Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article probes the ethics of one of the more controversial as well as exciting forms of adult education—the mode of theatre of the oppressed called ‘invisible theatre’. Looking at claims made by practitioners—Augusto Boal’s especially—and drawing on concrete theatre pieces, the author asks: What are invisible theatre’s claims to ethicality? How valid are the claims? Are the claims and practices compatible with adult education principles? And how might invisible theatre be conducted more ethically? The article demonstrates that despite invisible theatre’s highly ethical mandate, Boal’s defences of invisible theatre are wanting, the levels of deception and danger are problematic, and the standard practices and claims are incompatible with certain adult education principles and commitments, including the Freirian commitment to non‐manipulation. At the same time, it is shown, there is potential for invisible theatre praxis which is both effective and ethical, albeit changes are called for. Suggestions for improved practice include: invisible theatre troupes committing themselves to becoming ethically reflective practitioners, making minimal deception the new norm, reining in the level of conflict, exploring the ‘opaque’, and no longer taking as a given that invisible theatre should never be ‘outed’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".