How to Work with Local Communities on Site-Specific Productions Abroad

The core principle: co-authorship, not backdrop

Working with local communities on site-specific productions abroad means treating the place and its residents as hosts, collaborators and co-authors rather than as scenery or local colour. The work begins with partnership and cultural research, not with a finished script; it continues through consent, translation, flexible rehearsal and clear credit. A Routledge chapter examining co-created site-specific performances in Vanuatu and Senegal between 2015 and 2019 describes such projects as participatory processes that can generate impacts at various levels and require facilitators and partners to contribute to socio-cultural transformation (Routledge, 2025). That does not make every project socially transformative, but it establishes the standard: accountability to the people and place hosting the production.

The practical sequence is therefore: identify legitimate local partners; agree decision-making and benefit-sharing; research the site, protocols and permissions; design co-creative methods with participants; plan production around community capacity; rehearse flexibly on site; and document with consent and credit. Each stage affects the next. A project that begins with a fixed script and later asks a community to participate is usually a community-engaged production, not a co-created one.

What counts as site-specific and community-based work abroad

Site-specific performance is made for, in or with a particular place, using its architecture, history, access routes, soundscape or social life as material. Site-responsive is a related term for work that responds to a site without necessarily being confined to it. Roberto Sánchez-Camus’s 2011 Brunel PhD thesis examines co-authorship in socially engaged and site-responsive performance practice, presenting case studies through performance and workshop documentation (Sánchez-Camus, 2011). The emphasis on co-authorship is useful because it shifts the question from “How do we involve the community?” to “Who is shaping this work, and who benefits?”

Abroad, “local community” is not a single actor. It may include residents, site custodians, local artists, community organisations, translators, workers, religious or civic authorities, and audiences who do not share one interest. Identify the specific people and institutions with legitimate claims on the site and the story. Avoid treating a country or culture as a single theatrical tradition; the relevant context is the particular place, language, institution and group of people in front of you.

Begin with partnership and shared decision-making

Partnership should start before the production model is fixed. Caravan Theatre’s guidance on participatory work, prepared with Beckie Darlington, advises being clear about what a project needs, recognising that not all programmers or organisations will be right for participatory work, and accepting responsibility not only to the team but also to participants and collaborators. It also stresses being realistic about your own capacity and that of the partner (Caravan Theatre, 2021). In practice, this means agreeing who decides what: who chooses the site, who shapes the script, who speaks to the press, who holds the budget, who can stop a scene that misrepresents a story, and who receives credit.

The Vanuatu and Senegal chapter describes a design phase that establishes an “experimental community” of partners with diverse backgrounds, working towards varied outcomes (Routledge, 2025). The phrase is useful because it treats the partner group as a working ensemble with different expertise, not as a representative sample. Local artists may bring performance knowledge; residents may bring histories and access; community organisations may bring trust, safeguarding experience and long-term relationships. A production abroad should not assume that one partner can speak for everyone.

Research place, protocols and consent

Before rehearsals, research the site’s ownership, access, histories and cultural protocols with local partners. A HowlRound series on collaborating with a community to animate a historical site notes the challenges of including all stakeholders, communicating a clear vision, translating work to non-arts partners, and balancing history with compelling storytelling (Tomasetti, 2015). Abroad, add jurisdiction and language: permissions may involve private owners, public authorities, religious bodies, community councils or multiple institutions. A local producer or cultural adviser can identify who must be consulted and when.

Consent is not a single signature collected at the end. It is an ongoing process covering access to land and buildings, the use of personal and community stories, photography and filming, and the representation of named people or events. Co-authorship requires particular care over attribution: participants should know how their words, images and labour will appear, and they should be able to withdraw consent where the agreement allows. Written agreements are useful, but their legal form depends on the jurisdiction; take local advice where contracts, safeguarding, insurance or intellectual property are material.

Work across languages and access needs

Language is part of the dramaturgy, not an administrative afterthought. If the production works in more than one language, involve translators and interpreters early enough to shape the rehearsal process rather than merely translate a finished text. A literal translation may miss rhythm, humour, taboo or local reference. Theatre-experienced translators can help test scenes in the room, prepare surtitles or summaries where appropriate, and advise on which language choices signal intimacy, authority or exclusion.

Access also includes physical access to the site, sensory conditions, literacy, disability access, childcare and the time participants can realistically give. Ask partners what access means locally rather than importing a checklist unchanged. Clear communication in advance helps audiences and participants know what to expect from an unusual site and an unconventional performance format.

Use co-creative methods that fit the place

Co-creation can use workshops, story circles, movement, music, local performance forms, walking research, mapping and improvised scenes. The Vanuatu and Senegal chapter reports methods informed by social theatre, performing arts, anthropology and community engagement, cultivating exchanges between life stories, generations and artistic traditions (Routledge, 2025). This is a useful model because it does not presume a single theatrical grammar. The form should emerge from the site, the participants’ expertise and the partners’ aims.

Facilitators should avoid forcing personal disclosure or treating participants as raw material for a director’s concept. Offer choices, explain how material may be used, and build in time for reflection. Where a community has experienced research or artistic extraction, trust may depend on visible reciprocity: payment or expenses, shared authorship, local employment, skills exchange or a community-controlled archive.

Plan production around community capacity and site conditions

Site-specific work is materially unpredictable. The HowlRound essay records loud lawnmowers, threatening thunderstorms, plane traffic from a nearby airport and continued questions about what audiences should expect; the director’s repeated phrase was that it would be different every time (Tomasetti, 2015). Build contingency into the schedule: a weather plan, alternative routes, sound solutions, access arrangements, safeguarding procedures and clear cancellation protocols. Respect local work rhythms, religious observance, school terms and community events.

Budget for local labour, translation, access, documentation, insurance, permissions and contingency. Caravan Theatre’s guidance stresses realistic assessment of partner capacity and responsibility to participants (Caravan Theatre, 2021). A small organisation may be eager to host but unable to provide the administration, pastoral care or technical support that an international production assumes. Overpromising is a common failure; it damages trust more than a smaller, honestly resourced project would.

Rehearse, perform and communicate clearly

Rehearse on site as early as possible, not only in a studio. A technical recce should test access, power, acoustics, sightlines, weather exposure, audience flow, toilets, first aid and evacuation. Local partners can explain how the site is normally used and what may disturb neighbours. Where the work is immersive or promenade-based, audiences need simple, repeated orientation: where to go, what is permitted, how long it lasts and whether they can leave.

Community participation should remain voluntary in practice, not only on paper. Participants may need to withdraw because of work, care responsibilities or discomfort. A flexible structure, understudies or ensemble doubling can protect the production without pressuring people to continue. Clear communication with residents who are not participants is also part of good practice, especially when audiences will enter shared spaces.

Document, credit and share benefits

Documentation should be planned with consent and credit from the beginning. Sánchez-Camus’s thesis on co-authorship in socially engaged and site-responsive practice is itself an example of how performance and workshop documentation can be presented as research evidence (Sánchez-Camus, 2011). For a production, documentation may serve funders, archives, participants and future researchers, but these audiences need different things. Ask partners what should be recorded, who owns the material, how it will be stored and what should not be published.

Credit should appear in programmes, websites, captions, archives and press materials. If the project produces a script, toolkit or recording, decide in advance how community contributors are acknowledged and whether they share in any income. A useful legacy might be a local archive, a workshop programme, paid work for local artists or a lasting partnership; it need not be a permanent building or a new organisation.

A practical checklist

• Identify specific local partners and their legitimate relationship to the site.
• Agree decision rights, roles, credit, payment or expenses, and exit points.
• Research ownership, access, cultural protocols, permissions and safeguarding.
• Plan language support, translation, interpreting and access needs.
• Design co-creative methods with participants rather than for them.
• Budget for local labour, translation, access, documentation and contingency.
• Rehearse on site and test weather, sound, access and audience flow.
• Operate ongoing consent for stories, images, filming and publicity.
• Document with agreed ownership, storage and attribution.
• Leave a clear legacy and maintain communication after the performance.

Common problems and limits

Recurring problems include the “parachute” project that arrives with a fixed concept; unclear roles between visiting artists and local partners; language support treated as a last-minute cost; overpromising what a partner can deliver; treating a community as homogeneous; and documenting participants without ongoing consent. These are not merely ethical issues. They affect the work’s dramaturgy, safety and credibility. A production that cannot explain who authorised its use of a site or story is unlikely to withstand scrutiny.

Community co-creation also has limits. Not every site-specific project needs deep participatory authorship, and some communities may prefer to host rather than co-create. Be honest about the model. If the project is a visiting production with community consultation, say so; do not claim co-authorship to satisfy a funder. The distinction matters for consent, credit and expectations.

Conclusion

Working with local communities on site-specific productions abroad is a relational practice as much as a technical one. The strongest projects combine early partnership, cultural and linguistic research, shared decision-making, realistic production planning and transparent documentation. Success is not only a well-received performance in an unusual place; it is a process in which the people who host the production can recognise their own agency in it.