In my recent collaborations and projects as a dramaturg, I have been investigating the balance and space that I may hold in a process for several other creatives in a room to foster their own brilliance without allowing my own personal experiences to distort or dominate the actual process, asking ‘How can the dramaturg maintain emotional objectivity while nurturing a collaborative ensemble, supporting others’ voices without imposing their own perspective?’
Within our several group tasks, I often found myself mediating between different visions, keeping the task on track and observing the emotional energy of the room. This has raised questions about balance, with everyone approaching this field from different backgrounds and cultures. How do I remain empathetic and responsive, whilst maintaining critical distance? We are observers and still participants, alluring to a creative parental responsibility?
This inquiry desires to connect with the dramaturg as the collaborator and cultivator in performance practice, where listening and emotional intelligence are seen as central to the supportive arm around sensitivity and boundaries. Practitioners interrogate dramaturgical approaches that seek to maintain clarity of role (Trencsényi, 2015) and avoid descending into the emotional lives of others (Pollock, 1998), therefore balancing empathy and objectivity. Through reflective documentation, research and analysis, I aim to pursue genuine emotional objectivity, meaning that effective dramaturgy requires balance, to be the inner and outer ear without absorbing it. This inquiry is the underbelly of my ongoing development as a practitioner and artist, in my care and creative process.
My first experience as a dramaturg was a collective sharing exercise, with each participant introducing a personally significant text, lyric or quotation. I selected “IF” by Rudyard Kipling as it appeared to me in a personal transition of my life that embodied resilience. The exercise immediately exposed the emotional textures of the group. As some shared humorous or intimate material the activity created an atmosphere of openness and vulnerability that would later reveal itself in further collaborations. This was a wonderfully rich way to introduce new artists coming together, that left a longer lasting impression in instant connectivity.
Our first collaborative assigned creative task was not completed, we placed our priority into artistic intention and working values. This choice mirrored what Candy (2020) describes as the “family pattern” of creative collaboration, one grounded in relational trust and shared purpose rather than immediate product. I recognised that raw outcomes require each collaborator’s, Ikigai, “when you have a clear purpose, no one can stop you.”(García & Miralles, 2017, p. 63) before creative decisions can emerge. This realisation marked the beginning of my dramaturgical development. That groundwork and process are themselves generative methods.
My first structured collaborative project task was titled ‘Tomorrow’ (see fig 1). Having learned from my limited creation in the first exercise, I approached it with a new renewed determination. Initiating to interrogate the word “Tomorrow”; its etymology, historical origins, and emotional weight for the group, prompted collective discussions around the days of the week, their meanings, perceived significance, and hierarchies. This reinforced the dramaturges role as a facilitator rather than a content maker. By the end of this session we had a title ‘The Morrows’, and a basic outline of assigning responsibility of different days of the week, each to be individually worked upon and reshared before presenting to the wider audience.
Communication continued digitally through group messages and file sharing of poems, monologues and visual imagery (see fig 2, 3 and 4). When we regrouped this project had evolved into an integrative immersive piece of theatre art, potentially an installation. Each “day” became a doorway or room, experiencing sound, energy or text. Spectators would move through the rooms chronologically or in disorder. This was a purposeful agency to create an emotional response, to invite discussion around spirituality and time, and was central to unlocking the expansion of history embedded in its structure. Although no overt conflict occurred I felt disappointed by the limited rehearsal investment prior to showing our work. A clear division emerged between those seeking refinement and those comfortable ‘winging it’. This awkwardness clarified the kind of collaborators I work best with, artists who are motivated by process and execution rather than expediency.
A more explicit capture of process developed during the study of Patterns of Creative Collaboration (Candy, 2020) engaged with four key patterns; Distributed, Complementary, Integrative, and Family. This concept helped me compartmentalise what I was doing, and how I was doing it. I identified most strongly with distributed, complementary and family collaboration modes, but recognised how inter-disciplinary overlaps and widens perspectives, and gives more ambitious innovative outcomes. As a dramaturg, this alerts me to the risk of becoming the emotional therapist of the ensemble rather than its facilitator. “In collaborative processes we are looking for multiple answers to the questions we pose. We are not hoping to find just the one answer that we hope fits all circumstances.” (Christopher, 2015, para. 3). As actors multi-role, the dramaturg performs seamlessly in and out of several areas; double cast. Just as the actor uses changes in voice, movement and mannerisms, this is often mirrored in the literary dance we do too.
In organisational structures, we explored how many companies function through shared ownership, leadership and space management. This had a more business and power dynamic focus, leaning into ambitions, models and practical survival as well as demonstrating how style, creativity and equality can risk lack of direction, group freedom, and paralysis. In a trial practice of this, my group (see fig 5) undertook the “yes, and …: do everything anyone proposes.” (Robinson, 2015, p. 95) technique which threw us into a chaotic interpretive dance of collapse. Robinson invites the student to do mini controlled experiments in several working methods and this did one did not partner successfully.
Deconstructing these patterns raised questions in authorship and ethics; who owns a concept, when writing composing and directing merge? How can contribution be measured equitably? In my own professional company, a long term collaboration can risk stagnation or exclusion echoing warnings about dynamics within family collaborations (Candy, 2020). Conversely, my distributed partnership with a trusted writer exemplifies collaboration and mutual trust demonstrating that clarity of purpose can prevent such bias.
My next solo project to present was titled ‘Together’ (see fig 6 and 7) and this leant into my research into collaboration as cultural Practice. It is an embedded value into everyday lives and significant in the workplace; “both teamwork and team building in Japan are things that are deeply embedded into the culture, even though it may not look like it when compared to the Western countries’ idea of team building” (Japan Dev Team, 2023, para. 18). Western-team building is often intentional and episodic, e.g, team building days in the UK; designed to ‘fix’ or ‘improve’ something. Japanese collaboration, by contrast is cultural and continuous, built on how people interact with others every day. The space where these overlap is where motivation and real collaboration lives.
In traditional Japanese companies, teamwork and team building are constantly strengthened by having regular events and get-togethers. It’s also quite common for colleagues to have lunch together so that they can feel like a part of a larger group and have a sense of belonging. … This approach is based on strengthening collaboration through dedicated exercises and by emphasizing teamwork at every step of the way.
(Japan Dev Team, 2023, paras. 77 & 79)
In our current modules, collaboration is often explored through creative exercises, devised practice, and ensemble processes. Tadashi Suzuki (Thalia Prize Laureate 2020 and Suzuki Company of Toga founder & director) brings theatre directly to the peoples front door; “The reason we founded the Theatre Olympics as a group of comrades is not to compete against each other but, rather, to collaborate with like-minded colleagues who all identify with and cherish multiple nationalities and cultures; that is to say, we endeavour to allow the particular and the universal to coexist.” (Motohashi, 2021, para. 26). The Japanese model reminds us that teamwork can be less about activity, and more about attitude.
Throughout this portfolio I have explored how the dramaturg sustains a nurturing role within collaboration. Engaging with Patterns of Creative Collaboration (Candy, 2020) helped me to recognise that effective collaboration depends upon balancing individual and collective responsibility.
The most transformative phase of this work came through extensive work with Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process (CRP) (Lerman and Borstel, 2022). Multiple workshops allowed me to occupy the process as both artist and facilitator, practising the four-stage protocol, statements of meaning, artist-as-questioner, neutral questions, and permissioned opinions. As Lerman and Borstel observe; “Artists who encounter the Process find a protocol that preserves and nurtures the personal and emotional aspects of making art and participating in feedback.” (2022, p. 21). Experiencing this repeatedly demonstrated that fostering does not mean cushioning critique; rather, custody can exist within structure. I noticed that we all struggled with this process. The mixing of stages does not work, the process has an order and is effective with practice. It nurtures you to be mindfully conscious of what and how you ask the artist and the same in response. However, the facilitator here is paramount to really understanding this valuable work and particularly the dramaturg in the longevity of collaboration and working with peers. There are no shortcuts to this technique, like rehearsals this demands repetition, I am embracing all of Lerman’s methodology, though it felt unnatural for some. This has singularly reframed dramaturgical nurture as present, not submissive; a ‘system’ of awareness through mindful actions and engagement of thought before speech, therefore providing the practical manifestation of my theoretical question.
In experiencing this in my own pitch for CRP (see fig 8, 9, 10) I placed myself in the spotlight to ask specifically the direction in which to navigate my project. The Lerman method worked in full strength, throwing out clear lines of neutral questions, opinions and statements with purpose (Lerman and Borstel, 2022). I ‘felt’ the collaboration and it morphed from action to feeling. A truly unique experience that the receiver can absorb.
Further reading consolidated this understanding. Bogart (co-artistic director of SITI and founder with Tadashi Suzuki) states “It is not the director’s responsibility to produce results but, rather, to create the circumstances in which something might happen” (2001, p. 124) continuing with the importance of knowing when to allow the actor space to breathe and ‘get out of their way’, so each can do their own work. The dramaturg must ‘read the room’ too in a spiritual sense, have apt awareness of social cues, changes in energy and ‘disappear’ presently. Hamilton and Chon state’ “Finding a way to collaborate as a dramaturg in each different instance can be a thrilling and challenging task. Part of the dramaturgical process is deciding how to apply skills to each particular collaboration.” (2022, p. 7). This became prevalent during the pandemic when the arts world came together collectively to find a way forward; changing the way we work. The on-line collaborative experience became the norm, and through technology connection was still possible but could not replace that ‘in the room’ sensitivity that is craved by creatives. The dramaturge and writer can function remotely initially, but the life form of the art can only be truly born in its sanctum.
Weaving these perspectives, I now define the dramaturg’s primary responsibility as creating the space where individuals and collaborators have room to explore, refine structures and accept boundaries. In all, a professional skill rather than a personal indulgence.
In a more modern accessible context, listening to podcasts, watching channels such as Youtube and TikTok, throw a short sharp spice into the mix by condensing the practice of collaboration, but the thread remains the same, shared common goals, connection, and defining platforms in which to work together on. Check-in’s, whether it be daily or weekly to identify problems or roadblocks. “People, Purpose, Platform and Problem, thats how you ignite collaboration” (Glaze, 2023) may seem very corporate but the message is still delivered, its just more palatable for the generational user.
In closing, Collaborare, to labour with, captures my concluding understanding of dramaturgical practice. To ‘labour with’ is to retain trust, to communicate clearly, and to convert feedback into a shared act of learning. The most effective collaboration is communication-oriented, human connection. Moreover, a dramaturg’s nurture is therefore not contained but accurately representative of compassion towards people and projects. The right to help stories be told authentically, be the advocate for the writer, whilst maintaining benevolence.
Reference List
Bogart, A. (2001) A Director Prepares: Seven Essays on Art and Theatre. London: Routledge, p. 124.
Christopher, K. (2015) ‘The duet residencies’, Contemporary Theatre Review. [online] Available at: [Accessed 22 Oct. 2025].
García, H. & Miralles, F. (2017) Ikigai: The Japanese Secret to a Long and Happy Life. London: Penguin.
Glaze, S. (2023) How do you improve collaboration across departments? [TikTok video] 22 August. Available at: https://www.tiktok.com/@leadyourteam/video/<videoID> (Accessed: 24 October 2025).
Hamilton, A.M. & Chon, W.B. (2022) Dramaturgy: The Basics. 1st edn. London: Routledge.
Japan Dev Team (2023) Teamwork in Japan: Tips for Working with Others. Updated 1 July. Japan Dev. Available at: https://japan-dev.com/blog/teamwork-in-japan-tips (Accessed: 13 October 2025).
Lerman, L. & Borstel, J. (2022) Critique Is Creative: The Critical Response Process in Theory and Action. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Motohashi, T. (2021) ‘Pumpkin and public sphere: Interview with Tadashi Suzuki’, Critical Stages/Scènes critiques, Issue 24 (Dec.). Available at: https://www.critical-stages.org/24/pumpkin-and-public-sphere-interview-with-tadashi-suzuki/(Accessed: 15 October 2025).
Pollock, D. (1998) Performing Writing. Southern Illinois University Press.
Robinson, M. (2015) Ensemble Devising: A Guide to Collective Creation in Theatre. London: Methuen Drama.
Trencsényi, K. (2015) Dramaturgy in the Making: A User’s Guide for Theatre Practitioners. London: Bloomsbury.
