Drama Education,Ethnomethodology, and ‘Industrious Chatter’

  • Michael AndersonEmail author
Part of the Methodos Series book series (METH, volume 9)


This chapter examines the relatively brief history of the use of ethnomethodological techniques in drama education research. It speculates on the potential for this methodology to enrich the understanding of drama education and education research generally, and provides a response to Freebody and Frieberg’s discussion of this methodology in Chapter 7 of this volume. The chapter re-contextualises ethnomethodological approaches to highlight the potential challenges and benefits employing this approach might have for researchers working in experiential classrooms. This chapter also suggests some cross-methodological applications for this approach and potential areas for extension.


Social Category Public Reasoning Scenic Feature Reasoning Practice Deep Rationality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anderson, M., Carroll, J., & Cameron, D. (Eds.). (2009). Drama education with digital technology. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, M., & Freebody, K. (2009, November). Developing young writers: Nurturing cultural citizenship and engagement. Unpublished Conference Presentation. Drama Australia National Conference. The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, M., & Gibson, R. (2004). Connecting the silos: Developing arts rich education. Change: Transformations in Education, 7(2), 1–11.Google Scholar
  4. Caldwell Cook, H. (1917). The play way: An essay in educational method. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  5. Deasy, R. E. (2002). Critical links: Learning in the arts & student academic & social development. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.Google Scholar
  6. Freebody, K. (2008). Opportunity structures and the drama classroom: Socioeconomic status as interactional topic and resource. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.Google Scholar
  7. Freebody, K. (2010). Classroom talk in order to explore how young people engaged in public moral reasoning practices. Research in Drama Education. Google Scholar
  8. Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction and practice. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  9. Gibson, R., & Anderson, M. (2008). Touching the void: Arts education in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(1), 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herman, V. (1998). Dramatic discourse: Dialogue as interaction in plays. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Munday, C. (2009). Student interactions: Engaging with Bullying in the Process Drama classroom. Unpublished honours thesis, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
  12. O’Toole, J. (2006). Doing drama research: Stepping into enquiry in drama, theatre and education. City East, QLD: Drama Australia.Google Scholar
  13. Wagner, B. J. (1998). Educational drama and language arts: What research shows. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  14. Wales, P. (2009). Positioning the drama teacher: Exploring the power of identity in teaching practices. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 14(2), 261–278.Google Scholar
  15. Winston, J. (1998). Drama, narrative and moral education. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  16. Wright, D. (2005). Reflecting on the body in Drama Education. Combined Journal of International Drama/Theatre and Education Association & Applied Theatre Researcher, 6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Social WorkThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations