Elevating Critical Pedagogy Through Dramatic Principles: A Comparative Framework Analysis of Anti-Bullying Drama Education and Theatre Research Initiatives

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to outline a comparative framework analysis of the following three research studies: Cooling Conflict (an extension of the Drama and Conflict Resolution project (DRACON) (Burton et al., 2015), Queering High School (Tomczyk, 2020), and LGBTQ Families Speak Out / Out at School (Goldstein, 2021). The above noted research studies and/or their dissemination approaches all use principles in drama or theatre to address bullying, homophobia, or transphobia within educational settings. This framework analysis is aimed at better understanding how Applied Drama and Theatre can be used as a tool to elevate the praxis of critical pedagogy in education, specifically when addressing issues related to bullying or cisheteronormative related violence in schools. As critical pedagogy seeks to liberate critical awareness in students and move them into action to address the oppressive factors that impact their lives (Rincón-Gallardo, 2019), the praxis is a suitable framework to discuss hegemonies that create the conditions for bullying, homophobia, and transphobia to occur. However, due to the fact that critical pedagogy “does not always specifically identify heteronormativity and cisnormativity as an agent of oppression” (Tomczyk, 2020, p. 55), additional pedagogical theories must be applied in alleviating oppression for these specific marginalised groups. In the same way that Hackford-Peer argues that queer theory can be used to “augment critical pedagogy” (2019, p. 77), this analysis will look at how drama and theatre have also been used by educators and theatre researchers to elevate the praxis of critical pedagogy, specifically when developing effective anti-bullying initiatives that relate to diverse identities at school.

Rationale

Through a critical examination, the following components will be used as a thematic framework to conduct the analysis: (a) main research goals, (b) guiding values and ethics of the researchers, (c) pedagogical frameworks, (d) project structures (including elements of their dissemination), and (e) significant moments of impact. These components have been identified as necessary areas of examination to understand what considerations are essential when structuring drama education or theatre work that effectively addresses bullying, homophobia, or transphobia within school environments.

While each study does not specifically acknowledge the presence of critical pedagogy within their theoretical framework, in their essence, they all carry goals of activating participants and audience members to imagine new realities for the world by reducing conflict and raising awareness for marginalised groups. Given these goals, it is proposed that the praxis of critical pedagogy is inherently embedded in each study, regardless of whether or not the researchers specifically state so. Therefore, the analysis will apply theoretical principles of critical pedagogy as a lens to interpret and understand the research approaches taken in each study.

With its roots in the work of Paulo Freire, critical pedagogy rejects the “banking concept of education,” (1970/2005, p. 72) where students are only permitted to mechanically receive, file, and store “deposits” (p. 72) of information from their teachers. Instead, a critical approach highlights issues of social justice and inequity, seeking to provide “an active engaged curriculum that enables children to question, challenge and remake their reality” (O’Connor, 2013, p. 127). Henry Giroux argues that “schools are not neutral sites, and teachers cannot assume the posture of being neutral either” (2011, p. 187). In truth, he explains, schools represent specific “knowledge, language practices, social relations, and values” (p. 187) that are either legitimised by inclusion, or delegitimised by exclusion. Therefore, schools are inherently politicised zones and fundamentally tied to power and control. As critical pedagogy “believes in educating students to be active, critical citizens” (p. 187), the praxis “offers a foundational pillar in constructing a theoretical framework” for the development of learning interventions that resist “cisheteronormative oppression, violence, and bullying schools” (Fenaughty, 2019, p. 630).

Various Applied Theatre scholars and drama educators have looked towards critical pedagogy as a theoretical guiding light, given its combination of “critical reflection and action” (Conrad, 2020, p. 261). For example, Sheila Preston argues that critical pedagogy can be “a natural bedfellow for the Applied Theatre practitioner attempting to apply theoretical agendas of social justice and transformation into practice, but in a critical and reflexive way” (2016, p. 22). Just as Giroux argues that schools are not zones of neutrality, Preston considers the role of an Applied Theatre facilitator in the same lens, stating that: “it is not possible to stand outside of the work and facilitate as an impartial observer – we are implicated before we even enter the room with the participants” (2016, p. 29). By embracing a critical perspective in Applied Theatre projects, the work has the potential to become more contextually informed by addressing, rather than ignoring, the structures that dictate our individual experiences in the world.

Given Applied Theatre research is often concerned with issues surrounding social justice, critical pedagogy offers a great deal in terms of democratic conceptualisation. However, dramatic processes offer something unique to critical pedagogy as well. That is, through embodied drama, participants can “simultaneously experience and empathise with the role they are playing” (O’Connor, 2013, p. 132). From such a perspective, drama can provoke something beyond empathy because participants are being asked to grapple with the content experientially and analytically in tandem (O’Connor, 2013). In this sense, there is undeniable potential for drama pedagogy to elevate the praxis of critical pedagogy in a way that cannot be replicated by other approaches.

It is worth noting that not all of the studies included in this analysis engage every participant in embodied experiences. With that said, they do ask their participants and/or audience members to engage in some type of theatrical process that is intricately planned and intentional. For audience members, the living nature of these experiences often requires an authentic presence, which may also act as a tool to elevate critical thinking. In both circumstances, however, it is proposed that the creative nature of drama pedagogies have the potential to complement the reflexive nature of critical pedagogies with a type of emotional richness that is distinctly unique.

Limitations of the Analysis

Despite drama education and theatre research providing decades of successful results regarding its ability to reduce conflict, engage learners, increase collaboration, and promote positive relationships (Burton et al., 2015; Gallagher, 2018; Vettraino et al., 2017) the artform remains underutilised. While theatre scholars continue to produce these research findings, the inventory for research studies using drama or theatre education as a tool to specifically address homophobic and transphobic bullying in educational settings is relatively minimal. While each study of this analysis aims to address either bullying, homophobia, or transphobia in school settings, their main research goals, research methodologies, and research participants (including their respective demographics) are variable. In addition, the geographic locations of each study are different. As different research purposes justify different structural approaches, a direct comparison of drama education research studies conducted with youth regarding homophobic and transphobic bullying interventions is not fully possible. However, the following three studies have been selected for this analysis due to their similarities in using drama education or theatre as a main research methodology or dissemination approach to address forms of bullying, conflict, and biases towards marginalised groups. The three studies in this analysis share overarching goals, themes, and values, making their comparison relevant in generating structures and methodologies for future research, particularly when using drama education as a pedagogical tool for addressing homophobia, transphobia, and bullying within school settings.

Introduction to Each Study

DRACON: Cooling Conflict (1999 & 2000-2002)

The Drama and Conflict Resolution project was a multi-year study that took place from 1994 to 2005. Throughout this time, the study included over nine separate projects in multi-cultural contexts. Each project included a research methodology specific to the region, and findings from earlier projects were refined and applied as the study progressed. The study originally began in Sweden, Malaysia, and Australia, with the aim of “finding effective means of dealing with conflict in schools”(Burton et al., 2015, p. 5). Overall, DRACON is described as “an interdisciplinary and comparative action research project aimed at improving conflict handling among adolescent school children by using the medium of educational drama” (p. 13).

Due to the volume of projects that were completed within this study over the course of its lifespan (from the involvement of youth in high schools to adults in nursing education and beyond), the scope of this paper cannot analyse each one. However, it is important to include this study as a site of analysis, given the research findings provided “strong evidence that drama in the classroom has the power to address complex issues of cultural difference, conflict and bullying among students of all ages” (Burton, 2013, p. 64). The research components that led to such findings are important to consider in future drama education research studies. Therefore, this analysis will focus on the project phase entitled Cooling Conflict that took place in 1999 (Northern New South Wales) and 2000-2002 (Sydney).

The Cooling Conflict phase of the study has been chosen as a site of analysis for three reasons: (a) the encompassing projects utilised the successes of the initial DRACON findings in a refined way, allowing for an informative site of analysis particularly when developing structures for future projects, (b) the study is primarily concerned with the lived experiences of students in schools, which closely relates to the other studies being analysed, and (c) the 1999 Northern New South Wales location was chosen to participate in the study due to troubling cultural conflicts taking place within the school and community. It is important to note here that the intent of this analysis does not propose to compare cultural conflict and racial oppression with cisheternormative oppression (which is the main foci of the other two studies). In speaking towards theories of intersectionality, Kimberlé Crenshaw states that: “ignoring difference within groups contributes to tension among groups” (Crenshaw, 1991, p. 1241). Therefore, this analysis recognises that any work in a social justice or conflict resolution process must take an intersectional approach, understanding that individual experiences are important and complex. With that said, the context propelling the research forward in the Cooling Conflict study is more closely related to the other two studies of analysis as compared to the other projects that make-up DRACON’s multi-year research endeavor.

For the purpose of this analysis, material from the book: Acting to manage conflict and bullying through evidence-based strategies (Burton et al., 2015) will be used. Additional literature related to this particular phase of the study will also be applied.

LGBTQ Families Speak Out / Out at School (2014-2021)

Over the course of eight years, LGBTQ Families Speak Out / Out at School engaged in multimedia platforms to disseminate and evaluate its findings. Led by principal investigator Tara Goldstein, Out at School is an extension of the LGBTQ Families Speak Out research project. The LGBTQ Families Speak Out study interviewed “37 LGBTQ families living in the cities of London, Ottawa, Oshawa, St. Thomas, Sudbury and Toronto,” (2021, p. 2) to discuss issues and conflicts that queer families face in schools. The play, Out at School, is a verbatim theatre piece that was created by the research team based on a series of video interviews that were conducted as part of the LGBTQ Families Speak Out research project (Goldstein, 2020).

Out at School was originally staged in 2018 at the ‘L Fest’ in Wales. The initial script included interviews from 10 participants of the LGBTQ Families Speak Out research project. The script was then expanded in 2019, based on all 37 of the interviews that were conducted with queer families. In the same year, the play was performed as part of the Toronto Pride Festival. Throughout 2020/2021, the team worked together to create an audio play, which is now available on their website (2020).

Throughout the duration of the project, the research team published the script and audio play, as well as a number of books and academic publications related to LGBTQ Families Speak Out and Out at School. For the purpose of this analysis, a combination of all the available materials will be used.

Queering Highschool (2021)

Queering Highschool was a research study and play led by Patrick Tomczyk in 2019. The findings from the research were published in a dissertation thesis at the University of Alberta. The play is described as “a queer ethnodrama on the lived experiences of LGBTQ youth in Alberta high schools that explored their experiences of homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia” (2020, p. ii). To conduct the study, Tomczyk worked directly with youth across Alberta to develop a verbatim theatre script, which was later performed at the the 8th Annual Alberta GSA Conference, hosted at Nelson Mandela High School in Calgary (2020). At this performance, audience impact was evaluated and incorporated into the research findings. The overall purpose of the research was to investigate the lived experiences of queer youth in Alberta high schools, and to evaluate the efficacy of queer ethnodrama serving as a tool to create more inclusive school environments (2020).

For the purpose of this analysis, the entirety of the dissertation: Queering high school: an ethnodramatic inqueery on youth experiences of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic harassment and bullying (2020) will be used, alongside the book chapter Ethnodramatic Inqueery (2021).

Comparative Framework Analysis

Research Questions

Within the Cooling Conflict study, the research questions were as follows:

1. To what extent can drama assist students in the management of cultural conflict through deconstruction of cultural stereotypes and construction of multicultural perspectives?

2. Can drama assist in empowering students through developing conflict literacy?

3. Can peer teaching assist this process?

4. Can drama and peer teaching strategies assist in developing whole-school improvement in conflict management? (Burton et al., 2015, p. 38).

LGBTQ Families Speak Out main research questions:

1. Two to seven years after the passing of the Ontario Safe School Act, what do LGBTQ families say about their experiences in public schools?

2. How are LGBTQ families working with teachers and principals to create safer and more supportive learning environments for their children? (Goldstein, 2021, p. 2).

Queering Highschool main research questions:

1. What are the lived experiences of LGBTQ youth in Alberta high schools related to homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic harassment and bullying?

2. How can queer ethnodrama serve as an effective tool to create more inclusive schools? (Tomczyk, 2020, p. 24).

In each study, the main research questions seek to better understand the lived experiences of students in school, as they pertain to bullying or discrimination stemming from: (a) cultural conflict OR (b) diverse gender or sexual identities. In the case of Cooling Conflict, researchers describe the precursor to the study at the time being “a recent incident of racism in the school [that] had involved national publicity, with staff and students forced to leave which had left the school destabilised and trying to recover” (Burton et al., 2015, p. 39). For this reason, a subtheme of racism and cultural conflict was embedded into their main research questions. Given this context, it is clear that each study organises itself around the lived experiences of historically marginalised groups.

Given that critical pedagogy “is characterised by a diverse set of practices, orientations, and methodologies that centre around the liberation of oppressed peoples” (Fenaughty, 2019, p. 629), the presence of critical pedagogy is inherently embedded in each set of research questions. It is therefore proposed that critical pedagogy is also inherently present in each of the main research methodologies. However, in every case, critical pedagogy has been combined with additional pedagogical approaches, such as drama pedagogy and queer pedagogy, to elevate the praxis and better respond to the main research questions noted above. It is critical to understand all of the pedagogical approaches present in each study to authentically interpret their findings. The additional pedagogical approaches present in the three case studies will be discussed in further detail below.

Guiding Values and Ethics of the Researchers

As discussed earlier, critical pedagogy concerns itself with the liberation of oppressed individuals (Fenaughty, 2019), just as Applied Theatre praxis often engages in social justice work. For such cases, Applied Theatre practitioners and scholars have developed frameworks for approaching their work in ethically responsive manners. In the same way, researchers in Cooling Conflict, Out at School, and Queering Highschool all gave careful attention to their personal ethics throughout the duration of their projects. This attention to ethics must be included as a site of analysis, as they dramatically influenced the structural approaches of each study. Furthermore, these ethical framings can provide informative insight to help future researchers develop an ethical framework that is meaningful and genuine to the research participants involved. It is important to note that the commitment to ethics discussed in this section, for drama researchers, oftentimes “differ[s] from institutional ethics and reflect a personal sense of ethics that [are] recognised and reinforce[d] in the writing, producing, and performance” (Owis et al., 2022, p. 325).

In Applied Theatre Ethics, Prendergast and Sadeghi-Yekta outline the key ethics in Applied Theatre as being: presence, service, and care (2022, p. 7). They believe that “ethical thinking in the midst of practice involves plenty of self-reflection, day to day, hour by hour, and moment to moment” (p 11). In a similar vein, critical pedagogue Peter McLaren believes it is important to constantly reflect on one’s own position in relation to others, stating of his time teaching:

[A]s a white, middle-class teacher, I was always confronting my own position in the dominant culture, which, in relation to my minority and disadvantaged students, constituted a fundamental part of the problem. To what extent did I, because of my inability to name racism and link it to its originating source in the social structure, become for them a symbol of the age-old history of domination and legacy of exploitation …?" (2015, p. 161)

Here we can see that scholars, educators, and practitioners who are engaged in the praxes of critical and dramatic pedagogies demonstrate a fundamental ethical commitment to self-reflection, to thinking meaningfully of oneself in relation to the people, society, and world that surrounds us all.

This same fundamental commitment to ethical practice is evident in each of these case studies. The researchers all, in their own way, demonstrate a fundamental commitment to Prendergast and Sadeghi-Yekta’s ethical principles of presence, service, and care. This commitment allowed the research participants in each study to feel personally connected to one another and the work at hand. Without the presence of a strong ethical grounding, the successful results of the research studies may not have been possible.

In the case of Out at School, the research team explains “three moments of discomfort and growth that moved [their] collective approach toward a slow ethic of care” (Owis et al., 2022, p. 323). The three moments, which the researchers refer to as “moments of tension,” included:

[T]he impulse to use stories of trauma as a dramatic narrative tool; honoring the tensions we encounter in testimonies when faced with the temporality and social location of them; and sitting in the discomfort of performing and embodying gender expressions that differ from our own (p. 323).

Working through these moments as a research team involved long and sometimes heated discussions.

Over the research process, the team developed a number of personal ethical principles, which included (amongst others): centering stories of resilience, activism, and intersectional identities, as well as making commitments to: practises of care, identity conscious casting, intentional learning, and processes of transparency (Owis et al., 2022). The Out at School research team rooted their ethical principles of care in the contributions of critical feminist scholars, stating that: “women of color (specifically Black and Indigenous trans women) are the leaders and frontline activists in queer and trans communities” (p. 325). This is important to note, as “in the academy, an understanding of care work is deeply gendered, racialized, and sexualized” (p. 325). To develop an ethical framework, Prendergast and Sadeghi-Yekta similarly draw on the theories of Indigenous feminist scholars, such as Eve Tuck, who states we must "look beyond the “frameworks that position communities as damaged” (Tuck, 2009, p. 416)

Throughout the Out at School project, we can see a deep commitment to honouring the research participants exemplified when the team decided to completely omit a traumatic story of a participant from the play. Although the “artistic impulse was to stage the dramatic,” the team stated that: “sharing the trauma of young people for the sake of a dramatic moment was unnecessary and potentially harmful” (Owis et al., 2022, p. 326). Even though— according to the institution’s approved ethics— the story could have been included, it was not. This shows a fundamental commitment to honouring the lives and identities of their participants beyond the research project.

In the same way, the principal researcher of Queering Highschool was fundamentally committed to honouring the stories of the youth involved in his research with authenticity. In his findings, Tomczyk emphasized that every youth who participated in the study was unique, and “with this uniqueness came the possibility of many intersecting identities” (p. 33). To go about the work meaningfully, Tomczyk frequently draws attention to this sense of intersectionality. Not only does he acknowledge the identities of his participants, but also takes time to acknowledge the implications of his own lived experiences, stating that in relation to his personal sexual orientation: “I realized how important disclosing my identity was in facilitating ethical research with the participants” (Tomczyk, 2021, p. 212).

Tomczyk’s commitment to the youth in his study was further demonstrated when he spoke of the short rehearsal timeline that prevented youth participants from memorising their lines. In trying to balance the responsibilities of an artist, researcher, and educator, he decided to move forward with a reader’s theatre approach, and reflected that: “one of the guiding principles in this ethnodramatic inqueery was participant validation to maintaining integrity to the truth, and honoring the voices of the participants at every phase of the process” (p. 187). To Tomczyk, the most important ethical principle was a responsibility to the youth involved. By deviating from traditional theatrical forms and allowing the actors to read a script during the performance, Tomczyk was not only honoring his participants and their capacities, but he was also honoring the ‘queer’ pedagogy from which his study was built. Tomczyk realised such an approach was most appropriate for the project when one of the actors questioned: “It’s a queer play. Why are you worried about applying traditional norms and beliefs about theatre and aesthetics on this?” (p. 215). Here we can see how applying additional pedagogical frameworks is not only a structural decision, but also a distinct ethical decision.

Looking from a macro perspective to the DRACON study, the length of the study itself (over a decade of research) shows a fundamental commitment from the research team to their participants, as well as a genuine belief in the artform’s ability to resolve conflict and generate healthier relations. Additionally, the DRACON study champions a ‘peer teaching approach’ meant to “empower students” (Burton et al., 2015, p. 11). Centering youth as competent agents in their own relationships, again, demonstrates an overall ethical commitment to honouring the research participants: their strengths, intelligence, and ability to make decisions.

The ethical considerations of researchers conducting drama education / theatre-based research projects are robust, extensive, and imperative to the integrity of the work at hand. Constructing ethical principles that acknowledge the lived experiences of the participants is essential when conducting research with historically marginalised groups. This oftentimes requires greater ethical considerations compared to other research methodologies, moving beyond institutional best practice. As the researchers in each study acknowledged, this work comes with immense ethical responsibility. Any type of structural analysis related to DRACON, Out at School, or Queering Highschool must take time to recognise the implications of such extensive ethical framing as it pertains to the efficacy of the research in question.

Pedagogical Frameworks

It has already been highlighted within this paper that critical pedagogy was inherent in each case study. The following section will therefore focus on the additional pedagogical approaches that were taken up by the research teams, which varied depending on the study of analysis.

Drama pedagogy

Based on the main research questions, it is evident that drama pedagogy lies at the heart of all three research studies. In every case, research methodologies in Applied Theatre / Applied Drama are championed to effectively: (a) reduce conflict and generate positive relationships or (b) bring awareness to diverse sexual and/or gender identities. The researchers all believe in the power of drama to provoke change, and see the artform as a foundational pillar in social justice work. Each research study, however, utilises different theatrical approaches to investigate their main research question.

In both Queering Highschool and Out at School, verbatim theatre was used as a way to stay true to the participants and the essence of their lived experiences (Owis et al., 2022; Tomczyk, 2021). Queering Highschool also leaned on ethnodrama as a structural vehicle to propel the research forward. It was chosen for the following reasons:

Ethnodrama is a powerful vehicle that can raise issues that lie beneath the surface in an engaging manner. 2) Ethnodrama has the ability to maintain authenticity of real-life issues that are relevant to youth by giving the participants voice and agency. 3) Ethnodrama has the capacity to cause a visceral experience that asks the audience to reflect on their understanding of the issues, which in turn, can lead to conversations about actions that need to occur to move issues forward (Tomczyk, 2020, pp. 197–198).

For Tomczyk, ethnodrama was an authentic approach to frame his research, as the theatrical format “focuses on the lived experiences of a given group or community” and “allows for an understanding of the performed content in ways that are contextual, constructive and collaborative, because the themes are enacted and above all, social” (p. 71).

It is worth noting here that the dramatic structure of Queering Highschool was informed, in part, by the research findings of DRACON who published “compelling evidence that dramatic enactment can be effective in enabling students of all ages to understand and deal with bullying” (Burton et al., 2015, p. 81). For DRACON, and thus Cooling Conflict, drama pedagogy was seen as an effective means to achieve the goal of reducing conflict amongst youth. The empowerment of youth participants was primarily realised through a combination of dramatic processes such as: improvisations, role play, and process drama. These prompts led to the construction of a three-scene forum theatre performance, where students could stop the action, step into role, and attempt to resolve the conflict. The research team termed the process: Enhanced Forum Theatre (EFT), and refined the approach over the project’s lifespan (Burton et al., 2015) .

Pedagogy of empathy

In the case of Out at School, the research team looked to the role of empathy in motivating audience members beyond consumption and into action. Although the researchers do not specifically identify empathy as a pedagogical approach, they do state:

[t]he idea of startling empathy has become both an aspiration and a framework through which we understand the goal of Out at School. We endeavour to create performance moments where our audiences might be startled and awakened by the empathy they are experiencing. This understanding of empathy is dialogic, co-intentional, and hopes to engage audiences toward liberatory praxis through informed emotional action (Baer et al., 2019, p. 422).

Here we can see that the way in which the researchers view, approach, and hope to utilise the empathetic response of an audience is being framed as a pedagogical tool. In this case, the two pedagogical approaches—critical pedagogy and a pedagogy of empathy—are complementing one another through the vessel of drama.

Queer Pedagogy

Queering Highschool framed its guiding principles around concepts of queer theory. While critical pedagogy was an important aspect of the study, queer theory was required to situate the praxis within a queer context. Tomczyk aligned his theoretical framework with Hackford-Peer, who argues that “the silence and omission of queerness in critical pedagogy demands a queer critical pedagogy, as it requires that the normalization of heteronormativity [and cisnormativity] be removed from its secure location in the realms of the status quo” (Hackford-Peer, 2019, p. 80). Tomczyk goes on to propose that queer theory can be used to intensify critical pedagogy’s work, because queer theory carries with it “the promise of new meanings, new ways of thinking and acting politically in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity and expression” (2020, p. 55). Here we see, demonstrated again, that while critical pedagogy is an important aspect of the research in question, it must be combined with other theories to maintain the fundamental integrity of the research at hand.

Project Structures

The table below (Table 1) provides a summary of the approaches and research structures used across the three studies.

Significant Moments of Impact

The researchers in each study speak of specific moments and/or structural components that were particularly effective and enlightening throughout the process. Note that the following section does not intend to highlight the significant themes and/or recommendations that were identified in the research findings of each case study (although they are plentiful). Rather, this section intends to identify key structural components of the studies themselves, which contributed to the overall success of their research findings.

Cooling Conflict

Within the Cooling Conflict study, the research team reported that “a major outcome of both [case studies] was the discovery that involvement in the research project could be life-changing for certain students and for the ethos of conflict in selected schools” (Burton et al., 2015, p. 37). This they say, became evident while collecting their longitudinal data, where follow-up interviews were conducted with particular students six months after their participation in the program. When describing significant moments in the study, researchers introduce us to specific students who seemed to be particularly influenced by the presence of the program in their school. For example, we meet a student named Alexia, who at first seemed to disassociate with the activities in class and was often overpowered by the more vocal students in the group. However, during the peer teaching sessions, the younger class had become chaotic and the students who initially took leadership roles were unable to manage. Alexia quickly stepped in, calmed the group down immediately, and led the rest of the teaching for the day. After the program, teachers noticed a difference in Alexia, who later went on to audition for the school musical (something she did not ever show interest in prior to the program) (Burton et al., 2015).

Throughout the lifespan of Cooling Conflict, the peer teaching component of the approach revealed itself to be particularly successful, with all sites demonstrating “a natural two-way tendency for respect and attention” (Burton et al., 2015, p. 42). This, they say, was especially evident when a group was 2-3 years older than their student counterparts. While the researchers recognised that peer teaching can often be difficult to organise, the results revealed undeniable success as students seemed to absorb and demonstrate conflict resolution tactics best during this stage. It is important to note that during the peer teaching sessions, the upper year students were using drama techniques as a teaching methodology to work with the younger students. The peer teaching component of the research “appeared to increase the self-esteem, motivation and competence of these students, re-igniting their interest in learning and commitment to their education” (Burton, 2012, p. 46). This finding can be, at least in part, attributed to the structural approach of the research being rooted in a distinct commitment to the students’ autonomy over the delivery of the content. In addition to the benefits of peer teaching, extensive research shows that peer learning can also lead to healthier social relationships amongst students (Burton, 2012).

In summary, a major outcome to pay attention to in this study is the efficacy of peer teaching and peer learning, along with opportunities for student ownership and autonomy. These types of experiences not only increase confidence, leadership abilities, and motivation to learn, but they also help create positive social networks for students. Various constraints of the research—such as a lack of front loading the students with information prior to the project, along with tight timelines for training the peer teachers and delivering the peer teaching—impacted the efficacy of the approach. With more time and dedication to the overall process, the success of this pedagogy has the potential to be even more meaningful for participants.

Out at School

While there are many poignant moments in the Out at School study, one in particular stands out. Throughout the lifespan of the project, the research team disseminated the data in various contexts. One of these contexts was through a conference, where a song from the play provoked overwhelming tears from the audience. In trying to understand this reaction, the research team believed it was because the queer audience members in the group finally felt “expected” (Baer et al., 2019, p. 424). The tears, to the research team, let them know: “we had heard and understood the experiences of LGBTQ families in school. The audiences’ responses let us know, yes, you have seen me and my community and understood” (Baer et al., 2019, p. 424).

The research team attributes their ability to stay grounded in the authentic experiences of their participants to the richness of their verbatim theatre approach (Owis et al., 2022). While the example above does not specifically take place during the creation of the play itself, it does reveal a fundamental component of the performance that was imperative to the efficacy of the research. That is, the research team ensured that the content of the play was authentic and true to the lived experiences of LGBTQ families; they paid careful attention to the process of listening, to being present, and to highlighting the voices of their participants. Not only this, but the research team proceeded with a guiding ethos that “queer lives are a gift to our communities” (Owis et al., 2022, p. 327). In doing so, the research team was able to center stories of hope and simultaneously resist the perpetuation of cisheteronormative violence on stage (Owis et al., 2022). Using a person-first approach is a less overt structural component of this research study that should be identified and deeply valued. Perhaps the research team’s commitment to seeing each person as a ‘whole person’ within their participant group can be attributed to their dedication to ethics and empathy that grounded the project.

While the multi-year study revealed powerful findings related to the emotional efficacy of their approach, the research team discusses in detail moments of tension, where they questioned whether or not the content had the potential to move audiences beyond individual reflection, into conversations that considered larger political contexts (Baer et al., 2019). Measuring the impact of Applied Theatre work has been a long discussion amongst practitioners in the field, who note the difficulties in finding concrete examples of greater social change specifically due to participation in theatrical processes (Etherton & Prentki, 2006). With this in mind, the Out at School research team later used the content of the play to conduct image theatre lessons with teacher candidates in an Applied Theatre University classroom. After participating in the workshop, they say, the teacher candidates became inspired to incorporate more inclusive practises into their classrooms. In doing so, the exercises did move individual participants beyond solo reflection and into modes of action (Baer et al., 2019). This example demonstrates, once again, the dynamic power of embodied dramatic processes.

Queering Highschool

When analyzing Queering Highschool, Tomczyk states that one of the most important components of the entire study was the validation process, where the youth participants read the verbatim script, contributed to edits, and confirmed that the essence of the scenes were authentic and true to their experiences. Upon reflection of the validation component, Tomczyk stated: “it was important to me that my participants had as much agency as possible and that they felt an ownership of the project in order for the study to be successful” (p. 160). However, this component of the research did not come without its challenges. Tomczyk describes difficulties in maintaining consistent youth participation throughout the duration of the study. Additionally, he elaborates on various obstacles that presented themselves during the rehearsal and performance process— including but not limited to: missing actors, lack of time, and unpredictable performance spaces. Despite such obstacles, the audience—who were primarily comprised of educators—described the experience as meaningful. Some audience members expressed that watching the play allowed them to challenge their own complicity in the cisheteronormative structures of oppression surrounding them (Tomczyk, 2021).

By including such rigorous youth participation and demonstrating an unwavering commitment to authenticity, Tomczyk’s ethnodrama immediately prompted larger discussions amongst educators related to the dangers of normalising and perpetuating cisheteronormative hegemonies. This accomplishment is unquestionably one worthy of consideration when developing future theatre-based research studies.

Conclusion

Based on this analysis, it would appear that the structures of all three studies: Cooling Conflict (DRACON), Out at School, and Queering Highschool, can be used as an informative starting place to construct new research that organises itself around using drama as a tool for conflict resolution and empowerment amongst diverse groups. These studies have laid a foundation to inform our understandings of the power of theatre and drama to: generate awareness for marginalised groups, develop meaningful relationships amongst diverse groups, and to provoke deep rooted empathy that leads to action. In their own unique way each study shows the value of including dramatic processes in research, particularly in relation to research concerned with diversity, equity and inclusion of sexual and gender diversity. Additionally, the studies demonstrate how theatrical techniques dramatically enhance the praxis of critical pedagogy. When critical, dramatic, empathetic and queer pedagogies are combined, we see a space of possibilities begin to emerge – a space “where newness can enter the world” (Aoki, 1996/2004, p. 423). The researchers of these studies have laid a strong foundation for research-based theatre, gifting the field with meaningful ethical frameworks, effective pedagogies, engaging dramatic structures, and tools for authentic community engagement. Looking forward, it may be beneficial for practitioners to construct future anti-bullying, anti-homophobic, and/or anti-transphobic initiatives by: considering complementary pedagogies, and incorporating peer teaching, resilience-based approaches, and robust participant validation into their frameworks.

Conflicts of interest

The author notes no conflicts of interest related to this research article.