The 9 serious flaws of traditional types of role-plays
(Adapted from: Mark McPherson. (2007) "Party Without Pain. The use of Real Life Rehearsals® to help teenagers control their drinking." and Mark McPherson. (1988) " Pooling Your Wisdom: A Method for Generating Role-Plays." Sydney: NSW TAFE in-house publication series.)
1. Scenarios are either not relevant or not realistic enough
Too many role-plays use scenarios which describe situations the participants have not encountered and/or are unlikely to encounter in the future. In short, they are not relevant. In some role-plays, the situation per se is relevant but the way they it is described and acted out (where they go, who is involved and how they interact, what they say and how they say it, etc) are not realistic. If the scenarios are not relevant or not realistic, the activity is of little value to the participants, and this is the case even when the trainer and/or the participants enjoy the role-play. In some cases, it is this lack of realism that makes the role-play enjoyable for both the trainer and the participants because it makes them easy to prepare and easy to perform. This flaw can still occur when the participants devise their own scenario.
2. Strategies are promoted which do not match the needs of the participants
Too often, the strategies suggested, promoted and used in a role-play are not relevant, practical or realistic. There are three situations where this is the case. The first is when the scenario itself is not relevant or realistic. (See Flaw 1 above.) This means that the strategies practiced are not relevant. The second is when the strategies don't match the goal/s of the participants for the particular scenario. The strategies themselves might be good ones per se but they are not useful if they are not matched with the personal aims of the participants and different participants usually have different aims. The third is is when the strategies do not match the way participants 'do things' and 'say things' (the way they speak, they way they interact, their culture, their class, etc). In all of these cases, the time spent practicing them is wasted. Why does this happen? Sometimes, strategies are suggested by the trainer without allowing the participants to check them for acceptability. After checking them, participants could accept them but, if allowed to be totally honest, could modify them or reject them entirely. Even when they are suggested by participants, it is often done in an environment where participants provide strategies they feel the trainer (or teacher) will find acceptable rather than ones they would actually use.
3. Participants are not properly prepared to handle obstacles to the successful delivery of strategies
In the real world, there are many obstacles which can hinder, or even prevent, the use and and success of many strategies — no matter how acceptable they may be to the trainer, how good they might look on paper and how well they have been practiced. Role-plays are often played out like everything in the real world is going to run smoothly. It is surprising what little time, sometimes none, is devoted to helping participants become aware of, and consequently learning how to overcome, these obstacles. When obstacles are encountered in the real world, they can quickly turn a potential successful strategy into an unsuccessful one. When this happens, it can undermine the confidence of participants and their willingness to try the strategy again, or to try others. These obstacles are unlikely to be given appropriate prominence in old-style role-plays. Leaving them out makes for a safe and smooth-running role-play but fails to prepare participants for the real world.
4. Diplomacy is not given enough prominence
Many programs concentrate on assertive strategies (often with a rigid formula) at the expense of others which are either more flexible or more diplomatic. Diplomatic strategies are important. They can help defuse what could become an unpleasant or difficult situation before it becomes necessary to use the sometimes more risky, assertive strategies. If diplomatic strategies work, keep the participant safe, and help them achieve approved goals, they should be promoted yet are often overlooked.
5. Participants spend too much time watching demonstrations and too little time practicing
In some programs, the participants waste their valuable time watching pre-recorded, or live, performances of actors or of other participants. Although demonstrations can be valuable, too often the strategies and the delivery style fit the actors (their use of the language, their 'way of doing things', etc) and not those of the participants. This doesn't mean that the actors aren't good at acting but it does mean that neither the strategies nor the delivery style are those which the participants would use or could use successfully; the actors are simply not the participants. Also, there can be many constraints on what an actor (and even participants) are able to demonstrate, let alone record for later viewing. The problem remains even in situations where the participants suggest the strategies and delivery styles to be acted out. This is because the strategies and delivery styles can be those that the participants would simply like to see acted out, are ones that they think fit the age, ability and personality of the actor, or are ones they feel will be accepted. In any case, the time that participants spend devising and suggesting strategies and delivery styles, and/or watching the actors perform, would be better spent trialling the use of different strategies themselves, and getting feedback, and hence developing their skills at delivering them in different circumstances.
6. Participants use scripts
Scripts are unlikely to contain language or strategies that fit the culture of the participants. This can happen even when they are written by the participants themselves. This is because it requires a great deal of skill to produce a script that reflects a normal flow of conversation. Also, there are usually constraints – even if they are not stated – when writing scripts, so they tend to be sanitized. Furthermore, scripts do not help participants learn to deal with unexpected obstacles or unexpected changes in circumstances – both of which occur in the real world. They do not help participants practice thinking 'on the spot', reacting to obstacles and recalling strategies unaided.
7. Participants role-play scenarios in pairs or small groups
In these situations it is difficult for the trainer to fully scrutinize performances. This makes it difficult to ensure that the role-play is being conducted in the best possible way. A trainer needs to be able to provide advice when needed, and to ask for and supervise re-enactments. Otherwise, they will be unable to make certain that an appropriate level of skill development has been reached. In some cases, the participants are required to provide feedback and advice to each other. This is unlikely to be productive because it requires a level of knowledge and skill which too many participants don't have.
8. Participants role-play scenarios in front of the whole group
In these cases, participants 'act out' one or more scenarios in front of the whole group. In this situation, there are many issues which prevent the participants developing the skills they need for the real world. The basic problem is that they have to prepare and deliver a presentation in front of their peers and the trainer — in essence, they are 'on the stage'. Why do trainers do this? In many cases, the activity seems to be less about helping the participants develop their skills at handling real-world situations and more about the fun of the activity. Participants, not being trained actors, will naturally have more concern about ensuring a good performance for both the other participants and the trainer, than developing the skills to use strategies they would actually employ in the real world.
9. Participants spend time act as someone other than themselves
Participants should only spend time watching, listening to, and practicing the communication strategies and skills that are deemed to be important and are to be learnt or developed. Acting as someone else does not help the participants develop the skills they need and it is simply a waste of time. In some role-plays, participants are actually required to act as a person with poor social skills, who says or does the wrong thing and, in some cases, even displays unacceptable behaviour. Many participants enjoy taking this role or watching others take the role. However, a possible unintended consequence is that attitudes such as 'getting drunk is fun' and ‘I will be the life of the party if I get drunk’ are promoted and reinforced. A second example is where participants act as a person coercing others to be involved in risky, unhealthy or illegal behaviour. This occurs, for example, in those role-plays where participants take the role of the drunk driver or the person encouraging others to drink. In this situation, at any one time some of the participants are practicing and demonstrating skills which are likely to be contrary to the aims of the program. It is possible they may even develop a level of comfort in the role of 'coercer'.