January 23, 2026
Agata Adamiecka-Sitek, is a professor and theatre researcher at the Academy of Theatre Arts in Warsaw. Her work explores institutional change, accessibility, and cultural wellbeing in the performing arts. Formerly head of research and publishing at the Zbigniew Raszewski Theatre Institute, she combines scholarship with practice in dramaturgy and cultural leadership. The Academy of Theatre Arts in Warsaw is referenced in the report Learning to Change – the report examining accessibility in higher education performing arts institutions across Creative Europe countries and the UK, produced within Europe Beyond Access, authored by On the Move and commissioned by Skånes Dansteater with the support of the British Council. During the launch event of the report, Maria Vlachou, Executive Director of Portugal’s Acesso Cultura (PT) and moderator of the event, interviewed Agata Adamiecka-Sitek.
What made the Academy invest in accessibility in the first place?
I will speak from inside a quite traditional drama school – Theater Academy in Warsaw, Poland – a place shaped mostly by long-standing artistic conventions. And I want to be clear from the beginning: we are only at the start of the journey toward real accessibility. But I believe that thanks to actions we took in last 2-3 years our leadership and a large part of our community have understood how important this work is – and how creatively transformative it can become for all of us.
Well, being honest, it began with a legal obligation. Yes, Polish public universities were required to implement accessibility measures – so the law pushed us to act. If we wanted to obtain any public grands, we had to proove that we care for access.
And with this process of establishing procedures and making necessary adjustments, we started a real inner conversation, we organized workshops, conferences and it led us to the crucial recognition: accessibility is not a favor – it is a matter of basic rights for all people, not just artists and people with disabilities.
The report demonstrates clearly that when access to artistic education is denied, an entire community loses opportunities, representation, and recognition.
We also saw that we had been losing talented candidates because our system was built around a single, narrow model of the “ideal” performer body.
The report names this a “vicious cycle of exclusion” – and we recognized ourselves in that description.
How did you begin to address this once that realisation emerged?
The first step was reframing accessibility as a rights-based commitment. One concrete action was appointing a Rector’s Representative for Accessibility. At our Academy this is a full-time position, held by a highly competent professional, Iwona Herbuś-Iwaniuk.Her role is not only to support students, staff, and candidates in relation to specific needs or adjustments. She also secures grants, proposes programmes and workshops, moderates internal debate, and ensures that accessibility remains a constant topic within the institution.
We also introduced transparent procedures so that adaptations are understood as rights, not favours. But documents alone do not change culture – people do. That is why, in line with the report’s recommendations, we sought external expertise and alliances.
A crucial partner for us has been the Centre for Inclusive Arts, one of the most important Polish NGOs developing knowledge, methods, and artistic practice in inclusive arts. Their experience helped us build a shared vocabulary, challenge our assumptions, and understand accessibility not as an add-on, but as a creative resource.
What have been the biggest difficulties in implementing these changes?
In my opinion, the biggest challenge lies in the mental structure of theatre training itself. Most of us were educated within a paradigm where the actor’s body is expected to be universal, neutral, endlessly adaptable. That paradigm leaves very little space for real diversity.
We work in beautiful 19th-century buildings, and I often say that it is actually easier to change 19th-century architecture to make it accessible than to change the 19th-century mental architecture of theatre training – the assumptions and hidden curriculum that shape how we think about bodies.
Architecture is slow and expensive to transform, yes. But mental structures can be even more resistant.
Have you already observed any benefits from this work?
We are too early in the process to claim major changes in actor training.
But what we have gained is a new perspective – a shift in the way we think about pedagogy.
We have begun understood that adapting methods to different bodyminds is not a threat to artistic standards – it is an invitation to creativity! This is something we will now try to introduce slowly and thoughtfully.
At the same time, we have already seen an important change in the institutional atmosphere. Students feel safer. Conversations about injury, illness, neurodivergence or chronic conditions are no longer taboo.
And, as the report shows, such safety actually enables artistic risk-taking, not the opposite. For the artistic field as a whole, the benefits are even stronger.
The report demonstrates that exclusion from higher education leads directly to exclusion from the profession.
By opening our doors, we are not doing something extra – we are expanding the future of the artform.
Finally, what feels most important to you on a cultural level?
For me, the most important cultural shift is moving away from the binary opposition “able – disabled” toward a continuum of human experience. Full ability is not a stable norm – it is a temporary state. Every one of us will experience disability in one form or another. So the changes we are making are not for a small group. They serve all of us.
This is exactly what the report makes visible: accessibility is not a technical task – it is a cultural and artistic transformation.
It widens our understanding of who can be an artist, and what bodies and bodyminds can shape the future of theatre. And I think in Theater Academy in Wesaw we really start to acknowledge this.