The Arts in Psychotherapy 53 (2017) 28–35

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Arts in Psychotherapy

Research Article

The complex intersection of education and therapy in the drama

therapy classroom
Jason D. Butler
Department of Creative Arts Therapies, Concordia University, VA-224, 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd West, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Drama therapy education presents unique complexities for educators. Within the classroom, students
Received 25 September 2016 engage with the techniques of their profession in order to learn how to utilize them with clients. However,
Received in revised form 28 January 2017 because drama therapy is designed to work through metaphor, to subvert defenses and often to indirectly
Accepted 28 January 2017
arrive at client issues, it is unavoidable that students in these classrooms will have experiences that evoke
Available online 31 January 2017
their own personal affective material. The presence of the students’ personal material can serve to deepen
learning but it can also blur the line between education and therapy and detract from the intended
Keywords:
lessons. This phenomenological study sought to answer the question: What is the lived experience of
Drama therapy
Pedagogy
drama therapy students in these experiential learning processes that evoke and utilize their personal
Experiential learning affective material?
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Drama therapy education
Forty years have passed since the beginning of the profession
of drama therapy, but there have been relatively few articles writ-
ten about educating new drama therapists. The earliest writings on
drama therapy education focused on the initial establishment of the
field and coincide with the defining of the profession (Cattanach,
1978; Irwin, 1986; Irwin & Portner, 1980). To date the most sub-
stantial writings about drama therapy education have come from
Robert Landy and his collaborators (Landy, 1982, 1996, 2000;
Landy, Hodermarska, Mowers, & Perrin, 2012; Landy, McLellan, &
McMullian, 2005). Landy (1982, 1996) saw the education of drama
therapists as focusing on four dimensions: the self of the student,
drama therapy theories, drama therapy techniques, and various
client populations. More recently a new dimension of drama ther-
apy education, research, has also been added to this list (Butler,
n.d.).
Aside from the limited texts that speak directly to drama ther-
apy pedagogy, there have also been a few texts that examine clinical
supervision in drama therapy, with some crossover into its role in
education (Jones & Dokter, 2008; Lahad, 2005). While these texts
address education, their primary focus is on the supervision of clin-
ical work and less on what happens in the classroom. It is important
to note that while the above texts are important contributions
to the evolution of drama therapy education and training, the
E-mail address: jasondbutler@yahoo.com
majority of these writings focus on the perspective of the instructor
with little emphasis on the student experience.
Use of personal process
Research on therapist education has indicated that therapists
who are more aware of their own emotional experience are better
equipped to work with the emotional experiences of their clients
(Batten & Santanello, 2009; Machado, Beutler, & Greenberg, 1999;
Williams & Fauth, 2005). This has led to work within therapist edu-
cation to incorporate more aspects of the students’ personal and
affective experiences. Within training programs, educators create
opportunities to use the students’ lived experience, both in-the-
moment as well as historical, in order to foster a greater amount of
emotional awareness. As Aponte (1994) stated, education is needed
that “both opens them to themselves and teaches them vulnerabil-
ity, discipline, and freedom within the relationship” (p. 3). Others
have similarly argued that counselor education needs to focus more
on the “cognitive, emotional, attitudinal, and behavioural compo-
nents” rather than the various “microskills” of counseling (Ridley,
Kelly, & Mollen, 2011). This is an idea that has been echoed for
decades in the field of counselor education, perhaps most notably
half a century ago in the book Toward Effective Counselling and Psy-
chotherapy by Truax and Carkhuff (1967) where they argued that
therapists who are more aware of their own personal experience
are more able to attune to their clients. These ideas have similarly
been echoed in writings about drama therapy education (Emunah,
1989; Emunah, Raucher, & Ramirez-Hernandez, 2014; Jones &

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2017.01.010
0197-4556/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J.D. Butler / The Arts in Psychotherapy 53 (2017) 28–35
Dokter, 2008; Landy, 1982, 1996; Snow, 2000). This perspective has
caused some concern for educators, indicating a potential crossover
between education and therapy (Leveton, 1996). In addressing this,
Aponte (Aponte, 1994; Aponte et al., 2009) has suggested that the
experience could be “therapeutic” rather than “therapy,” leading
to change and insight for the student but without the contract of
therapy. It is of interest to note that similar discussions have been
held in the related field of theater education, with articles looking
at the navigation of the students’ personal processes in the acting
classroom (Barton, 1994; Burgoyne, Poulin, & Rearden, 1999; Riley,
2004; Seton, 2008, 2010).
Methodology
This research was designed to begin exploring the role of per-
sonal material in drama therapy education in order to examine
how it might influence pedagogy (Butler, 2014). The study was
conducted from a postmodern perspective on phenomenology,
in particular, it adopted the “post-intentional phenomenology” of
Vagle (2010, 2014). In contrast to the phenomenology of Heidegger
(1988) or Husserl (1913) that seek to find the “essence” or “truth”
of a phenomenon, Vagle’s (2014) post-intentional phenomenology
sees knowledge as “partial, situated, endlessly deferred, and cir-
culating through relations” (pp. 111–112), and acknowledges the
unavoidable influence of the researcher.
Whatever understanding is opened up through an investigation
will always move with and through the researcher’s inten-
tional relationships with the phenomenon- not simply in the
researcher, in the participants, in the text or in their power
positions, but in the dynamic intentional relationships that tie
participants, the researcher, the produced text, and their posi-
tionalities together. (Vagle, 2014, p. 30)
The hope in this research, then, was to capture a snapshot of
the phenomenon as seen through the lens of the researcher, Vagle
(2014) calls this a “tentative manifestation” (p. 31).
Data collection consisted of focus groups with drama therapy
students and interviews with drama therapy faculty members at
three different universities. Due to the complex nature of the phe-
nomenon, interviews and focus groups were combined in order
to capture a broader representation and to incorporate multi-
ple perspectives (Lambert & Loiselle, 2008). Both focus groups
and interviews followed a semi-structured format and were con-
structed in such a way as to elicit narratives describing the
phenomenon rather than intellectualizing about the phenomenon
(Puchta & Potter, 2004). While the focus of the research was on
the student experience, faculty interviews were conducted in order
to put the student experience into the classroom context and to
compare student experience with faculty intention. In addition to
the focus groups and interviews, program documentation including
syllabi, student handbooks and website material, was also collected
in order to examine the language and systemic norms established
by the programs.
Three graduate drama therapy programs were chosen for the
study. In order to be included, programs needed to offer graduate
courses in drama therapy, be established for at least five years and
be approved by their official drama therapy governing bodies (i.e.
the North American Drama Therapy Association or the British Asso-
ciation of Dramatherapists). Due to limited resources, only English
language programs were considered. In order to have some vari-
ety on the phenomenon, programs were also chosen with varying
theoretical frameworks and perspectives on the practice of drama
therapy.
Program directors served as gatekeepers for access to students
and faculty members. Student participants had each completed at
29
least one semester of the program and were no more than one year
past graduation. Faculty participants, where possible, had full-time
appointments and each had a minimum of five years teaching expe-
rience. At each university there was one 90-min focus group with
students and two one-hour interviews with different faculty mem-
bers. Written consent was attained from all participants with the
promise of best practices to ensure confidentiality. All interviews
were audio and video recorded and subsequently transcribed for
analysis.
Data analysis followed a whole-part-whole process often used
in phenomenology where the data is viewed for a larger picture,
then broken down into themes and finally brought back together
for a broader reconstruction (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Smith, Flowers,
& Larkin, 2009; Van Manen, 1990). Codes were assigned through an
inductive process based on perceived themes and were often coded
utilizing in vivo coding (Saldaña, 2012). Once all documents were
coded, the codes were reviewed and grouped into larger themes.
These themes were then used to create a detailed model of the
phenomenon as perceived by the researcher at the moment of
investigation (see Fig. 1).
Results
The resulting model confirmed and highlighted the experiential
nature of drama therapy education and thus the experiences out-
lined happen under the umbrella of experiential learning. Within
the context of this experiential learning, there are often explicit
and implicit expectations placed on students to participate in an
affective manner within the classroom. This experiential learning,
often accompanied by these expectations, can lead to a strong emo-
tional response. These strong responses then lead to consequences
both within and outside of the program. These steps then serve
to highlight the intersection of education and therapy within the
drama therapy classroom, with a complex experience of bound-
aries and responsibility. Finally, through their experience of the
phenomenon, both students and faculty respondents offered strate-
gies for navigating this intersection. Each of these aspects will be
explained in the following sections.
Experiential learning processes
It was clear from the data that experiential learning is at the core
of drama therapy education programs. In responses, students men-
tioned several types of experiential learning activities within their
classroom experiences. The most commonly mentioned were those
that involved a performance component including self-revelatory
performances, autoethnographic performances and therapeutic
theatre. Other experiential activities mentioned, in order of fre-
quency, were psychodrama and psychodramatic interventions, the
use of myth and ritual, the use of role and character in short scenes,
the use of projective techniques, including puppets and masks,
developmental transformations (DvT) and other forms of improvi-
sation and mindfulness exercises including meditation and guided
imagery. According to student responses, each of these required
the students to use their personal material, with some, such as self-
revelatory performance and psychodrama, requiring more personal
emotional investment than others. Not only were these activities
reported in drama therapy classes, but also many different courses
within the curriculum including those examining theories of drama
therapy as well as research, group dynamics, individual counseling,
case conference and other advanced practice and theory courses. It
was evident from the student responses that experiential learning
was at the foundation of the respondents’ experiences.
30 J.D. Butler / The Arts in Psychotherapy 53 (2017) 28–35
Fig. 1. Overview of experiential learning and personal affective material within drama therapy education.
Education strategies
Within the responses a few experiential learning strategies were
mentioned that appeared to contribute to the experience of per-
sonal material in the classroom, these included the use of written
work such as journaling or reflection papers, the use of the stu-
dents role-playing therapists for each other, the use of students
role-playing clients and the use of a cohort experience.
Perhaps not surprisingly, within all programs, written assign-
ments were a consistent part of the learning experience, these
assignments included theoretical papers, reflection papers, process
recordings, journals and logs. It is noteworthy that the majority of
these assignments had the expectation set by faculty that a portion
of the written material would include reflecting on the students’
personal process and occasionally on the process of classmates. In
some instances the faculty would review and comment on the stu-
dents’ work, in other instances specific instructions were given that
it was for the student’s use alone and that the faculty would not be
reviewing.
The idea of student-as-therapist was seen frequently in the
responses as students were often placed in the role of therapist
within the classroom to practice and demonstrate their emerg-
ing drama therapy skills. These were both short-term experiences
where students practiced leading an exercise, and long-term expe-
riences where they were assigned a peer as a practice client for
multiple class sessions. At times this practice client was asked to
use their own personal material, at other times, they were asked to
create a fictional character.
In interviews, faculty respondents perceived these fictional
interventions as having sufficient distance and not involving the
student’s personal material. However, some student responses
indicated this was not always the case as on two occasions in
the data, these types of moments were mentioned by students as
having been noteworthy for evoking their own personal material
despite the faculty members’ belief to the contrary. At the same
time, it seems impossible, given drama therapy theory, to avoid
personal material as the principles of dramatic projection and dra-
matic reality seem to suggest that no matter whether a person is
playing a fictional character or not, they are still engaging with their
personal material (Fall & Levitov, 2002; Johnson, Forrester, Dintino,
James, & Schnee, 1996).
The majority of students in each of the programs examined went
through the program as part of a cohort. These cohorts appeared to
heighten many aspects of the student experience. In particular, they
highlighted themes of witnessing and group dynamics. Being part
of a cohort increased students’ awareness of each other and occa-
sionally created a sense of audience and performer, heightening
the experience of risk and tension in moments of classroom perfor-
mance. Additionally, because the groups went through the program
together, the use of cohorts seemed to highlight dynamics seen in
more long-term systems. Overwhelmingly, students reported the
cohort experience as being a positive and supportive experience in
their education, however, there were examples in each of the focus
groups where special intervention by faculty was necessary in order
to resolve interpersonal conflict that came out of the long-term
cohort experience.
Learning beliefs
It is important to note a few beliefs that were indicated in the
responses that set the stage for emotional experience in the class-
room. The first belief, expressed in all focus groups and interviews,
was that in order to learn how to do drama therapy, students must
engage in drama therapy – merely learning concepts was not seen
as being sufficient, the ideas must be put into practice. The second
belief expressed by students concerned the importance of faculty
modeling, suggesting that the moments of faculty modeling were
some of the most effective learning moments, whether intentional
or out of necessity due to an event in the classroom, students saw
these moments as being “alive” as they happened in real-time.
Finally, in every interview and focus group the idea was expressed
that students must first have some experience in the role of client
in order to become competent drama therapists. These three beliefs
taken together indicated a situation where explicit or not, personal
material was expected in the classroom.
Emotional expectations
This sense of being expected to have an emotional personal
experience in class was a common theme. This expectation was
seen as coming internally from the students but also as coming
from the external environment. While not always tied to a specific
incident, it did seem that there was a strong connection between
this expectation and subsequent experiences of strong emotion in
the classroom.
The internal expectations were seen in subtle ways, through stu-
dents’ references to early expectations of being “fixed” or “helped”
by the program. They could also be seen in the anticipation that stu-
dents experienced during certain classroom activities where they
reported anticipation of what might come up or what type of feel-
ing they should be sharing. It was also evidenced in the responses
of students where they were critical of their own classroom par-
ticipation, suggesting that they had done something wrong by
not showing emotion or emotionally engaging in the classroom
 J.D. Butler / The Arts in Psychotherapy 53 (2017) 28–35
experience. All of these responses pointed to an internal expecta-
tion that they should be engaging more and sharing more of their
personal process.
The expectations from others seemed to appear in both overt
and obscure ways. The overt ways were displayed in comments
from faculty members and peers. At its most explicit these were
moments where peers or faculty members directly invited stu-
dents to bring their personal experience to an activity; asking them
to share their feelings, relate a personal story or enact a situa-
tion related to their experience. Less explicit examples included
moments where an emotional event was occurring in class and
the instructor would suggest the students “stay with it” or “remain
present” with the emotion in the room without rejecting the expe-
rience. While not explicitly evoking new emotion in the moment,
these faculty actions highlighted the value and importance of the
emotional experience and served to encourage the class members
to engage with the emotion.
One of the more interesting aspects of the emotional expectation
was an idea coded as forecasting. This code was used for moments,
almost exclusively in the early days of the program, where the
expectation of emotional engagement was forecast. In particular,
this happened during the interview to apply to the program and
during early orientation experiences, where faculty members and
students already in the program created a sense of expectation of
emotional engagement. Comments such as, “This course is going to
really pull on all of your resources,” (Student 3: 298) were repre-
sentative of such moments. Students also frequently reported the
use of the word “intense” to describe the program. While these
experiences of forecasting seemed to happen in the early days of
the program, it appeared that once a student was in the program
for a certain amount of time that they too could begin adopting the
language of the culture and participating in the same forecasting
activities with newer students.
The more obscure expectations were less obvious. Some of these
were reflected in student comments referring to emotional engage-
ment such as “I feel like it’s this required rite of passage in our
program” (Student 15: 118), “I feel like we’re supposed to be able
to” (Student 5: 229) and “the feeling from the faculty is” (Student
11: 137). Student responses pointed to a sensed expectation from
peers and faculty members to bring their emotional material and
engage in an emotional manner but could not point to explicit
statements or requests. Perhaps this was also reflected in faculty
responses where faculty members discussed a desire to foster the
traits of resilience, reflexivity, maturity and personal congruence.
While not applicable in every case, this expectation can often serve
to heighten the emotional experience within the classroom, fre-
quently leading to a moment of intense emotion.
Strong emotional responses
During the focus groups and interviews, respondents were
asked to share stories of moments in classes where personal affec-
tive material played a role. In total, over fifty stories were shared.
Perhaps due to the nature of the question, that specifically looked
for stories of emotional experience, most of the events that were
shared involved a strong emotional response by a student. These
stories were not of average or benign moments with the major-
ity being characterized by the respondents as negative experiences
where the emotion experienced was felt as being too much or
uncontained.
Putting these events in context, the majority happened early in
the students’ experience, before the group knew each other well
and before the students were fully familiar with the program and
the faculty. The events all occurred spontaneously and were often
precipitated by an unexpected action by the instructor. For exam-
ple, in one situation an instructor unexpectedly changed what was
31
scheduled for the day based on a student’s response to a question,
leading to a moment of uncertainty and heightened tension in the
classroom.
The emotional responses themselves, while noteworthy for
their reported intensity, manifest in a range of reactions. The most
common reported emotions were anger and fear. The anger was
generally directed at the instructor or the broader institution for
allowing something to happen. The fear seemed to be that things
would get out of hand and that harm would occur. Along with
anger and fear, other feelings reported included feeling “awful,”
“exposed” and “sad.” Aside from reported feelings, other behaviors
were observed that indicated an emotional response, including sev-
eral references to crying and dissociation. The code attack was used
over ten times to refer to an observed loss of control, represented
by words such as “panic attack,” “hysterical,” “flooded,” and “out of
control.”
Other observable physical responses in these moments included
uncontrollable laughter, yelling, leaving the room, being “upset”
and what was described as “regression.” These observed responses
as well as the above felt responses paint the picture of strong
emotional reactions to classroom events. At the moment of strong
response, there were also reports of faculty intervention to address
the strong response. In some moments this appeared with the
faculty member intervening in a therapeutic manner, in other
moments the faculty member attempted to bring the class back
to an educational focus and in three cases following the response,
medical attention was required. As can be seen, perhaps due to
the nature of the questions, the narratives that were shared were
intense and perhaps stronger than one might expect. They were
not daily occurrences, but were common to all programs.
Consequences
With the responses being so strong, it is no surprise that there
were substantial consequences expressed in the data. These con-
sequences were indicative of both institutional and individual
responses. Institutional responses included the creation of new
rituals and structures within the classroom to try and help stu-
dents indicate when they were feeling that the level of affect or
self-disclosure was too high. Programs would also call special meet-
ings to debrief about the experience. Additionally, faculty reported
increased faculty meetings, changes of faculty assignments and a
conscious distancing from personal material in the classroom as
institutional responses. In extreme cases these events led to indi-
viduals leaving the institution, both students who left or failed out
of a program and faculty members who were no longer teaching.
In contrast to the institutional responses, the individual
responses were more complex and were seen as lingering, last-
ing beyond the moment of the event, resonating for weeks and
months and often for the duration of the program. The responses
were categorized into groups of felt responses and more action-
related responses. These consequences were also seen as being
shared between the student experiencing the strong emotional
response and their classmates. Beyond a strong feeling of concern
for the student at the center of the event, these moments of strong
response served to alter the students’ relationship to the program.
Following the event, students would frequently second guess their
choice to be in the program. In most cases the students decided to
stay, but the moment of questioning was echoed in many responses.
Similarly, post-event, students reported a period of time feeling
shut down, finding it difficult to engage with the program and feel-
ing ambivalent in their relationship to their studies and the faculty.
Other feelings that were evident in student responses were feelings
of regret, guilt and lingering pain.
The action-based responses could be grouped into categories
of avoidance or awareness. Students reported a few instances
32 J.D. Butler / The Arts in Psychotherapy 53 (2017) 28–35
following these moments where the cohort and/or faculty seemed
to avoid talking about or acknowledging what happened. One
respondent shared an experience of trying to have a conversa-
tion with their cohort about the incident and being met by strong
resistance and refusal to go more in-depth.
Responses in relationship to increased awareness indicated that
these events made students more aware of their own process
within subsequent classroom experiences. For some it highlighted
the importance of their personal experience in learning, for others
it heightened their awareness of the complex relationship between
education and therapy. This sense of awareness and the adjustment
that students made based on this awareness could possibly serve
as explanation for why these incidents of strong response seem to
be clustered within the first months of the program. After early
experiences, students were more aware of the possibilities and put
structures in place to navigate future similar experiences.
This awareness seemed to lead to two different types of
responses, characterized by mistrust and transformation. The con-
cept of mistrust was only represented in the focus groups with
students and not in the interviews with faculty members and was
seen at all three institutions. It pointed to moments when students
expressed a lack of trust in the program and a sense of not being
taken care of by faculty members. At times students would question
the competence of instructors and their ability to hold the space. In
the absence of feeling held, they would adopt an attitude of need-
ing to take care of each other. Quotes such as “we have to take care
of ourselves” (Student 11: 82), “It was something we decided on
our own because it wasn’t provided for us in class” (Student 10:
616) and “not getting enough from the professors and so kind of by
need reaching out to other people” (Student 7: 638) are examples
of this. While these instances put the students at odds with the pro-
gram and faculty, it is worth noting that the students reported that
these were some of their moments of growth as it required them
to increase their awareness of affect in the classroom and begin
learning how to consciously navigate it.
In contrast to the sense of mistrust, students also reported
moments of positive transformation due to the affective events in
class. Reports of overcoming a personal hurdle in class or witness-
ing a class member take a large personal step were examples of this
transformation. One student said, “I don’t think I would be where
I am now if we’d have just been playing little part at little games
. . . the huge personal process is that we’ve walked out with an
experience with each other” (Student 1: 223).
Education versus therapy
Throughout the data analysis, the most present theme was the
intersection of education and therapy with respondents calling the
intersection “messy,” “sticky,” “tricky,” “fuzzy” and “dicey.” The
code therapy vs. education was used 77 times in the analysis and was
by far the most commonly used code, pointing at the perceived crux
of the experience. Examples of segments given this code include the
following:
It’s like being in treatment, intense treatment except it’s not like
therapy, not therapy. (Student 12: 98)
So they have like the therapy appropriate affective response, but
not the therapy appropriate processing ability or space. (Student
10: 307)
So it’s not therapy really. It’s school. (Student 15: 159)
When this intersection was navigated skillfully, students
reported personal and professional growth and transformation.
However, when it was navigated poorly, as illustrated in some of the
examples above, students experienced the negative consequences.
In analyzing the data related to this intersection, three main themes
were highlighted: responsibility, balance and evaluation.
Responsibility
A frequent question arising in focus groups was about responsi-
bility for the negotiation of affect in the classroom and for tending
to the strong responses. Depending on the situation being dis-
cussed, within the responses the responsibility shifted between the
faculty member and students. For example, assignments were men-
tioned where students were given the responsibility, being asked
to incorporate personal experience, but were asked to avoid mate-
rial that might be overwhelming or uncontrollable. One respondent
explained their experience of this as follows:
You don’t want to look like you’re crazy and you don’t belong
here and . . . but you also want to prove that you can go to those
depths when necessary and you can come back and you can
control that. So it was like how does this work? (Student 11:
162)
However, given drama therapy principles, this expectation of
self-regulation seemed to put students in a difficult position;
. . .just the nature of drama therapy itself, it comes out of left
field. The whole business of using the imagery and all that sort of
thing, you don’t expect it; you think you’re going in with some-
thing, but it catches you completely broadside, . . . Because it
comes out of left field and just knocks you completely off your
feet. So although you can say well, I’m not going to bring any
shit. . . And suddenly, bam, it hits you and you’re like, hang on
a minute, I wasn’t ready for that; I thought we were going to be
doing this and something else comes out of left field. (Student
2: 155–156)
As this student mentioned, it is the very nature of drama therapy
to work around defenses and manifest the subconscious through
creative means. Within therapy, this is one of the aspects that
makes drama therapy most effective, allowing the drama therapist
to work with the client’s material that is present, in a distanced
way. It would stand to reason that in drama therapy education,
these same principles would apply, that while working within
the metaphor to teach the approaches, drama therapy students
would be at increased likelihood of unexpected strong emotional
responses in the classroom.
For this and other reasons, both faculty and students ultimately
seemed to agree that the main responsibility for establishing
the space, creating the interventions and navigating unexpected
responses rests with the instructor. As the drama therapist in the
space, the instructor is the one with more experience and meth-
ods to work in the moment. They can also use these moments as
teaching moments.
However, in the data, another theme was identified in the
responses of faculty members and students. Coded as invisible, this
theme pointed at moments in responses that indicated there were
aspects of the students’ experience and histories that were not in
the faculty awareness. Similarly, faculty members were not always
aware of group dynamics that were present in the cohort. Faculty
members talked about the idea that they do not always know what
is going on inside of a student’s experience unless that student gives
some indication. Faculty respondents frequently pointed to this
lack of information, such as, “And even then I’m not sure exactly
what her subjective experience is” (Faculty 6: 40).
Given these aspects of the phenomenon, the data pointed to a
shared responsibility, with the faculty members being responsi-
ble for how the course is structured and for how experiences of
emotional response are navigated in the moment and with stu-
dents responsible for, whenever possible, communicating their
 J.D. Butler / The Arts in Psychotherapy 53 (2017) 28–35
in-the-moment responses. This shared responsibility points to a
need for ongoing transparent communication between students
and faculty.
Balance
Several responses indicated a need for balance when navigating
the intersection of education and therapy. One student likened it
to a tightrope,
It was a difficult way to balance, but I felt sorta like learning how
to walk a tightrope, by the end I did, you like you know the first
few times you’re like I’m never going up there and then by the
end I was I got away . . . I got all the way across, yeah! (Student
6: 91)
Being on the boundary or at the border between education and
therapy was a key aspect in this idea of balancing. One faculty mem-
ber captured this idea quite clearly when referring to what they
called an “expanded contract” in drama therapy education,
It means that to learn experientially about therapy, the clear
boundaries of teacher/student are often played with, if not tran-
scended. In order for the reality of the moment to have a greater
emotional impact on everybody present so that the learning
about –, the learning of therapy isn’t theoretical anymore, it’s in
the moment and it’s real. . . . And to me, borderlines and thresh-
olds are the most powerful, beautiful, significant places to be in,
both as a teacher and as a therapist, the same. As long as there
is an awareness on both sides, teacher/student, client/therapist,
that a sense of order and a sense of clear frame will be estab-
lished at some point in this work, and that the living on the
borderline is a temporary place to be. (Faculty 3: 11)
These comments also reflect another subtheme that expressed
the balancing between roles, in particular, the roles of teacher
and therapist, student and client. Students reported valuing the
moments in class where instructors were able to hold a balance
between roles, modeling the role of therapist but also being able
to step back into the role of teacher. “Every action a teacher takes
guiding a therapy process in front of and with a class teaches much
more than any words they may speak to the class about the pro-
cess. Actions speak louder than words,” (Student 14: 7). Student
also reported feeling that learning opportunities were missed when
instructors did not balance these roles and instead stayed in the role
of teacher, avoiding the emotion that was present.
In creating this balance between roles, one aspect of the phe-
nomenon that was frequently mentioned was the transition from
one role to the other. Students reported that the experience could
occasionally be jarring when moving from an emotional moment
to a teaching moment, expressing a desire for more attention to
those moments in order to feel like they are staying connected to
the experience rather than being knocked out of the space for a
period of time. The greater level of emotions the greater need for
mindful transitions.
Evaluation
An academic setting greatly magnifies the intersection of edu-
cation and therapy as the drive for good grades and advancement
are an inherent aspect of most educational institutions. In all focus
groups, students mentioned the question of whether or not they
would be graded on their level of affective engagement or per-
sonal sharing. Some students reported having posed the question
to instructors, with instructors universally saying that no, students
would not be graded on this aspect, however, students did not
appear to always believe the faculty. “I didn’t get a good grade
in that class . . . Well I certainly didn’t get the grade I wanted in
that class and I think it’s because I didn’t show up affectively” (Stu-
dent 10: 602). Students reported experiencing a hierarchy in the
33
classroom when it came to emotional expression. It is of inter-
est to note that there was not consensus among students about
the desired level of emotional expression within this hierarchy.
Some believed it was important to be able to demonstrate affec-
tive responses in the classroom while others suggested it was more
important to be able to demonstrate restraint and control over their
emotional experience.
Faculty members similarly expressed difficulty in this area,
acknowledging the “elusive” qualities they were trying to instill
in students. In particular, they mentioned difficulty in creating
ways of assessing the ability for personal insight and growth, espe-
cially given that students enter the program at varying levels of
personal awareness and emotional intelligence. As assessing and
grading on such ephemeral qualities is a subjective experience,
in the responses it seemed difficult for both faculty and students
to clearly articulate the expectations when it comes to levels of
affective experience in the classroom.
Strategies for navigation
The responses also indicated ways of negotiating this intersec-
tion. These ideas were strategies that respondents were already
using as well as those they wished had been available for them.
They included support systems, transparency, instructor interven-
tion and the use of theatre skills.
When referring to support systems, some students reported
going to partners, spouses, family members and friends for support
while in the program, however, more common were references
to personal group and individual therapy. Of the fifteen student
respondents, all reported having experience in personal therapy
while in the program. Students saw personal therapy as a place to
integrate the experiences they were having at school without the
additional pressures of evaluation and multiple relationships. At
the same time, personal therapy was not seen as being a panacea.
Often students said that the emotional experiences within the pro-
gram were stronger than the experiences they were having in
therapy, sometimes making the therapy process seem less valu-
able. However, all students reported their personal therapy as being
a useful experience.
I would say in terms of my personal process, the events that hap-
pened on the course. . .had infinitely more a profound impact on
my personal process than my therapy, what had taken place in
my therapy. But what took place in my therapy was needed to
support all the. . .events that took place here. (Student 3: 341)
In all focus groups, a desire for more consistent and transpar-
ent communication with faculty members was expressed. Students
said that discussions of these topics were held at the beginning of
the program or retroactively at moments of crisis, but were not
frequent topics of discussion. Students expressed a desire for clear
program-wide policies that could be shared at the beginning of the
program but then also subsequently reviewed in each class and
referenced in moments of complication.
It is important to note that communication was an area of dis-
crepancy between the faculty responses and the student responses.
Universally, students indicated a lack of regular transparent com-
munication around these topics and by contrast faculty members
reported feeling that they were consistently discussing these topics.
It is also noteworthy that an examination of program documen-
tation from the three programs revealed very little discussion of
the intersection of education and therapy, or the navigation of per-
sonal material in the classroom. In syllabi and course outlines, there
was very little mention of the appropriate navigation of personal
process, even when there were directions for assignments that
explicitly asked students to discuss “personal process” or demon-
strate “personal insight.”
34 J.D. Butler / The Arts in Psychotherapy 53 (2017) 28–35
As mentioned previously, students suggested that more direct
faculty intervention, in the role of therapist, in moments of strong
emotional response, were needed. They indicated that this type
of intervention would not only lead to a greater depth of learning
through modeling, but it would also increase the sense of safety by
taking care of the student having the strong response. Students
suggested that in these moments if the faculty members could
be transparent in their process of navigating the intersection they
would also be modeling a higher level of complexity.
One of the more compelling findings of the study was the rec-
ommendation for more classroom assignments that utilize the
students’ drama and theatre skills. Both faculty and student respon-
dents referred to aspects of their experience where these skills
assisted them in the navigation. In referring to one such assignment,
a student respondent said,
It was the first time I was really able to bring my personal mate-
rial into the room, but there’s something about having been a
performer and being a theatre maker, but it’s like you know
what it takes to do that, like I know how far I can go before I
can’t go anymore. Like I know that line and so I knew exactly
how much personal stuff, exactly how much I needed to veil it,
like exactly how much I could unveil and perform and have it
all be in this thing and I didn’t need to be held after it. . . I know
my frame and I know my limits in that sort of aesthetic arena.
(Student 9: 573–575)
By tapping into their theatre skills, students were able to utilize
aesthetic distance (Landy, 1983) in the construction and perfor-
mance of their assignments. It also appeared that students’ skills
and abilities to go in and out of roles contributed to their successful
navigation of the intersection. Those with more experience doing
so prior to entering the program appeared to be more adept within
the program at such moments.
This then, is the “tentative manifestation,” the snapshot of the
phenomenon as determined by the researcher from the data. Stu-
dents enter programs strongly based on experiential learning. They
come to those programs with internal and external expectations for
their level of emotional engagement. Once they are in the program,
they have emotional experiences and moments of strong response
that have potentially long-lasting impacts on their relationship to
the program and drama therapy. These emotional moments are
frequently related to the complex intersection of education and
therapy. Finally, the respondents pointed toward some strategies
for possible navigation of this intersection.
Discussion
Overall, students and faculty members at the programs spoke
very similarly about the phenomenon. The dialogue about navi-
gating the experience of affect within experiential learning was
consistent regardless of the program. Students and faculty both
seemed to be attempting to navigate and manage the classroom
affective experiences, acknowledging the importance of affect
within the learning process but striving for safe and effective incor-
poration of that affect. The discussion of these experiences of strong
response also seemed similar across programs.
The findings from this study indicate a need for more focused
discussions about pedagogy in drama therapy. From the findings,
the following eight recommendations are made. While these rec-
ommendations are specific to drama therapy, most are applicable
to all creative arts therapy education as well as other forms of
experiential learning, especially within the realm of therapy and
counselling
1. Transparent communication. Given the complexity of the stu-
dent experience and the fact that the student experience is not
always known to the instructor, it is imperative that from the
outset programs develop a culture of transparent communica-
tion. This would include both verbal and written communication.
Communications should include the positive use and impact of
personal material in the learning experience as well as the need
for conscious attention. Programs should avoid language that
overly forecasts the programs intensity or that sets high expec-
tations for emotional experiences.
2. Clear policies. Drama therapy programs should work to estab-
lish and articulate clear and consistent policies when it comes to
personal affective material. These policies should be articulated
both in terms of the program in general as well as in relationship
to individual courses. The policies should be reviewed frequently
with students and faculty and highlighted in course and program
materials.
3. Pedagogical discussions. As a profession, drama therapy needs
to engage in more discussions regarding pedagogy. These dis-
cussions should include the sharing of teaching techniques, but
should also look at philosophical ideas and theoretical frame-
works that inform teaching styles and the use of personal
material.
4. Established competencies. The field of drama therapy is behind
in terms of setting clear competencies for practice. An estab-
lishment of clear competencies would go a long way in helping
students, faculty and administrators in their focus and intention.
Additionally, these competencies should not only include drama
therapy intervention skills but should also include emotional,
attitudinal and behavioral components.
5. Effective assessment. Once these competencies have been
established, it would then be important to develop assessment
methods that can measure the attainment of these skills and
competencies within the classroom. The assessment methods
must take into account the multiple relationships within the
drama therapy classroom and work to minimize conflicts of
interest where students may be required to choose between
good marks and personal well-being.
6. Personal therapy. In order to integrate their experience and
capitalize on their learning, drama therapy students should be
required to be actively involved in personal therapy. While an
explicit requirement for therapy may come into conflict with
some institutional regulations, drama therapy programs should
work to help students find competent therapists and to minimize
multiple relationships.
7. Drama and theatre skills. As much as possible, education pro-
grams should create opportunities for students to engage with
drama and theatre for artistic expression in learning. In par-
ticular, programs should include assignments that encourage
students to rehearse and integrate their dramatic and theatrical
skills in the exploration of concepts, theories and practice.
8. Ethical practice. Educators need to engage in more discussions
about ethics and ethical behavior within the classroom. By exam-
ining power, program expectations, the potential for harm as
well as the importance of consent, there can be a clearer articu-
lation of responsibility and ethical practice. It is noteworthy that
despite several instances of intense responses and even hospi-
talization, the concept of ethics or ethical practice was never
mentioned by respondents.
As a beginning, these eight recommendations point toward crit-
ical discussion and adjustments that need to be made in relation
to education in drama therapy. In the interest of the field and in
the service of future clients, we must continue to challenge and
question our pedagogy.
 J.D. Butler / The Arts in Psychotherapy 53 (2017) 28–35
Acknowledgements
This research was generously supported by a grant from the
Fonds Quebecois de la recherche sur la societe et la culture and a
doctoral travel grant from Concordia University.
References
Aponte, H. J., Powell, F. D., Brooks, S., Watson, M. F., Litzke, C., Lawless, J., et al.
(2009). Training the person of the therapist in an academic setting. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 35(4), 381–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-
0606.2009.00123.x
Aponte, H. J. (1994). How personal can training get? Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 20(1), 3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1994.tb01007.x
Barton, R. (1994). Therapy and actor training. Theatre Topics, 4(2), 105–118.
Batten, S. V., & Santanello, A. P. (2009). A contextual behavioral approach to the role
of emotion in psychotherapy supervision. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology, 3(3), 148–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.a0014801
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/
1478088706qp063oa
Burgoyne, S., Poulin, K., & Rearden, A. (1999). The impact of acting on student
actors: Boundary blurring, growth, and emotional distress. Theatre Topics, 9(2),
157–179.
Butler, J. D. (2014). Navigating the intersection of education and therapy in the drama
therapy classroom. Concordia University. Retrieved from http://spectrum.
library.concordia.ca/978950/
Butler, J.D. (n.d.). Reexamining Landy’s four-part model of drama therapy
education.
Cattanach, A. (1978). The dramatherapy course at Queen Margaret College.
Dramatherapy, 1(3), 24–25.
Emunah, R., Raucher, G., & Ramirez-Hernandez, A. (2014). Self-revelatory
performance in mitigating the impact of trauma. In N. Sajnani, & D. R. Johnson
(Eds.), Trauma-informed drama therapy: Transforming clinics, classrooms, and
communities (pp. 93–121). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Emunah, R. (1989). The use of dramatic enactment in the training of drama
therapists. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 16(1), 29.
Fall, K., & Levitov, J. (2002). Using actors in experiential group counseling
leadership training. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 27(2), 37–41.
Heidegger, M. (1988). The basic problems of phenomenology. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press. A. Hofstadter, Trans.
Husserl, E. (1913). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. New York,
NY: Routledge. W.R.B. Gibson, Trans.
Irwin, E. C., & Portner, E. (1980). Proceedings: First annual conference.
Irwin, E. C. (1986). On being and becoming a therapist. The Arts in Psychotherapy,
13(3), 191–195.
Johnson, D. R., Forrester, A. M., Dintino, C., James, M., & Schnee, G. (1996). Towards
a poor drama therapy. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 23(4), 293–306.
Jones, P., & Dokter, D. (2008). Supervision of dramatherapy. Supervision in the arts
therapies. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lahad, M. (2005). Creative supervision: The use of expressive arts methods in
supervision and self-supervision. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Lambert, S. D., & Loiselle, C. G. (2008). Combining individual interviews and focus
groups to enhance data richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(2), 228–237.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04559.x
35
Landy, R. J., McLellan, L., & McMullian, S. (2005). The education of the drama
therapist: In search of a guide. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 32(4), 275–292.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2005.02.005
Landy, R. J., Hodermarska, M., Mowers, D., & Perrin, D. (2012). Performance as
art-based research in drama therapy supervision. Journal of Applied Arts and
Health, 3(1), 49–58.
Landy, R. J. (1982). Training the drama therapist—a four-part-model. The Arts in
Psychotherapy, 9(2), 91–99.
Landy, R. J. (1983). The use of distancing in drama therapy. The Arts in
Psychotherapy, 10(3), 175–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0197-
4556(83)90006-0
Landy, R. J. (1996). Reflections upon training: The making of a drama therapist. In
R. J. Landy (Ed.), Essays in drama therapy: The double life (pp. 70–83). Bristol, PA:
Jessica Kingsley.
Landy, R. J. (2000). Extended dramatization. In M. Gold (Ed.), Therapy through
drama: The fictional family (pp. 66–74). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Leveton, E. (1996). Is it therapy or what? Boundary issues between teacher and
students of psychodrama and dramatherapy in the context of single session
therapy. In A. Gersie (Ed.), Dramatic approaches to brief therapy (pp. 146–160).
Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley.
Machado, P. P., Beutler, L. E. E., & Greenberg, L. S. (1999). Emotion recognition in
psychotherapy: Impact of therapist level of experience and emotional
awareness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 39–57.
Puchta, C., & Potter, J. (2004). Focus group practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ridley, C. R., Kelly, S. M., & Mollen, D. (2011). Microskills training: Evolution,
reexamination, and call for reform. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(6), 800–824.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000010378438
Riley, S. R. (2004). Embodied perceptual practices: Towards an embrained and
embodied model of mind for use in actor training and rehearsal. Theatre Topics,
14(2), 445–471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/tt.2004.0024
Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Seton, M. C. (2008). Post-dramatic stress: Negotiating vulnerability for
performance. In I. Maxwell (Ed.), Being there: After-proceedings of the 2006
conference of the Australasian Association for Drama, Theatre and Performance
Studies.
Seton, M. C. (2010). The ethics of embodiment: Actor training and habitual
vulnerability. Performing Ethos: International Journal of Ethics in Theatre and
Performance, 1(1), 5–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/peet.1.1.5
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological
analysis: Theory, method and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Snow, S. (2000). Using the fictional family method to train drama therapists in
improvisation and self-analysis. In M. Gold (Ed.), Therapy through drama: The
fictional family (pp. 87–117). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Truax, C., & Carkhuff, R. (1967). Toward effective counseling and psychotherapy:
Training and practice. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.
Vagle, M. D. (2010). Re-framing Schön’s call for a phenomenology of practice: A
post-intentional approach. Reflective Practice, 11(3), 393–407. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/14623943.2010.487375
Vagle, M. D. (2014). Crafting phenomenological research. Walnut Creek, CA: Left
Coast Press.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action
sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Williams, E. N., & Fauth, J. (2005). A psychotherapy process study of therapist in
session self-awareness. Psychotherapy Research, 15(4), 374–381. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/10503300500091355