Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents case findings from the ongoing Together Research project based in Boorloo/Perth (Western Australia). This co-designed and participatory project is led by artists and researchers of the creative My Studio program at My Place, an organization that supports people living with disability. The project investigates the evolving practices of substantive equality and agency in the Australian arts sector. We do this through workshops that explore concepts of genuine equity for disabled artists, creative control taken by disabled artists, and empowered collaboration with nondisabled allied artists. Here, we first discuss My Studio and then focus on a specific workshop called Movement Together, which was led by My Studio artists in partnership with STRUT Dance in 2024. The workshop facilitated peer-to-peer exchange, accessible co-creation, and dance improvisation involving twelve nondisabled dance artists and eight artists living with disabilities. Co-facilitated by artists Julia Hales and Sam Fox, the workshop served as a platform for interrogating the values, ethics, and methods of the Together Research project. We reflect on the experiences of the Movement Together workshop and envision future implementations of core principles regarding movement creation and dramaturgical approaches to directing that are accessible, collaborative, and disability-led, addressing the distinct area of disadvantage for artists who have not had access to tertiary training due to the barriers of accessibility. The core principles we have developed, which contribute to what Alison Kopit, Ann Marie Dorr, and Maggie Bridger name “access dramaturgy,” emphasize in particular how accessibility means little without creative agency and substantive equality for people living with disability, particularly if attempts to dislodge systemic advantage for the “majority” are not actively made. The findings and examples provided here have been generated with the broader performing arts industry in mind, offering direct and actionable statements made developed by the Together Research artists. Plain Language Abstract (adapted by Kelsie Acton with Daniel Foulds) The Together Research is led by artists and researchers at the My Studio program at My Place. My Place is an organization that supports people living with disability. The Together Research wants artists with disabilities to have access to the arts, be treated fairly, have control over their work. This essay is about the Movement Together workshop. STRUT Dance created the Movement Together Workshop. Julia Hales and Sam Fox ran the workshop. They used improvisation, where people dance and don’t decide how to move ahead of time. There were eight nondisabled artists and eight artists living with disabilities. Both nondisabled artists living with disabilities led the creation. The workshop was a way of figuring out artists’ shared values. This essay shares what happened at the workshop. We also think about access dramaturgy, the idea that access should be part of the process of making art; and how access doesn’t mean anything unless disabled artists have control and choices.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.115 | 0.030 |
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".