Part I
A place for communities of musical practice
1 Defining communities of musical practice
The term âcommunities of musical practiceâ (CoMPs) extends the notion of âcommunities of practiceâ (CoPs), coined by the work of Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998, 2006, 2002, 2000, 2009), to musical communities. The CoP framework offers a lens for conceptualising, understanding and analysing the development of music communities in practice. Wenger defines CoP as (2015) âgroups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularlyâ. A link between learning and participation is put forward using three foundational dimensions: mutual engagement (domain), joint enterprise (process/community) and shared repertoire (practice) (1998, pp. 70â3). These three dimensions are fundamentally viewed as a sociocultural learning process where CoPs are constituted as holding varying levels of shared expertise, fluid membership roles that span from âlegitimate peripheral participationâ to âexpertâ and a shared purpose within a domain of knowledge. In investigating CoMPs, focusing on the ways that distinct communities make meaning from and interpret their shared music-making experiences shape and underpin this book.
Community perspectives
The connection between music and community bears particular relevance to CoMPs. The local music practices presented through research share insights into the musical and social interactions involving rules, learning, values, relationships and identities within communities. Wenger (2002, p. 38) describes âcommunityâ as âa group of people who interact, learn together, build relationships and in the process develop a sense of belonging and mutual commitmentâ. This definition sits alongside a conceptualisation of learning as âsituatedâ (Lave & Wenger, 1991); where knowledge is context-specific, occurring through oneâs environment and lived experiences. In this sense, music-making and musical learning cannot be divorced from context.
âSituated learningâ or âauthentic learningâ specifically takes up the idea of the acquisition of knowledge through participation in sociocultural contexts (Koopman, 2007; Lave & Wenger, 1991). The book, underpinned by such worldviews, investigates an ontological question of what the nature of âsituated learningâ is as it occurred within the CoMPs investigated. Epistemologically, the research examines learning and meaning-making processes within the CoMPâs collective musical and social practices. This sociocultural lens draws heavily on the work of Vygotsky (1962; Vygotsky & Cole, 1978, 1993) and Bruner (1990, 1996) where learning is conceived as embedded within social events and interactions. For Vygotsky, learning is viewed as âsituated actionâ within a âzone of proximal developmentâ which allows for varying levels of expertise and skills within groups where apprenticeship or peer learning is encouraged. Bruner extends this âscaffoldingâ and âmediationalâ approach to learning by emphasising knowledge building that is context-specific within a âcommunity of mutual learnersâ (1996, p. 24). He explains (1996, p. 21): âit models ways of doing or knowing, provides opportunity for emulation, offers running commentary, provides âscaffoldingâ for novices, and even provides a good context for teaching deliberatelyâ. Through such learning communities, Bruner asserts, âreality is made, not foundâ (1996, p. 19) and as such knowledge is jointly constructed. So if learning occurs from and with others, as members of communities, the assumption is that within CoMPs the building of collective knowledge will be key to musical learning.
Within the field of music education, there has been a growing concern in what Folkestad (2006, p. 136) views as âa general shift in focus âfrom teaching to learning, and consequently from teacher to learnerâ. Due to this shift, examining where music learning occurs and how it occurs has meant an increased focus on âlocalâ music or âcommunity musicâ research (Bennett, 2000; Cohen, 1991; Cottrell, 2004; Duffy, 2000; Finnegan, 2007; Higgins, 2007, 2012; Shuker, 2008; Slobin, 1993; Veblen, 2004; Veblen, Messenger, Silverman, & Elliott, 2013). Lee Higgins focuses on âcommunity musicâ as encapsulating a âparticipatory ethosâ, with a focus on group participation emphasising a preoccupation with equality and access to music experiences (2007, pp. 282â4). Higgins is quite explicit in linking âcommunity musicâ to an act of âcultural democracyâ where (2012, p. 7) âmusicians who work within it are focussed on the concerns of making and creating musical opportunities for a wide range of people from many cultural groupsâ. Veblen and Olsson describe âcommunity musicâ in more broad, holistic terms, describing it as âactive participation in music-making of all kindsâ (2002, p. 730). Similarly Blanford and Duarte (2004, p. 7) refer to it as âany collective music-making activity initiated by members of the communityâ.
Although âcommunity musicâ is often associated as an activity outside of educational institutions, Ruth Finnegan recognises both formal and informal settings (casual, unregulated) as being a dynamic part of the âmusical worldsâ she encountered in Milton Keynes where (2007, p. 206) âschools are something more than just channels to lay the foundation for âproperâ musical participation in later life; they are themselves organised centres of music â a real part of local musical practiceâ. Allsup (2003, 2012), Folkestad (2006), and Finney and Philpott (2010) also warn that the perceived dichotomy between formal and informal music learning is false (regardless of context). Allsup writes of âstark binaries between out-of-school music and in-school music (2012, p. 181) and Folkestad advocates that music learning should be regarded as âtwo poles of a continuumâ (2006, p. 135). Taking these views, âmusicians constantly learn music in this way in all traditions i.e. in a dialectic between the formal and informalâ (Finney & Philpott, 2010, p. 9). The concept of ânon-formalâ learning has also been incorporated into music education discourses (Coffman, 2002; Mok, 2011; Veblen, 2012) where much community music-making can be understood in this way. Here, the focus is on learning through group interaction guided by a teacher/facilitator/leader. Taking these views, the book observes the varied and overlapping practices of formal, informal and non-formal ways of musical learning within CoMPs and examines how and where such learning occurs.
One of the illustrations from practice presented in the book is an online CoMP. The inclusion of one such community in the study reflects this new fast-growing environment for musical learning and practice. The online nature of such communities expands the notion of âcommunityâ and âpracticeâ. âOnline communitiesâ can be defined, according to Plant (2004, p. 54) as âa collective group of entities, individuals or organisations that come together either temporarily or permanently through an electronic medium to interact in a common problem or interest spaceâ. It is important to note here that the emphasis remains on âa collectiveâ.
The CoP framework sits quite well in relation to online communities. It is argued, âTechnology extends and reframes how communities organise and express boundaries and relationships, which changes the dynamics of participation, peripherality and legitimacyâ (Wenger et al., 2009, p. 11). Extending the concept of CoPs, such online âmusical worldsâ (Finnegan, 2007) could also be conceptualised as âdigital habitatsâ (Wenger, White, & Smith, 2009, p. 38) where âmembers have developed to take advantage of the technology available and thus experience this technology as a âplaceâ for communityâ.
Increasingly, studies are focusing on the relationship between musical communities and online developments in recent years (Burnard, 2009; Kenny, 2013a, 2013b; Kibby, 2000; Partti & Karlsen, 2010; Ruthmann & Hebert, 2012; Salavuo, 2006; Waldron, 2009, 2011, 2013; Waldron & Bayley, 2012; Webster, 2011). Such online communities present a new form of musical engagement and participation within society that might on the face of it appear as a shift away from the study of âlocalâ musical communities to âglobalâ musical communities. Yet, in Kibbyâs study of a popular musicianâs chat page, she finds âa virtual place that facilitated the belief in a local music communityâ (Kibby, 2000, p. 100). Furthermore, this study shows that the presence of an online âplaceâ did not necessarily translate into an automatic âcommunityâ but rather, in a similar way to face-to face communities, âcommunities exist through dialogue; through an exchange of past social history and current social interactionâ (Kibby, 2000, p. 91).
Practice perspectives
Within the CoP model, Wenger characterises âpracticeâ as (2002, p. 38) âsocially defined ways of doing things in a specific domain: a set of common approaches and shared standards that create a basis for action, communication, problem solving, performance and accountabilityâ. This notion of âpracticeâ clearly draws influence from the sociocultural theories of Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 1977, 1984, 1990, 2002; Bourdieu & Johnson, 1993). Bourdieu presents âfields of practiceâ as a âfield of forcesâ (Bourdieu, 2002, p. 230) where the social and economic interactions of aesthetic experience are played out across social classes. Within this concept âways of doingâ are generated through structures and interactions to acquire âhabitusâ â a set of beliefs, dispositions, attitudes and practices. For the purposes of this book, âhabitusâ is developed, negotiated and sustained through participation within CoMPs. Put simply, âpractices are things we do and developâ, writes Burnard (2012a, p. 266), to acquire a âfeel for the gameâ (Bourdieu & Johnson, 1993).
According to Bourdieu, knowledge is gained through participation in a social world through the integration of agent, world and activity (1977, 1990). Lave and Wenger further expand this view of social practice, claiming (1991, p. 51):
Relating this to the CoMP investigated then, the âworldâ relates to the social, cultural, geographic, economic and political framework, âagentâ to the actual actors or members of the CoMP and activity indicating the actual practice, discipline or domain involved â in this study, musical practices.
There has been a repeated call to engage with a more nuanced understanding of music sociology beyond Bourdieu (Born, 2010; DeNora, 2003; Prior, 2011; Wolff, 2008). Wolff argues for a shift to âpost-critical aestheticsâ where notions of beauty within aesthetic experience are reconnected with the situated nature of engagements (2008). Prior similarly notes, ânot all aesthetic processes can be reduced to questions of power, symbolic exclusion and institutional processâ (2011, p. 125). Much of the criticism stems from Bourdieuâs deterministic view of art objects (including music) as manifestations of social forces as opposed to artistic forces. DeNoraâs (2003) arguments for a âsociology with musicâ (as opposed to a âsociology of musicâ) emphasise the need for researchers to attend to how music matters to groups who make it. While Bourdieuâs concepts have been useful to this research, then, the research uses various theoretical perspectives to inform its directions and discussions.
The influential writings of de Certeau in âThe Practice of Everyday Lifeâ (1984) have interesting insights for a consideration of CoMPs. Akin to Bourdieuâs theory of âhabitusâ, de Certeau discusses âformalities of practicesâ and âoperational schemaâ (1984, pp. 29â30) as âways of operatingâ which conform to certain ârulesâ. De Certeauâs views on âplaceâ and âspaceâ are also useful. Using an example of a city street, âspaceâ is put forward as a place in practice (de Certeau, 1984, p. 117) whereby its walkers transform a street from a âplaceâ to a âspaceâ. In this way, policies can decide on the âplacesâ where they wish to support music communities but it is the music community themselves and the operations within it that create a âspaceâ for a potential CoMP to develop.
The praxial philosophies of David Elliott offer thought-provoking parallels to the concepts of âpracticeâ and âhabitusâ as they are rooted in the idea of music as action or âdoingâ (Elliott, 1995; Elliott, 2005; Elliott & Silverman, 2014). It is claimed, âmusical action and musical context work together to co-produce musical understandingâ (Elliott, 1995, p. 61). âMusical practiceâ is regarded as social practice that is context-bound within this praxial view of music. In this way, the music-making within CoMPs cannot be separated from their social and cultural contexts. The emphasis on practice particularly makes the CoP model an appropriate framework for the study. Davies (2005, p. 560) asserts, âThe core of the community of practice concept resides in the importance of doing . . . it is about local meanings, and individualsâ management of their identitiesâ.
Ethnomusicologist John Blacking discusses the use of the term âmusicâ and âmusicalâ by relating how musical processes generate music products (1995, pp. 148â68). Taking his view of a âmusical communityâ (p. 168), this book too chooses the term âcommunities of musical practiceâ as opposed to music practice for its emphasis on process and practices as distinct to music outputs. While music outputs may result from such musical practices, the importance of the communal process is elevated here. Elliott explains (Elliott, 2007, p. 85), âmusic involves sonic products, but these are created, maintained, adapted, reinterpreted, and appropriated by people in and across musical communities. Accordingly, music and our perceptions of it are always artistic/social/cultural/political/communalâand moreâ.
As well as this, the term âcommunities of musical practiceâ is the most common version used in literature when linking music with a âcommunity of practiceâ framework (Barrett, 2003; 2005b; Campbell, 2002; Harwood, 1998; Kenny, 2014b; Marsh, 1995) and so ensures consistency across music education discourses. Encapsulating the key concepts put forward then, Figure 1.1 presents a working definition of CoMPs for the book.
Scope and limitations of the framework
The CoP concept (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) as a way to understand communities outside of workplaces has been limited and is frequently used as a mechanism for improving organisational effectiveness. The CoP model has been used by some music education researchers, however, although to a limited degree (Barrett, 2005a; Beineke, 2013; Blair, 2008; Burwell, 2012; Countryman, 2009; Froehlich, 2009; Gaunt & Dobson, 2014; Karlsen, 2010; Kenny, 2014b; Partti & Karlsen, 2010; Pellegrino, 2010; Waldron, 2009). Taking an instrumental case study approach of one CoMP, I previously used the CoP framework to examine a community-university partnership project (Kenny, 2014b). It was found that the framework is highly appropriate to bring to light the inter-relatedness of musical and social interaction within such an analysis as well as providing a focused interpretive lens with which to discuss data findings. It emerged that the framework led to an informed understanding during analysis of how this particular musical community interacted, learned, formed relationships, participated, made meaning and constructed knowledge.
Margaret Barrett in examining childrenâs musical cultures (2005a) refers to âchildrenâs communities of musical practiceâ. Through its application Barrett aimed to gain âa greater understanding of childrenâs musical cultures, and the ways in which musical meanings are negotiated within these culturesâ (2005a, p. 190). It was found that children were âactive social agentsâ (2005a, p. 261) in their learning within CoMPs and Barrett called for the need to cultivate communities of practice within music education, where more vertical, didactic pedagogical approaches prevail. She claims (Barrett, 2005a, p. 275), âOne of the challenges for music education lies in generating the positive dimensions of a community of practice in an environment where the distinguishing elements of a community of practice woul...