What is the difference between access consultancy, access dramaturgy and a car crash?
My experience of three recent AD consultancies has prompted this question in the ever confused, grasping and turbulent world of theatre making, where including integrated audio description (IAD) or VI representation in productions has been a desire, to do the right thing, or maybe not.
The three examples given here without naming companies have been very different from each other aesthetically, politically, and with regards available resources, but all worth comparing to draw out some useful conclusions.
The Bad – A mid-scale production in a main-stream venue, non-disabled led but including a disabled cast and several disabled creatives on the design and production team. For this well-resourced piece, declarations that IAD was desired as a feature of the show, attracted me to the role of AD Consultant when invited. However, when I joined the team, sometime into the preparation process before the 7/8-week rehearsal period began, I found it couldn’t have been further from the truth. The script development time was dominated by the integration of BSL, and while this was a specific need due to the text driven nature of the piece, attitudes towards visually impaired access felt tagged on as secondary priority in the process. Key staging and aesthetic decisions had been agreed without me being briefed on this before-hand, and while I was present, there was little to no engagement with me in the room, while extremely visual language was continuing to be progressed. The Director and Dramaturg showed no real creative interest, enthusiasm or ideas regarding integrating AD during my time with them, apart from a promise to tweak the script and a couple of off-stage access supplements. It was clear that the production was chiefly being driven by deaf access aesthetics, with visually impaired needs being expected to fit in around the edges. This is not an equitable access approach and so I took myself off the job. My role was AD consultant, so there needed to be something for me to consult on. Usually these come in the form of creative performance ideas including AD, or design ones, that the Director wants to test out on me with regards what I’m picking up and what I’m not. This role is not one of access dramaturge, which is a different role and something I very much believe that this production’s team needed, and didn’t have either through inexcusable ignorance or willful devaluing of visually impaired access within their creative process.
The Good –In contrast, soon after I was invited in to work with a group of disabled and queer creatives on their devised performance in progress. From the start they took a much more collaborative approach, with access workers, performers, movement director, producer, as well as myself contributing lived experience of disability, alterity and especially visual impairment, to drive the movement, staging and performance decisions for the piece. I joined the team for one day, so was still an adjunct to the process at this point, but the difference in attitude towards seriously integrating visually impaired access, meant that my role was more like that of access dramaturg. I was able to bring years of my experience working as a visually impaired Director on many productions in different theatrical settings, where integrated visually impaired access aesthetics have always taken centre stage, to contribute to their process. It meant that all my skills as a Theatre Director were utilised and not just as a blind body sitting in the room; the difference being between feeding back on what came across and what didn’t, to instead why it wasn’t and what artistically could be fixed based on what the intentions and desires were of the artistic team for their show. It grew creative potential in the room and a positive collegiate spirit.
The Ugly – I am referring to this in relation to the Oxford English dictionary first definition ‘unpleasant’ which was the third consultation experience, alternatively known as a car crash. This time the piece was a USA/UK well upholstered R&D, hosted by an established regional rep theatre in their studio space. I attended in my Extant role and was joined by the Extant Artistic Development Manager (also a theatre director). We were introduced to a performance of the whole show, which was led by a nondisabled creative team, which did include a visually impaired script consultant and VI singer/actor. At the end of the performance, the Director came over to introduce themselves to my sighted colleague (not to me), after which the Producer led us into the green room to hear our feedback. I asked them what they wanted from us as we hadn’t been briefed beforehand or sent a script, and they responded with “Well we want to know what you think – What did you think of the show?” I had no idea what to say. For me, it wasn’t my type of theatre, and I told her this, but I could give feedback on anything specific if she informed me what this was. She asked then how the visually impaired representation worked and to comment on the spatialised sound they had created. Now we had something to work with…My colleague and I gave a critique of major weaknesses in the characterisation, plot and soundscape from both a theatrical and disability perspective and how possibly to remedy these issues. When reading back their notes to us for the Director, it was clear that they hadn’t understood the nuances of what we were trying to explain and kept focusing on whether the depiction of the visually impaired character was authentic, as if it’s about just getting the sound of a cane right or what the current voiceover on a phone is. Shortly after, we were sourly shown out of the building, as if we hadn’t offered anything valuable for the money spent. To a commercial concern, doing disability as gimmick, with no politicised lived experience at the helm, or even the Director being present to hear the feedback, then how could what we were offering be possibly understood, valued and used to improve their work.
Conclusion – The makeup of the inviting Company is paramount and might give some indication of the direction of travel for the job. Most, if not all, integrated access work needs the consultant in the room for meaningful conversations and testing during the process. Understanding the difference between consultancy and dramaturgy – not all consultants have the experience to be access dramaturgs so understand the difference and make the right fit. Lastly, always ask to be fully briefed before turning up as to what is required from you in the room and this is to be led by the Company/Director, not the consultant.
Dr Maria Oshodi, November 2025