Changing the Lens:

A UBC Forum Theatre project

2012/2013 evaluation report Cultural Identity and Assumptions

Prepared by: Gua Khee Chong 2012/2013 Project Director, Joker University of British Columbia, Canada

Changing the Lens project E: changingthelens@gmail.com Changingthelens.wix.com/forum-theatre July 23, 2013

We recognize that there may be some limits to our report, so please do not hesitate to contact us at changingthelens@gmail.com for more information or with further suggestions regarding either the report or the project.

Copyright (c) 2013 by Changing the Lens: A UBC Forum Theatre project. This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. For questions about permissions, please contact changingthelens@gmail.com.

Acknowledgements
The project team would like to thank the following people and organizations for their support and advice, without which the project would not have been possible: CJ Rowe Deb Pickman Dr Kirsty Johnston Graham Lea Ryan Caron Victor Guerin UBC CTLT, especially Amy Perreault, Judy Chan, and Hanae Tsukada UBC Longhouse, especially Rick Ouellet UBC Mix, especially Natalie Baloy UTown@UBC, especially Gabriella Scali and Katy Short Menchies @ Wesbrook Village Starbucks @ West 10th Avenue All audience members and workshop participants Additionally, it should be noted that the work and influence of both Augusto Boal (founder of Theatre of the Oppressed and Forum Theatre) and David Diamond (founder of Theatre for Living)1 has been fundamental as inspiration for this project. In particular, our Joker this year has undergone training workshops from Diamond, and is very much indebted to him for allowing her to consult with him on questions about the process.2

David Diamond is the Artistic Director of local Vancouver company Theatre for Living (formerly known as Headlines Theatre). His style of theatre, Theatre for Living, developed from Diamonds work with Boal and his experience with Theatre of the Oppressed, but is also strongly informed by systems theory. 2 David and Theatre for Living (formerly Headlines Theatre) run annual August trainings (Level I and Level II) to spread the techniques of TfL, of which Forum Theatre is a key component (follow this link here).

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Background and Description of the CTL project ........................................................................ 4 Project Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 5 Evaluation Plan brief summary.................................................................................................... 8 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 9 Process Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 10 Project Timeline ........................................................................................................................ 10 Project Team ............................................................................................................................. 13 Project Participants ................................................................................................................... 14 Data Analysis And Results ........................................................................................................... 15 Reflections / Recommendations: .................................................................................................. 19 Final Notes / Lessons Learnt: ....................................................................................................... 20 Plans for 2013/2014 .................................................................................................................. 20 References ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 22 Appendix A Workshop Participant Feedback Survey ............................................................. 22 Appendix B Audience Member Feedback Survey hardcopy version ................................... 23 Appendix C Audience Member Feedback Survey online version ........................................ 24 Appendix D Project Member Feedback Survey ...................................................................... 26 Appendix E List of Games and Activities in the Changing the Lens workshop ..................... 27 Appendix F Programme Booklet ............................................................................................. 28 Appendix G Pictures from Workshop and Performance ......................................................... 33

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

INTRODUCTION
The benefits of having a large campus such as the University of British Columbias (UBC) Vancouver campus are clear UBC Vancouver brings together a wide variety of people, and there are multiple resources available for easy access. At the same time, a large campus tends to facilitate the formation of cliques and silos of people within faculties, disciplines, and other relevant affiliations. This is problematic, as it restricts the flow of information and knowledge in the campus, perhaps rather counter-intuitive in a space meant to promote learning.3 In response to this silo-ing on the UBC Vancouver campus, Changing the Lens project was initiated by 4th year UBC student, Gua Khee Chong, to engage University of British Columbia (UBC) campus community so as to promote opportunities for interdisciplinary and interaffiliation (i.e., amongst faculty, staff, students, and residents) dialogue on topical issues of relevance to the community. The project draws heavily on Forum Theatre techniques, because Forum Theatre has been demonstrated to be particularly effective as an avenue for communities to explore issues of oppression, such as gender violence (Mitchell & Freitag, 2011), or issues of personal development, such as self-esteem in conflict (Gjrum & Ramsdal, 2009). As an audienceinteractive theatrical form, this style of theatre has the immense potential to facilitate a safe space for community dialogue, engaging actors and audience alike in a dialogue of action and not just a dialogue of words.4 Final Evaluation Goal This report essentially aims to archive the work done by Changing the Lens project, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of the project in promoting cross-disciplinary and cross-affiliation dialogue in the UBC community. This report will examine aspects of the project that have been effective and that should be replicated in future, but also seek to understand aspects of the project that can be improved on for the future. Evaluation Team Our team consists of project team members and Psychology students with experience in data collection and analysis.
Table 1. Roles and Responsibilities of the Evaluation Team Members Individual Gua Khee Chong (Director/Joker) Title or Role Lead Evaluator Responsibilities Coordinate team meetings and oversee evaluation tasks to ensure evaluation is conducted as planned Consolidate final report

Indeed, the Mental Health Network (MHN) was recently formed to connect and cross-promote mental health initiatives on campus. Network members include: Alma Mater Society (AMS), AMS Speakeasy, The Kaleidoscope, Healthy Minds, Kinesiology Undergraduate Society, Mental Health Awareness Club, Nursing Undergraduate Society, UBC Wellness Centre, UBC Yoga Club, UBC Graduate Student Society, UBC International Student Association, UBC Neurology Club, and UBC Yesplus Club. 4 This is paraphrased from personal communications with David Diamond.

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

Helen You (Assistant Stage Manager) Morgan McKusick (Evaluation Team) Audrea Chen (Publicity and Fundraising Team / Director of 2013/2014 project)

Data Analysis Data collection

Analyze quantitative and qualitative data, compile results Compile initial draft of report Review of the literature and creation of data collection tools Review drafts of the report Review drafts of the report

Reviewer

BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE CTL PROJECT Need As the UBC campus expands and grows in diversity over the years (Planning and Institutional Research (PAIR), 2013), there is arguably a tendency for people to stay in their small cliques of friends, neither understanding nor seeking to understand others outside of their immediate circle. As such, an initiative such as Changing the Lens project is crucial as a platform for members of the campus community to dialogue about important issues recognizing their different approaches and opinions of the issue, but also their commonalities. Furthermore, by addressing a different theme each year, the project will also help to encourage dialogue on topical and relevant issues. Context Forum Theatre Forum Theatre was first developed by Brazilian theatre practitioner Augusto Boal (1931-2009) as part of his canon of techniques for Theatre of the Oppressed (Boal, 1985).5 In this genre, pieces are typically developed and performed by community members who have experience with the specific issue under investigation, and always end abruptly at a moment of crisis. In performance, the piece is run once through from start to finish, allowing audience members to have a sense of the situation presented in the play as well as the problems between and amongst characters. Subsequently, the piece is re-enacted, but this time the audience is invited to interrupt the action (by yelling stop!) at any point they recognize an oppressive moment. In other words, audience members have the opportunity to come onstage in a Forum Theatre piece, replace the struggling character, and try out an idea to improve the situation. There are no right or wrong ideas in this work rather, interventions are simply ways of exploring the situation and gaining insights into the issues presented.6 This non-directive approach clearly promotes critical thinking, but also facilitates the creation of a safe space. Within the theatre, then, the project hopes to foster a respectful but challenging atmosphere for community members to try out ideas and discuss them.
5

The key idea behind TO is to empower people to reassume their protagonistic function in the theatre, (Boal, 1985) which in turn would theoretically empower people to take the initiative to transform the society around them. Other techniques developed by Boal include: Rainbow of Desire, Cops in the Head. 6 Boal himself noted that the role of theatre is not to show the correct path, but only to offer the means by which all possible paths may be examined (Boal, 1985).

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

Target population The target population for Changing the Lens project is the entire campus community, which has been broken down into the following categories to facilitate targeted efforts: 1. UBC student population 2. Faculty and staff 3. UBC community residents 4. UBC campus groups and organizations PROJECT OBJECTIVES The goal of Changing the Lens is to promote healthy, constructive dialogue on key issues amongst community members from a variety of disciplines and affiliations, so as to build up a sense of community as well as encourage critical thinking on the issue under investigation. For 2012/2013, the issue chosen is Cultural Identity and Assumptions. In order to accomplish the overarching goal of the project, the following desired outcomes were identified for 2012/2013: 1. To engage with 150 community members from a variety of different backgrounds by the end of May 2013. Community members include students, faculty and staff, community residents, as well as campus groups and organizations. Given the projects focus on Cultural Identity and Assumptions, the project aims to achieve diversity in academic discipline, ethnicity, and race. Engagement can be in the capacity of project team members, Forum Theatre workshop participants, consultants, sponsors, or audience members. 2. To facilitate critical thinking on the key issue from community members. 3. To create good theatre.* The project will facilitate an intensive Forum Theatre workshop for community members, during which original Forum Theatre pieces will be created; After a rehearsal period to tighten and polish the pieces, the Forum Theatre pieces will be showcased to the public, so as to extend the dialogue generated in the workshop sessions to the wider community. *Although not directly related to the community engagement aspect of the project, this outcome is a crucial part of Changing the Lens project as the central means by which the smaller workshop discussions and activities are communicated to the wider community, it is vital that the pieces are interesting and well-presented, so that they can effectively engage the audiences attention and imagination. In addition, there tends to be the assumption that community-oriented theatre is not aesthetically pleasing. As such, by creating good theatre, the project hopes to challenge this assumption. There also tends to be a distinction made between artists and other people in modern society, without the recognition that artistry itself can be present within any profession. By creating good theatre with individuals who may not have a lot of theatrical background, the project aims to demonstrate to the individuals and to the public that artistry can be present in anyone, and to indirectly encourage people to strive towards artistry within their own professions and own lives.

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

Stage of Development The project is relatively new, having only been begun in October 2012. Resources/Inputs Project team members, support from campus groups, faculty and staff, as well as funding from campus organizations are key inputs of the Changing the Lens project. Activities Recruiting project team members, outreach/publicity activities, Forum Theatre workshop sessions, rehearsals, and performances made up the major activity categories this year. Outputs As a result of the Changing the Lens project, a community was created amongst workshop participants and project team members, Forum Theatre pieces were created, and dialogue about the issue of Cultural Identity and Assumptions was facilitated in the larger campus community. Outcomes A list of short-term outcomes include: contributed to dialogue in the community, greater awareness of the project, a sense of community amongst the workshop participants and project team, sense of empowerment from creating theatre pieces, actors and audience members understanding of the key issue increased. Potential long-term outcomes include*: more critical thinking about key issues, a more openminded community, a greater sense of community fostered in the UBC campus community. *Note: Given that Changing the Lens project is only in its first year, it is currently too early to assess the long-term impact of the project. See next page for logic model.

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

Table 1. Project Description of Changing the Lens project

Resources Initial Activities Subsequent Outputs Short-term Outcomes Mid-term Long-term

Project team members Support from campus groups, faculty and staff Funding from campus organizations

Recruiting project team members

Outreach/ Publicity activities

Presentation was made at the Intercultural U conference

Contributed to the dialogue in the community about the issue; greater awareness in the community about the project

Access to more connections and resources for the project, enabling the project to take on more widescale activities (i.e., ability to affect the community on a larger scale) Creation of a community amongst workshop participants and project team members

More critical thinking about key issues A more open-minded community A greater sense of community is fostered in the UBC campus community

Forum Theatre workshop

Forum Theatre pieces were created

Rehearsals

2 nights of public performances of the Forum Theatre pieces

A sense of community amongst the workshop participants and project team; sense of empowerment from creating the pieces from scratch Actors and audience members understanding of the key issue increased; community members were engaged in dialogue about the issue

EVALUATION PLAN brief summary

Evaluation Questions There are many aspects to the project that could be examined, but for this year, the team prioritized the following as the most important aspects that could realistically be examined: To determine if the project has been implemented as planned (Process): Has there been sufficient outreach? Has there been adequate attendance at workshop sessions? Has sufficient time been devoted to rehearsals? To determine if the project is meeting its objectives (Outcome/Impact): Are community members involved in the project from diverse backgrounds? Has the project encouraged critical thinking about the issue of Cultural Identity and Assumptions? Are the pieces judged to be artistically competent?

Evaluation Design Knowing that this is the first year of the project, and that the project would be taking place on a smaller scale, the evaluation team decided to collect data from different groups. This would help to increase the sample size, as well as enable the team to collect more data to improve the project for next year. There was no control or comparison group, as none seemed appropriate and we also had limited resources. The team reviewed records of Forum Theatre projects elsewhere, but realized that most were neither well documented nor collected data in a standardized manner, and so the decision was made to assess the data against benchmarks set by the project team. The data collected for this evaluation will serve as a future baseline for later evaluations. Resource Consideration Resource available for evaluation was limited. Manpower mostly consisted of the Director and 2 other project team members, and they could only devote a few hours a week to the project evaluation, due to other commitments. Time was largely spent on clarifying the structure of the evaluation and the design of questionnaires, in hopes of establishing a clear framework for the project next year. Evaluation Standards Obtaining consent It was explained to workshop participants, audience members, and project team members that completing their respective survey was purely voluntary, and that completing and submitting the survey meant that they consented to having their data used. In order to maintain confidentiality given the small sample size, no identifiers were used in questionnaires, questions relating to demographics and questions relating to the project were created as two separate questionnaires, and data cleaning and analysis was conducted by an evaluation team member who did not have personal contact with workshop participants or audience members. It was noted that there may have been some issues regarding record keeping or participants willingness to answer honestly, but the reliability of this strategy was judged to be acceptable.

DATA COLLECTION The evaluation largely draws on questionnaires, and to some extent, reviews of meeting minutes and the project account book.
Table 2. Data Collection Plan Indicators Number of outreach activities Number of flyers distributed Number of workshop participants at the end of workshops (max 20) Attendance rate of workshop participants Number of rehearsals Length of rehearsals Diversity of workshop participants Diversity of community members (aggregated) Reflections from workshops sessions and performances Expectations of the audience members Ratings of the aesthetic quality of the performances Open-ended questions Rehearsal reports Demographic questions Records by the Stage Manager Survey workshop participants (online questionnaire) Survey audience members (hardcopy/online questionnaire) Survey workshop participants (online questionnaire) Survey audience members (hardcopy/online questionnaire) Survey audience members (hardcopy/online questionnaire) Data source Records by project team Workshop records by Director/Joker Data Collection Method Review records of minutes Review records of workshop sessions and attendance

Rating questions

Note: The questionnaires, intended to assess the impact of the project on workshop participants, audience members, and project team members, were developed by the team. This decision was undertaken given the lack of standardized measures in the field of Forum Theatre and indeed the arts in general, as well as the lack of detail in pertinent literature, most of which only reported answers from their participants and omitted the measures and questionnaires used. Fortunately, a dissertation by Rae (2011) does outline potential interview questions for participants, actors and facilitators, and thus the team drew on the paper as a foundation for developing our own questionnaires. The 3 sets of questionnaires each contained: i) Demographics questions (these were administered separately to ensure confidentiality, given the small sample size) ii) Impact of project/involvement (e.g. What is one key thing you learned/experienced from participating in the project?) iii) Feedback and suggestions for improvement (e.g. What are 3 things you enjoyed about the workshops?) See Appendices A-D for the feedback surveys.

PROCESS EVALUATION
PROJECT TIMELINE There were 3 main phases to the project, and details of each phase as well as the timeline are outlined below. Phase 1 - publicizing the project to the wider UBC community, recruiting project team members, and conducting outreach in preparation to recruit workshop participants (maximum 20, for reasons of manageability).
Table 3. Illustrative Timeline for Project Activities

Phase 1
Recruitment of project team members Brainstorming about design of project Preparation of publicity and outreach material (e.g., logo, posters) Publicity Grant applications, fundraising planning Open to workshop participant applications Review of workshop participant applications (1st round; max. 40 applicants invited for interview) Interviews with applicants Final decision about workshop participants (max. 20), accepted applicants are notified

Timing of Activities for Oct 2012 Jan 2013

Oct + + Nov + + + + Mid-Nov + + Dec Jan

+ + + Dec 20 deadline Dec 27 deadline + +

Jan 4-6 Jan 8

Phase 2a - the creation and rehearsal of the pieces during the workshop process (the workshop is adapted from Theatre for Livings August trainings with David Diamond; see Appendix E for the list of games and activities that were played during each session), and the lengthier rehearsal period with performers after the end of the workshops.
Table 4. Illustrative Timeline for Project Activities

Phase 2a
Workshop sessions (6 consecutive Sundays, from 12-6pm) January 13 = Teambuilding, introduction to image work January 20 = More trust games, introduction to improvisation January 27 = Improvisation and storytelling games February 3 = Creation of pieces February 10 = Rehearsal of pieces February 17 = Invited Forum Rehearsals

Timing of Activities for Jan 2013 March 2013

Jan + Feb + March

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

10

Phase 2b - logistical and fundraising matters for the performance, e.g., negotiations for a performance venue, fundraising events, publicity material preparation (this phase was concurrent with Phase 2a, the workshops).
Table 5. Illustrative Timeline for Project Activities

Phase 2b
Fundraising events Approaching sponsors Performance logistics Publicity for final performance

Timing of Activities for Jan 2013 March 2013

Jan + + Feb + + + + March + + +

Phase 3 - performance of the plays to the wider UBC community, collection of feedback from audience members, workshop participants, and also project team members for final evaluation report, cleaning of data, and the dissemination of data. Refer to Appendix F for the programme booklet that was distributed at the performances. Appendix G contains pictures from the workshop and performance.
Table 6. Illustrative Timeline for Project Activities

Phase 3
Evaluation planning Data collection from workshops sessions Final performances Data collection from performances Data cleaning Conference presentation Data collection from project team Analysis/interpretation Report/dissemination - Sponsors reports completed end April - Internal report (current document) completed end June Jan + Feb + +

Timing of Activities for Jan 2013 July 2013

March April May June

+ End Mar + End Mar + + + + +

+ + +

Summary and Assessment: Phase 1 - the selection and interview process Feedback from workshop participants included providing a better sense of what the workshops would entail in publicity material, and, once invited for the interview, to be told in more detail about the purpose and activities involved in the interview process As a result of the practical constraints with the project teams schedules, the initial outreach for potential workshop participants was scheduled too late, and hence the team was still receiving interested inquiries about the workshop in the first week of January. The team decided to screen these applicants even though it was past the deadline, in acknowledgement of the rushed process of outreach on the part of the project. However, this ultimately created a lot of inconvenience for the project team members as well as some of the applicants (e.g., problems with booking a room for the interview due

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

11

to the late notice). In future, outreach and publicity activities for the workshop should simply begin earlier, and the deadline for applications should be kept firm. In general, the response from students was highly positive. However, recruitment was more difficult amongst faculty and staff members, despite an initial encouraging response. o A possible reason for the dropout and/or lack of follow-up could be that the time commitment required of workshop participants and project team members was too excessive in light of their full-time job and family responsibilities. o More effort should be devoted to finding means of including their voices in future, perhaps through focus groups or actively partnering a workshop participant with a faculty/staff member in dialogue sessions.

Phase 2a - the workshops and rehearsal process In general, workshop participants reported being very satisfied with the workshops. Participants indicated that they enjoyed the workshop process, as it allowed them to make friends, learn about culture and meet diverse people. o Although some participants thought that the workshops were too long, they also indicated that the length did provide the necessary amount of time to create connections that were crucial to the work later. All workshop participants wanted to be performers as well, which is a positive indicator of the strength of the projects engagement. However, this also meant that the Director was pressed for time to rehearse with all 3 groups in the space of a few weeks. A secondary problem due to this warm response was the issue of scheduling rehearsals that would work for everyone within a specific group. For logistical ease, rehearsal dates and times should be decided upon prior to beginning workshops, so that workshop participants who might be interested in performing have advance notice to reserve those timings for rehearsals. Secondly, it took more time than anticipated to rehearse and tighten the pieces each group had approximately 3 sessions of rehearsals instead of 2, and more time could still have conceivably been spent on rehearsing the pieces. In future, the timeline should plan for more rehearsals, and each rehearsal should also be scheduled for longer periods of time. Phase 2b - logistical arrangements As the project is a new initiative, it took longer than anticipated to settle on a suitable venue and dates/times for the performances, which made it difficult to recruit designers or to carry out the necessary technical rehearsals prior to the actual performance. The performances were successfully executed in the end, but a lot of anxiety and stress could have been avoided if the venue and dates for the performance had been set earlier in advance. Apart from beginning negotiations with venues earlier in future, designers should also be recruited in the early stages of the project, which would enable venue sponsors and designers to preview the Forum Theatre pieces during the Invited Forum that takes place in the last workshop session. It should be noted that, in questionnaires distributed to audience members, common suggestions for future improvements included having more advertisement for the performances, as well as an earlier performance time.

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

12

Phase 3 evaluation and presentations Creating the internal report took longer than expected due to work commitments on the part of the evaluation team, and the need to create a framework from scratch. However, this is not likely to happen again next year, given that a framework is now in place. PROJECT TEAM The main recruitment drive of the project took place in October 2012 (see Phase 1), but as a result of conflicts in schedule and new needs on the part of the project, the project wound up having smaller recruitment drives throughout the year. By the end of the 2012/2013 academic year, the project had a total of 10 team members, and 6 ad-hoc volunteers. Table 7 summarizes the main responsibilities and time commitment of each role, but it should be noted that some team members were helping out in more than one capacity.
Table 7. Summary of Responsibilities, Hours and Project Activities

Role
Director/Joker

Responsibilities
Overseeing project and coordinating all other roles Facilitating workshops, rehearsals, and performances Liaising between project and external parties Minute-taking during meetings Coordinating meetings and rehearsal schedules Handling logistics of performances Contacting possible sponsors Organizing fundraising/outreach activities Manning booth during fundraising/outreach activities Promotion of workshops and performances

Time Commitment
9-16 hours/week (Meetings: 2-4 hours, workshop/rehearsals/ production work: 7-12 hours) 6-10 hours/week (Meetings: 2-4 hours production work: 4-6 hours) 5-7 hours/week (Meetings: 2 hours Publicity and fundraising activities: 3-5 hours) 10-15 hours in total/person (Photography, editing)

Stage Managers

Publicity and Fundraising Team

Photographer/ Videographer

Graphic Designer Evaluation Team

On-call during events (e.g., rehearsals) Working with Publicity team and Director to create promotion material (e.g., video trailers) Performance photography for archival purposes Working with Publicity team and Director to create promotion material (e.g., poster for performances) Designing plan of evaluation Creating measures to assess impact of project Creating this final report as well as the final reports for sponsors

20 hours in total/person 20 -60hours in total/person (Survey development, data analysis, report writing)

Summary and Assessment: Although the time commitment involved was more extensive than initially imagined, that is likely to be true for any project or initiative in its infancy. Indeed, it is remarkable how much was achieved, given the status of Changing the Lens project as a new initiative. Positive aspects of the project team structure include: The flexibility of roles this allowed members to collaborate and support each other as needed, and the fact that multiple people rose up to the challenge of specific situations points to their commitment to the team and to the project Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 13

However, some aspects to be improved on include: The organization of the Publicity and Fundraising team specifically, a list of publicity and outreach avenues should be planned out prior to the start of next years project, so as to facilitate execution and coordination of project publicity Heavy workload of key members in future, the role of the Director and Joker could be taken on by different people, while more of the Stage Managers responsibilities could be delegated perhaps to the Assistant Stage Manager PROJECT PARTICIPANTS Apart from helping out in the project team, there were other means by which community members could get involved with the project:
Table 8. Summary of Responsibilities, Hours and Project Activities

Capacity
Workshop participant Cast member

Activities
Participating in 6 workshop sessions that involved: team building games, improvisational exercises, creating Forum Theatre pieces Attending rehearsals for pieces Acting in public performances Setting up the performance venue Operating lights during performances Welcoming audience members and handing out programme booklets and surveys Preparing food for performance intermissions Providing support to the project in various forms (e.g. financial, publicity, logistical) Participating in audience-interactive sections of the public performances Contributing thoughts and insights to discussions during performances

Time Commitment
36 hours in total/person (6 hours on Sundays, for 6 weeks) 25-28 hours in total/person (Rehearsals: 9-12 hours, dress rehearsal: 6 hours, 2 performances: 10 hours) 6-15 hours in total/person

Backstage/Frontof-House crew/Kitchen crew

Consultant/ Sponsor/ Supporting staff Audience member

5-10 hours in total/person

Each performance was 3 hours long, and 9-11 interventions were received per performance night.

Summary and Assessment: The willingness of this years workshop participants/cast members to commit time and energy to the project is particularly gratifying, but the project could certainly do more to encourage community members to be involved in the project. For instance, the project could engage more with other campus organizations, such as hosting events together in collaboration. The project could also direct more effort towards drawing on the strengths of community members, such as recruiting photographers and videographers from the Film Department, working with Psychology or Sociology students to formulate more accurate measures to evaluate the project.

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

14

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Analysis The data collected comprises of both quantitative and qualitative information. As such, the corresponding methods were used to analyze the data. Simple counts of frequency were used for quantitative data analysis, while qualitative methods such as thematic content analysis were used to review answers to open-ended questions.
Table 9. Indicators and Summary of Results for Evaluation Questions Indicators Has there been sufficient outreach? (Evaluation Question) Number of outreach activities Number of flyers distributed Program results

Three fundraising/outreach activities were held: 2 bake sales, and 1 collaboration with a store for a share of a days taking for the store There was also a presentation about the project at the inaugural Intercultural U conference More than 200 flyers were distributed to community members at these activities

Has there been adequate attendance at workshop sessions? Number of workshop participants at the end of workshops (max 20) Attendance rate of workshop participants Has sufficient time been devoted to rehearsals? Number of rehearsals Length of rehearsals Each group had 2-3 rehearsals Each rehearsal was approximately 3-4 hours minimum length of rehearsals met, but more time could still be allocated next year Level of preparation was adequate (lines were memorized, blocking was finalized by the final rehearsal) 3 workshop participants dropped out due to conflicts with their school/work schedule, leaving 13 workshop participants in total by the end of the workshop sessions A few participants had to come late or leave early for one or two sessions, but the attendance rate per se for all the sessions was 100%

15

Are community members involved in the project from diverse backgrounds? Diversity of workshop participants Diversity of community members (i.e., workshop participants, project team members, etc.) The group of 13 workshop participants came from 6 different faculties, ranged from 1st year to Masters level, included Canadian, International, and Exchange students, and lived in various places around Vancouver and UBC. The detailed breakdown is not included in this report, to minimize issues with data confidentiality given the small sample. See Table 10 for an aggregated summary of the backgrounds of community members involved in the project. This is approximated, as data was only collected from workshop participants, audience members, and project team members, and the response rate was high but not 100%.

Has the project encouraged critical thinking about the issue of Cultural Identity and Assumptions? Reflections from workshops sessions and performances Both workshop participants and audience members gave comments suggestive of deeper understanding of the issue of Cultural Identity and Assumptions. For instance, workshop participants noted that the project helped them gain perspective on Cultural Identity: o Culture is different for everyone o Culture is more personal than I thought; it is really about what one does with it o The issue of different identities seem to create distance between people but i learn that there is no need to judge a person by their background (sic) o I learned how much culture and assumptions are rooted in our personalities and our family life. Therefore this is where we need to work on, more than the bigger scale of society. And this is something we can all do The same seems to have been true for audience members as well. Takeaway messages included: o Perspective taking - everyone's coming from a different place o Being aware that solving/understanding cultural/gender differences isn't a one day thing! o Different ways to understand the background of different people - not just race etc that is overt but emotionality and past experiences o Assumptions are common, knowing how to deal with them is key to carry on o Complications and nuances of conversations and conflict o Format definitely makes you think about "what if" you were in such a situ ation and "what would I have done in a situation similar to that" Other themes also emerged from asking participants about their takeaway messages from the project, which could perhaps be investigated in next years evaluation: o Social justice, e.g., Each of has a voice which we can use to help others who are being discriminated against (sic) o Problem solving and communication, e.g., Added perspectives aids in problem solving

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

16

Are the pieces judged to be artistically competent? Expectations of the audience members Ratings of the aesthetic quality of the performances 50% of the audience members reported that they did not know what to expect from the performances, but the general consensus was that the performance exceeded their expectations. 65% rated the aesthetic quality of the performances as good or very good, although a few people (13%) reported that it was difficult to hear the actors at times.

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

17

Table 10. Summary of Participants Backgrounds and Demographics Category Description (Educational) Status at UBC The majority of participants (i.e., project team member, workshop participant, or audience member) were students, with undergraduate students making up the majority of student participants (77%). There were undergraduate students from 1st year to 4th year, with approximately half of the students were 3rd years (47%). The remaining student participants included graduate and postgraduate students. Other participants included UBC professors, alumni and residents. The majority of the participants were Canadian, followed by International and then Exchange status. Out of the students who participated in the project (either as a workshop participant or as an audience member), there was a total of 9 faculties represented. The majority of these students were from Arts (44%) and Science (22%). 18 majors were represented from amongst the 9 faculties. Psychology was most common (14%), followed by Biology (8%) and Economics (8%). Age ranged from 13 to 49, with the majority of participants falling into the 18-22 range (67%). 52% of the participants live off-campus (e.g., East Vancouver, Burnaby, Dunbar etc.), 11% live on-campus in privately-owned residences, and the rest (36%) live on-campus in UBC-owned residences (e.g., Fairview, Marine Drive, Place Vanier). There were two trends in the data: - Half of the project team members and nearly all workshop participants (92%) found out about the project via posters and newsletters. - However, most audience members found out about the performances via word of mouth. Only a few were brought in by posters or the Facebook page, suggesting that outreach for the performances were not as effective.

Campus Mix

Faculty

Major

Age

Residence

How they heard about the project

18

REFLECTIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS
Project Objectives (i.e., Goals and Desired Outcomes 2012/2013) These were not clearly outlined at the beginning of the project, which posed difficulties later in the assessment of whether they were met o For next year, the goals should be clearly outlined. These should be posted on our website in simple language for transparency, and the project team should have an understanding of how these goals are operationalized o With clearer goals, more meticulous questionnaires for workshop participants, audience members, and project team members can be devised Values of the project were also not clearly outlined, which might have enabled the project to better walk the talk o The goals of the project as currently outlined lend themselves to a community-centred, strengths-based approach, which is to some extent present in this years project (e.g., the flexibility of the project structure). However, members of the community could have been more engaged, such as with the compilation of this final report The team for the upcoming year is working on these issues, and a proposal for next years project will be developed by the end of July 2013 and posted on the projects website. Evaluation Plan The questionnaires need to be reworked and refined to better assess the objectives and impact of the project. The administration of questionnaires should also be rethought to ensure: o A) maximal convenience for participants o This year, we had developed an extended online version of the feedback form in expectation of audience members who might have to rush off after the end of performances. However, the few audience members who had to leave the performances early actually handed us completed hardcopy feedback forms, which speaks to their interest in the project. Future effort should perhaps be focused on creating a detailed but compact hardcopy version of audience feedback forms. o B) higher response rates o There was some difficulty asking workshop participants and project team members to complete surveys at the end of the project, so some possible solutions for next year include: administering the surveys at the end of workshops/meetings to workshop participants/project team members; reminders; incentives (e.g., gift certificates), or ownership innovations (e.g., engaging participants in the evaluation process as stakeholders) More attention should be focused on integrating the project team, faculty and staff members, as well as workshop participants into project evaluation activities. For instance, these people could perhaps be asked to record or reflect on their activities on an ongoing basis, which could then be compiled and used in the final report next year. Process Evaluation Specific comments under each phase can be found in the brief assessment sections above, but it is likely that having more time to plan for next years project would greatly alleviate the stress and problems that cropped up during the process of this years project. Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 19

FINAL NOTES / LESSONS LEARNT

In general, the project was fairly successful for a first effort, and workshop participants, audience members, and project team members alike deserve to be commended for their willingness to simply go with the flow of the project. That being said, the subsequent achievements of the project is highly dependent on having a clear structure and good planning, and thus the next few years are crucial to ensuring that the project is sustainable, as well as relevant to the community Dissemination The report will be disseminated via various channels. It will be uploaded onto the projects website for easy access to the public, and notices about it will be posted onto the projects social media channels. Copies will also be distributed to interested parties and sponsors of the project. This report and its recommendations will also be considered when preparing the proposal for next years project. Finally, the project will seek for opportunities to present these findings to the general public as well. Use The project team will use the findings to refine strategies for the Changing the Lens project. The findings will help guide the project to focus on areas that are most crucial for meeting the stated goals and objectives of the project. The findings will also contribute to seeking future funding and advocacy efforts, as well as serve as a framework for future evaluations.

Plans for 2013/2014

In conjunction with the upcoming Truth and Reconciliation conference that is taking place in Vancouver in September, Changing the Lens project intends to address the issue of how dialogue and more opportunities for engagement can be generated between and amongst the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community. Email changingthelens@gmail.com to get involved as a project team member, to discuss collaboration possibilities, or simply to find out more!

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

20

REFERENCES
Boal, A. (1985). Theatre of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Theatre Communications Group, Inc. Diamond, D. (2007). Theatre for Living: The Art and Science of Community-Based Dialogue. Victoria, BC: Trafford Publishing. Gjrum, R., & Ramsdal, G. (2009). Forum Theatres Positive Impact on Self-esteem in Conflict. Applied Theatre Researcher, 118. Mitchell, K. S., & Freitag, J. L. (2011). Forum Theatre for Bystanders: a new model for gender violence prevention. Violence against women, 17(8), 9901013. doi:10.1177/1077801211417152 Planning and Institutional Research (PAIR). (2013). UBC Vancouver Campus - Fact Sheet. Rae, J. E. (2011). A study of the use of organisational theatre: The case of Forum Theatre. Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3268/

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

21

APPENDICES
Appendix A Workshop Participant Feedback Survey Note: Demographic questions were administered via a separate survey, to maintain confidentiality. Feedback - workshop participants
Confidentiality: Your identity will not be associated with any examples or themes shared in the project, or in any form of discussion.

What is one key thing you learned/experienced from participating in the project? Do you think your experience with this project will influence the way you perceive, interact with or react to other people/situations in the future? (Please explain) Impact of workshop - Cultural identity and assumptions Did this project change your perception of cultural identity and assumptions (at UBC or within society as a whole)? How so? Do you think this project has contributed to social vibrancy on the UBC campus? Impact of workshop - Theatre Have you had any previous experience in drama, theatre, or forum theatre? Did you gain any theatre skills or learn anything about theatre through this project? (Please explain) Future Directions What are 3 things you enjoyed about the workshops? What are 3 things you did not enjoy about the workshops? Do you have any suggestions for improvement in the future? This can relate to what you did not enjoy about the workshops. What are some topics you would like Changing the Lens to focus on in the future? (eg. gender identity etc.) Do you have any additional comments or feedback you would like to share?

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

22

Appendix B Audience Member Feedback Survey hardcopy version

23

Appendix C Audience Member Feedback Survey online version Audience Demographics and Feedback Demographics Please help us and our grant sponsors understand the diverse population involved in this project by answering a few demographic questions. If you have already completed the following questions in hard copy format at the performance, please skip to Feedback Section B. What is your faculty? (If applicable) What is your major? (If applicable) What is your status at UBC? Check all that apply Undergraduate Student (Specify year): Graduate Student (Masters/PhD etc.) Diploma Faculty Staff Alumni Canadian International Exchange Other/Not affiliated (Specify) Where do you live? Please specify (eg. Kits, Gage etc.) Residence Non-Residence Campus Housing Off Campus Housing How did you hear about Changing the Lens Project? Poster (where?) Digital Signage (where?) Facebook Page Word of Mouth Other

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

24

Project Feedback Section A If you have already completed the following questions in hard copy format at the performance, please skip to Feedback Section B. What (if any) were your expectations of this event? Were your expectations met? In your opinion, what was the overall quality of the performance? Please explain - you may refer to any of the 3 specific pieces. Very Poor Poor Okay Good Very Good What is one key thing you will take away from this event? What are some topics you would like Changing the Lens to focus on in the future? (Eg. Gender identity)

Project Feedback Section B Do you think this project has contributed to the social vibrancy on the UBC campus? How? Did this event change or challenge your perception of cultural identity at UBC or within society as a whole? How so? Do you think your experience with this event will influence the way you perceive, interact with or react to other people/situations in the future? (Please explain) Is there any way you think this event could be followed up? Is there any way this event (or project) could be improved on in the future? Any further comments or feedback?

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

25

Appendix D Project Member Feedback Survey Feedback - project members

Confidentiality: Your identity will not be associated with any examples or themes shared in the project, or in any form of discussion.

Do you have any comments/feedback/suggestions regarding the production? Project Impact What is one key thing you learned/experienced from participating in the project? Did this project change your perception of cultural identity and assumptions (at UBC or within society as a whole)? How so? Do you think this project has contributed to social vibrancy on the UBC campus? How interdisciplinary did you find the team, and how do you think collaboration was affected by the interdisciplinary profile of the group? Project Involvement What area(s) of the project did you work on? publicity fundraising production What did you find worked well for the area of the project you were involved in? What did you find did not work well for the area of the project you were involved in? What could have been done differently? In general, what did you think about the overall organization of the project this year? What could have been improved? Future Directions Do you have any ideas about future possibilities/activities for the project? For example, we had considered a dialogue session in conjunction to the project this year. Do you have any additional comments or feedback you would like to share? (e.g. thoughts about sustainability etc.)

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

26

Appendix E List of Games and Activities in the Changing the Lens workshop The structure of the workshop this year was loosely based on Theatre for Livings annual August training workshops (for more information about these workshops, click here), but the games are derived from both the workshops and David Diamonds book Theatre for Living (2007). However, the specific instructions for the games were modified to reflect the focus and emphasis of the project, and the order of the games was also chosen specifically for the particular group of workshop participants. Below is a list of the games and activities that were played. For more information, please contact changingthelens@gmail.com.

January 13 Balancing Pushing Balancing Pulling Hypnosis Lead the Blind Blind Magnets Complete the Image Sculpting Partners/Build an Image Groups of 4

January 20 Fill the Empty Space Leader of the Orchestra Blind Cars, Blind Busses Glass Bottle Speed Gestures Energy Clap Magnetic Images Fox in the Hole

January 27 Fear/protector The Journey Catch Me Knots Rainbow of Desire Bear and Tree Planters

February 3 Parisian Sword Song of the Mermaid (led into the devising of plays) Massage and run

February 10 Choose the Leader Rehearsals

February 17 Rehearsals Invited Forum

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

27

Appendix F Programme Booklet

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

28

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

29

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

30

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

31

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

32

Appendix G Pictures from Workshop and Performance 1st workshop Creating images of cultural identity and assumptions

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

33

5th workshop Playing a game Choose the leader

End of workshops Group photo with most of the cast and some of the project team members Top row (from left): Sathya Guibot, Eimon Yin Middle row (from left): Christine Yeh, Ariel Chih, Audrea Chen Bottom row (from left): Mohammad Askarian, Ann Wilby, Rebecca Liu, Claire Chen, Gua Khee Chong, Jennie Kostiuk, Cherrie Chan, Wilfred Lau

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

34

Photocall from final performance As part of Longhouse protocol, we would just like to acknowledge the artists of the posts and carved door in the following pictures. The house post on stage that has a wolf design is carved by Chief Walter Harris and Rodney Harris. The one that is a transformer pole on the other side of the stage is carved by Stan Bevan and Ken McNeil. At the back of the hall the house post that is carved on both sides with an eagle and beaver is by Lyle Wilson and the raven on top of the spindle whorl on the other side is carved by Susan Point. If there are pictures of the carved door it was done by Bradley Hunt. First piece Delicacies Left: Eldest sister Gem (played by Christine Yeh) preparing dinner as usual Right: Second sister Grace (played by Sathya Guibot) studying, as usual

Youngest sister Ruby (played by Velina Ivanova) and her French friend Alice (played by Cherrie Chan), on their way to the sisters home

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

35

Grace, Alice, and Ruby staring in disgust at the escargots Gem made

Grace and Alice, awkward alone at table

Ruby confronting Gem in the kitchen

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

36

Second piece Assumptions Daughter Georgia (played by Ariel Chih) and Mother (played by Sandra Chamberlain) having a fight over a Skype call

Georgia and Becca (played by Rebecca Liu) having dinner; Georgia is in a bad mood from the night before, but she is not telling Becca whats wrong

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

37

Group project meeting, but Georgia is isolated, and Jenna (played by Jennie Kostiuk) is only working with Becca

Second Skype call with Mother; Georgia accuses her of loving Becca more

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

38

Third piece Deal with It The two friends Paige (played by Ann Wilby) and Julia (played by Claire Chen) talking before other group members arrive

Paige and Julia discuss with Will (played by Wilfred Lau) if they should wait for Mo (played by Mohammad Askarian) before talking about the project

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

39

Mo finally arrives

Paige is exasperated with Mo

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

40

Mo argues with Paige

Paige is fed-up and leaves the meeting

Will tells Mo why he does not want Mos work in the project because hes ESL

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013)

41

Post-show cast and crew pictures Top row (from left): Mohammad Askarian, Sathya Guibot, Christine Yeh, Velina Ivanova, Jennie Kostiuk, Sandra Chamberlain Middle row (from left): Cherrie Chan, Claire Chen, Wilfred Lau, Ann Wilby, Ariel Chih, Rebecca Liu Bottom row (from left): Gua Khee Chong, Hibiki Morishita

Top row (from left): Velina Ivanova, Christine Yeh, Audrea Chen, Sathya Guibot, Mohammad Askarian Middle row (from left): Wilfred Lau, Claire Chen, Ariel Chih, Rebecca Liu, Cherrie Chan Bottom row (from left): Eimon Yin, Hibiki Morishita, Gua Khee Chong, Jennie Kostiuk, Qiyi Tam

FIN. Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 42