Conclusion:
How can developing Kinaesthetic Empathy enable a sustainable collaborative approach for new groups working together in Theatre Making?
By developing skills of mirroring, attunement, and play, students can kinesthetically sense and emotionally connect with one another, fostering an empathetic and cohesive collaborative ensemble process. For this to be sustainable, there needs to be space and time within the curriculum, for students to build upon existing skills and nurture non-hierarchical modes of working as an ensemble.
Critique:
This project has highlighted 3 main areas of critique, for me personally (in terms of research skills), as well as with the subject area. These are;
A struggle to ask the right questions:
I struggled to ask the right questions in both the semi-structured interviews and the post–workshop stimuli questions. By “right questions,” I mean those that directly address the research question and generate relevant data. While I have encouraged broader reflections in the interview, I found it more challenging to ask questions that speak directly to my research focus.
Lack of quantitative evidence:
This may also reflect a lack of quantitative research in the field. As Koch (2020) notes, there is an inherent difficulty in quantifying the subjectivity of non-verbal, embodied processes. Kinesthetic empathy is felt, sensed, and perceived; it is predominantly non-verbal and cannot be easily defined, measured, or observed outside the body. As a result, it remains highly subjective, presenting ongoing challenges for research and professional interpretation (Koch, 2020).
Professional Interpretation:
This leads to my next point. While a creative methods approach aligns closely with my daily practice, it is highly dependent on my own professional interpretation (Kara, 2015). For example, the semi-structured interview provided valuable contextual insight but reflected my somewhat “romantic” or emotionalist approach, revealing authentic inner perspectives but failing to generate more objective data (Alvesson, 2012). Similarly, when listening to students’ verbal reflections and reading their ‘post-it’ notes, I sensed their feedback was somewhat overly positive, and that I may have been hearing what I wanted to hear. Although this supported my research question, there was a lack of critique or counterargument. This may be due to limited time, insufficient invitation for critique, or unacknowledged power dynamics. As a tutor and a white European, I potentially hold unspoken authority within the space. Again, Alvessons (2012) skeptical review resonates strongly, and although he focuses mainly on Interviews, I relate to his invitation to move beyond naive uses of data collection, and engage in a more critical, reflexive and theoretically informed analysis.
Bibliography
Alvesson, M. (2012) ‘‘Views on Interviews: A Skeptical Review’’, in Interpreting Interviews, London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 9–42.
Kara, H. (2015) Creative research methods in the social sciences: A practical guide. Bristol: Policy Press.
Koch, S.C. (2020) ‘Indications and contraindications in dance movement therapy: learning from practitioners’ experience’, GMS Journal of Arts Therapies, 2, p. Doc02 https://doi.org/10.3205/jat000006.