ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1923-6481
Current Organisation
Queensland University of Technology
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
In Research Link Australia (RLA), "Research Topics" refer to ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes. These topics are either sourced from ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes listed in researchers' related grants or generated by a large language model (LLM) based on their publications.
Performing Arts and Creative Writing | Drama, Theatre and Performance Studies | Dance | Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Performing Arts | Performing Arts and Creative Writing not elsewhere classified |
The Performing Arts (incl. Theatre and Dance) | Conserving Intangible Cultural Heritage | Ability and Disability | The Creative Arts (incl. Graphics and Craft)
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 06-05-2022
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 04-2013
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 2017
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 06-2011
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 07-12-2018
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 14-03-2019
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 07-12-2018
Publisher: University of Waterloo
Date: 18-01-2013
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 06-2010
Publisher: Intellect
Date: 12-2012
Abstract: This article examines motivations and methods for external evaluators in taking on a brokerage relationship between artists, arts managers and governments (national and local) during an appraisal process of community arts events. The argument is situated in our experience evaluating the Creating Queensland programme, a multifaceted community arts programme presented as part of the one of Australia’s largest arts events the Brisbane Festival, in 2009 and 2010. We use this case to identify a number of principles and processes that may assist in establishing an effective evaluation process – defined, for us, as a process in which partners representing different elements of the community arts project can share information in a learning network, or an innovation network, that embraces the idea of continuous improvement. We explain that we, as consultants, are not necessarily the only participants in the evaluation process in a position to broker the decision making about what to research and report on. We argue that empowering each of the delivery partners to act as brokers, using the principles, protocols and processes to negotiate what should be researched, when, how and how it should be shared, is something each delivery partner can do. This can help create a common understanding that can reduce anxieties about using warts-and-all evaluation data to learn, grow and improve in the arts. It can, as a result, be beneficial both for the participating partners and the community arts sector as a whole.
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 21-07-2023
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 27-05-2016
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 04-07-2014
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 12-02-2021
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 26-06-2017
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 05-2012
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 07-12-2018
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 03-2020
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 07-12-2018
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 21-07-2020
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan UK
Date: 2014
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 09-2015
Publisher: Intellect
Date: 12-2020
DOI: 10.1386/PEET_00018_1
Abstract: In Australia a vibrant tradition of participatory and often politically motivated performance work developed under the term ‘community arts and cultural development’ across the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. In this body of practice, considerations of ethics are articulated through process, practices and representation rather than content. Though effective, community arts as it developed in Australia is often time, resource and emotionally intensive for artists, community participants and audiences. In recent years, retraction of funding, as well as shifts in practice towards live art, performance art and relational aesthetics have reduced the resources available for these once prominent practices. Practitioners are confronting challenges and needing to develop new ways of working in an operating environment where long-term consultation is not necessarily possible or preferred by stakeholders. In this article, we reflect on the current state of play for practitioners seeking to develop ethical dramaturgy in performance works that collaborate with communities to tell life stories or represent participants’ lived experiences in Australia. Through ex les from our own practice, as practice-led researchers, we consider how work in this sector is under strain and experiencing scarcity, precarity and an increasing lack of access to institutional resources that have historically enabled ethically rigorous dramaturgical practices. We aim, through this process, to rediscover and rearticulate an ethical dramaturgy for deployment in the Australian environment as it exists today.
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 03-05-2012
Start Date: 2020
End Date: 2023
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 2021
End Date: 2022
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 2017
End Date: 2017
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 2014
End Date: 2014
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 04-2021
End Date: 03-2025
Amount: $227,131.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 05-2017
End Date: 12-2018
Amount: $465,000.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 07-2021
End Date: 12-2023
Amount: $566,523.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 06-2014
End Date: 12-2017
Amount: $325,000.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded Activity