See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249735733

Dramatizing Data: A Primer

Article in Qualitative Inquiry · April 2003

DOI: 10.1177/1077800402250932

CITATIONS READS
220 1,045

1 author:

Johnny Saldaña
Arizona State University
51 PUBLICATIONS 62,209 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Johnny Saldaña on 21 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

10.1177/1077800402250932
QUALITATIVE
Saldaña / DRAMATIZING
INQUIRY /DATA
April 2003 ARTICLE
Dramatizing Data: A Primer

Johnny Saldaña
Arizona State University

Due to the lack of “how-to” pieces in the methods literature, a theatre artist who later
became an ethnographer offers this personal primer in playwriting with qualitative data.
Ethnodramatic research representation should be chosen not for its novelty but for its
appropriateness as a medium for telling a participant’s story credibly, vividly, and per-
suasively. An overview of such fundamental playwriting principles as plotting, charac-
terization, monologues, dialogue, and staging is given. The author also proposes that col-
laborative ventures between ethnographers and theatre practitioners should be initiated
to heighten the artistic quality of ethnotheatrical presentations.

Keywords: ethnodrama; ethnotheatre; ethnographic performance; performance; writing

I’m an opinionated pragmatist, so my stylistic choices for this article are

semiformal and “how to” because there is a lack of related methods pieces in
the published works I’ve reviewed. I’m also a 30-year veteran of theatre1 arts,
who has only within the past 7 years immersed myself in qualitative research,
including recent explorations into ethnographic performance texts (Saldaña,
1998a, 1998b, 1999; Saldaña & Wolcott, 2001; Wolcott, 2002). As working defi-
nitions, ethnotheatre employs traditional craft and artistic techniques of for-
mal theatre production to mount a live performance event of research partici-
pants’ experiences and/or researchers’ interpretations of data for an
audience. An ethnodrama, the script, consists of analyzed and dramatized
significant selections from interview transcripts, field notes, journal entries,
or other written artifacts. Characters in an ethnodrama are generally the
research participants portrayed by actors, but the actual researchers and par-
ticipants themselves may be cast members.
Selected writers in theatre and the social sciences (Conquergood, 1991;
Dening, 1996; Denzin, 2001; Geertz, 1983; Goffman, 1959; Goodall, 2000; Kalb,
2001; Landy, 1993; Mienczakowski, 2001; Schechner, 1985; Turner, 1982;
Turner & Turner, 1982) have examined and theorized about the disciplines’
blurred genres and their implications for interpretation and performance.2
Ethnotheatre represents a fairly recent movement in qualitative inquiry to

Qualitative Inquiry, Volume 9 Number 2, 2003 218-236

DOI: 10.1177/1077800402250932
© 2003 Sage Publications

218
 Saldaña / DRAMATIZING DATA 219

experiment with artistic modes of research representation (Bagley &

Cancienne, 2002; Barone, 1997; Denzin, 1997; Diamond & Mullen, 1999, 2000;
Eisner, 1997; Ellis & Bochner, 1996; S. Finley & Knowles, 1995; Jipson & Paley,
1997; Spry, 2001). Most of the ethnodramas I’ve read have been written by
researchers, sometimes in collaboration with their participants. Examples of
qualitative and ethnographic work presented in dramatic form include (a) the
writing processes of middle schoolers (Donmoyer & Yennie-Donmoyer,
1995), (b) a typical day in teachers’ lives at school (Walker, Pick, & MacDon-
ald, 1991), (c) teachers struggling with and reflecting on their practices
(Boran, 1999; Rogers, Frellick, & Babinski, 2002; Vanover & Saldaña, 2002), (d)
social issues among adolescents (Norris, 2000), (e) the artistic development of
an adolescent actor (Saldaña, 1998b), (f) personal stories of jazz musicians
(Kotarba, 1998), (g) race relations in a rural community (Pifer, 1999) and in
high school settings (Goldstein, 2001, 2002; Rohd, 2001), (h) health issues
(Mienczakowski, 1995, 1996, 1997; Mienczakowski, Smith, & Morgan, 2002),
(i) homeless youth in New Orleans (S. Finley & Finley, 1998), (j) a couple expe-
riencing the abortion of their child (Ellis & Bochner, 1992), (k) power struggles
between school officers (Meyer, 1998), (l) a father’s strained relationship with
his adult son (Pelias, 2002), (m) the disintegration of a marriage (Foster, 2002),
(n) fieldwork from Nigeria (Jones, 2002), (o) incarcerated African American
males (Keck, 1996), (p) lesbian physical education teachers (Sykes, Chapman,
& Swedberg, 2002), (q) a physician and a cancer patient (Paget, 1995), (r) Mat-
thew Shepherd’s murder in The Laramie Project (Kaufman & the Members of
the Tectonic Theater Project, 2001), and (s) Colin Turnbull and director Peter
Brook’s collaboration with The Ik (Grinker, 2000).3
What makes ethnotheatre an appropriate presentational choice for quali-
tative research? Performance critic Sylvia Drake challenges writers to con-
sider the appropriateness of a story’s medium and whether a tale would be
best told through live theatre, television, or film. Just as some theatrical and
media works are adapted from literary sources (e.g., Wolfe’s [1979] The Right
Stuff; Terkel’s [1974] Working), selected qualitative reports lend themselves to
adaptation for the stage, television/video, or film. Several studies possess
exciting possibilities for the intimacy of the stage (e.g., Wolcott’s [1994, 2002]
“Brad Trilogy”), the documentary flavor of television/video (e.g., Kozol’s
[1991] Savage Inequalities), or the magnitude of film (e.g., Geertz’s [1973]
“Deep Play: Notes on a Balinese Cockfight”). A key question to discern the
most appropriate mode of representation and presentation for qualitative
research is, Will the participant’s story be credibly, vividly, and persuasively
told for an audience through a traditional written report, video documentary,
photographic portfolio, Web site, poetry, dance, music, visual art installation,
or ethnodrama? If it’s the latter, then a qualitative researcher playwrites with
data.
The art of writing for the stage is similar to yet different from creating a
dramatic narrative for qualitative reports because ethnotheatre employs the
220 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / April 2003

media and conventions of theatrical production. A researcher’s criteria for

excellent ethnography in article or book formats don’t always harmonize
with an artist’s criteria for excellent theatre. This may be difficult for some to
accept, but theatre’s primary goal is neither to “educate” nor to “enlighten.”
Theatre’s primary goal is to entertain—to entertain ideas and to entertain for
pleasure. With ethnographic performance, then, comes the responsibility to
create an entertainingly informative experience for an audience, one that is
aesthetically sound, intellectually rich, and emotionally evocative.
Examples from my own two ventures with ethnotheatre will be used
below to illustrate selected playwriting concepts and staging techniques—
fundamental “technical skills” critical to the arts (Eisner, 2001, p. 144). These
production experiences were influenced by my initial education and subse-
quent practice as a playwright, director, actor, designer, and instructor of
theatre. This type of artistic training generates research perspectives different
from colleagues first educated in social sciences who later in their academic
careers explore drama as a genre of research representation.

PLOTTING—THE CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK OF ETHNODRAMA
Most writers label the progression of events in a story its plot. But in dra-
matic literature, plot is the overall structure of the play; story line refers to the
progression of events within the plot. Dramatic structures include the num-
ber of acts, scenes, and vignettes (“units” to most theatre practitioners);
whether the time line of events is chronological or randomly episodic; and
whether monologue, dialogue, and/or lyric are the most appropriate narra-
tive forms for its characters. The story line is the sequential arrangement of
units within the plot.
These terms are differentiated because plotting and story lining in
ethnodrama and conventional plays are initially separate but eventually
interwoven processes. For example, in Transforming Qualitative Data, Wolcott
(1994) separated the three articles of “The Brad Trilogy” under the chapters
“Description,” “Analysis,” and “Interpretation.” This organizational
arrangement stimulated the plot construction of its ethnodramatic adapta-
tion, Finding My Place: The Brad Trilogy (Saldaña & Wolcott, 2001), into three
separate scenes, also subtitled “Description,” “Analysis,” and “Interpreta-
tion.” The addition of a “Prologue” and “Epilogue” provided a contextual
framing and reflection, respectively, about the story. Because another plot
choice was chronological linearity, the story line of the play follows a tradi-
tional beginning-middle-end design to portray events as they occurred
between Harry and Brad during the 1980s (Wolcott, 2002).
Jean Luc Godard is attributed with a plotting maxim: “A story should have
a beginning, a middle, and an end—but not necessarily in that order.” My first
 Saldaña / DRAMATIZING DATA 221

ethnodrama, “Maybe Someday, if I’m Famous” (Saldaña, 1998b), which por-

trays the artistic development of an adolescent actor over two and a half
years, did not follow strict chronological linearity. The initial analysis of this
study’s data reduced the 150-page corpus to one third its length for core con-
tent examination (Seidman, 1991), linked multiple participant data for trian-
gulation (Miles & Huberman, 1994), and used in vivo codes for category
development (Strauss, 1987).4 This process generated eight distinct categories
of participant meanings that formed eight separate scenes. The plot was a lin-
ear collage loosely sequenced by chronology and progressive reflexivity. The
play begins with the actor’s past and ends with his projected future. But in-
between is a series of scenes that advance from his public performances to his
more personal, private thoughts (Saldaña, 1998b).
There’s a folk saying among theatre practitioners: “A play is life—with all
the boring parts taken out.” Comparable advice for those interested in script-
ing their research is, “An ethnodrama is the data corpus—with all the boring
parts taken out.” The basic content for ethnodrama is the reduction of field
notes, interview transcripts, journal entries, and so forth to salient, fore-
ground issues—the “juicy stuff” for “dramatic impact” (Saldaña, 1998a, pp. 184-
185). The results are a participant’s and/or researcher’s combination of
meaningful life vignettes, significant insights, and epiphanies. This process
generates the material from which the structure and content—its plot and
story line—are constructed.5

PARTICIPANTS AS
CHARACTERS IN ETHNODRAMA
The cast of characters for an ethnodrama is composed of the minimum
number of participants necessary to serve the story line’s progression, and
whose stories are potentially engaging for an audience. Characters serve mul-
tiple purposes in plays, but each individual should be rendered with
dimensionality, regardless of length of time on stage. Most directors and
actors approach the analysis of a character by examining (a) what the charac-
ter says, overtly or covertly, about his or her life or objectives; (b) what the
character does to achieve those objectives; (c) what other characters say about
him or her and how they support or prevent the character from achieving his
or her objectives; (d) what the playwright offers about characters in stage
directions or supplementary text; and (e) what dramatic criticism and per-
sonal life experience offer about the characters. These conventions can be
adapted for data analysis and function as guidelines to promote a three-
dimensional portrayal of a participant in ethnodrama: (a) from interviews:
what the participant reveals about his or her perceptions or constructed
meanings; (b) from field notes, journal entries, or other written artifacts: what
the researcher observes, infers, and interprets from the participant in action;
222 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / April 2003

(c) from observations or interviews with other participants connected to the

primary case study: perspectives about the primary participant or phenom-
ena; and (d) from research literature: what other scholars offer about the phe-
nomena under investigation.
The majority of traditional plays are told from the protagonist’s point of
view, which serves as a model for retelling an individual participant’s story as
a case study. For example, some autoethnographies, such as Tillmann-
Healy’s (1996) personal struggle with bulimia, suggest a one-person narra-
tive plot. Even though friends, parents, and teachers are present in her story, I
can envision one woman on stage portraying Tillmann-Healy and all other
roles, similar to Lily Tomlin alternating between more than 20 characters in
Jane Wagner’s (1986) The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe or the
solo performances of Anna Deveare Smith’s (2000) interviews with various
political figures, writers, and American citizens. Some plays feature two char-
acters in traditional protagonist and antagonist roles or two characters, both
flawed, who attempt to resolve their interpersonal conflicts. The interactions
between the ethnographer and case study are suggested here, such as Brad
and Harry F. Wolcott’s relationship in his “Trilogy.”
Several newer dramas feature multiple characters in multiple vignettes
presenting a series of monologues and/or small group scenes that portray
significant moments from their lives—ensemble plays with a spectrum of
voices and no leading roles. Pifer’s (1999) ethnodrama on race relations fea-
tures a Ku Klux Klansman in full regalia describing the significance of a burn-
ing cross, though the actual “character” was never encountered during field-
work itself. Nevertheless, his inclusion and brief monologue provide
stunning counterpoint to the White participants’ attitudes toward Blacks.
Small or large group studies with contradictory perspectives from multiple
participants suggest an ensemble play, of sorts. Conflicting agendas from stu-
dents, parents, teachers, and administrators in education studies can be high-
lighted through juxtaposition (Boran, 1999). S. Finley and Finley’s (1998)
community of homeless youth in New Orleans is another ensemble. Both the
formal research article (S. Finley & Finley, 1999) and its artistic representation
through poetry (M. Finley, 2000) are rich material for adolescent actors to
adapt and portray onstage.
A problematic choice is the researcher’s inclusion as a character in
ethnodrama. Does the principal investigator have a role to play, one just as
essential as the primary participants? In a fieldwork context, yes. But depend-
ing on the purpose of the research, is he or she a major or minor character? To
apply some of the most common types of characters in dramatic literature, is
the ethnographer (a) a leading character with extensive monologues com-
posed of field notes and journal entries like some Brechtian narrator; (b) the
leading character’s best friend, a secondary but nevertheless important role
because the lead confides his or her innermost secrets to you; (c) a chorus
 Saldaña / DRAMATIZING DATA 223

member (as in Greek tragedy), offering supplemental reflections and insights

on human life, suggested by the major characters’ dilemmas; (d) an offstage
voice, physically absent yet ever present like some omniscient being; (e) a ser-
vant whose primary function is to announce the arrival of guests, deliver
exposition, and sometimes function as comic relief; (f) an extra who stands
with the background crowd, not commenting but merely reacting peripher-
ally to issues detailed by the leads; or (g) an unnecessary character cut from
the play all together? To adapt a popular folk saying from the culture of thea-
tre, “there are no small parts, only small ethnographers.” Sometimes, the
researcher’s best “positionality” is off stage.
Most researchers have been taught to never let the data speak for itself, but
I question that directive’s applicability to ethnodrama. Many participants can
speak on their own behalf without interpretive intervention from a
fieldworker. Just as an ethnographer asks, “What is this research about?”
ethnodramatists must ask, “Whose story is it?” Reflexivity is a common com-
ponent in qualitative narratives, but in ethnotheatre, the researcher’s onstage
presence and commentary could detract from rather than add to the principal
participants’ stories. In “Maybe Someday, if I’m Famous” (Saldaña, 1998b), my
presence in scenes between the adolescent actor and his classroom theatre
teachers was unnecessary. But my field note monologues of his rehearsal and
performance processes were critical pieces of evidentiary data for the audi-
ence. Wolcott’s intimate relationship with Brad requires that the researcher
become a leading character in the ethnodrama. But my contribution as the
adapter of the script did not, to me, require my presence on stage.

MONOLOGUES AND DIALOGUE—

DRAMATIZING THE DATA
Monologues. Monologues are extended passages of text spoken by one
character that are (a) addressed to another character listening on stage, (b)
addressed directly to the audience, or (c) reveal inner thoughts spoken
aloud—a soliloquy—for the audience (see Prendergast, 2001). A playwright
in ethnodrama is not just a storyteller, he or she is a story-reteller. You don’t
compose what your participants tell you in interviews, but you can creatively
and strategically edit the transcripts, assuming you wish to maintain rather
than “restory” their narratives. Interviews with one participant generate
transcript data suitable for transformation into one-person reflections. Smith
(2000) encouraged the search for participants’ rhythms, passions, and

the very moment that language fails them. In the very moment that they have to
be more creative than they would have imagined in order to communicate. It’s
the very moment that they have to dig deeper than the surface to find words.
(p. 53)
224 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / April 2003

And because a play is life—with all the boring parts taken out—and one of the
playwright’s functions is to use an economy of words to tell a story, the verba-
tim transcript is reduced to the “juicy stuff” for “dramatic impact.” Lengthy
sentences or extraneous passages within an extended narrative, whose
absence will not affect the quality of the data or their intent, could be edited.
Below is the original text from a portion of an interview with Barry, a high
school actor. He recalls his past theatre viewing and research participant
experiences in elementary school and speculates on their influence.

Barry: And I remember going to see the shows. I remember the interviews after-
wards, sitting out on the grass, talking about what we thought about the shows,
and what we thought about the longitudinal study. I remember always having
interns sitting in the back of the class, watching us do drama.
Johnny: What shows do you remember?
Barry: I remember a lot of the Childsplay stuff. [Childsplay is a local professional
touring theatre company for young audiences.]
Johnny: Any particular titles or images come to mind?
Barry: I remember Clarissa’s Closet, which was interesting because I performed that
last year. And I was thinking, “You know I’ve seen this, I’ve seen this, it was
Childsplay came did it.” And I also remember one about, I recall an Oriental set-
ting, there were masks, uh, I don’t know much about it, like journeying
something.
Johnny: Any other images?
Barry: I remember them coming out and taking their bows and then talking to us
after the show, and the energy they had, and just the raw energy and everything.
They were answering questions and they seemed to be having so much fun just
being there, and I think that’s when I first decided I wanted to be an actor. So I
saw that and it was an amazing feeling, there was just energy, you could see it, it
was emanating from them, and just from having done this show. And it was just
a show for a bunch of elementary kids, and yet it was still, it was a show, you
know? And it was, that was when it first, I first started thinking, “Hm, this is
something I want to look into.”

Following is the reduction of the data to what I considered essential and

salient exposition for a brief monologue in “Maybe Someday, if I’m Famous”:

Barry: And I remember going to see the shows, a lot of Childsplay stuff. I remem-
ber them coming out and taking their bows and then talking to us after the show.
And the energy they had! They were answering questions and they seemed to be
having so much fun just being there. And I think that’s when I first decided I
wanted to be an actor. It was an amazing feeling! That was when I first started
thinking, “Hm, this is something I want to look into.” (Saldaña, 1998b, p. 92)6

A monologue showcases a character through a snapshot portrait of his or

her life taken from a particular angle. Solo narratives reveal both personal and
social insight with carefully selected detail and, if successfully written and
successfully performed, generate emotional connection with audiences. The
most engaging monologues reveal a discovery or retell an epiphany in a char-
 Saldaña / DRAMATIZING DATA 225

acter’s life. In this excerpt from Finding My Place: The Brad Trilogy, Brad reflects
on the alienation from his family and his sense of isolation. Like the example
above, this monologue was assembled from various interview excerpts
found in Wolcott’s “Trilogy.” The in vivo slide titles highlight key phrases
from Brad’s narrative for the audience. Stage directions note how the two
actors interpreted the action in performance:

(SLIDE: “a big difference”; MUSIC softly under: “Drive” [The Cars], followed by
“Millworker” [Bette Midler])
BRAD. I saw a guy a few weeks ago who’s the same age as me. He lived in a house
behind us when I was in fifth grade. He still lives with his parents in the same
place. I think about what he’s been doing the last nine years and what I’ve been
doing the last nine years and it’s a big difference. He went to high school. Now
he works in a gas station, has a motorcycle, and works on his truck. I guess that’s
all right for him, so long as he’s mellow with his parents. (SLIDE: “I’ve never really
held a job”) (crosses to HARRY, sits on the lawn chair) I’ve worked for my dad for a
while—helped him wire houses and do light construction. I scraped paint for
one company. I worked for a graveyard for about eight months, for a plumber a
while, planted trees for a while. Dishwashing. I’ve never really held a job. I
wouldn’t want to have to put up with a lot of people on a job that didn’t make me
much money. Like at a check-out counter—I don’t want to be in front of that
many people. I don’t like a job where everyone sees you do it. (SLIDE: “a loner”) I
guess that I’m sorta a loner, maybe a hermit. I’ve had close friends, but I don’t
have any now. (fighting back tears)
HARRY. (to BRAD) Shall I turn the tape recorder off for a while?
BRAD. (shakes his head “no”; tries to put up a brave front) You’ve got what you’ve got. It
doesn’t make any difference what anybody else has. You can’t wish you’re
somebody else, there’s no point in it. Being by myself doesn’t make all that much
difference. No one knows who I am anyway. (HARRY puts his hand comfortingly
on BRAD’s knee; BRAD remains still, looks as if he’s about to reach for HARRY’s hand,
then pulls away, gets a wrench and starts working on his bike) (Saldaña & Wolcott,
2001, pp. 19-20)

Dialogue. Dialogue occurs when two or more characters exchange

thoughts or confront an interpersonal conflict. Dialogue in the data can be
found in a transcript’s conversational interviews between the researcher and
participant, a focus group interview, or participant observation field notes.
Artistry enters when dialogue is artificially constructed from several sources
of data gathered from different sites, from different participants, and across
different time periods (S. Finley & Finley, 1999). Participant voices from two
or more data sources can be interwoven to (a) offer triangulation, (b) highlight
disconfirming evidence through juxtaposition, (c) exhibit collective story cre-
ation through multiple perspectives, and/or (d) condense “real-time” data
for purposes of dramatic economy.
In Scene 2 (“I Was Completely Empty”) from “Maybe Someday, if I’m
Famous,” three participants tell their own versions of the same event in
Barry’s life. The three voices provide triangulation of data and contribute col-
226 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / April 2003

lectively to the story line. When one participant quotes another, the two voices
speak simultaneously. Sandy is his mother; Derek is his high school theatre
teacher. Stage directions are omitted from this excerpt for clarity in reading:

BARRY. There was a period during junior high when I had no theatre in my life,
didn’t have any exposure to it, and I got really heavy into drugs. I was hanging
out with the wrong crowd.
SANDY. He was never anti-social, but making the statement—the way he dressed,
the way he looked. In fact, some of his junior high teachers would call me and
say, “I noticed that he’s hanging out with some unsavory characters and I
think . . .,” you know, that kind of stuff. It was kind of like teaching the dog not to
run in the street by getting hit by a car. It was a horrible, painful, awful time. And
yet, if it doesn’t kill you it’ll make you stronger. That’s what’s happened to Barry.
DEREK. When Barry came to University High School he was on the point of either
being a doper or doing something. And I worked really hard with him to get him
to stop smoking [pot], to develop a sense of, “Hey, you’ve got something to work
with instead of working against.”
BARRY. When I came to University High I saw theatre was something that I knew,
something that I was interested in. So I came and I got cast in my first show. I got
a lead for my first show which made me think, “Whoa—maybe there’s some-
thing I’m good at here.” And I was in the position where there wasn’t anything
standing in-between me and theatre because there wasn’t anything in my life.
Drugs had taken up my whole life. And so as soon as I was ready to get out of
that, I mean—theatre helped draw me out of drugs and, in a way, drugs helped
draw me into theatre, in that they voided my life of everything else so I was com-
pletely empty—completely open towards picking up on theatre.
SANDY. I’ll never forget the day Barry said to me,
BARRY AND SANDY. “You know mom, you don’t have to buy me all gray and
black clothes anymore.”
BARRY. I started cleaning up my act, and that had a lot to do with drama because I
had something else, and it was almost intoxicating in and of itself. It gave me the
strength to get away from that stuff. (Saldaña, 1998b, pp. 92-94)

Dialogue is the playwright’s way of showing character interaction and

interplay, terms found regularly in the qualitative research literature. Through
dialogue we not only advance the action, we reveal character reaction, the
symbolic interactionist’s playing field. Actual conversational exchanges are
virtually nonexistent in Wolcott’s “Brad Trilogy.” In the first article of the
series, Brad’s interview data are assembled into categories. Wolcott relied pri-
marily on narration to share his own perspectives but offered little dialogue
spoken directly to Brad. As the adapter (Saldaña & Wolcott, 2001; Wolcott,
2002), I had to fictionalize possible conversations held between the two men
and seek Wolcott’s approval as a “participant check.” Narration to the audi-
ence was employed, when necessary, for exposition:

(music up: “Heart of Glass” by Blondie) (HARRY finds a bow saw on the ground, picks it up,
looks at it curiously)
 Saldaña / DRAMATIZING DATA 227

HARRY. Literally as well as figuratively, I discovered Brad in my own backyard,

unannounced and uninvited. (SLIDE: BRAD’s cabin) (BRAD enters, carrying a
sapling, stops when he and HARRY see each other; BRAD sets the sapling down, shuts
radio music off; they look at each other warily) A 19 year-old had managed to con-
struct a crude but sturdy 10 by 12 foot cabin at a remote corner of my densely
wooded, 20-acre home-site, which my partner Norman has shared with me
since 1968. He didn’t know on whose property he had built his cabin, perhaps
hoping he had chosen public land next to mine. (hands BRAD the saw, which he
grabs)
BRAD. (defensively, to HARRY) Can I stay? (SLIDE: Early Encounters)
HARRY. (beat, as HARRY looks BRAD over; to audience) I attach great importance to
“first impressions.” (HARRY stares at BRAD; BRAD starts packing up his tools) At
the moment of our first and unexpected meeting, I felt hesitant about allowing
him to remain on my land; yet I felt an even greater reluctance in insisting that he
leave.
BRAD. (to HARRY) I needed some place to get out of the wind and keep dry. The rent
ran out. I knew winter was coming and I’d have to do something.
HARRY. (to audience) He had no money, no job, and no place to go. I couldn’t see how
I could claim to be any kind of humanitarian and throw him off my property.
(SLIDE: Courtesy and Common Sense) (HARRY picks up the sapling and examines it;
to BRAD) I guess if you’re going to be here, I need to know something about you:
Where you’re from? What kind of trouble you’re in?
BRAD. (takes sapling, saws into it) I’m not in any trouble. I’m not that stupid. I used to
live at this end of town; my father still lives here but I never see him. And I’ve
lived in a lot of different places, like California, Portland, out in the country; dif-
ferent places in town, like The Mission—where you had to sing for Jesus before
they’d feed you there—a halfway house, reform school.
HARRY. Reform school?
BRAD. (defensively) Yeah, but it wasn’t really my fault. (Saldaña & Wolcott, 2001,
pp. 8-9)

A playwright must also consider the effects of his or her text on other
ethnotheatre collaborators. For the performer, central criteria are whether he
or she “feels right” interpreting another’s words and finds a flow, logic, or jus-
tification for the monologues and dialogue. For the audience, who must be
engaged throughout the event, the central criterion is, “Do I care what these
characters have to say?” It is difficult to articulate and oversystematize the
creative processes employed when constructing monologues and dialogue
because playwriting is both a craft and an art. But always remember, the ulti-
mate sin of theatre is to bore, and only a self-indulgent playwright refuses to
edit lengthy text from initial and postperformance drafts.

SCENOGRAPHY7—”THINK DISPLAY”
Plays are not meant for reading only; scripts are written specifically for
performance in front of an audience. Just as the late Miles and Huberman
228 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / April 2003

coined, “Think display,” a popular playwriting adage for ethnodramatists is,

“Don’t tell it, show it.” If the consequent monologue and dialogue consist of
people merely talking, then why bother using the visual medium of the stage?
Why not convert it to radio drama or reader’s theatre—both valid modes but
whose focus is on language (e.g., “teacher talk”) not action.8 And because eth-
nography analyzes participants in action, there are things to show on stage:
descriptive replication with subtextual inferences of the way participants
facially react, walk, gesture, pose, dress, vocally inflect, and interact with oth-
ers. These nonverbal cues reveal much about characters—and real people.
Scenography establishes time and place of a play, evokes mood, and serves
the required action of characters. This article cannot discuss in depth the
potential of costumes (participant clothing), hand properties (artifacts), or
scenery, lighting, and sound (the fieldwork environment) to enhance the
ethnographic performance. But from my own experience, I offer the classic
design adage for guidance: “Less is more.” A projected slide of Brad’s cabin in
Harry’s woodlands is easier to create than rebuilding the actual cabin to scale
and mounting it onstage (see Figure 1). Though the latter would be ideal for a
production with an unlimited budget, the former is sufficient and much less
expensive and time consuming—especially for a tour.
I prioritize two scenographic elements in my ethnotheatrical work
because they’re the most accessible to produce and the most revealing about
characters: hand properties and costumes. The artifacts participants handle
in the field are rich visual material for transfer onto the stage: Barry’s play
scripts, his theatre teacher’s clipboard, Brad’s hand tools and broken bicycle,
and Harry’s note pad and index cards. All of these items are central to these
people’s actual ways of working. The artifacts’ presence and use by actors
portraying the characters provide small-scale visual spectacle yet strong
inferences for an audience. Likewise, most audience members have an intu-
itive “fashion literacy,” and we infer personality from the way people dress
on stage as well as in everyday life. Barry wore T-shirts and baggy pants to
school almost every day, so these became the basic costume elements for the
actor. The “look” suggested youth, informality, and unpretentiousness.
Brad’s “jungle boy” existence in the woods was reinforced through flannel
shirts in natural colors, faded blue jeans, and hiking boots. The muscularity
and sexuality of the participant were enhanced through tight-fitting clothing
and strategic unbuttoning.

A CALL FOR COLLABORATION

AND QUALITY IN ETHNOTHEATRE
Qualitative researchers and theatre artists serve each other through collab-
orative development and presentation of ethnographic performance texts.
Scholars in ethnography have much to contribute to those initially educated
 Saldaña / DRAMATIZING DATA 229

Figure 1: Harry (David Vining, left) and Brad’s (Charles Banaszewski) first
encounter by the cabin in Saldaña and Wolcott’s (2001) Finding
My Place: The Brad Trilogy (premiere performance: February 15,
2001, at Arizona State University)

as artists, and artists well versed in the creative process and products of thea-
tre have much to offer ethnographers. Both disciplines, after all, share a com-
mon goal: to create a unique, insightful, and engaging text about the human
condition. Elsewhere, I noted how theatre practitioners, through the nature of
their training, possess several prerequisite skills for qualitative inquiry and
thus ethnodrama and ethnotheatre, including (a) the ability to analyze char-
acters and dramatic texts, which transfers to analyzing interview transcripts
and field notes for participant actions and relationships; (b) enhanced emo-
tional sensibility, enabling empathic understanding of participants’ perspec-
tives; (c) scenographic literacy, which heightens the visual analysis of field-
work settings, space, artifacts, participant dress, and so forth; and (d) an
aptitude for storytelling, in its broadest sense, which transfers to the writing
of engaging narratives and their presentation in performance (Saldaña, 1999,
p. 68).
There have been various ethnographic-based performances at conferences
whose scripts, to my knowledge, haven’t proceeded into published form.9
Mary A. Preisinger, Celeste Schroeder, and Karen Scott-Hoy’s (2000) interdis-
ciplinary arts performance, What Makes Me? Stories of Motivation, Morality and
Me, at the 2000 American Educational Research Association Arts-Based
Research Conference serves as one example. The three women explored
230 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / April 2003

Scott-Hoy’s researcher struggles during her social work with the Aborigines
through mounted paintings, monologue, and dance. The event, scheduled as
a breakout session in a space smaller than a standard school classroom, was
one of the most aesthetically rich and emotionally evocative productions I’ve
ever witnessed. When Mary and Celeste illustrated through dance the ten-
sions between a participant and researcher during an interview, the meanings
they suggested through elegant choreography were visually stunning.
Karen’s narrative on her emotional struggles with participants and herself
was performed with riveting, confessional sincerity. This modest interdisci-
plinary arts production literally led me to tears. Truth and art, in all their mag-
nitude, were captured that day for me without the bulky trappings of scen-
ography or the contemporary dazzle of technology.
The critical factor that made the event so moving was the three women’s
backgrounds—they were not just researchers; they were artists. Their educa-
tion in dance, visual art, music, and theatre gave them a performative edge
over well-meaning researchers who attempt theatrical presentation but who
lack fundamental skills with play production including the actor’s expressive
tools: the body and voice. Just as no one wants to read mediocre research, no
one wants to sit through mediocre theatre. Most playwrights don’t enact their
own scripts; they rely on collaborative efforts with directors, actors, and
designers to realize their visions.10 Each artist brings his or her own talents
and gifts to the mix whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In other
words, I’m advocating for quality in our arts-based qualitative work and rec-
ommend more collaborative efforts between theatre artists and researchers
for ethnotheatrical production.

CONCLUSION
The “reality-based” mounting of human life on stage is a risky enterprise.
Unlike the distancing one may experience when reading a journal article in
private, the live performance (if well produced) with live actors (if well
rehearsed) before a live audience (if well engaged) intensifies the representa-
tion (Mienczakowski, Smith, & Morgan, 2002). The successful reenactment of
nonfictional events exposes both the fieldwork experiences and the
fieldworker himself or herself to empathetic spectator involvement and
value-laden public scrutiny, depending on the content (e.g., abortion, racism,
homelessness).11 Both the researcher and audience gain understandings not
possible through conventional qualitative data analysis, writing, and presen-
tation from ethnotheatre’s artistic rigor and representational power.
Research literature in qualitative methods has focused on storytelling as a
model for writing and reporting. But theatre in the western world has been
telling stories for more than 2,500 years and, more often than not, represent-
 Saldaña / DRAMATIZING DATA 231

ing social life on stage—interpreted artistically by playwrights and actors

with perceptive insight into the human condition. Playwrights are, and
always have been, ethnodramatists. Virtually every subject researched
through ethnography has already been examined in a play or documentary
for the stage, screen, or television.12 But there is still a need for more good
scripts in both theatre and qualitative inquiry. If all playwrights are
ethnodramatists, then all ethnographers have the potential to become play-
wrights. The best lens for fieldwork views human action “dramatistically”
(Goodall, 2000, p. 116).

NOTES
1. Theatre, not theater, is the preferred and “correct” spelling among most practi-
tioners of the art form in the United States. Goldstein’s (2001) article on ethnodrama
appeared in print immediately after this submission’s second draft was mailed to the
guest editors. Any similarities in concepts and language between our two pieces are
purely coincidental.
2. Theory is important and has its place, but critical, theoretical applications pos-
sess little utility during the stress-laden process of theatrical production and may even
suppress creative impulses for some. This article focuses primarily on practitioners’,
not theorists’, contributions.
3. McCall (2000) profiled earlier works plus contemporary ventures into perfor-
mance art (Gómez-Peña, 2000; Varner, 2000). In this article, I focus on the realistic, natu-
ralistic, and presentational genres of drama for ethnotheatre due to length restrictions.
See Paget (1985), Gray, Ivonoffski, and Sinding (2002), and Rogers, Frellick, and
Babinski (2002) for pragmatic advice on writing ethnodrama.
4. I recommend in vivo coding for the data analytic process leading to ethnodrama.
Because monologue and dialogue are two fundamental components of playwriting, in
vivo codes may highlight particular passages from transcripts and field notes worth
including in the script.
5. This advice may sound highly prescriptive, but most professional playwrights
attest to the necessity of a solid framework, regardless of how the idea for a drama was
first inspired.
6. See Glesne (1999, pp. 183-187) for a comparable method, “poetic transcription,”
and Ollerenshaw et al. (2001) for “restorying.” Extracting and composing ethnodrama
from a data corpus, like qualitative data analysis, are a carefully considered yet highly
creative cut and paste operation (Patton, 2002, p. 442).
7. Scenography refers to the total visual and aural conception for theatrical produc-
tions and includes the constituent elements of scenery, set and hand properties, cos-
tumes, makeup, lighting, sound, and technology.
8. I am concerned with an overreliance on reader’s theatre as a genre for
ethnographic performance. Granted, reader’s theatre is more portable and less expen-
sive than a fully mounted theatrical production, particularly at conferences where the
venues are breakout rooms of unpredictable size. But the mode presents primarily
what we heard in the field, not what we saw.
232 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / April 2003

9. Indeed, ventures into dance and visual art defy textual representation and neces-
sitate technologically appropriate documentation such as CD-ROM, video, or Web site.
10. Recent ventures into one-person, autobiographical performance are the excep-
tion (see Note 12 for examples).
11. The February 23, 2001, performance of Finding My Place: The Brad Trilogy at the
Edmonton, Alberta Advances in Qualitative Methods Conference reinforced how
powerfully theatre can provoke diverse and passionate reactions to a study’s content
and issues. It also reinforced how the playwright’s vision and intentions, and selected
audience members’ responses, may be in total opposition (Ocklander & Östlund, 2001;
Schreiber, Rodney, Brown, & Varcoe, 2001; cf. Honeychurch, 1998). Wolcott tells us in
the “Prologue” to the ethnodrama, “No two individuals ever get exactly the same mes-
sage,” and in Scene 2, “Some will hear only the story they want to hear” (Saldaña &
Wolcott, 2001). What some audience members interpreted as “unethical” behavior
between an ethnographer and his case study, others perceived as “a love story” and “a
caring relationship” between two consenting adults. When some audience members
interpreted the researcher-participant dynamic as an “abuse of power,” I sensed in
them an inability (or, at worst, a homophobic unwillingness) to understand the gay/
bisexual characters’ points of view. This feedback motivated postproduction rewrites
of the script to clarify and reinforce the playwright’s perspectives for future produc-
tions (Wolcott, 2002).
12. Playwriting instructors also assign play reading to study exemplars of the art
and craft. Literary/commercial play scripts serve as models and stimuli for developing
original ethnographic performance texts. I recommend the following titles from dra-
matic literature but advise you to stay away from their film adaptations. The play-
wright’s original conception and structure of the script may have been altered for the
media. For autoethnography models, read Bonney (2000), Hughes and Román (1998),
Leguizamo (1997), Martin (1983), and Wagner (1986). For models that examine a princi-
pal investigator’s relationship with participants, read Medoff (1980), Pielmeier (1982),
and Shaffer (1974). For models that incorporate participant interviews into fictional-
ized assembly, read Bennett, Kirkwood, and Kleban (1995); Nelson (2002); Terkel
(1978); and Hoffman (1985). For a model of verbatim interview transcript excerpts as
performance pieces, read Smith (1993, 1994). For a model that displays ways of present-
ing correspondence data, read Gurney (1989). For models that include a narrator as a
key figure, read Wilder (1960) and Williams (1976).

REFERENCES
Bagley, C., & Cancienne, M. B. (Eds.). (2002). Dancing the data. New York: Peter Lang.
Barone, T. (1997). “Seen and heard”: The place of the child in arts-based research in
theatre education. Youth Theatre Journal, 11, 113-127.
Bennett, M., Kirkwood, J., & Kleban, E. (1995). A chorus line: The book of the musical. New
York: Applause Books.
Bonney, J. (Ed.). (2000). Extreme exposure: An anthology of solo performance texts from the
twentieth century. New York: Theatre Communications Group.
Boran, K. (1999). Rising from the ashes: A dramaturgical analysis of teacher change in a Chi-
cago public high school after probation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National-
Louis University.
 Saldaña / DRAMATIZING DATA 233

Conquergood, D. (1991). Rethinking ethnography: Towards a critical cultural politics.

Communication Monographs, 58(2), 179-194.
Dening, G. (1996). The theatricality of history making and the paradoxes of acting. In
G. Dening (Ed.), Performances (pp. 103-127). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qualita-
tive Research, 1(1), 23-46.
Diamond, C. T. P., & Mullen, C. A. (Eds.). (1999). The postmodern educator: Arts-based
inquiries and teacher development. New York: Peter Lang.
Diamond, C. T. P., & Mullen, C. A. (2000, October 5). Rescripting the script and rewrit-
ing the paper: Taking research to the “edge of the exploratory.” International Journal
of Education & the Arts, 1(article 4). Retrieved September 27, 2002, from http://
ijea.asu.edu/v1n4
Donmoyer, R., & Yennie-Donmoyer, J. (1995). Data as drama: Reflections on the use of
reader’s theater as a mode of qualitative data display. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(4), 402-428.
Eisner, E. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation.
Educational Researcher, 26(6), 4-10.
Eisner, E. (2001). Concerns and aspirations for qualitative research in the new millen-
nium. Qualitative Research, 1(2), 135-145.
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (1992). Telling and performing personal stories: The con-
straints of choice in abortion. In C. Ellis & M. G. Flaherty (Eds.), Investigating subjec-
tivity: Research on lived experience (pp. 79-101). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (Eds.). (1996). Composing ethnography: Alternative forms of quali-
tative writing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Finley, M. (2000). Street rat. Detroit, MI: University of Detroit Mercy, Greenroom Press.
Finley, S., & Finley, M. (1998). Traveling through the cracks: Homeless youth speak out. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Finley, S., & Finley, M. (1999). Sp’ange: Aresearch story. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(3), 313-337.
Finley, S., & Knowles, J. G. (1995). Researcher as artist/artist as researcher. Qualitative
Inquiry, 1(1), 110-142.
Foster, E. (2002). Storm tracking: Scenes of marital disintegration. Qualitative Inquiry,
8(6), 804-819.
Geertz, C. (1973). Deep play: Notes on a Balinese cockfight. In C. Geertz, The interpreta-
tion of cultures (pp. 412-453). New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1983). Blurred genres: The reconfiguration of social thought. In C. Geertz,
Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology (pp. 19-35). New York:
Basic Books.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York:
Longman.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goldstein, T. (2001). Hong Kong, Canada: Playwriting as critical ethnography. Qualita-
tive Inquiry, 7(3), 279-303.
Goldstein, T. (2002). Performed ethnography for representing other people’s children
in critical educational research. Applied Theatre Researcher, 3. Available from http://
www.gu.edu.au/centre/atr/opt6/frameset1b3.html
Gómez-Peña, G. (2000). Dangerous border crossers: The artist talks back. New York:
Routledge.
Goodall, H. L., Jr. (2000). Writing the new ethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
234 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / April 2003

Gray, R. E., Ivonoffski, V., & Sinding, C. (2002). Making a mess and spreading it around:
Articulation of an approach to research-based theater. In A. P. Bochner & C. Ellis
(Eds.), Ethnographically speaking: Autoethnography, literature, and aesthetics (pp. 57-
75). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Grinker, R. R. (2000, Fall). In the arms of Africa: The life of Colin Turnbull. AnthroNotes,
22, 12-17.
Gurney, A. R. (1989). Love letters. New York: Dramatists Play Service.
Hoffman, W. H. (1985). As is. New York: Vintage.
Honeychurch, K. G. (1998). Carnal knowledge: Re-searching (through) the sexual body.
In W. E. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 251-273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Hughes, H., & Román, D. (Eds.). (1998). O solo homo: The new queer performance. New
York: Grove.
Jipson, J., & Paley, N. (1997). Daredevil research: Re-creating analytic practice. New York:
Peter Lang.
Jones, J. L. (2002). Performance ethnography: The role of embodiment in cultural
authenticity. Theatre Topics, 12(1), 1-15.
Kalb, J. (2001). Documentary solo performance: The politics of the mirrored self. The-
ater, 31(3), 12-29.
Kaufman, M., & the Members of the Tectonic Theater Project. (2001). The Laramie Project.
New York: Vintage.
Keck, M. (1996). Voices in the rain. Unpublished manuscript.
Kotarba, J. A. (1998). Black men, Black voices: The role of the producer in synthetic per-
formance ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(3), 389-404.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: HarperCollins.
Landy, R. J. (1993). Persona and performance: The meaning of role in drama, therapy, and
everyday life. New York: Guilford.
Leguizamo, J. (with Katz, D. B.). (1997). Freak: A semi-demi-quasi-pseudo autobiography.
New York: Riverhead Books.
Martin, J. (1983). Talking with . . . New York: Samuel French.
McCall, M. M. (2000). Performance ethnography: A brief history and some advice. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 421-
433). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Medoff, M. (1980). Children of a lesser God. Clifton, NJ: James T. White.
Meyer, M. (1998). Transitional wars: A study of power, control and conflict in executive
succession—Theatre as representation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill
University, Canada.
Mienczakowski, J. (1995). The theater of ethnography: The reconstruction of ethnogra-
phy into theater with emancipatory potential. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 360-375.
Mienczakowski, J. (1996). An ethnographic act: The construction of consensual theatre.
In C. Ellis & A. P. Bochner (Eds.), Composing ethnography: Alternative forms of qualita-
tive writing (pp. 244-264). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Mienczakowski, J. (1997). Theatre of change. Research in Drama Education, 2(2), 159-172.
Mienczakowski, J. (2001). Ethnodrama: Performed research—Limitations and poten-
tial. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook
of ethnography (pp. 468-476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mienczakowski, J., Smith, L., & Morgan, S. (2002). Seeing words—Hearing feelings:
Ethnodrama and the performance of data. In C. Bagley & B. Cancienne (Eds.),
Dancing the data (pp. 34-52). New York: Peter Lang.
 Saldaña / DRAMATIZING DATA 235

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nelson, A. (2002). The guys. New York: Random House.
Norris, J. (2000). Drama as research: Realizing the potential of drama in education as a
research methodology. Youth Theatre Journal, 14, 40-51.
Ocklander, M., & Östlund, G. (2001). Comments on the Brad Trilogy [Letter to the edi-
tor]. Qualitative Health Research, 11(6), 725-727.
Ollerenshaw, J., McVea, K., Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V., McEntarffer, R., & Miller, D.
(2001). Stories of high school students and staff attempts to quit smoking. Paper presented
at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Paget, M. A. (1995) Performing the text. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Representation in ethnog-
raphy (pp. 222-244). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pelias, R. J. (2002). For father and son: An ethnodrama with no catharsis. In A. P.
Bochner & C. Ellis (Eds.), Ethnographically speaking: Autoethnography, literature,
and aesthetics (pp. 35-43). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Pielmeier, J. (1982). Agnes of God. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Pifer, D. A. (1999). Small town race: A performance text. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 541-
562.
Preisinger, M. A., Schroeder, C., & Scott-Hoy, K. (2000, February). What makes me?
Stories of motivation, morality and me. Interdisciplinary arts performance at the 2000
American Educational Research Association Arts-Based Research Conference,
Albuquerque, NM.
Prendergast, M. (2001). “Imaginative complicity”: Audience education in professional thea-
tre. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Rogers, D., Frellick, P., & Babinski, L. (2002). Staging a study: Performing the personal
and professional struggles of beginning teachers. In C. Bagley & M. B. Cancienne
(Eds.), Dancing the data (pp. 53-69). New York: Peter Lang.
Rohd, M. (2001). Shadows & bricks. Unpublished manuscript.
Saldaña, J. (1998a). Ethical issues in an ethnographic performance text: The “dramatic
impact” of “juicy stuff.” Research in Drama Education, 3(2), 181-196.
Saldaña, J. (1998b). “Maybe someday, if I’m famous . . .”: An ethnographic performance
text. In J. Saxton & C. Miller (Eds.), The research of practice, the practice of research
(pp. 89-109). Victoria, BC: IDEA Publications.
Saldaña, J. (1999). Playwriting with data: Ethnographic performance texts. Youth Thea-
tre Journal, 13, 60-71.
Saldaña, J., & Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Finding my place: The Brad trilogy. Unpublished
manuscript.
Schechner, R. (1985). Between theatre and anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Penn-
sylvania Press.
Schreiber, R., Rodney, P., Brown, H., & Varcoe, C. (2001). Reflections on deconstructing
Harry, or when is good art bad science? [Letter to the editor]. Qualitative Health
Research, 11(6), 723-724.
Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Shaffer, P. (1974). Equus. New York: Avon Books.
Smith, A. D. (1993). Fires in the mirror. New York: Doubleday.
Smith, A. D. (1994). Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992. New York: Doubleday.
 236 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / April 2003

Smith, A. D. (2000). Talk to me: Listening between the lines. New York: Random House.
Spry, T. (2001). Performing autoethnography: An embodied methodological praxis.
Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 706-732.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge.
Sykes, H., Chapman, J., & Swedberg, A. (2002). Wearing the secret out. Performance at the
2002 American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Terkel, S. (1974). Working: People talk about what they do all day and how they feel about what
they do. New York: Pantheon.
Terkel, S. (1978). Working (S. Schwartz & N. Faso, Adapters). New York: Music Theatre
International.
Tillmann-Healy, L. M. (1996). A secret life in a culture of thinness: Reflections on body,
food, and bulimia. In C. Ellis & A. P. Bochner (Eds.), Composing ethnography: Alterna-
tive forms of qualitative writing (pp. 76-108). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Turner, V. (1982). From ritual to theatre. New York: PAJ Publications.
Turner, V., & Turner, E. (1982). Performing ethnography. Drama Review, 26(2), 33-50.
Vanover, C., & Saldaña, J. (2002). Attunement. Unpublished manuscript.
Varner, T. L. (2000). “Am I a. . . .” Qualitative Inquiry, 6(4), 456-466.
Wagner, J. (1986). The search for signs of intelligent life in the universe. New York: Harper &
Row.
Walker, R., Pick, C., & MacDonald, B. (1991). “Other rooms: Other voices”—A drama-
tized report. In C. Pick & B. MacDonald (Eds.), Biography, identity and schooling: Epi-
sodes in educational research (pp. 80-93). Washington, DC: Falmer.
Wilder, T. (1960). Our town. New York: Harper.
Williams, T. (1976). The glass menagerie. New York: Dramatists Play Service.
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wolcott, H. F. (2002). Sneaky kid and its aftermath: Ethics and intimacy in fieldwork. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Wolfe, T. (1979). The right stuff. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Johnny Saldaña is the interim chair and a professor of theatre at Arizona State
University. His qualitative research studies have focused primarily on theatre
teachers’ perceptions of their practice and young people’s participation as audi-
ences and artists. In 1996 and 2001, he received the American Alliance for
Theatre & Education’s Research Awards.

View publication stats