Facing the Face of the Other: The Case of the Nia Centre

Until comparatively recently there has been little systematic effort to record the contribution to British theatre history of the diversity represented by Black British and British South and East Asian theatre makers. That failure to ‘see’ and acknowledge this lacuna within the academy reflected what in 2001 was condemned as widespread institutional racism within the theatre industry itself. The other ‘faces’ had been rendered effectively invisible. This chapter considers the ethical and evidential challenges associated with the task of recovering the history of a project created to enhance an important concept of cultural identity: the little-documented failure in the 1990s of the Nia Centre, the UK’s first black arts centre which opened in Hulme, Manchester in 1991. My exploration raises a number of key ethical challenges: How in the aftermath of the Nia’s collapse and in the almost complete absence of archival records, is the historian to mediate what inevitably are multiple truths coming from different perspectives? Whose, and what values were, and remain, at stake both at the time of the project itself, and in the telling of the history? How does the historian deal with failure especially if the circumstances were obscure and little regarded? The dream of the Nia died more than a decade ago, but the participants in that history are very much alive and their sensitivities have to be respected as part of the ethical challenge.

An Exploration of the Use of Coaching and Mentoring in the Supervision of Doctoral Students in UK University Business Schools

Purpose: to consider and evaluate the student and supervisor experience of doctoral supervision (dyadic and triadic) and specifically the value of using coaching and mentoring approaches (process and relationship) in supervisory practice. Design/methodology/approach: phase one is a mixed methods study exploring the use of coaching and mentoring in doctoral supervision on traditional and taught doctoral programmes in one UK university business school. The focus is on developing a conceptual model for doctoral supervisory practice for the transfer of learning and the improvement of practice. Phase two will be a collaborative action research study in a range of UK university business schools to use, reflect on and refine the conceptual model of supervision. Findings: the initial findings from phase one will be reported on at the conference presentation. Research limitations/implications: we have tentative agreements from four UK university business schools for phase two (subject to ethics approval). Practical implications: students and supervisors participating in the research will benefit from having the opportunity to review and improve their practice; the participating business schools will have the opportunity to review and potentially revise their doctoral student and supervisor training; and a business school’s reputation for high quality doctoral supervision could be enhanced. Social implications: could potentially benefit numerous future students and supervisors across a wide range of UK university business schools. Originality/value: there does not appear to be any previously published research on the use of coaching and mentoring in doctoral supervision in UK university business schools for the transfer of learning and improvement of practice.