Encounters with Otherness in the Work of Dorothy Heathcote
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Dorothy Heathcote observed that three things dominate in using drama in the classroom: the concept of “frame”; the deliberate infusion of “the other”; and “conventions” to keep the “human face” at the centre (n.d. a). Her praxis may, indeed, be seen as a form of encounter with alterity, or the “face” of the “Other”. Levinas has been described as the “philosopher of the Other”. He defined ethics in terms of the relationship to alterity: he posited a “face-to-face” encounter with otherness, which leads to a shift from the “for-itself” to the “for the other” (2006, p. 174). He made it clear that what he called the “face” of the Other is not the literal (physical) face, but rather, the responsibility we feel for the other person. In recent years, there has been a significant turn to Levinas among educational theorists. Gert Biesta suggests that Levinas “opens up a dialogical space where pedagogy becomes—or can remain—an event rather than being a pre-programmed process”; creating opportunities for students to respond, not as “the modern rational cogito, but as the Levinasian responsible and ‘response-able’ subject” (2003, p. 67). This article—based largely on unpublished materials from the Dorothy Heathcote Archive—focuses on a drama which she led in Alberta, Canada, in 1982, which may be seen as creating a space for “response-ability”, through a series of “focussed encounters with 'otherness'” (Heathcote, 2010, p. 19). The participants had asked to do a drama about a plane crash; the article outlines the steps which led them, not only to recognise the horror of the event, but to bear witness and take responsibility for the plight of the “Other.”
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".