Behind the Scenes: Insights on Pedagogy during Implementation of an RbT Open Educational Resource

Abstract

Research-based Theatre (RbT) offers a powerful stimulus for dialogue about the challenges of graduate supervisory relationships. This paper traces the implementation process for Rock the Boat, an open-access educational resource that includes four professionally acted scenes, a facilitator’s guide, and supplementary reading materials. The resource has been used extensively in online, in-person, and hybrid workshops to identify difficulties in graduate supervision, heighten awareness of power dynamics, and increase reflective practice among participants. Reflecting on lessons learned about the importance of pedagogy and practical logistics, we suggest that implementation aspects of RbT methodology are as vital as the creative and developmental.

1. Introduction

The graduate student supervisory relationship is a uniquely influential and complex learning relationship with important implications for pedagogy as well as for graduate student and faculty wellbeing. Many faculty and staff are, however, under-equipped to navigate the complex interpersonal, communication, and cross-cultural challenges arising in these relationships (McGhee Peggs 2023). Likewise, graduate students often experience reasonable trepidation in broaching sensitive topics such as expectations for co-authorship or requesting a leave of absence with their supervisor. Indeed, learning to survive in graduate school is a skill that requires mastery of a hidden curriculum that consists of unspoken values, beliefs, and assumptions (Jackson 1968). These are the unwritten rules and norms that reflect the dominant culture in higher education, and they are therefore deeply implicated in current efforts to create more inclusive and respectful supervisory relationships (McKeown 2022; Orón Semper and Blasco 2018).

Responding to the need for innovative educational tools to engage graduate students, faculty, and staff in difficult discussions about supervisory relationships, wellbeing, and inclusivity, we created Rock the Boat, an open educational resource (OER) using Research-based Theatre (RbT) (Belliveau and Lea 2016). This project is part of a larger, increasingly well-established movement to support open education initiatives within higher education (Downes 2007; Wiley et al. 2014). The project also advances the use of applied theatre and RbT approaches in higher education, including health professional education, to address issues related to a respectful environment, equity, diversity, and inclusivity (Barnacle et al. 2023; Hobbs et al. 2022; Jarus et al. 2022; Williams and Dwyer 2017).

Published and distributed through Pressbooks, Rock the Boat is a digital resource that includes four professionally acted scenes, a facilitator’s guide, and supplementary reading materials (Cox et al. 2023). The four scenes are each seven to ten minutes long and dramatize a relationship between one or more graduate students and their supervisors to provoke dialogue around specific challenges that can occur. While there is some overlap in characters across the scenes, each scene is self-contained and they can be viewed in any order. Zoom Fatigue addresses difficulties in communication between supervisors and graduate students as well as the wellbeing of women in academia, the challenges of working online, and power dynamics between students and faculty members. Disclosures portrays an instance of a possible inappropriate disclosure of a mental health condition of a student to another student by a graduate supervisor. No Other Choice highlights the challenges of balancing professional and personal responsibilities, and how that can influence wellbeing by featuring an interaction between an international graduate student and her supervisor around the student’s request to take leave from her studies to attend to urgent family issues back home. Lastly, Contentious Authorship delves into graduate student expectations regarding the authorship of scientific papers, and the issue of competition between peers while exploring the wellbeing of women of colour in academic environments.

Rock the Boat has been used extensively at our own as well as other universities to offer online, in person, and hybrid workshops that identify difficulties in graduate supervisory relationships, heighten awareness of power dynamics, and increase reflective practice among participants. Through experiencing a dramatized scene together, participants are able to discuss sensitive issues raised by characters without needing to disclose their own personal stories. This reduces the psychological toll of difficult discussions and enhances perspective-taking, empathy, and reflective practice amongst faculty, staff, and graduate students. The resource is also designed to support users in making key decisions about how to create and run Rock the Boat sessions in a variety of contexts and with a range of mixed or homogenous groups of graduate students, faculty, and staff.

2. Scope and Background

This paper builds on earlier work that describes our process of developing and launching Rock the Boat as an open-access educational resource (OER) (Cox et al. n.d.) at the University of British Columbia, a large, research-intensive Canadian university with a significant proportion of international graduate students. In this work, we are aware of the histories and ongoing practices of exclusion that BIPOC experience in post-secondary institutions and the importance of actively engaging in dismantling structures that obstruct justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.

The early phases of our project employed six live theatre workshops with short facilitated small group discussions after each scene in the play. The audience for these workshops ranged in size from 12 to 40, and participants had the option of joining a mixed or homogeneous group comprised of graduate students, faculty, and/or staff. We worked with a playwright to create the script and professional actors were chosen to perform it. Though this use of theatre to address systemic forms of oppression derives much from Augusto Boal’s Forum Theatre (Boal 1995), we diverged from this approach in that we did not invite participants on stage to enact alternative outcomes to the scenes. This was a decision we took as part of our commitment to generating what we felt would be the safest possible environment for workshop participants. With the transition to video, the original script evolved to focus on the creation of four scenes addressing specific instances of problematic supervisory relationships especially as they relate to experiences of sexism, racism, and neurodiversity. With this shift, we introduced new characters and issues and became aware of the need to adapt the resource for both online and in-person use.

In this paper, we reflect on lessons learned about the importance of pedagogy and practical logistics, identify salient insights gleaned from our experiences with implementing Rock the Boat in a range of academic contexts, and reflect on how these insights shaped a new, completely revamped edition of the facilitation guide for Rock the Boat. In particular, we focus on how these insights contribute to our evolving understanding of the importance of pedagogy as an integral part of RbT. Our central argument is that the implementation aspects of RbT methodology are as vital as the creative and developmental (Lea 2012), yet they are, unfortunately, often overlooked at the outset of a project as they are less obvious and decidedly less glamourous. Recognition of the role of pedagogy as a key component of implementation, and implementation as a vital aspect of RbT methodology, is especially important in the development of OERs such as Rock the Boat, since they will have no practical educational value if they just sit on the shelf! Including implementation as a distinctive phase of RbT methodology includes giving careful attention to everything from how the RbT piece is delivered to educators and intended audiences; identifying appropriate pedagogic approaches so that the resource can be successfully integrated into curricula; and devising useful advice regarding practical logistics that will support resource evaluation, long-term sustainability, and evolution of RbT interventions.

Attention to these things is also increasingly necessary to obtain funding for the development of RbT projects for use in educational settings. Having a detailed implementation and sustainability plan can set an educational RbT project apart from others by ensuring that funders see how the project will maximize opportunities to create and sustain desired impacts. In this regard, we were fortunate to be working in an institutional context where there is significant funding and support directed toward the scholarship of teaching and learning and the development of innovative educational resources. We also recognize the importance of collaborative scholarship and the salience of our own positionalities in shaping the work. Author 1 (SC) is a white able-bodied cis-woman who is a Professor and Director of a graduate program. Author 2 (MS) is a white, neurodivergent, queer PhD candidate. They are also non-binary and are from a working-class background with no history of attending graduate school. Author 3 (ML) is a BIPOC cis-man, first-generation immigrant, and English Language Learner. He is a Professor of Teaching and Associate Head of a Masters program. He is also the first person in his extended family to work in academia. Participants in the storytelling and workshopping sessions that informed the initial script development, and its subsequent modification for film, were volunteers from across the university who responded to a widespread invitation to share experiences of graduate supervisory relationships and offer suggestions on how to effectively bring these to life on stage. Some faculty and staff were colleagues and some graduate students worked with us on this and other research projects.

3. Insights about the Importance of Pedagogy in Implementation

3.1. Setting the Stage: Participant Expectations When Viewing the Performance

It is commonplace with many instructional videos that there is a didactic training component wherein the viewer learns new skills through observing correct and incorrect approaches to handling the situation being portrayed. The learning that occurs is therefore primarily within the cognitive domain and may or may not lead to attitudinal or behavioural change. In contrast, the embodied experience of theatre, whether experienced live or on screen, engages the viewer in witnessing a drama and imagining how it might turn out. The characters may or may not resemble real people and the plot may be exaggerated. Elements may feel quite surreal because it is expected that, in entering the world of theatre, we suspend our usual judgements about what is realistic and simply allow ourselves to become immersed. There is a greater role for humour and other emotions and the experience may feel deeply visceral. This is especially pertinent to understanding the impacts of RbT, as witnessing the enactment of real-life stories of individuals who have experiences similar to one’s own may evoke a powerful empathic response. Though there may be a subsequent appeal to the cognitive domain when discussing the experience with others, the learning is first and foremost affective and embodied.

The importance of this distinction for our project became abundantly clear when piloting the four video scenes from Rock the Boat through online and in-person workshops. Viewers are accustomed to learning from instructional videos that provide explicit takeaways for managing a challenging situation or developing more effective styles of communication. Our purpose was distinctly different. We sought to unsettle taken-for-granted assumptions and provoke doubt about what the right course of action might be. Characters often modelled behaviours that were problematic and, in some cases, acted as if they were larger than life. No one character had all the answers or displayed a workable solution to the situation. These attributes were not always met uncritically. Although many workshop participants found it refreshing to engage in discussing the scenarios, some were frustrated by not being given specific takeaway messages about correct approaches to resolving significant challenges.

Our approach to handling this emergent tension requires a deliberate effort to manage participant expectations by giving explicit attention to setting the stage prior to viewing a scene. The resource therefore includes a slide with pictures of the main characters and a brief synopsis of what transpires in the scene. Participants are made aware of any content warnings and reminded that the stories they will see enacted on screen are based on research and shared stories but have been fictionalized and dramatized to heighten portrayal of inherent tensions and exaggerate behaviours of the main characters. We also encourage participants to actively identify with familiar or unfamiliar points of view and to attend to what “pops” or resonates most strongly for them. Although our facilitation guide actively encourages participants to identify specific content for key takeaway messages, we have found that it is equally or more important to maintain emphasis on spontaneous and creative responses that signal shifts in understanding the perspectives of various characters and the questions each might entertain. This requires concerted attention from the facilitator, but when successful paves the way for establishing a climate of empathy and understanding that is especially important when working with mixed groups that include both faculty and graduate students.

3.2. Risks and Benefits of Learning in Community

Just as traditional instructional videos and workshops tend to focus on didactic training, they also tend to orient toward homogenous audiences (i.e., exclusively graduate students, faculty, or staff). To the extent that some may cater to mixed audiences, there is seldom sufficient stimulus to create open or constructive dialogue between different populations in the audience. As a result, the experience may serve to heighten existing tensions and exacerbate the division between faculty and graduate students. There are good reasons for this division given the stark power relations inherent in graduate supervisory relationships, the intensity of emotions that may arise during discussion, and the ease with which serious harms can be perpetrated; however, there are also negative implications of allowing it to persist. It may contribute to a defensive or adversarial atmosphere between graduate students, faculty, and staff. Likewise, it may make it more difficult to understand the interconnectedness of the issues each party faces and how it affects their subsequent wellbeing. Additionally, engaging in dialogue with individuals that occupy different roles or have different backgrounds can be a particularly fruitful way of gaining a deeper understanding of other perspectives, developing more practical and mutually viable interventions, and reducing stigma (Walch et al. 2012).

One of the most difficult, yet insightful, components of creating a supportive and productive space for discussion in Rock the Boat sessions was navigating issues arising from the composition of workshop and small group discussions. We do not wish to suggest that there is an objectively correct way to compose small groups. Instead, our aim is to highlight the ways in which these decisions must be made in light of the goals and intentions of a particular session and the ways in which these decisions contribute to the pedagogy of a session.

Navigating issues related to group composition is perhaps most straightforward when the workshop audience is homogenous with respect to their role in supervisory relationships; however, there is still a range of relevant considerations. For example, we quickly learned the importance of considering the degree of familiarity with the relevant issues (e.g., Masters vs PhD students or junior vs senior faculty). When small groups were composed of participants with a wide range of familiarity with the relevant issues, those with less familiarity were able to benefit greatly from the knowledge and experience of the participants with more familiarity; however, this composition also often resulted in the more experienced participants leading the conversation away from the context of the scene to their own personal experiences. Likewise, this composition often made a particular power dynamic more salient, with more experienced participants taking on a further authoritative, instructional role in the conversation.

In contrast, groups composed of participants with a similar degree of familiarity with graduate student supervisory issues allowed for a more open exploration of these issues; however, there were drawbacks with this approach as well. Groups composed of those with a high degree of familiarity with the relevant issues occasionally veered into sharing their own past experiences rather than engaging with the scene or possible resolutions. These groups were also more likely to express a sense of resignation and skepticism with regard to the possibilities for meaningful change. Likewise, groups composed of those with a low degree of familiarity with the relevant issues often focused heavily on the dynamics and possible range of interventions that might rectify problems in the specific scene they viewed but tended to demonstrate less familiarity with the broader systemic factors contributing to these problems.

Composing supportive and productive heterogeneous groups presents an even greater range of complexity; however, there were several guiding principles that remained constant throughout the implementation process. A core tension stemmed from our intention to allow participants as much flexibility and autonomy in choosing their groups and group composition, while also composing groups in such a way as to minimize potential conflicts and harms based on our own past experiences and understanding of the power dynamics within graduate student supervisory relationships. For example, whenever possible, we allowed participants to choose between a mixed or homogenous discussion group. Given the stark power differential between faculty and graduate students and the potential for harmful consequences, we always tried to at least give graduate students the ability to choose between a mixed or homogenous group. However, for a variety of reasons, we set a firm expectation that a graduate student should never be in a discussion group with their own supervisor. The possibility of harmful consequences, including unconscious bias effects and the dampening of frank conversation, far outweighed any possible benefits of such an arrangement. We held to this expectation even in cases where both the supervisor and graduate student expressed that they were comfortable being in a group together. For example, a supervisor’s disclosure of a health concern or past traumatic event could result in the graduate student feeling, even unconsciously, as if they should rely less heavily on their supervisor or not seek advice on a particular topic. Likewise, a student’s disclosure of a similar issue may result in the supervisor unconsciously giving that student fewer opportunities, less work, or other negative consequences.

3.3. Local Expertise and Collective Wisdom: Cultivating the Art of Facilitation

Most Rock the Boat participants already have knowledge and personal experience navigating graduate supervisory relationships; some are positive and successful, while others are less than satisfactory or even negative and harmful. Some participants also have extensive knowledge of and experience in addressing these issues at the institutional level. As previously discussed, our goal in a Rock the Boat session was not to attempt to provide objectively correct solutions to complex issues. Rather, our goal was to create the opportunity for participants to contribute their knowledge, experience, and understanding to in-depth discussions on the presented scene and to gain new insight through the dialogue. Drawing upon constructivism in learning theories, Rock the Boat aims to provide a forum for participants to actively participate in constructing their knowledge and transforming their perspectives rather than passively taking in information (Schreiber and Valle 2013).

It is no surprise that participants find that Rock the Boat sessions often resonate strongly with personal experiences. Mindful of the potential harms that could arise when participants revisit undesirable supervisory encounters, Rock the Boat presents dramatized scenes for the participants to refer to in working through various graduate supervisory issues. This avoids the need for the participants to disclose their personal experiences and confidential information and mitigates the risk of re-traumatization.

The four scenes from Rock the Boat were developed from anonymized storytelling sessions and research data we collected at our home university. Following RbT methodology, the emergent script ideas were then workshopped with graduate students, faculty, and staff using a variety of physical theatre and other techniques. The resulting scenes depict complex situations with layers of compounding factors that also yield rich content for in-depth dialogue on specific challenges encountered in supervisory relationships as well as larger systemic issues of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Facilitators are there to support group members in actively discussing the scenes, and to prompt them in parsing out contentious issues embedded in each scene. Using a series of guiding questions designed to evoke nuanced reflections, facilitators can tap into the collective wisdom of the participants to surface new insights of the group. This helps participants reframe graduate supervisory issues in accordance with newly acquired perspectives, learn potential strategies for responding to similar situations, and apply insights to their personal context or in supporting peers who are facing graduate supervision challenges. Hence, facilitators need to adopt an appropriate facilitative approach, welcome open discussions, accept diverse opinions, and not default to pre-determined answers to questions arising in the group discussions.

A skilled facilitator can draw upon the collective wisdom of participants and use the scenes to help participants envision how they might practice taking a step back when dealing with similar issues in their own supervisory relationships. Through non-judgemental discussion and the avoidance of jumping to premature conclusions, facilitators can also help participants to recognize an array of possible responses to any given situation and realize there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the tensions that inevitably arise in supervisory relationships. Using the questions and prompts appropriate to each scene, facilitators can effectively foster participants to embrace ambiguity, complexity, and nuance and find the depth and breadth of the issues presented in each scene. This will maximize the impacts of the collective wisdom and learning generated by Rock the Boat.

3.4. Generating Buy-In from Those Not (Yet) in the Choir

From the start, we knew it would be challenging to engage participants who have no apparent interest in working through tensions arising from graduate supervisory relationships. This includes recalcitrant faculty, overworked staff and graduate students who feel unable to surmount power differentials. Unsurprisingly, sessions such as Rock the Boat often attract audiences who are already interested in the topic and committed to trying to address these issues. To arouse wider engagement with the topic of graduate supervisory relationships, we made repeated and deliberate efforts to reach out to those who were not invested in this topic.

During the early stages of the dissemination of Rock the Boat, such as in conferences and webinars, we connected with like-minded participants and supported them to share our work within their circles of influence. This enabled Rock the Boat to reach audiences well beyond our immediate contacts. Publishing the media as an open educational resource permitted the audience to gain full access to the material at no cost. It allowed significantly easier access and wider use of the material. The facilitator guide also provides rich information to prepare interested participants to readily host their own session, take on a facilitator’s role and further disseminate the material to an even wider audience. We also made a conscious decision to make the material “non-commercial” and “share alike” through a Creative Commons license. That way, users can incorporate Rock the Boat into their non-commercial work, and distribute and share the material freely, only needing to cite the authors by way of acknowledgement. This also further increases the wider distribution of the material and encourages the continued evolution of the resource. As a result, the material was not only used by like-minded conference participants. We also received requests from people we did not know, inviting us to offer workshops for their colleagues.

In addition to using a bottom-up approach (Braunack-Mayer and Louise 2008) to mobilize like-minded colleagues to advance awareness of graduate supervisory relationship issues at the grassroots level, we also used a top-down approach by involving senior administrators to ensure the involvement of faculty members who were indifferent to these issues. We intentionally reached out to the deans and directors of graduate programs through various opportunities to make our project known to them, such as pre-conference workshops and meetings. This provided graduate program senior administrators with the opportunity to view the scenes, participate in discussions, and gain first-hand experience of the impacts of Rock the Boat. Many of them were impressed, not only by the quality of the video and the acting but also by the rich discussions generated and the many “a-ha” moments they experienced personally. These first-hand experiences helped the deans and the directors to appreciate the power of videos created through RbT and motivate them to promote it to their teams and subordinates.

After presenting to senior administrators, we were invited to present the workshops in faculty meetings, curriculum retreats, research team professional development days, and the like. Presenting the sessions in these mandatory events enabled Rock the Boat to reach those who are indifferent to graduate supervisory issues and to engage those who would otherwise not pay attention to such development opportunities. Having support from the top also promotes the development of relevant resources (such as policies and guidelines) at the Faculty and Department levels to sustain the ongoing practice of supporting graduate student wellbeing and the creation of a healthier learning environment for everyone involved in graduate student supervision.

One such top-down program using Rock the Boat is the Healthy Environments in Academic Research Teams (HEART) program that is currently being piloted by the Graduate and Postdoctoral Education office at the University of British Columbia to create a respectful and supportive learning and work environment. It aims to equip research teams with the knowledge and tools they need to create a genuinely healthy and inclusive research environment for everyone. To this end, the HEART program will offer certificates and recognition to individuals and teams who complete required learning modules, additional training opportunities of their choice, and the associated self-reflection exercise. Rock the Boat is one of the mandatory modules that addresses graduate supervisory relationships. While participating in the HEART program is optional, receiving recognition as a champion in promoting a healthy research environment is a significant incentive that will attract potential graduate students to seek supervisors from that unit. At the same time, it should motivate supervisors to enroll in the program to attract more trainees to their research labs. Recognition at the institutional level will also motivate those who are not as keen to address graduate supervisory issues to initiate action in this important domain.

3.5. What’s in This for Us?

While we expected that generating support from those not yet committed to addressing issues in graduate student supervisory relationships would prove challenging, a related challenge that we had not predicted arose during the implementation of Rock the Boat: this was demonstrating the value of participating in Rock the Boat sessions to those with considerable lived experience of the issues. While these individuals were generally very supportive of the goals of Rock the Boat and encouraged the use of the resource, it was much less obvious how these individuals themselves would benefit from participating.

Such wariness was especially understandable given that typical workshops focusing on equity, inclusion, and wellbeing topics often involve superficial discussions of these issues that may trivialize participants’ lived experience or prompt participants to divulge their own personal, sometimes traumatic, experiences merely to educate other participants without relevant lived experience. In our experience, one of the primary benefits of using RbT to prompt awareness and discussion of these issues was precisely that it enabled a deeper discussion of the issues without prompting participants to describe their own personal experiences. By using theatre, we were able to show participants an example of what the lived experience of individuals in the scene might be like and that portrayal was grounded in the stories told to us by anonymized individuals occupying similar roles to the characters (Bertilsdotter Rosqvist et al. 2023). While this approach was conducive to demonstrating lived experience to participants with less of their own relevant experience while avoiding the issue of more experienced participants feeling as if they need to divulge or relive their own personal experiences to the group, it also highlighted the lack of clear benefit in participating to those with extensive first-hand experience.

In some ways, identifying potential solutions to the issue of generating buy-in from those not already invested in addressing graduate student supervisory issues was more straightforward than identifying potential solutions to this more trenchant issue. We had clear, concrete objectives and intentions when delivering sessions to participants who were new to addressing these issues; however, it was much more difficult to concretely articulate our objectives and intentions to participants with extensive lived experience of the issues. Thus, it was also more difficult to identify potential benefits to such participants.

To articulate the objectives and benefits for experienced participants, it was valuable to begin with what was more obvious to us: what our objectives were not. We knew, for example, that our intention in offering Rock the Boat sessions was not to perpetuate a tendency of wellbeing workshops to frame the barriers that individuals face as resulting from an individual’s deficits and needing individual-level, universal solutions (e.g., better time management, eating more fruits and vegetables, or attending more yoga sessions). Additionally, our intention was not to perpetuate the tendency of many workshops related to equity, diversity, and inclusion by merely indicating the ways in which these barriers function at a systemic level. This approach often leaves participants without clear, concrete actions they can carry forward after the workshop and risks trivializing or flattening the diverse lived experiences of participants.

As such, a fundamental objective of sessions composed of participants with a wide range of relevant lived experience was to generate behavioural change, particularly in those without relevant lived experience, that was informed by suggestions and testimonials given by those with extensive, relevant lived experience. Importantly, the latter individuals were able to offer those suggestions and testimonials through the lens of the theatre scene they had experienced together, rather than needing to disclose their own experiences. For example, after watching No Other Choice, a scene focusing on an international student experiencing resistance to her decision to take a leave of absence, in a for-credit course composed of a mixture of domestic and international students, international students were able to describe what they would find helpful from their domestic student colleagues if they were the international student in the scene, rather than needing to frame those suggestions as what they personally would want. Likewise, this enabled participants to leave sessions with a greater understanding of the structural barriers international students must confront and concrete ways in which they can support and advocate for international students.

In sessions composed predominately or entirely of participants with extensive lived experience of relevant issues, we were able to have loftier, more liberatory objectives. Through discussion with other experienced participants, they were able to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the structural features impacting them, as well as better recognize the wide range of other people within the institution experiencing similar barriers and issues. Participants were also able to better recognize the unique ways in which these features created barriers and issues for other participants with different intersecting identities.

For example, after watching Disclosures, a scene depicting a graduate student dealing with a possible inappropriate disclosure, in a for-credit course, nearly every student present openly expressed having experienced a similar example of personal information being inappropriately disclosed to someone else by someone in a position of authority throughout their time in post-secondary education. Many students expressed surprise at the number of their colleagues having experienced a similar situation and the facilitator was able to focus the conversation more explicitly on analysing the structural features of the institution that contribute to the prevalence of this experience.

A common, negative consequence of focusing on the structural features that contribute to these issues and recognizing their prevalence is a sense of resignation about there being little one can do to alleviate these issues; however, by grounding sessions in RbT and asking participants to rewrite or alter parts of the scene, we were able to facilitate a shift more easily in the discussion towards creatively imagining radically different possibilities. Participants were invited to move beyond considering small changes that could be made to the institution as it currently exists and instead consider alternative, more liberatory conceptions of education, mentorship, and inclusivity (Savarese 2013). Participants could imagine a radically different way of conceptualizing graduate student supervisory relationships, such as a collaborative learning experience in which all sides are recognized as having relevant knowledge and expertise that is valuable to others in the relationship. Participants could then work backwards to identify concrete steps that could, at least subtly, move the conversation and institution towards those alternative structures.

Returning to the Disclosures example above, while there was a useful shift to analysing the relevant structural features, there was also a distinct negative shift in participant attitudes about the possibility of intervening or alleviating the impact of the relevant structural features. A general sense of “this is just how things are and will always be” permeated the discussion; however, we were able to shift the trajectory of the conversation to imaging radically different institutions. Rather than focusing on small shifts that could help alleviate the tendency to have confidential information inappropriately disclosed, such as better clarifying and training individuals on confidentiality and disclosure topics, we could focus on broader, more liberatory questions, such as: what would a post-secondary institution look like that did not require students to perpetually disclose sensitive, deeply personal information to obtain basic “accommodations”? Or, what could an institution look like that operated on an assumption of trust in its students instead of the assumption that every student is attempting to receive unfair and unjustified benefits that they do not deserve? Or, even more radically, what would an institution look like that truly valued the diversity of those that compose it rather than treating deviation from the norm as a deficit in need of “accommodations” in the first place?

3.6. Alternative Outcomes

In what we identified as some of the most successful facilitated small group discussions, participants felt encouraged to boldly reframe commonplace assumptions and, through doing so, pose new provocative questions. For example, in one for-credit graduate seminar we hosted a workshop featuring the scene Contentious Authorship, a scene depicting a conflict between two graduate students regarding authorship on a paper. As the characters in the scene demonstrate, there is a hidden curriculum in graduate school and, when it comes to authorship, it is often as much about preserving a pecking order as it is about recognizing individual contributions. Given the opportunity to rewrite the possible endings to the scene and reimagine how we think about the parallel processes of knowledge production and dissemination, workshop participants probed deeply into the validity of taken-for-granted institutional approaches to determining the ownership of ideas and hence authorship. Is not all knowledge building on what came before? Or at least responding to it? And if so, does the order of authorship really matter so much?

The plethora of interesting questions that emerged in response to the scene on authorship made us aware that participants wanted to think big and talk about necessary systemic as well as microlevel changes. Translating this into our evolving pedagogic approach to offering Rock the Boat workshops meant rewriting prompts for discussion with an eye toward preserving open-endedness as opposed to attaining consensus on suitable resolutions to the challenges portrayed. Coming back to the pedagogic importance of setting the stage, our first theme in this discussion, it is worth emphasizing that the decision to actively avoid providing participants with key takeaway messages requires a deliberate commitment to enabling alternative outcomes. Thus, in revising our facilitation guide to incorporate giving participants some greater creative license, we also added a wrap-up question that invites them to consider how they would rewrite the ending to the scene they have just witnessed. This provides a concrete opportunity to demonstrate the application of new insights while avoiding the pitfalls of emphasizing a one-size-fits-all prescription for managing conflict.

Quite possibly, in its emphasis on the heuristic value of exploratory thinking and the emergence of collective wisdom, the task of identifying alternative outcomes has the potential to build solidarity and foster reciprocal responsibilities amongst participants. This is more likely when workshops are offered in the context of ongoing structural support where participants have the ability to engage in more sustained interactions (such as with a group of junior faculty who meet several times a term to discuss mutual concerns about supervision, or through a peer-to-peer graduate student mentorship network).

4. Conclusions

The insights around pedagogy and practical logistics arising from the implementation of Rock the Boat are likely relevant to the implementation of other RbT projects in a post-secondary educational setting. Our aim in sharing them is not to overwhelm readers with the complexity and number of relevant decisions that need to be made throughout the implementation process. Instead, we hope to have demonstrated that there is much exciting and provocative work to be done in constructing and refining effective pedagogic strategies to support the use of RbT resources. The implementation of an RbT project is often treated as an afterthought and conceived of as drab and uninteresting compared to the creatively rich prior stages of development and creation; however, in our experience, the implementation process can be equally creative, inspiring, and pedagogically insightful. Further, careful consideration of the implementation process during the earlier stages of project development can help to ensure there are mechanisms in place to foster the meaningful evolution of the work. Clearly envisioning these mechanisms and the practical logistics that support them will also strengthen funding applications by demonstrating the potential sustainability and continued relevance of the project.

The development and creation of an RbT project typically involves a great deal of collaboration with community members and this collaborative process can, and should, continue throughout the implementation process. Feedback and continuous assessment of participant experiences are especially important to ensuring that the resource is being delivered in a meaningful and effective way (Nichols et al. 2022). With a project such as Rock the Boat, in which theatrical scenes are prerecorded, it would be easy to think of the final product as unchangeable; however, as important as it is to create a polished product, it will have little traction if its mode of delivery does not evolve in response to participant understandings of the relevant issues and context. A theatre piece may do a wonderful job of capturing and portraying how an individual or community conceives of an issue or of themselves, but as these issues evolve and change, so too must our questions, and the language we use to describe our understandings of, and relationship to, these issues. Attending closely to the pedagogic and practical logistics of implementation is therefore an integral component of RbT methodology if the resulting work is to be relevant and impactful.