STP-27-3-07-Prior 9/25/07 4:37 PM Page 295

Studies in Theatre and Performance Volume 27 Number 3 © 2007 Intellect Ltd

Notes and Queries. English language. doi: 10.1386/stap.27.3.295/3

Understanding actor trainers’

articulation of their practice
Ross W. Prior

Abstract Keywords
This paper extrapolates the findings of a three-year study into actor trainers’ community of practice
articulation of their practice. The paper explores the predominant kinds of tacit knowledge
meanings generated by acting tutors from drama schools in Australia and knowledge ‘with’,
England in the discussion of their practice. The paper reveals that the predomi- ‘about’, ‘in’ and ‘for’
nant kinds of meanings generated by acting tutors in the discussion of their prac- synnoetics
tice were ‘synnoetic’, that is they were direct, personal, and experiential.
However, meanings constructed about acting and actor training were known
tacitly and therefore were difficult to communicate in conventional ways. This
paper identifies the dominant knowledge(s) evidenced in this community of
practice in order to further appreciate how ‘teaching’ is understood within the
contexts of actor training across these countries with largely Euro-centric
approaches to actor training and with implications for practical knowledge(s) in
Drama Education.

Introduction
Although formalised Western acting dates from the fifth century B.C.,
actor training, as we know it today, is arguably a twentieth-century phe-
nomenon. As such, many of the underlying assumptions and understand-
ings of actor training may, in historical terms, be relatively ‘recent’. The
emergent themes of actor training evidenced in this study largely affirm
the premise that knowledge structures are cultural (Vygotsky 1986; Leont’ev
1981 [1959] et al.). The predominant kinds of meanings generated by
acting tutors in the discussion of their practice appear to be synnoetic, that
is they are direct, personal and experiential (Phenix 1964). Meanings con-
structed about acting and actor training are known tacitly and therefore
are difficult to communicate in conventional ways. This paper identifies
the dominant knowledge(s) evidenced in the hegemony of this community
of practice in order to unravel how actor trainers understand ‘teaching’
within the contexts of actor training.
Although there is a distinct lack of literature on the pedagogy of actor
training, this study brings together a range of theorists in an interdiscipli-
nary approach. It builds upon the 1975 Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation
Report Going on the Stage and a range of available literature on actor train-
ing (e.g. Harrop 1992; Rideout 1995; Zarrilli 1995, 2001; Cohen 1998;
Hodge 2000 et al.).

STP 27 (3) 295–305 © Intellect Ltd 2007 295

STP-27-3-07-Prior 9/25/07 4:37 PM Page 296

In order to come to understand how much previous work on actor

training was analysed without a deep concern and thorough analysis of
the pedagogy [the canon mostly includes literature published as training
techniques/exercises] it was necessary to examine recent literature on
workplace learning (e.g. Engeström 1987; Lave and Wenger 1991; Stevenson
2003), and the literature on knowledge construction (e.g. Dewey 1929;
Phenix 1964; Leont’ev 1981 [1959], Elbaz 1983; Polanyi 1983 [1966];
Bruner 1986; Göranzon 1990; Josefson 1991). The key concepts derived
from literature and used in the study are synnoetics (Phenix 1964),
‘knowledge-with’ (Broudy 1977), tacit knowledge (Polanyi 1983 [1966]),
narrative (Bruner 1986), community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991),
and knowledges ‘about’, ‘in’ and ‘for’ (Zarrilli 2001).
This paper is derived from my own PhD research which examines how
tutors in Australia and England characterise their teaching practice in
actor training institutions. Qualitative enquiry was the key methodology
guiding the research project, which included the use of qualitative case
study and interpretive synthesis, as informed by van Manen’s (1990)
notion of ‘researching the lived experience’. This was to assist in finding ‘a
way in’ in order to understand the complex nature of actor training and
the personal meanings of the tutors themselves.
The data collection process employed the use of tape-recorded inter-
views of thirteen tutors, heads of acting and principals/directors across
five different drama schools in both Australia and in England. One major
obstacle in researching actor training is in gaining access to drama schools.
Obtaining data for the study was made difficult, in that many drama
schools were simply not prepared to make their staff available for inter-
view. There still exists a general suspicion about researchers and acade-
mics in the field of actor training. The final schools were therefore chosen
as a result of their willingness to be included and also that they were dif-
ferent yet comparable sites. To preface this paper, it should be noted that
this report is a synthetic rather than comparative case study; however, all
of the general conclusions reported represent a consistency in findings
across all cases, both in Australia and England. General commonality
existed, even though one English drama school and one Australian drama
school subscribed to explicit systematic training, and three other drama
schools delivered eclectic training.
Further, in the original research a representative sample of six key
informants is profiled by the use of pen-pictures in order to give the reader
a more intimate understanding of these people rather than presenting
them impersonally in the study as mere ‘research subjects’. In a practical
way it also serves to acquaint the reader with the thinking and modes of
expression used by these tutors as the informants grapple to understand
what it is that they comprehend when they engage in the training of
actors. Given the limitations of the scope of this paper, these pen-pictures
have been omitted.

296 Ross Prior

STP-27-3-07-Prior 9/25/07 4:37 PM Page 297

The themes
The findings of the research reported on nine themes that were revealed in
the data. In general these themes reveal that informants display certain
histories and ideologies in common. These were categorised in order to
conceptualise the different dimensions of commonality. The nine emergent
themes address the following:

• How the tutor is defined

• How the tutors emerged
• Qualities of effective tutor practice
• How acting is defined
• The training context
• Perceptions of effective drama schools
• How training is defined
• Key components of the training process
• Pedagogical and non-pedagogical beliefs/imperatives

These themes were then in turn clustered into three groups. These showed:
how the tutors saw themselves as tutors; how tutors saw themselves in rela-
tion to the drama schools and industry/profession; and how the tutors saw
themselves in relation to the training process. Each of these clusters of find-
ings revealed situated and historically derived ideology that was understood
within traditions of practice. For example, whilst it appears that most infor-
mants accepted the ‘teacher’ label, their ideology that suggested that acting
was not so much taught but inspired was at odds with the term. Traditional
understandings of pedagogy were in the main foreign to the informants,
which was revealed as they expressed a strong sense of knowing by doing.
Conclusions of a more general nature derive from, but extend beyond, the
nine themes and questions of meaning.

Engendering meaning
Dewey (1968 [1916]) recognises that meaning is the understanding which
is born out of personally significant experience. Human existence accord-
ing to Phenix (1964) consists of a pattern of meanings. Educating, for
example, might therefore be seen as ‘the process of engendering essential
meanings’ (Phenix 1964: 5). The work of Phenix identifies six fundamen-
tal patterns of meaning which emerge from the analysis of the possible dis-
tinctive modes of human understanding. They are identified as Symbolics,
Empirics, [A]esthetics, Synnoetics, Ethics and Synoptics (Phenix 1964). To
some extent all of these meanings are identified in the talk of the acting
tutors when discussing their practice. However the findings of this research
reveal that the acting tutors essentially make meaning synnoetically, which
is through direct personal experience. Synnoetics represents relational
insight or direct awareness of a personal kind (Phenix 1964). Stevenson
(2003) argues that ‘meaning is in the capacity-to-do’ (p. 8) and this is

Understanding actor trainers’ articulation of their practice 297

STP-27-3-07-Prior 9/25/07 4:37 PM Page 298

primarily synnoetic. Dewey (1966 [1916]) also writes that what the
participants ‘must have in common in order to form a community or society
are aims, beliefs, aspirations, knowledge – a common understanding –
like-mindedness as the sociologists say’ (p. 4). That ‘shared understanding’
within a community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991) consists in
meaning, which is known originally and primarily synnoetically by the
informants interviewed in this study.

Craft-based ways of knowing

In discussing their practice, the acting tutors communicate meanings that
are essentially expressions of their craft-based ways of knowing. The term
‘craft-based ways of knowing’ is defined in this paper as being, for the most
part, those practical components accepted in actor training such as acting
methodology, voice, movement and other skill-based considerations, where
practices become habitualised, and includes the kind of knowing that is
synnoetic and experientially derived. In general terms, this is evidenced in
the way the tutors make meaning of their practice, both for themselves
(Leont’ev 1981 [1959]) and for others such as their students, administra-
tors, industry personnel, funding bodies and even for researchers!
Such views of knowledge are reinforced or perhaps even influenced by
Stanislavsky (1988 [1950]) who suggests ‘in art “to know” means to be able
to’ (p. 121), which he juxtaposes with the kind of ‘general’ knowledge that
he proffers is without feeling. He suggests that this kind of knowledge is ‘of
no use whatever to an actor who is also a creative artist’ (p. 121). Therefore
Stanislavsky’s ideology is consistent with the informants’ revelations that
view knowledge as the result of experience and also that knowledge(s) of
acting are inextricably entwined with feeling.
Part of becoming ‘expert’, or at least at one within a community of
practice, involves moving from knowledge controlling and guiding the
individual, to the individual controlling and selecting knowledge as
required for him or herself (Bruner 1986). Bruner alerts us to the level of
awareness the individual has in relation to this knowledge. He writes:

If he develops a sense of self that is premised on his ability to penetrate knowl-

edge for his own uses, and if he can share and negotiate the result of his pen-
etrations, then he becomes a member of the culture-creating community.
(Bruner: 132)

There has been a long-understood distinction between two kinds of meaning:

‘knowing-that’ and ‘knowing-how’. Stevenson (2003) points out that the-
oretical work in universities favours knowing-that and skilled trades tend to
favour knowing-how. Zarrilli (2001) puts forward the notion of knowledge-
about [knowledge about performance], knowledge-in and knowledge-for
[knowledge gained in and for the relationship to practice]. Zarrilli suggests
that ‘experience and embodiment are central to the practices of theatre
and performance’ (p. 35). It is through experience and embodiment that

298 Ross Prior

STP-27-3-07-Prior 9/25/07 4:37 PM Page 299

practices become habitualised. Zarrilli further argues for a more proces-

sual view of experience that raises questions of the consciousness of
both the actor’s mind and body for ‘engagement in doing generates
certain experiences, meanings and awareness’ (p. 36). These are deeply
internalised practices, which would again presuppose the engagement of
feelings and emotions.

Theoretical and practical

The perceived separation of theory and practice is revealed in the data
when a principal of one Australian drama school, for example, draws a
distinction between university education and vocational theatre schools.
According to this principal, his drama school is concerned with ‘the
quality of teaching, the imaginative work and the capacity to inspire and
liberate young actors which is critical, not academic awards’. He goes on
to suggest that ‘universities are concerned with the life of the mind and are
led by intellectual enquiry’ (cited in Prior 2004: 288). These dichotomies
might not, however, be so clearly separated. Lave and Wenger (1991)
argue that the setting apart of these two kinds of knowledge is problem-
atic, if not illogical:

[. . .] sequestering when it is institutionalised [. . .] encourages a folk episte-

mology of dichotomies, for instance, between ‘abstract’ and ‘concrete’
knowledge. These categories do not reside in the world as distinct forms of
knowledge, nor do they reflect some putative hierarchy of forms of knowledge
among practitioners. (p. 104)

Whilst Lave and Wenger point to this false hierarchy of knowing as either
theoretical or practical, the informants in this study reveal a strong accep-
tance of this separation. Identified in this report are various knowledge
types (Table 1) which can be approximately divided as either: theoretical
[speculative ways of knowing] or practical [craft-based ways of knowing].
Whilst the informants largely demonstrate and advocate practical or craft-
based ways of knowing, they do to some extent also rely upon theoretical or
speculative ways of knowing which have generally been passed on through a
narrative mode (Bruner 1986). Such polarisation of meanings appears to

Theoretical speculative ways of knowing Practical craft-based ways of knowing

Propositional Experiential
Disembodied practices Embodied practices
Artform-based Craft-based
Knowing-that Knowing-how
Knowledge-about Knowledge-in
Knowledge-if Knowledge-for
Knowledge-of Knowledge-with
Source: Prior 2004: 289.
Table 1: Theoretical and practical ways of knowing.

Understanding actor trainers’ articulation of their practice 299

STP-27-3-07-Prior 9/25/07 4:37 PM Page 300

derive from the informants’ relationship to their own past experiences: drama
school experience [training-related], industry experience [work-related] and
their artistic/creative experience [aesthetic-related]. For example, these are
represented in their responses as ‘inspiring versus teaching’; ‘conservatoire
versus university’; ‘artist versus academic’; ‘systematic versus eclectic’; ‘trust
versus scepticism’; and ‘experiential versus intellectual’.
However, Broudy (1977) introduces the notion of ‘knowledge-with’
which is particularly useful in this research as it provides a framework for
acknowledging an implicit knowing. ‘Knowledge-with furnishes a context
within which a particular situation is perceived, interpreted, and judged’
(p.12). Broudy identifies that ‘given the importance of context for cogni-
tion, imagination, judgement, and decision, there is still much that is not
known about the epistemology, psychology, and the pedagogy of contex-
tual knowing or knowing with’ (p.13). The findings of my own research
concur with Broudy and advance such understanding of how meaning
and knowledge are seen in relation to acting tutor expertise.

Experiential learning and tacit knowledge

The acting tutors referred to in this paper talk about their practice in terms
of what is experientially learnt, and through my questioning of them they
attempt to reveal to me [as a researcher] what they can of this knowledge.
What the acting tutors articulate and how they convey meaning is of par-
ticular interest to this research. However, inherent difficulty is encoun-
tered when asking tutors to articulate their practice since much of what is
known to them remains largely inert or tacit. Therefore most tutors in this
study find it difficult to critically discuss in detail their practice, particu-
larly their explicit pedagogy.
It is useful to be reminded that Polanyi (1983 [1966]) found that not
all meanings can be made explicit through language. That is, some knowl-
edge always remains tacit. By way of caution, it is essential to note that
Polanyi argues that we legitimise the importance of language in con-
structing and communicating meaning to others. Because a great deal of
the acting tutor knowledge represented in this study remains tacit and
may not be readily discussable, it does not necessarily equate to those
acting tutors’ being poor practitioners. However it does raise questions of
teaching and learning efficiency and its ability to be reproduced – an
obvious implication of this research. In contrast, much educational
thought views knowledge as ‘empirical’ or ‘analytical’, and has tradition-
ally placed a relatively low value on experiential knowledge (Elbaz 1983).
This is exemplified in the report when one of my informants, for example,
suggests that ‘so much of this business depends on intuition’ (Prior: 290).
The way in which the acting tutors may view their teaching and the
teaching of others will, as a consequence, ultimately shape their own per-
sonal teaching philosophy.
As mentioned, the data suggest that much of an actor’s synnoetic
knowledge is usually in a tacit form. This report indicates that when these

300 Ross Prior

STP-27-3-07-Prior 9/25/07 4:37 PM Page 301

actors/directors make the transition to become acting tutors, they appear to

continue to operate with this same kind of tacit understanding. A commu-
nity of practice is therefore built around notions of tacit meaning (Polanyi
1983 [1966]). Essentially the acting tutors in this report talk about their
practice synnoetically, in terms of their own experiential learning. For
instance, the majority of tutors refer back to their own drama school
training when discussing and justifying their own practice. There remains
little doubt that many tutors are not only deeply but also profoundly
affected and influenced by their own training. Many tutors feel that they
carry on the legacy of that training. For example, two tutors from one
English drama school with a systematic approach to actor training describe
the great weight of responsibility in this regard (cited in Prior: 170). In
similar ways the informants referred to past artistic and other work expe-
riences to legitimise their knowing.

Co-constructed meanings
The findings suggest that, as this community of actors seeks to reproduce
itself through the institutionalised training process, an accepted dialectic
will develop. It appears from the research that in this community of prac-
tice the agreed ways of communicating tacit meaning are artefactual,
metaphorical and anecdotal. For example, the data reveal uses of symbolic
metaphors [e.g. ‘broaden the acting muscle’], references to grand styles,
heroic archetypes and senses of the aesthetic. The informants are content
to use explicit or declarative modes when making references to what I term
‘heroic archetypes’ and ‘grand styles’ [e.g. Stanislavsky and the ‘Method’].
The findings show that the tutors readily subscribe to [or dismiss] these
influential people in the field and their theories or ‘philosophies’ of acting.
However, the informants only ever articulate general understandings of
these approaches through a narrative mode.
The majority of informants had digested the orthodoxy of inter-
nalised/psychological approaches, based particularly on their own under-
standing of the work of Stanislavsky. Much of what the tutors reveal is an
eclectic mix of approaches which have become meaningful to them in
their own acting and now in their own teaching. Anecdotal and
metaphoric references appear to allow these tutors ways of giving exam-
ples of their practice, rather than discussing detailed theoretical [declara-
tive] constructs that might underpin their teaching practice. One tutor’s
reference to ‘learning by anecdote’ is a clearly articulated observation of
one teaching style employed.
Throughout the training process the tutors appear to have co-constructed
meanings, which is evidenced, across all the cases, by the similarity in ways
the tutors speak about actor training. Originally, as actors or directors, they
would construct meaning during their own artistic careers. Once becoming
tutors with new and differing sets of responsibilities they would co-construct
meaning between their art, their teaching and also between each other.
These meanings are revealed as being contextual. Situated learning (Lave and

Understanding actor trainers’ articulation of their practice 301

STP-27-3-07-Prior 9/25/07 4:37 PM Page 302

Wenger 1991) conceptually explores the relationship between learning and

the situation in which it occurs. Learning is therefore seen as a process that
takes place within a participation framework. Balk (1991) writes:

Performers must come to know the information and instructions through

direct and persistent experience with them. [. . .] The next step is interaction
with others in the field – including teachers, directors, and colleagues, as
well as audiences in general – for support, guidance, and [if appropriate]
realignment with purpose. (p. 164)

Just as actors move through this trajectory of experience, so too it seems,

the acting tutors in this research replicate these patterns of knowing.
Similarly, this paper supports Lave and Wenger’s view that learning is not
merely located in someone’s head, but is found in the increased partici-
pant access to expertise. However, this report has gone further to examine
those conceptions that are in the heads of the informants in terms of how
they actually know about their practice.

Implications for training

Most acting teachers have now completed foundation degrees, many in
conservatoires but some in university drama departments. Inside these
drama schools and universities exists a mixture of philosophies. To a greater
extent, I would argue, these philosophies in university drama departments
are frequently driven to some extent by a desire to emulate a form of actor
training seen in conservatoires. This comes about through a variety of
influences which appear to range from personal ideology and interest
through to mixed conceptions of drama and acting. However, much of the
actor training-type teaching is in danger of failing in its ability to articu-
late how learning takes place. How practice can be informed by explicit
understandings of pedagogy remains in serious question. Without explicit
education in this regard, tutor practice remains vulnerable to ‘hit or miss’
approaches. Without an explicitly articulated pedagogy it would appear to
be difficult to efficiently pass on a coherent body of teaching knowledge or
for that matter devise ways to improve upon it.
When meaning is known synnoetically, explanations of pedagogy may
become difficult to articulate and are likely to be seen by the acting tutor
as irrelevant in one’s pursuit of creative endeavour. However, as acting
tutors learn to discuss their practice in explicit and meaningful ways,
models such as reflective practice (Schön 1983) may become more preva-
lent. O’Mara (1999) writes in her doctoral research that reflective practice
has led her ‘to interrupt some of [her] patterns of behaviour, particularly
actions that are inconsistent with [her] beliefs’ (p. 319). She continues by
arguing that ‘the value of this as a practitioner cannot be underestimated’
(p. 319). Testimonials such as this give support to the value reflective
practice has on processes associated with improving one’s own profes-
sional practice. Reflective practitioner models may provide ways for acting

302 Ross Prior

STP-27-3-07-Prior 9/25/07 4:37 PM Page 303

tutors to communicate and think about their experiences in more organ-

ised ways.
A further implication of this research might be to suggest a paradigm
shift from traditional master-apprentice type models to newer apprentice-
ship models that allow for greater co-participation with working actors,
and training models that are more clearly articulated. We may need
to find places where meaning is constructed in more consequential
ways, and where actors are allowed to ‘fail’ – that is, experiment and
develop their art and craft as once they could when employment oppor-
tunities were more prevalent. Structuralist views of learning can be
further challenged by suggesting that learning is a way of being in
the social world, not a way of coming to know about it (Lave and
Wenger 1991).
The acting tutors in this research appear to have digested and even
reinterpreted various theories of acting concerning the mind and body,
but appear to demonstrate very little specific theoretical knowledge about
training and education processes. What is known about acting and actor
training is known through familiarity, gained by personal insight, experi-
ence or rapport. Brestoff (1995) suggests that actor training is highly
teacher-dependent, however ‘most teachers have the information about
acting but not many are greatly gifted at communicating it’ (p. 198). The
kinds of meaning the tutors in this research seek to communicate and
aim to make legitimate are those that exist through experience – that it is
essential to have acted before one can teach acting. What actually is gained
through experience needs to be harnessed and made more readily avail-
able to others. It would seem essential that tutor education be formalised
so that close attention is given to more explicit and informed teaching
practices.
When a university graduate, actor or director moves into actor train-
ing in a drama school or university, it would be no surprise if they find
what they know and understand of pedagogy to be limited. Many of us are
able to recall anecdotal incidences of teachers emulating actor training-
type exercises in the belief that they were ‘teaching acting’. Through
much personal observation it would appear that beginning teachers are
often unable to articulate how the subject matter is taught, forming a
close parallel to the way actor trainers studied in this research are also
unable to do so.

Conclusion
From these findings, this paper concludes that the knowledge structures
inherent in drama school tutoring are developed through meanings
of acting and actor training that were largely tacit and synnoetic – direct,
personal, and experiential. Whilst these meanings were often difficult
to communicate, they were expressed narratively and used frameworks
of ‘knowledge-with’. This has resulted in a confluence of understanding
amongst the informants, creating commonly accepted polarisations of

Understanding actor trainers’ articulation of their practice 303

STP-27-3-07-Prior 9/25/07 4:37 PM Page 304

meanings [e.g. teaching versus inspiring; artist versus academic]. Particular

meanings have become entrenched in the hegemony of actor training,
referred to in this report as ‘craft-based ways of knowing’. Further, the
informant responses suggest that these meanings have been perpetuated
within these drama schools and developed into seemingly anti-pedagogical
tutor objectives, resulting in at least the tacit acceptance, that [in the tra-
ditional understanding of teaching] acting cannot be taught. The constant
and most significant challenge remains: how to make experientially
acquired knowledge explicit, discussable and, if appropriate, transferable.

Works cited
Balk, H. Wesley (1991), The Radiant Performer, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Brestoff, Richard (1995), The Great Acting Teachers and Their Methods, Lyme, N.H:
Smith & Kraus.
Broudy, Harry (1977), “Types of knowledge and purposes of education’, in R.C.
Anderson, R.J. Spiro and W.E. Montague (eds.), Schooling and the Acquisition of
Knowledge, Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.
Bruner, Jerome (1986), Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Cambridge MASS: Harvard
University Press.
Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (1975), Going on Stage, London.
Cohen, Robert (1998), Acting Professionally, California: Mayfield.
Dewey, John (1968 [1916]), Democracy and Education, New York: The Free Press.
Elbaz, Freema (1983), Teacher Thinking: A Study of Practical Knowledge, New York:
Nicholas Publishing.
Engeström, Yrjö (1987), Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to
Developmental Research, Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Göranzon, Bo (1990), The Practical Intellect, Stockholm: Carlssons Bokförlag.
Harrop, John (1992), Acting, London: Routledge.
Hodge, Alison (ed.) (2000), Twentieth Century Actor Training, London: Routledge.
Josefson, Ingela (1991), The Forms of Knowledge: The Reflective Skill, Stockholm:
Carlssons Bokförlag.
Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger (1991), Situated Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Leont’ev, Aleksei N. (1981 [1959]), Problems of the Development of the Mind,
Moscow: Progress Publishers.
O’Mara, Joanne (1999), Unravelling the Mystery: A Study of Reflection-in-action in
Process Drama Teaching, unpublished doctoral thesis: Griffith University.
Phenix, Philip H. (1964), Realms of Meaning: A Philosophy of the Curriculum for
General Education, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Polanyi, Michael (1983 [1966]), The Tacit Dimension, Gloucester MASS: Peter
Smith. [Reprint, originally published by Doubleday].
Prior, Ross W. (2005), Challenging Actor Trainers’ Understanding of Their Practice in
Australian and English Drama Schools, unpublished doctoral thesis: Griffith
University.
Rideout, Nigel (1995), First Steps Towards an Acting Career, London: A. & C. Black.
Schön, Donald (1983), The Reflective Practitioner, New York: Basic Books.

304 Ross Prior

STP-27-3-07-Prior 9/25/07 4:37 PM Page 305

Stanislavsky, Konstantin (1980 [1936]), An Actor Prepares (trans. E. Hapgood),

London: Methuen.
——— (1988 [1950]), Stanislavsky on the Art of the Stage (trans. and ed. David
Magarshack), London: Faber & Faber.
Stevenson, John (ed.) (2003), Developing Vocational Expertise, London: Allen & Unwin.
van Manen, Max (1990), Researching the Lived Experience, London (Canada):
University of Western Ontario Press.
Vygotsky, Lev S. (1986), Thought and Language, Cambridge MASS: MIT Press.
Zarrilli, Phillip (ed.) (1995) Acting (Re)Considered, London: Routledge.
——— (2001), “Negotiating performance epistemologies: knowledges “about”,
“in” and “for”’, Studies in Theatre and Performance’, 21,1: pp. 31–46.

Suggested citation
Prior, R. (2007), ‘Understanding actor trainers’ articulation of their practice’, Studies
in Theatre and Performance 27: 3, pp. 295–305, doi: 10.1386/stap.27.3.295/3

Contributor details
Ross Prior is a Principal Lecturer in Drama and Acting at the University of
Northampton. Educated in Australia, he took his first degree at Deakin University,
his Masters at the University of Melbourne and his PhD at Griffith University. He
has recently been involved in a government survey of actor training in England.
E-mail: ross.prior@northampton.ac.uk

Understanding actor trainers’ articulation of their practice 305