often difficult to communicate, they were expressed narratively and used frameworks of knowledge-with. This has resulted in a confluence of understanding amongst the informants, creating commonly accepted polarisations of
Understanding actor trainers articulation of their practice

303

meanings [e.g. teaching versus inspiring; artist versus academic]. Particular meanings have become entrenched in the hegemony of actor training, referred to in this report as craft-based ways of knowing. Further, the informant responses suggest that these meanings have been perpetuated within these drama schools and developed into seemingly anti-pedagogical tutor objectives, resulting in at least the tacit acceptance, that [in the traditional understanding of teaching] acting cannot be taught. The constant and most significant challenge remains: how to make experientially acquired knowledge explicit, discussable and, if appropriate, transferable. Works cited
Balk, H. Wesley (1991), The Radiant Performer, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Brestoff, Richard (1995), The Great Acting Teachers and Their Methods, Lyme, N.H: Smith & Kraus. Broudy, Harry (1977), Types of knowledge and purposes of education, in R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro and W.E. Montague (eds.), Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge, Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum. Bruner, Jerome (1986), Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Cambridge MASS: Harvard University Press. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (1975), Going on Stage, London. Cohen, Robert (1998), Acting Professionally, California: Mayfield. Dewey, John (1968 [1916]), Democracy and Education, New York: The Free Press. Elbaz, Freema (1983), Teacher Thinking: A Study of Practical Knowledge, New York: Nicholas Publishing. Engestrm, Yrj (1987), Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research, Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Granzon, Bo (1990), The Practical Intellect, Stockholm: Carlssons Bokfrlag. Harrop, John (1992), Acting, London: Routledge. Hodge, Alison (ed.) (2000), Twentieth Century Actor Training, London: Routledge. Josefson, Ingela (1991), The Forms of Knowledge: The Reflective Skill, Stockholm: Carlssons Bokfrlag. Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger (1991), Situated Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leontev, Aleksei N. (1981 [1959]), Problems of the Development of the Mind, Moscow: Progress Publishers. OMara, Joanne (1999), Unravelling the Mystery: A Study of Reflection-in-action in Process Drama Teaching, unpublished doctoral thesis: Griffith University. Phenix, Philip H. (1964), Realms of Meaning: A Philosophy of the Curriculum for General Education, New York: McGraw-Hill. Polanyi, Michael (1983 [1966]), The Tacit Dimension, Gloucester MASS: Peter Smith. [Reprint, originally published by Doubleday]. Prior, Ross W. (2005), Challenging Actor Trainers Understanding of Their Practice in Australian and English Drama Schools, unpublished doctoral thesis: Griffith University. Rideout, Nigel (1995), First Steps Towards an Acting Career, London: A. & C. Black. Schn, Donald (1983), The Reflective Practitioner, New York: Basic Books.

304

Ross Prior

Stanislavsky, Konstantin (1980 [1936]), An Actor Prepares (trans. E. Hapgood), London: Methuen. (1988 [1950]), Stanislavsky on the Art of the Stage (trans. and ed. David Magarshack), London: Faber & Faber. Stevenson, John (ed.) (2003), Developing Vocational Expertise, London: Allen & Unwin. van Manen, Max (1990), Researching the Lived Experience, London (Canada): University of Western Ontario Press. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1986), Thought and Language, Cambridge MASS: MIT Press. Zarrilli, Phillip (ed.) (1995) Acting (Re)Considered, London: Routledge. (2001), Negotiating performance epistemologies: knowledges about, in and for, Studies in Theatre and Performance, 21,1: pp. 3146.

Suggested citation
Prior, R. (2007), Understanding actor trainers articulation of their practice, Studies in Theatre and Performance 27: 3, pp. 295305, doi: 10.1386/stap.27.3.295/3

Contributor details
Ross Prior is a Principal Lecturer in Drama and Acting at the University of Northampton. Educated in Australia, he took his first degree at Deakin University, his Masters at the University of Melbourne and his PhD at Griffith University. He has recently been involved in a government survey of actor training in England. E-mail: ross.prior@northampton.ac.uk

Understanding actor trainers articulation of their practice

305