DTR 5 (1) pp.

7–25 Intellect Limited 2019

Drama Therapy Review

Volume 5 Number 1
© 2019 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/dtr.5.1.7_1

Christine Mayor
Wilfrid Laurier University

Jason S. Frydman
Tulane University

The prevalence and practice

of drama therapy in the
North American school
system: A descriptive report
of contemporary service
delivery

Abstract Keywords
Although a growing body of literature describes drama therapy intervention models school-based drama
and case examples of school-based work, there has yet to be a comprehensive study therapy
that details the prevalence and practice of drama therapy in North American school-based creative
schools. Members of the North American Drama Therapy Association received arts therapy
an online survey designed to gather quantitative descriptive data and qualitative implementation
experiences of drama therapists currently practicing in schools. This article presents challenges
findings related to the former, reporting data focused on relevant training and expe- scope of practice
rience, organizational information, scope of practice, clinical engagement and obsta- North American
cles to the introduction and implementation of services. Interpretation of reported schools

7
Christine Mayor | Jason S. Frydman
school-based
consultation
Mots-clefs
dramathérapie dans
les écoles
thérapies par les arts
en milieu scolaire
défis d’implantations
le champ de pratique
écoles nord-
américaines
consultation scolaire
Palabras clave
drama terapia basada
en la escuela
terapia de artes
creativas basada en
la escuela
desafíos de
implementación
alcance de la práctica
escuelas de América
del Norte
consulta basada en la
escuela
8   Drama Therapy Review
descriptive data is provided and future research directions are considered regarding
school-based, drama therapy practice.
Bien qu’un nombre croissant de documents décrivent des modèles d’intervention
en dramathérapie et des exemples de travail en milieu scolaire, il n’y a pas encore
eu d’étude exhaustive qui détaille la prévalence et la pratique de la dramathérapie
dans les écoles nord-américaines. Les membres de l’Association de la Dramathérapie
nord-américaine ont reçu un sondage en ligne conçu pour recueillir des données
descriptives quantitatives et des expériences qualitatives de dramathérapeutes qui
travaillent actuellement dans les écoles. Cet article présente les constatations liées
à ce sondage, rapportant les données axées sur la formation et l’expérience perti-
nentes, l’information organisationnelle, le champ d’exercice, l’engagement clinique et
les obstacles à l’introduction et à la mise en œuvre de services. L’interprétation des
données descriptives reportées est fournie et de futures recherches sont envisagées
concernant la pratique de la dramathérapie en milieu scolaire.
Aunque un creciente cuerpo de literatura describe modelos de intervención de drama
terapia y ejemplos de casos basados en trabajo escolar, todavía no se ha realizado
un estudio exhaustivo que detalle la prevalencia y práctica del drama terapia en las
escuelas norteamericanas. Los miembros de la Asociación Norteamericana de Terapia
Dramática recibieron una encuesta en línea diseñada para recopilar datos cuantita-
tivos descriptivos y experiencias cualitativas de los drama terapeutas que actualmente
practican en las escuelas. Este artículo presenta los hallazgos relacionados con lo ante-
rior, informes de datos centrados en la relevancia de capacitación y experiencia, infor-
mación organizativa, alcance de la práctica, compromiso clínico y obstáculos para la
introducción e implementación de servicios. Se proporciona una interpretación de los
datos descriptivos reportados y se consideran las direcciones de investigación futuras
con respecto a la práctica del drama terapia basada en la escuela.
Introduction
There is an established history of using drama therapy in the schools, begin-
ning with the British tradition of integrating services into educational settings
(Holmwood 2014). North American schools have become a place for individual
and group drama therapy interventions and are increasingly seen as necessary,
effective and efficient settings for providing mental health support (Chafouleas
et al. 2016; Kern et al. 2017; Rones and Hoagwood 2000; Sanchez et al. 2018).
Furthermore, there has been a resurgence of interest in the role of drama ther-
apy in these settings; over the last decade, North American Drama Therapy
Association (NADTA) conference proceedings highlight the growing work
being done by independent drama therapists and by drama therapy organi-
zations (http://www.nadta.org/events/past-events.html). A number of articles
have articulated the challenges, rewards and possibilities of providing school-
based drama therapy, making a case for drama therapy and schools as natural
partners (Conn 1997; Leigh 2001, 2002; Gersch 2001; Jones 2012). Despite this,
a review of the literature revealed that no comprehensive study currently exists
which reflects the number and demographics, training and experience, organi-
zational information, school setting, school-based populations of focus, scope
of practice or clinical engagement of school-based drama therapists.
 The prevalence and practice of drama therapy in the North …

Therefore, we conducted a cross-sectional survey study of NADTA

members in order to fill this gap and expand our knowledge base beyond
descriptions of school intervention models or population-specific case exam-
ples. The survey included both quantitative and qualitative questions, and was
designed to understand both the macro-picture and micro-practice level of
school-based drama therapy; this article provides the macro-level data, supply-
ing an informational snapshot of the current state of school-based drama ther-
apy. The macro data provide information about who is practicing this work
and where, with whom, in what organizational structures, and trends in clini-
cal engagement and scope of practice. A later article focusing on the micro,
individual-level practice of school-based drama therapy will aim to deepen our
knowledge about how drama therapists may be viewed in the school system,
their integration into existing mental health supports, challenges and areas of
strength in the work, and vignettes of typical interventions.

Literature review
Interventions with specific populations and symptoms
The majority of writing on drama therapy in the schools focuses on descrip-
tions of methods of intervention and individual case studies. However, in
regard to specific populations, there is a clear research focus on the detrimen-
tal impact of trauma on both child development and academic success, and the
potential for drama therapy to help students process and express their expe-
riences of harm and re-engage in the school. Christensen (2010), Domikles
(2012), Pitre et al. (2016), Zeal (2012) and Zografou (2002) focus on individual
interventions, demonstrating the capacity for drama therapists to name, vali-
date the reaction, and help contain the aftermath of trauma and grief. Beyond
individual interventions, school-based drama therapy group work in response
to individual or collective trauma has focused on increasing emotional expres-
sion, relational engagement, social and language skills and promoting advo-
cacy (Dix 2015; Finneran et al. 2014; Fong 2006; Mayor and Dotto 2014; Landy
2010; Sajnani et al. 2014). Further, Cobbett’s (2016) mixed methods study on
the efficacy of creative arts therapy interventions in the schools demonstrated
significant improvement in students’ social, emotional and behavioural func-
tioning, interpreting these results, in part, through a trauma and attachment
framework. Multiple research projects have taken place in Montreal examin-
ing the efficacy of using drama therapy with new immigrants and refugees
to build language skills, community and emotional expression and regula-
tion (Moneta and Rousseau 2008; Rousseau and Guzder 2008; Rousseau
et al. 2005, 2012). While not explicitly utilizing a trauma frame, Rousseau et
al. (2005) highlight the importance of providing spaces for adolescent immi-
grants and refugees to share their experiences of survival.
Several drama therapists have focused their intervention work in special
education or within specialized school programs (Crimmens 2006; Dawson
1994; Greene 2012). Crimmens’ (2006) book is a practical text providing advice
on how to structure sessions within special needs environments, supplying a
variety of useful activities for practitioners. Similarly, Dawson (1994) provides
a theoretical base for his drama therapy practice, ranging from assessment
to detailed activities. Additionally, Greene’s quantitative study demonstrated
no significant changes in the academic or social skills domains, but signifi-
cant reduction in group members’ ‘problem behaviors’ (2012: 204) following a
drama therapy intervention.

www.intellectbooks.com   9
Christine Mayor | Jason S. Frydman

Finally, there are a limited number of school-based articles that focus on

symptomology or diagnoses. Anari (2009) quantitatively demonstrated the
potential of drama therapy in reducing loneliness and social dissatisfaction in
elementary school students. Chang and Liu’s (2006) study with children diag-
nosed with ADHD suggested that there may be a relationship between drama
therapy and enhanced social skills, learning in the classroom, and improved
communication with teachers and parents. Several have written about the
potential of drama therapy when working with students diagnosed with
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) (Dyer 2017; Godfrey and Haythorne 2013;
Lewis and Banerjee 2013; Tytherleigh and Karkou 2010). Dyer (2017) offered a
case study of a drama therapy group with students with ASD and neurotypical
peers in expressing emotional needs, but underscored the impact of theory of
mind on the social skills of students with ASD. In contrast, Lewis and Banjeree’s
(2013) qualitative study refuted the common theory of mind hypothesis that
youth with ASD are unable to pretend or leverage story, demonstrating partic-
ipants’ ability to use imagination and story-making during a ten-week drama
therapy group. Godfrey and Haythorne’s (2013) qualitative study focused on
parent and caregiver feedback of a group for youth diagnosed with ASD, artic-
ulating positive feedback on the role of drama therapy in affective expression,
making friends, learning and practicing social skills, providing predictable
structure and supporting the entire family system. Tytherleigh and Karkou
(2010) provided a case study focused on a drama therapy group for select
students with ASD, showing examples of building relationships both as a
whole group and one-to-one using play and drama games.

School-based models of drama therapy intervention

There is also a growing body of writing based on the description and evalu-
ation of drama therapy intervention models that are explicitly designed for
schools. ENACT uses theatre games, scene work and reflective discussion
with students and teachers to help resolve conflict in the classroom and
attend to traumatic stressors (Feldman et al. 2015, 2009). A recent article on
ENACT’s systematic assessment of process and outcomes of school-based
drama therapy programs demonstrated how evaluation practices have helped
to strengthen the program and cultivate changes in the student community,
emotional learning and school engagement (Feldman et al. 2015). Another
drama therapy model of school-based intervention, Animating Learning by
Integrating and Validating Experience (A.L.I.V.E.) is a trauma-centred public
health program in the schools, focused on prevention, early detection and
tiered responses to traumatic stress for students within a trauma-informed
school system (Frydman and Mayor 2017; Sajnani et al. 2014). Within this
model of school-based intervention, Pitre et al. (2016) have written about the
adaptation of Developmental Transformations (DvT) short-form as a fifteen-
minute individual method for quickly identifying, expressing and providing
relief from traumatic stress. Additionally, Roundabout, based in the Greater
London area, provides early intervention supports in schools to help chil-
dren develop their emotional intelligence and effective social skills; serving
children with a wide variety of diagnoses or no diagnosis at all. Members of
Roundabout edited a book (Leigh et al. 2012) that explored the use of drama
therapy to develop emotional, social and communication skills in the educa-
tional environment. Landy and Montgomery’s (2012) book explores the
overlap and tensions between drama therapy and applied theatre, including

10   Drama Therapy Review

 The prevalence and practice of drama therapy in the North …

schools as a major site of exploration. Lastly, Holmwood’s (2014) and

Holmwood and Stravrou’s (2012) research considered the difference between
drama therapy and drama education, examining drama’s educational, thera-
peutic and therapy applications.

Trends in the literature

The majority of the research focuses on individual interventions or group
models with students, with little discussion about the role of drama therapy
with school officials or integration within the wider school system. The over-
whelming majority of articles are written either individually or with co-authors
working from a shared model or at the same organization. Most of the stud-
ies focus on K–12 grades, although several provide theoretical justifications
for using drama therapy at the university level to train future drama thera-
pists (Butler 2015, 2017a, 2017b; Emunah 2015; Gaines et al. 2015). The litera-
ture review reveals that no known comprehensive study of North American
school-based drama therapy exists, and little, if anything, is known about the
demographics, locations, integration or scope of work of drama therapists in
schools, thus necessitating the current study.

Methodology
Procedure
In an effort to ascertain the scope and scale of drama therapy practice within
North American schools, a web-based survey was administered to all regis-
tered members of the NADTA from February 2018–July 2018. Recruitment
for participation was drawn from the NADTA member database, with access
granted by the organization’s Board of Directors. Feedback from the NADTA
Research and Ethics Chairs was integrated into the study design prior to
distribution and IRB approval for the study was attained through Fordham
University. All potential participants received an e-mail with an embedded
link to the survey inviting them to voluntarily participate. No financial incen-
tives were provided for participation.

Measure
The survey was designed and distributed through the Qualtrics online survey
platform, focusing on five primary domains: demographics, employment and
organizational information, perceived impact of drama therapy within the
schools, individual practice in the schools, and challenges to service deliv-
ery. The survey was comprised of a maximum of 70 questions, with a built-in
mechanism for removing non-applicable questions as the survey progressed
based on participants’ prior responses. Both qualitative and quantitative
survey questions were included using multiple choice and open-ended fill-in
prompts. An optional ‘other’ text box was provided for multiple choice ques-
tions in order to avoid any possible constraints in accessing relevant informa-
tion. The questions were designed to gather both quantitative and qualitative
information, with the former targeting basic macro data on drama therapy
prevalence and nature of school-based practice, while the latter type questions
attempted to give voice to the lived experiences of practitioners.
A specific effort was made to generate a snapshot of drama therapy prac-
tice within the contemporary educational landscape. As a result, the survey
design was inclusive and broad in its formatting to allow for an array of

www.intellectbooks.com   11
Christine Mayor | Jason S. Frydman

experiences to be captured. Targeted inquiry included macro- and micro-level

questions, attempting to gain an understanding of the drama therapist within
the organizational structure of the school setting and their professional base,
as well as their perceptions of integration within these structures. Therefore,
questions were designed to acknowledge service delivery from both an educa-
tional and drama therapy perspective.
The following breakdown of survey questions will illuminate the specific-
ity of information elicited in order to more comprehensively inform the reader
of relevant data gathered. Regarding demographics, information was collected
on age, gender, race/ethnicity, country of origin and current residence, current
geographic location of practice, professional credentials, including drama ther-
apy education/training, years practicing drama therapy in the schools, and
additional education/training. Employment/organizational information and
individual practice within the schools included percentage of time practic-
ing within a school, setting and population serviced outside the school, base
organization of employment and position within that organization, role within
the school hierarchy, typical population of students serviced (e.g., grade,
mainstream/special education, diagnostic features, etc.), integration of services
within the individual school structure, the use of consultation with school
personnel, ancillary support services provided, orientation and professional
credentials of supervisor, and primary model of drama therapy practiced.
Perceptions of impact were predominately elicited by asking participants
to describe the purpose/aim of drama therapy work in the schools, discuss
successes of service delivery, reflect on the impact drama therapy has had on
both individual students and the school as a whole, and provide a vignette of
clinical work in the school setting. Participants were also asked to identify any
initial or ongoing challenges to implementation of their services as it pertains
to school integration. Lastly, each participant was offered an opportunity to
provide any further thoughts or comments regarding their experience as a
drama therapist working in the schools.

Analysis
Of the 910 survey invitations distributed to potential participants, 138 (15.2%)
individuals began the survey. Of those individuals, 79 (57.2%) indicated they
worked in schools and proceeded onward, while 56 (40.5%) responded they
did not work in schools and halted participation. Since the survey was designed
to adjust forthcoming content based on individual responses provided by each
respondent, reported completion rates per question vary and were dependent
upon each participant’s subjective responses. All quantitative data gathered
were processed within Qualtrics, while qualitative data were aggregated and
then extracted from the program before being independently analysed by the
investigators.
Descriptive statistics were generated as percentages based on category
selections. Notably, percentages are representative of total respondents to an
individual question rather than derived from total respondents to the over-
all survey. Fill-in responses to select questions yielded subcategories, with
rates and sub-percentages determined following an aggregation of similar
responses (e.g. percentages within the ‘other’ category).
Further, because this study relied primarily on quantitative, descriptive
statistics, this presentation of data remains limited in complexity and nuanced
analysis of the experiences of drama therapists in schools. As addressed earlier
in this article, we have chosen, due to space constraints, to split the data in

12   Drama Therapy Review

 The prevalence and practice of drama therapy in the North …

two, focusing here on the macro descriptive statistics on the personal, organi-
zational and school-based demographics of those conducting school-based
drama therapy. We plan to prepare a second article focusing on the more
micro, qualitative survey questions of how drama therapy is conducted by
individual drama therapists, how they understand the purpose of their work,
and the challenges and benefits of being integrated within a school system.
This study was not designed within a full mixed methods research paradigm
and our analysis is limited by the nature of our survey instrument.

Results
The following section breaks down the range of quantitative data results
into the following categories: demographic composition of the sample, rela-
tive training and expertise of the sample, organizational information of who
employs drama therapists in schools, school-based populations and scope of
practice, clinical engagement within the schools and obstacles drama thera-
pists faced during the introduction of drama therapy into the schools and in
their current implementation. A demographic composition of the sample can
be found in Table 1. Generally, the sample was predominately white, female,
30 to 39 years of age and resided in the United States.

Gender* Race/Ethnicity*
Female 86.10% Caucasian/White 72.20%
Male 6.90% Jewish 4.10%
Genderqueer 2.70% Black 1.30%
Genderfluid 2.70% Black/White 1.30%
Cisgender 1.30% African-American 1.30%
Age Latina 1.30%
White and Latina 1.30%
20-29 21.90%
Sout Asian 1.30%
30-39 57.50%
Asian-American 1.30%
40-49 12.30%
Asian-American/ 1.30%
50+ 8.20%
Vietnamese
Country of Residence Latin (Brown) 1.30%
United States of 83.30% Chinese 1.30%
America European 1.30%
Canada 15.20% Multiracial 1.30%
“Other” 1.30% Ambiguous 1.30%
Regional Location Human 1.30%
Other 1.30%
Eastern USA 47.60%
Western USA 15.30%
Central USA 15.30%
Midwestern USA 15.30%
Central Canada 13.80%
Western Canada 3%
Outside North America 1.50%

Table 1: Demographics of overall sample (N = 79). *Categories in gender and race/

ethnicity reflect self-selection or self-reported language of the survey participants.

www.intellectbooks.com   13
Christine Mayor | Jason S. Frydman

Relevant training and experience

In terms of relevant training, credentials and licensure, the sample (n=61) was
nearly half comprised of registered drama therapists (RDT) with the NADTA
(55.7%), with 27.8% holding a creative arts therapy license, 9.8% holding a
non-creative arts therapy provisional or clinical license and 6.5% providing
solely an academic degree as their current credential. Of the RDTs (n=43),
93% graduated from a NADTA-approved program. Further, 33% of those
RDTs who did not graduate from a NADTA-approved program completed
alternative-track training. Additionally, respondents (n=71) were mostly
working professionals (63.3%), while 36.6% were training to become drama
therapists.
Experience within the school setting varied (n=66), with the majority of
participants (46.9%) within their first two years of school-based service deliv-
ery. Moreover, 33.3% of participants had three–five years of experience, 12.1%
had six–ten years and 7.5% had spent over eleven years within a school
setting in some capacity. Further, 37.3% of participants had received addi-
tional school specific training (n=25) beyond their drama therapy education.
Additional training included: academic coaching models to improve subject-
specific performance (30.7%) and models of school-based mental health
intervention (69.2%). Additionally, 71% (n=49) of participants indicated that
they also practice outside of a school setting, with most respondents working
in private practice (46.6%), followed by an outpatient or community mental
health clinic (40%), youth center (4.40%), non-profit agency (4.40%), partial-
hospitalization program (2.2%) or prison (2.2%). Among all participants who
provided a percentage split of time between their school-based work and
other clinical activities (n=47), time in school was, on average, slightly higher
(55.1%) than clinical engagement outside of a school (44.9%).

Organizational information
Respondents provided information specific to their organizations of employ-
ment. The survey was designed to account for drama therapists that were
outside contractors to a school setting, as well as those employed directly by
the school or school district. Participants reported that their organizations
of employment, on average, featured 3.4 drama therapists compared to 26.6
non-drama therapy personnel, indicating that school-based drama thera-
pists were in the minority within their respective organizations regardless
of organizational type. Furthermore, respondents (n=51) were comprised of
mostly clinicians who do not supervise others (45.1%), followed by program

Role Percentage of respondents

Administration 4.7%
Faculty 12.7%
Full-time employee 11.1%
Part-time employee 1.5%
Outside contractor 52.3%
Other 19.0%

Table 2: How would professional peers in your school setting identify your role
within the hierarchy of your school? (n = 63).

14   Drama Therapy Review

 The prevalence and practice of drama therapy in the North …

Number of Schools Percentage of respondents

1 56%
2 16%
3 16%
4 4%
More than 5 4%

Table 3: How many schools do you personally practice in? (n = 50). No respondents
reported working in exactly 5 schools.

directors (13.7%), supervisors for students only (11.7%), upper-level manage-

ment (7.8%), supervisors of other clinicians (5.8%) and those that operate
independent of an organization (7.8%). Within the school setting itself, partic-
ipants (n=63) denoted multiple roles; see Table 2 for a breakdown of these
roles. The ‘other’ category (n=12, 19%) was mostly populated by those consid-
ered to be an intern (50%).
Respondents (n=50) also reported on the number of schools they practice
in. See Table 3 for an overview of the amount of schools serviced per clinician.
Notably, for all of those drama therapists in multiple schools, every respond-
ent reported working with multiple school populations (e.g. elementary
school and middle school) rather than two of the same setting (e.g. elemen-
tary school and elementary school).

School-based populations and scope of practice

With regard to the demographics of the students receiving their services,
participants reported serving both students who were mainstream (n=41, 54%)
and those with a special education classification (n=35, 46%). Of the special
education classifications, respondents (n=29) reported servicing students with
Autism Spectrum Disorder (20.6%), developmental delays (13.7%), ADHD
(10.3%), a mental health condition (6.8%) or various issues (3.4%). In further
specifying clinical scope in the schools, Table 4 presents an annotation of
engagement by grade level.
Respondents (n=49) reported in the majority (67.3%) that their services
were not included in formalized educational planning. However, for those
respondents whose services were included in formalized educational plan-
ning, Table 5 outlines how often. Additionally, respondents (n=49) reported
an almost even divide as to whether they participate in team-based, formal
educational planning, with 53% indicating active participation and 47%
reporting no participation.

School type Percentage of respondents

Preschool 5.7%
Elementary 34.1%
Middle 22.7%
High School 31.8%
College 5.7%

Table 4: What is the scope of school-based practice for your organization? (n = 88).

www.intellectbooks.com   15
Christine Mayor | Jason S. Frydman

Amount of time Percentage of respondents

Always 7%
Almost Always 40%
Sometimes 40%
Rarely 13%

Table 5: How often are your services included in the formalized education plans for
your student? (n = 15).

Amount of time Percentage of respondents

Less than a quarter 57%
A quarter 41%
More than three quarters (this is my 2%
main responsibility)

Table 6: What fraction of school-based time during a typical week is taken by

consultation with school personnel? (n = 46). No respondents reported spending
half or three quarters time providing consultation weekly.

Among respondents (n=50), consultation with school personnel was indi-

cated by the wide majority (94%) to be an active component of their school-
based practice. Dedicated time for consultation during the school day among
respondents is reported in Table 6. Furthermore, respondents indicated that
they typically consult with personnel within all domains of school functioning,
including members of the social support staff, teachers, administrators and
academic interventionists.
Respondents (n=24) also reported that they provide support services for
school personnel, indicating a broadened scope of practice beyond student
services. 34.6% noted that they provide direct social-emotional support to
teachers, 30.6% to support staff, 22.4% to administrators and 12.4% to other
affiliated personnel. Respondents (n=30) noted that these social-emotional
supports more often took the form of non-drama therapy interventions
(64.5%). These supports were typically offered in the form of verbal check-ins,
conflict resolution, mindfulness, restorative circles and alternate forms of crea-
tive arts therapy. Of the 22 respondents who reported on frequency of provid-
ing these services, 86.3% indicated they spend less than a quarter of their week,
9% reported spending a quarter and 4.5% allocated half their time. Further, a
substantial 45% of these respondents noted that supportive services for staff
was a formalized part of their school-based job responsibilities.
In terms of maintaining formal interactions with school administration,
most respondents (n=47), indicated that they have a moderate amount of
interaction dedicated to general planning and organizing (48.9%). Others
reported operating with minimal interaction, suggesting an independent
model of functioning within the broader school system (42.5%), while 8.5%
noted that they spend a good deal of time planning and integrating services
alongside administrators.

16    Drama Therapy Review

 The prevalence and practice of drama therapy in the North …

Respondents also reported providing ancillary services within the school

setting (n=31). 43% provide professional development to school staff, 26.1%
conduct after school programming, 5% provide academic support and 2.8%
participate in grant writing. Of the 17.4% that selected ‘other’ for this cate-
gory, responses included contributing to licensing and accreditation oversight,
participating in special events and chaperoning field trips.

Clinical engagement within the schools

Respondents (n=49) reported practicing a variety of drama therapy approaches
in the schools, with 20.4% of respondents denoting that they practice a form
of drama therapy not identified as a current approach (Johnson and Emunah
2009). See Table 7 for a breakdown of the drama therapy approach utilized.
Moreover, Table 8 provides information on the format respondents utilize in
the school setting (e.g. individual, small group, whole class, whole school,
etc). 6.9% of responses accounted for such services as providing drama
therapy during extra-curricular activities, conducting staff and parent work-
shops, and engaging with parents. Despite the variety of clinical services
provided within a drama therapy framework, a minority of respondents
(n=23, 39%) were directly supervised by a drama therapist. Instead 61%
(n=36) were supervised by numerous other mental health professionals,
including art therapists, licensed clinical social workers, licensed mental
health counselors, school psychologists, clinical psychologists, nurses and
psychiatrists.
Of the responses (n=84) to where respondents practice within the school
setting, 38.4% practice in a designated area in the school, 34% practice directly
in a classroom, 20.4% share a space with other staff and 2.2% reported not
having a designated space. Furthermore, most respondents practice during the
school day (n=46, 69.7%) rather than in an after-school program or on the
weekends.

Drama Therapy Approach Percentage of respondents

Developmental transformations 39%
Five phase model 14%
Role method 12%
Narradrama 6%
ENACT 4%
CANY 2%
Therapeutic theatre 2%
Other (not identified as a current 20%
approaches model)

Table 7: Within the school-based setting in which you practice, what modality
of drama therapy do you use? (n = 49). The following current approaches were
not reported as being used in the schools: omega transpersonal, sociodrama,
psychodrama, healing the wounds of history, playback theatre, theatre of the
oppressed, Bergman drama therapy approaches, stop gap method, psychoanalytic
drama therapy, rehearsals for growth.

www.intellectbooks.com    17
Christine Mayor | Jason S. Frydman

Format Percentage of respondents

Individual 32.7%
Small Group 30.1%
Whole Classroom 27.4%
Whole School 3.5%
Other 6.2%

Table 8: What format are your DT sessions? (n = 113).

Obstacles to introduction and current implementation

Respondents (n=47) reported on whether they encountered obstacles to intro-
ducing their services to the school system, with nearly half of the sample
(48.9%) indicating that they indeed faced challenges with initial implementa-
tion, while 29 respondents affirmed there are current obstacles to successful
implementation of their services. See Table 9 for a comparative breakdown
between the most frequent obstacles in first introducing services and current
implementation of drama therapy in the schools. Further, respondents (n=11,
17.4%) highlighted the following current difficulties in the ‘other’ category:
challenges with space, timing during the school day, possessing a high case-
load, scheduling, student attrition and a lack of recognition of drama therapy
as evidence-based.

Discussion and research implications

While the aim was to provide a broad overview of the descriptive data regard-
ing drama therapists in the schools, there are several findings of note that
might benefit from further research or exploration. While a little over half
of the respondents worked in a single school, none of those working in

Obstacle Introducing Current Implementation

(n = 47; number of (n = 29; number of
respondents) respondents)
Funding 13.4% 15.8%
Administration 13.4% 14.2%
School faculty 19.2% 11.1%
Support staff 9.6% 3.1%
Student population 11.5% 3.1%
Parental permission 7.6% 11.1%
Bureaucratic obstacles 7.6% 15.8%
Mandated reporting 7.6% 7.9%
Other None reported 17.4%

Table 9: Comparative table: obstacles to introducing vs. implementing drama

therapy in the schools.

18    Drama Therapy Review

 The prevalence and practice of drama therapy in the North …

multiple schools worked within the same educational setting (e.g. elementary
school, middle school, etc.). This may have important implications in terms of
drama therapists’ capacity to adapt to a variety of developmental needs and
settings. Based on our survey questions, information as to why this might be
the case is limited; we do not know if this is an individual preference, necessity,
or an organizational requirement. We also do not know how drama therapists
conceptualize their work within these different school environments. It is further
notable that while there was roughly an even split between working across
elementary, middle, and high school, very few respondents endorsed working
at either the early prevention or intervention stage of preschool or engaging in
follow-through work at the college age level. Additional research on why this
might be the case (e.g. funding opportunities, developmental appropriateness,
personal preference from drama therapists, lack of known interventions for
these age groups) might reveal whether expansion into preschool – or college-
level settings could be a viable opportunity for drama therapy.
There is minimal literature focusing on the transaction between drama
therapists and school staff (teachers, administrators, other support staff, etc.),
despite data from the survey suggesting that this interaction represents a
significant component of drama therapists’ time in the schools. Consultation
with school personnel was indicated by a wide majority of respondents to be
an active part of their school-based practice, with 41.3% spending about a
quarter of their time consulting. Further, 43% of respondents (n=31) provide
professional development to school staff. In addition, while the literature has
focused on the impact of drama therapy on students, data from this survey
indicated that 24 respondents provide direct socio-emotional support services
for school personnel, with nearly half identifying this role as a formalized job
function. Clearly there is a significant amount of consultation work being
done by school-based drama therapists, implicating peer-to-peer services as
an area for future investigation. We highly recommend further research into
the ways in which drama therapists consult, collaborate, and support school
staff. This is of particular interest given that data from this survey suggests
that, despite working with school staff taking up significant amounts of drama
therapists’ time in the schools, obstacles with school faculty, support staff and
administration were noted in both the introduction and current implementa-
tion phase of service delivery. This data demonstrates challenges introducing
and working with other members in a school environment, suggesting that
drama therapists may need to give substantial consideration to their role, how
to frame their work, and how to integrate and communicate within a multi-
tiered system, acknowledging and adapting to inherent complexities. While it
is unclear whether unstable funding contributes to drama therapists’ integra-
tion into the formal mechanisms in schools, it is notable that this is listed as
the second most frequent response to challenges during both the introductory
and current implementation of services. Additional research on how drama
therapy work is funded, including strategies for attaining and maintaining
funding streams, might benefit the community. Importantly, few drama ther-
apists indicated the student population was a challenge to the introduction
(11.5%) or current implementation (3.1%) of drama therapy, suggesting there
may be greater buy-in of services from students over staff in schools.
Additionally, further understanding of drama therapists’ roles within formal
mechanisms of the school and hiring practices might shed light on how drama
therapists work with others within the school system. A number of respondents
(n=33, 52.3%) reported mainly being considered an outside contractor at their

www.intellectbooks.com   19
Christine Mayor | Jason S. Frydman

school. Similar to Frydman and Segall’s (2016) previous findings that working
in multiple settings is a common occupational practice for drama therapists,
most respondents to this survey (71%) also practice outside of a school setting,
with a majority of drama therapists engaged in private practice in addition to
their school responsibilities. Therefore, it may be that rather than being fully
incorporated into a school setting, drama therapists often see themselves as
hired contractors and thus maintain other employment. Further, participants
reported that school-based drama therapists were in the minority within their
respective hiring organizations, regardless of organizational type (3.4 drama
therapists compared to 26.6 non-drama therapy personnel), potentially lead-
ing to professional isolation within an environment which is traditionally
populated by educators or those trained in education. Therefore, it may be
that the professional composition of the school environment was a catalyst
for a number of drama therapists (n=23, 37.3%) to pursue additional school-
specific training. Drama therapists also reported less than anticipated integra-
tion within a school’s formal education planning; the majority did not have
their services included in this planning (67.3%), only half participate in this
planning process at all, and many reported maintaining minimal interaction
with school administration (42.5%). These data suggest that drama therapists
tend to operate independently or more informally, rather than as a full partici-
pant within existing school structures. In terms of clinical engagement, drama
therapists similarly reported a fairly even split between providing individual,
small group, and classroom based interventions, but very few (3.5%) described
their clinical work as directed towards the whole school.
With regards to drama therapy practice and supervision, the survey unex-
pectedly weighed heavily towards those who utilize DvT in the schools. It is
possible that the drama therapy approach of the researchers may have influ-
enced either who participated in the survey or how the survey was completed,
as both authors have a history of using DvT in school-based settings. Further,
20.4 per cent indicated that they used a form of drama therapy outside of
one of the identified current approaches (Johnson and Emunah 2009). It is
unclear whether school-based drama therapists favour a separate approach
or something more eclectic. While we are not able to determine whether
these surprising findings on the approach of drama therapy are simply from
this sample or are representative of the whole of North American school-
based drama therapy, it might be helpful in future research to consider how
and why drama therapists determine their approach to working in schools.
Additionally, it is important to note that only 39 per cent of respondents were
directly supervised by a drama therapist, which may influence the approach,
ability to develop more refined drama therapy practices, and the professional
identity of school-based drama therapists. Notably, Beauregard et al. (2016),
identified a related finding in their survey of drama therapists’ attitudes and
actions regarding LGBTQI and gender non-conforming communities, in
that practitioners could benefit from an increase in drama therapy-informed
supervision, highlighting a disparity between drama therapists’ practice and
their processing of clinical work within a drama therapy lens.

Limitations
This study was designed to provide current information about the prevalence
and practice of drama therapy in North American schools, and therefore a
cross-sectional research design was employed. This cross-sectional study does
not provide longitudinal data on trends regarding the prevalence and practice

20   Drama Therapy Review

 The prevalence and practice of drama therapy in the North …

of school-based drama therapy over time. Additionally, the cross-sectional

design leaves out the experiences of those who have previously worked in the
schools, but do not currently. Notably, 56 individual respondents attempted to
complete the survey but because they answered ‘no’ to the first question, their
participation in the survey was halted. Given this large number, it is likely that
individuals with previous experience in the schools may have attempted to
fill out the survey. Additionally, the researchers were contacted via e-mail by
several individuals, who have a wealth of experience in school-based drama
therapy but no longer work in the schools, inquiring if they could contribute to
this study. While these individuals were excluded for this study, future quali-
tative research that addresses the history of school-based drama therapy, and
founders of this work, might reveal important learning for the community.
The findings reported in this article have centred solely on the macro-level
data, with a forthcoming article set to focus on individual-level practice of
school-based drama therapy. We are also interested in how the results from
this survey might compare to the informational snapshot of school-based
drama therapy in another region of the world (e.g. with BADTh members) or
at a future point (e.g. five–ten years from now). What these data do suggest
is that a sizable proportion of the NADTA membership currently works in
North American schools. Therefore, further research into the effectiveness of
drama therapy interventions, common core processes and key differences in
approaches, and understanding how drama therapists are, and could be in the
future, integrated into the school ecology may be helpful areas of inquiry for
the promotion of drama therapy in the schools.
Finally, this survey focused on drama therapists’ own perspectives on
their school-based work. Further research from the perspectives of students,
parents, teachers, staff and administrators about drama therapy in the educa-
tion system would provide helpful information about how recipients of service
and collaborative partners see the role and potential importance of drama
therapy integration into the North American schools.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the NADTA Board for their support of this study. In
particular, we would like to thank Research Chair Calli Armstrong for her
invaluable feedback on the research design, ethical considerations and imple-
mentation of the study. We would also like to thank Darci Burch, Christina
Opolko and Erinn Webb who offered feedback on an early pilot of this survey
instrument. Finally, we would like to thank Dr Abigail Harris for her oversight
of this research and comments on our survey instrument.

References
Anari, A. (2009), ‘Effectiveness of drama therapy in reducing loneliness
and social dissatisfaction’, Developmental Psychology: Journal of Iranian
Psychologists, 5:18, pp. 111–17.
Beauregard, M., Stone, R., Trytan, N. and Sajnani, N. (2016), ‘Drama thera-
pists’ attitudes and actions regarding LGBTQI and gender nonconforming
communities’, Drama Therapy Review, 2:1, pp. 41–63.
Butler, J. D. (2015), ‘Playing with reflection in drama therapy education’, in
E. Vettraino and W. Linds (eds), Playing in a House of Mirrors: Applied
Theatre as Reflective Practice, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 109–22.
—— (2017a), ‘Re-examining Landy’s four-part model of drama therapy educa-
tion’, Drama Therapy Review, 3:1, pp. 75–87.

www.intellectbooks.com   21
Christine Mayor | Jason S. Frydman

—— (2017b), ‘The complex intersection of education and therapy in the drama

therapy classroom’, The Arts in Psychotherapy, 53:1, pp. 28–35.
Chafouleas, S. M., Johnson, A. H., Overstreet, S. and Santos, N. M. (2016),
‘Toward a blueprint for trauma-informed service delivery in schools’,
School Mental Health, 8:1, pp. 144–62.
Chang, W. and Liu, W. (2006), ‘A study of the application of the drama therapy
on ADHD students’ social abilities at the resource class of the elementary
school’, The International Journal of Arts Education, 4:2, pp. 36–64.
Christensen, J. (2010), ‘Making space inside: The experience of drama therapy
within a school-based student support unit’, in V. Karkou (ed.), Arts Therapies
in Schools: Research and Practice, London: Jessica Kingsley, pp. 85–96.
Cobbett, S. (2016), ‘Reaching the hard to reach: Quantitative and qualita-
tive evaluation of school-based arts therapies with young people with
social, emotional and behavioural difficulties’, Emotional and Behavioural
Difficulties, 21:4, pp. 403–15.
Conn, C. (1997), ‘Schools and drama therapy: A closer look at the curriculum’,
Dramatherapy, 19:1, pp. 15–21.
Crimmens, P. (2006), Drama Therapy and Storymaking in Special Education,
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Dawson, A. (1994), ‘Drama therapy and movement therapy in special educa-
tion’, Dramatherapy, 16:1, pp. 2–7.
Dix, A. (2015), ‘Telling stories: Drama therapy and theatre in education with
boys who have experienced parental domestic violence’, Dramatherapy,
37:1, pp. 15–27.
Domikles, D. (2012), ‘Violence and laughter: How school based drama therapy
can go beyond behaviour management for boys at risk of exclusion from
school’, in L. Leigh, I. Gersch and D. Haythorne (eds), Dramatherapy
with Children, Young People and Schools: Enabling Creativity, Sociability,
Communication and Learning, New York: Routledge, pp. 71–82.
Dyer, N. (2017), ‘Behold the tree: An exploration of the social integration of
boys on the autistic spectrum in a mainstream primary school through a
drama therapy intervention’, Dramatherapy, 38:2, pp. 80–93.
Emunah, R. (2015), ‘Self-revelatory performance: A form of drama therapy and
theatre’, Drama Therapy Review, 1:1, pp. 71–85.
Feldman, D., Jones, F. S. and Ward, E. (2009), ‘The ENACT method of emplo-
ying drama therapy in schools’, in D. R. Johnson and R. Emunah (eds),
Current Approaches in Drama Therapy, Springfield, Il: Charles C Thomas
Publisher, pp. 284–307.
Feldman, D., Ward, E., Handley, S. and Goldstein, T. R. (2015), ‘Evaluating
drama therapy in school settings: A case study of the ENACT program’,
Drama Therapy Review, 1:2, pp. 127–45.
Finneran, L., Murray, R., Dobson, C., Cherry, C. and McCall, J. (2014),
‘Drama therapy in the secondary therapeutic classroom’, in N. Sajnani
and D. R. Johnson (eds), Trauma-Informed Drama Therapy: Transforming
Clinics, Classrooms, and Communities, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas,
pp. 348–64.
Fong, J. (2006), ‘Psychodrama as a preventive measure: Teenage girls confron-
ting violence’, Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama and Sociometry,
59:3, pp. 99–108.
Frydman, J. S. and Mayor, C. (2017), ‘Trauma and early adolescent develop-
ment: Case examples from a trauma-informed public health middle school
program’, Children & Schools, 39:4, pp. 238–47.

22   Drama Therapy Review

 The prevalence and practice of drama therapy in the North …

Frydman, J. S. and Segall, J. (2016), ‘Investigating the glass escalator effect

among registered drama therapists: A gender-based examination of
professional trajectory’, Drama Therapy Review, 2:1, pp. 25–39.
Gaines, A. M., Butler, J. D. and Holmwood, C. (2015), ‘Between drama educa-
tion and drama therapy: International approaches to successful navigation’,
p-e-r-f-o-r-m-a-n-c-e, 2:1&2, http://p-e-r-f-o-r-m-a-n-c-e.org/?p=1223.
Accessed 28 July 2018.
Gersch, I. S. (2001), ‘Drama therapy in education: Opportunities for the future:
a view from outside’, Dramatherapy, 23:1, pp. 4–8.
Godfrey, E. and Haythorne, D. (2013), ‘Benefits of drama therapy for Autism
Spectrum Disorder: A qualitative analysis of feedback from parents and
teachers of clients attending roundabout drama therapy sessions in
schools’, Dramatherapy, 35:1, pp. 20–28.
Greene, J. (2012), ‘An educational psychology service evaluation of a drama
therapy intervention for children with additional needs in a primary
school’, in L. Leigh, I. Gersch and D. Haythorne (eds), Dramatherapy
with Children, Young People and Schools: Enabling Creativity, Sociability and
Learning, New York: Routledge, pp. 195–205.
Holmwood, C. (2014), Drama Education and Dramatherapy: Exploring the Space
Between Disciplines, New York: Routledge.
Holmwood, C. and Stavrou, C. (2012), ‘Drama therapy and drama teaching
in school a new perspective: Towards a working relationship’, in L. Leigh,
I. Gersch and D. Haythorne (eds), Dramatherapy with Children, Young People,
and Schools: Enabling Creativity, Sociability, Communication and Learning,
New York: Routledge, pp. 30–38.
Johnson, D. R. and Emunah, R. (eds) (2009), Current Approaches in Drama
Therapy, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Jones, P. (2012), ‘Childhood today and the implications for drama therapy in
schools’, in L. Leigh, I. Gersch, and D. Haythorne (eds), Dramatherapy
with Children, Young People, and Schools: Enabling Creativity, Sociability,
Communication and Learning, New York: Routledge, pp. 17–29.
Kern, L., Mathur, S. R., Albrecht, S. F., Poland, S., Rozalski, M. and Skiba, R. J.
(2017), ‘The need for school-based mental health services and recommen-
dations for implementation’, School Mental Health, 9:3, pp. 205–17.
Landy, R. J. (2010), ‘Drama as a means of preventing post-traumatic stress
following trauma within a community’, Journal of Applied Arts & Health,
1:1, pp. 7–18.
Landy, R. J. and Montgomery, D. T. (2012), Theatre for Change: Education,
Social Action and Therapy, New York: Macmillan International Higher
Education.
Leigh, L. (2001), ‘Taking drama therapy and emotional support into London
secondary schools’, Dramatherapy, 23:1, pp. 9–16.
—— (2002), ‘Drama therapy and emotional support in London schools’, Self &
Society, 30:2, pp. 31–41.
Leigh, L., Gersch, I., Dix, A. and Haythorne, D. (2012), Dramatherapy
with Children, Young People and Schools: Enabling Creativity, Sociability,
Communication and Learning, New York: Routledge.
Lewis, J. and Banerjee, S. (2013), ‘An investigation of the therapeutic poten-
tial of stories in drama therapy with young people with autistic spectrum
disorder’, Dramatherapy, 35:1, pp. 29–42.
Mayor, C. and Dotto, S. (2014), ‘De-railing history: Trauma stories off the
track’, in N. Sajnani and D. R. Johnson (eds), Trauma-Informed Drama

www.intellectbooks.com   23
Christine Mayor | Jason S. Frydman

Therapy: Transforming Clinics, Classrooms, and Communities, Springfield, IL:

Charles C. Thomas, pp. 306–28.
Moneta, I. and Rousseau, C. (2008), ‘Emotional expression and regulation in a
school-based drama workshop for immigrant adolescents with behavioral
and learning difficulties’, The Arts in Psychotherapy, 35:5, pp. 329–40.
Pitre, R., Mayor, C. and Johnson, D. R. (2016), ‘Developmental Transformations
short-form as a stress reduction method for children’, Drama Therapy
Review, 2:2, pp. 167–81.
Ramsden, E. (2012), ‘Joshua and the expression of make-believe violence:
Drama therapy in a primary school setting: Emma Ramsden’, in D. Dokter,
P. Holloway and H. Seebohm (eds), Dramatherapy and Destructiveness:
Creating the Evidence Base, Playing with Thanatos, New York: Routledge,
pp. 62–74.
Rones, M. and Hoagwood, K. (2000), ‘School-based mental health servi-
ces: A research review’, Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3:4,
pp. 223–41.
Rousseau, C. and Guzder, J. (2008), ‘School-based prevention programs for
refugee children’, Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics, 17:3, pp. 533–49.
Rousseau, C., Armand, F., Laurin-Lamothe, A., Gauthier, M. F. and
Saboundjian, R. (2012), ‘A pilot project of school-based intervention
integrating drama and language awareness’, Child and Adolescent Mental
Health, 17:3, pp. 187–90.
Rousseau, C., Gauthier, M. F., Lacroix, L., Alain, N., Benoit, M., Moran, A.,
Rojas, M. V. and Bourassa, D. (2005), ‘Playing with identities and trans-
forming shared realities: Drama therapy workshops for adolescent immi-
grants and refugees’, The Arts in Psychotherapy, 32:1, pp. 13–27.
Sajnani, N., Jewers-Dailley, K., Brillante, A., Puglisi, J. and Johnson, D. R.
(2014), ‘Animating learning by integrating and validating experience’,
in N. Sajnani and D. R. Johnson (eds), Trauma-Informed Drama Therapy:
Transforming Clinics, Classrooms, and Communities, Springfield, IL: Charles
C. Thomas, pp. 206–40.
Sanchez, A. L., Cornacchio, D., Poznanski, B., Golik, A. M., Chou, T. and
Comer, J. S. (2018), ‘The effectiveness of school-based mental health servi-
ces for elementary-aged children: A meta-analysis’, Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 57:3, pp. 153–65.
Tytherleigh, L. and Karkou, V. (2010), ‘Drama therapy, Autism and relations-
hip building: A case study’, in V. Karkou (ed.), Arts Therapies in Schools:
Research and Practice, London: Jessica Kingsley, pp. 197–216.
Zeal, E. (2012), ‘Chaos, destruction and abuse: Drama therapy in a school for
excluded adolescents’, in D. Dokter, P. Holloway and H. Seebohm (eds),
Dramatherapy and Destructiveness: Creating the Evidence Base, Playing with
Thanatos, New York: Routledge, pp. 75–86.
Zografou, L. (2002), ‘Time to say goodbye: Brief drama therapy with a bereaved
client’, Dramatherapy, 24:2, pp. 23–27.

Suggested Citation
Mayor, C. and Frydman, J. S. (2019), ‘The prevalence and practice of drama
therapy in the North American school system: A descriptive report of
contemporary service delivery’, Drama Therapy Review, 5:1, pp. 7–25,
doi: 10.1386/dtr.5.1.7_1

24   Drama Therapy Review

 The prevalence and practice of drama therapy in the North …

Contributor details
Christine Mayor, MA, RDT/BCT is a Ph.D. student at Wilfrid Laurier University
where she specializes in the racialization of how trauma is defined and treated
in school-based settings. She is the former director of public health and policy
and ALIVE’s school-based trauma program at the Post Traumatic Stress Center
in New Haven, CT. Christine is the associate editor of Drama Therapy Review.
Contact: Lyle S. Hallman Faculty of Social Work, Wilfrid Laurier University,
120 Duke Street West, Kitchener, ON, N2H 6P6, Canada.
E-mail: camyr@mta.ca

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2121-5898

Jason S. Frydman, Ph.D., RDT, LCAT is a postdoctoral research fellow with

the Safe Schools NOLA project at Tulane University. He holds a doctorate
in school psychology and is interested in developing implementation strat-
egies for trauma-informed programming in the school system. He currently
serves on the research committee for the North American Drama Therapy
Association and is on the editorial board of Drama Therapy Review.
Contact: Department of Psychology, Tulane University, 2007 Percival Stern
Hall, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA.
E-mail: jfrydman@fordham.edu

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0898-3884 

Christine Mayor and Jason S. Frydman have asserted their right under the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the authors of
this work in the format that was submitted to Intellect Ltd.

www.intellectbooks.com   25
 intellect
www.intellectbooks.com

publishers
of original
thinking

Applied Theatre Research

ISSN 2049-3010 | Online ISSN 2049-3029
2 issues per volume | First published in 2013

Applied Theatre Research profiles contemporary, innovative, unorthodox and radical Editors
practice of drama and theatre. Topics explored include theatre in political debate, Peter O’Connor
social action and dissent; theatre for development; youth theatre; theatre in schools The University of Auckland
and educational settings; theatre in therapeutic settings; theatre in prisons; theatre p.oconnor@auckland.ac.nz
in health education and awareness; theatre in human services, such as aged care and
hospitals; and theatre in business, commerce and conferences. It has a global focus John O’Toole
and representation, and features the best and most exciting work in all continents The University of Melbourne
and countries. j.otoole@unimelb.edu.au

• Focuses on performance with specific audiences or participants, in streets, Reviews Editor

schools, war zones, refugee camps, prisons and hospitals Selina Busby
Royal Central School of Speech
• Contributors include eminent and experienced workers and scholars in and Drama
the field selina.busby@cssd.ac.uk
• An essential resource for practitioners and scholars of drama, teachers, social
workers and community leaders Editorial Assistant
Caitlin Kennedy
University of Auckland
c.kennedy@auckland.ac.nz

Intellect is an independent academic publisher of books and journals. To view our catalogue or order our titles visit
www.intellectbooks.com / @intellectbooks