Tracking Deaf Aesthetics in Deaf Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dramaturgy for plays featuring scripts developed with deaf actors, or by deaf playwrights, brings a layered and complex set of considerations about increasing accessibility in theatre productions for the cast, crew, and audience. These considerations include (1) making deliberate decisions about the languages the actors use; (2) addressing linguistic repertoires of the audience; (3) supporting or expanding sensory repertoires; (4) discussing the role of technology; and (5) incorporating deaf themes that are rarely known or understood by nondeaf audiences. Using a deaf aesthetics theoretical lens, the article explores dramaturgical decisions made by deaf playwrights, directors, and performers regarding four theatre and dance theatre works that were produced or are in progress in midwestern Canada between 2020 and 2025. The article also provides a performance ethnography of a staged reading for a script in progress developed by a deaf-led team of actors, a director, and a playwright. The performance ethnography relies on data collected from multiple sources: imagination-based activities resulting in artwork; steps within an adapted playbuilding model; video recordings of workshop sessions; the devised script; a video of the staged reading; and interviews with the deaf research team and participants. The data indicates that deaf aesthetics theatre practices drive accessibility strategies which are interwoven into the script. Plain Language Abstract (adapted by Kelsie Acton with Daniel Foulds) Dramaturgy is a way of making meaning and making people feel. People might see, hear, smell, or feel performance. So, dramaturgy is about making meaning and feeling through the senses. Dramaturgs are the people responsible for dramaturgy. When dramaturgs work on plays with deaf actors or with deaf writers they need to think about access. They must think about: The language the actors use. Will the actors speak or sign? The language the audience uses. Do they speak or sign? How many other languages do they use? How to help the audience use more than one sense. Will the play ask the audience to see as much as listen? How to use technology to increase access. How to explain the deaf experience to nondeaf audiences. This writing talks about four plays from midwestern Canada. These plays all took place in the last five years. We study a reading of a script a deaf playwright is working on with a team that is led by deaf people. We look at art made to develop the script, video of workshops, the script, video of a reading, and interviews with the deaf researchers and artists. We think about these things with deaf aesthetics theory. Deaf aesthetics theory says that deaf people should teach and make art for other deaf people. It also says art for deaf people should think about seeing and touching more than hearing. We found that deaf theatre makers don’t add access. Deaf theatre makers put access in the script from the start.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".