Each of these two pages (fearful and everyday place) summarises reflections upon the research
initially. Evidence of activity follows and is organised with these in mind.
- As might be expected, there was no consistent response to places of fear by the participants. This group of young people have separate identities and experiences and, therefore, different responses to such places. A couple couldn’t even identify specific fearful places, for example.
- Within the comparatively safe space of Half Moon, some of the youngsters offered some deeply personal responses to places of fear. (Not all of these are evidenced on the website for reasons of privacy.)
- The performance practices encouraged and facilitated expression of fearful places by many. They allowed a more abstract medium of performance than these youngsters were used to which, in turn, appeared to facilitate an alternative way of considering places of fear.
- The PaR process was effective as a means of responding to the research questions in many respects e.g. as practical intervention making manifest abstract concepts of place.
- The PaR process was not always useful for capturing evidence of relevant moments, however. Discussions took place in several spaces at Half Moon simultaneously and were not always recorded, for example, and some early discussions about places of fear weren’t evidenced.
- Performance practices can ‘ease’ a fear of place as expressed by certain participants although the tangible evidence from this project is limited.
Evidence is offered to support these points in the embedded clips, below. Relevant context is given in accompanying writing.