In this workshop, participants are introduced to the idea that participatory and immersive theatre productions often include elements that invoke potential psychological and social risks. While these performances also have a unique array of physical risks, traditional risk assessments often cover these. However, the psychological and social risks often aren’t considered in the same methodical fashion.

 

1. Welcome and Group Introductions (00:00 – 00:15)

 

During this time, the participants will be welcomed. In an effort to model some of the techniques commonly suggested for setting a clear ‘horizon of participation’ (White, 2013, p. 55), the schedule for the day will be outlined. Participants will be reminded that if any topics are upsetting to them, they are always free to step away or request that we stop. They will all be reminded of the content warning, that this workshop uses the phrase ‘cults’ flippantly and in a performative manner, so if any participants are among the very small number of people in the population with an unfortunate encounter with a cult, this may not be the workshop for them.

 

2. Defining Terms: Immersive and Participatory Theatre, Risk Assessment, Typology of Risk (00:15-00:25)

 

This time is set aside to make sure all participants understand core definitions such as immersive and participatory theatre. Additionally, this section will touch on risk assessments, what they are, how they are usually done, and how they often aren’t considered for psychological and social risks in participatory performances. This section will finish out with a look at the typology of risk in immersive performance to help participants better understand the different risks that audience members engage with during these performance.

 

3. Individual Activity: Reading The Two-Metre Rule (00:25-00:35)

 

Everyone will individually read the Two-Metre Rule, a review of The Pact, an immersive and participatory performance from Edinburgh Fringe in 2017: http://totaltheatre.org.uk/the-two-metre-rule/

 

4. Small Group Activity: Identifying and Discussing Risks in The Two Metre Rule (00:35-00:50)

 

In small groups of 4-5, participants will discuss what risks they have identified in the review and how they could be mitigated. They will also be asked to discuss what aesthetic impact, if any, would mitigating these risks in the ways they propose have?

 

5. Full Group Activity: Group Reflection on Activity (00:50-01:05)

 

Following the small group discussions, the group comes together to share what their group identified as risks and possible steps for mitigating them. During this time, there is potential for reflection on how the psychometric paradigm (Slovic, 2010) can affect people’s perceptions of risk. 

 

6. Activity Overview: Build Your Own Cult (01:05-01:10)

 

In small groups, participants will build their own cults and develop an initiation ceremony. Cults were specifically chosen as a subject matter to increase the element of risk and also because of their performative nature. These are the instructions for the activity:

 

• Get into groups of 4-5 people

• You have 30 minutes to build your cult/club and develop an initiation ceremony for your new followers.

  • What is the name of your cult/club?

  • What does your organization believe?

  • What is the initiation ceremony for new cult members?

• You are not limited to the resources in this room.

• Please be prepared to share this information when we reconvene.

 

7. Small Group Activity: Build Your Own Cult (01:10-01:40)

 

In small groups, participants will then build their own cults/clubs, decide on the core beliefs of their cult and prepare their initiation ceremony for sharing with the group. Please note that we will not be doing any initiation ceremonies, we will only be discussing them.

 

8. BREAK (01:40-01:55)

 

Coffee and Tea

 

9. Full Group Activity: Share Your Cult and Group Discussion (01:55-02:55)

 

During this time, each group will present information about their ‘cult’ and their initiation ceremony. As a group, we will discuss what hesitations we might have in engaging in the initiation ceremony and what risk mitigations might make us willing to participate in the initiation. We will identify where the different risks fall on the typology of risk in immersive theatre, as well as how severe they seem. We will also discuss how cultural factors could influence different perceptions of what is ‘safe’ and what’s not.

 

10. Relevance of Informed Consent & Introjects (02:55-03:05)

 

This time is set aside to discuss the role of informed consent in audience management and any potential barriers. How can productions balance the need for informed consent when so many productions exist in a ‘space of uncertainty’ (Stenros et. al, 2021, p. 2)? And despite a desire for the freedom that comes with embracing that uncertainty, there is agreement that participants often act badly when they are unaware of the ‘horizon of participation’ (White, 2013, p. 55). Additionally, to what extent do audience members suffer from strong introjects that result in them trying to be good audience members even when they don’t really want to participate in the activity (Heddon et al., 2012)? What, if anything, can we do to dissuade this?

 

11. Relevance of Cool-Downs and Aftercare (03:05-03:20)

 

Much has been said about the importance of orienting in immersive and participatory performance (Sedgman, 2022; Brigante and Elger, 2020; Talbot, 2016; Ramos, 2015; Machon, 2013; White, 2013), but little is discussed regarding what happens after the performance. Richard Schechner (1985) identified seven phases of performance for actors. In participatory theatre, the audience are asked to become part of the performance but often only engage in one of those seven stages ‘the performance itself’ (Schechner, 1985, p. 19). The cool-down immediately after performance, and the aftermath, a period of time after the performance in which it still carries influence, are minimally considered. However, for immersive and participatory performances, consideration of cool-down and aftermath can provide a beneficial space for processing for the audience. This brief period of discussion will revolve around potential ideas for what a cool-down could look like to the participants. 

 

12. What Type of Risk Taker Are You? (03:20-03:30)

 

This activity uses a simple quiz in the style of the one created by David Ropeik (2011), professor of risk perception, communication and management at Harvard. It uses the cultural theory of risk to determine the risk style of the quiz taker. The questions indicate if the quiz taker is more Individualist or Communitarian and more Hierarchist or Egalitarian. The function of the quiz is to identify these traits and consider how they may indicate a high comfort with risk or a lower one and how that knowledge can influence performance makers and production staff moving forward as they evaluate risks for their audience.   

 

13. Final Group Discussion & Survey (03:30-03:45)

 

The session closes with our own version of aftercare; this final discussion provides time for participants to share any outstanding concerns and also to discuss how they might be able to apply what they have learned in the workshop in their future productions. A brief post-workshop survey to gauge the efficacy of the workshop will also be done during this time.

 

 

​

​

​

​

 

REFERENCES

 

Brigante, R., & Elger, S. (2020, May). New adventures: The strength of immersive

entertainment. 2020 immersive entertainment industry annual report. Pseudonym Productions. https://everythingimmersive.com/storage/website-files/documents/2020%20Immersive%20Entertainment%20Industry%20Annual%20Report.pdf

 

Heddon, D, Iball, H & Zerihan, R. (2012). Come closer: Confessions of intimate spectators in one

to one performance. Contemporary Theatre Review 22(1), 120-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10486801.2011.645233

 

Machon, J. (2013). Immersive theatres: Intimacy and immediacy in contemporary performances. Palgrave Macmillan Hampshire.

 

Ramos, J. (2015). (Re-) Constructing the actor-audience relationship in immersive theatre

practice. PhD Thesis University of East London Arts and Digital Industries https://doi.org/10.15123/PUB.4987

 

Ropeik, D. (2011, March 9). Take the Cultural Cognition Quiz. Psychology Today; Sussex Publishers, LLC. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/201103/take-the-cultural-cognition-quiz

 

Schechner, R. (1985). Between Theater and Anthropology. University of Pennsylvania Press.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fhjzs

 

Sedgman, K. (2017). Audience experience in an anti-expert age: A survey of theatre audience

research. Theatre Research International, 42(3), 307-322. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0307883317000608

 

Stenros, J.S., Bart Hughes, L., Zisels Lopes Machado Ramos, J., and Maravala P.J. (2021, October

30.) Understanding liveness in immersive theatre, LARP and games. [Conference presentation]. DiGRA 2020. Online. http://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/36606/3/36606_RAMOS_Understanding_Liveness%20.pdf

 

Talbot, R. (2016). She wants you to kiss her : negotiating risk in the immersive theatre contract.

In J. Frieze (Ed.), Reframing immersive theatre: The politics and pragmatics of participatory performance. Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-36604-7_13

 

White, G. (2013). Audience participation in theatre aesthetics of the invitation. Palgrave

Macmillan.