Communities of Musical Practice

Ailbhe Kenny

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781472456755
• eBook ISBN: 9781317163442
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Music

Every day people come together to make music. Whether amateur or professional, young or old, jazz enthusiasts or rock stars, what is common to all of these musical groups is the potential to create communities of musical practice (CoMP). Such communities are created through practices: ways of engaging, rules, membership, roles, identities and learning that is both shared through collective musical endeavour and situated within certain sociocultural contexts. Ailbhe Kenny investigates CoMP as a rich model for community engagement, musical participation and transformation in music education.

This book is the first to produce a valid and reliable in-depth study of music communities using a community of practice (CoP) framework - in this case focusing on the social process of musical learning. Employing case study research within Ireland, three illustrations from particular sociocultural, genre-specific, economic and geographical contexts are examined: an adult amateur jazz ensemble, a youth choir, and an online Irish traditional music web platform. Each case is analysed as a distinct community and phenomenon offering sharpened understandings of each sub-culture with specific findings presented for each community.

Part I

A place for communities of musical practice

1 Defining communities of musical practice

The term ‘communities of musical practice’ (CoMPs) extends the notion of ‘communities of practice’ (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) ‘groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly’. 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. 70–3). 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 ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ to ‘expert’ 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 ‘community’ as ‘a group of people who interact, learn together, build relationships and in the process develop a sense of belonging and mutual commitment’. This definition sits alongside a conceptualisation of learning as ‘situated’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991); where knowledge is context-specific, occurring through one’s environment and lived experiences. In this sense, music-making and musical learning cannot be divorced from context.

‘Situated learning’ or ‘authentic learning’ 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 ‘situated learning’ is as it occurred within the CoMPs investigated. Epistemologically, the research examines learning and meaning-making processes within the CoMP’s 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 ‘situated action’ within a ‘zone of proximal development’ which allows for varying levels of expertise and skills within groups where apprenticeship or peer learning is encouraged. Bruner extends this ‘scaffolding’ and ‘mediational’ approach to learning by emphasising knowledge building that is context-specific within a ‘community of mutual learners’ (1996, p. 24). He explains (1996, p. 21): ‘it models ways of doing or knowing, provides opportunity for emulation, offers running commentary, provides “scaffolding” for novices, and even provides a good context for teaching deliberately’. Through such learning communities, Bruner asserts, ‘reality is made, not found’ (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 ‘a general shift in focus –from teaching to learning, and consequently from teacher to learner’. Due to this shift, examining where music learning occurs and how it occurs has meant an increased focus on ‘local’ music or ‘community music’ 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 ‘community music’ as encapsulating a ‘participatory ethos’, with a focus on group participation emphasising a preoccupation with equality and access to music experiences (2007, pp. 282–4). Higgins is quite explicit in linking ‘community music’ to an act of ‘cultural democracy’ where (2012, p. 7) ‘musicians who work within it are focussed on the concerns of making and creating musical opportunities for a wide range of people from many cultural groups’. Veblen and Olsson describe ‘community music’ in more broad, holistic terms, describing it as ‘active participation in music-making of all kinds’ (2002, p. 730). Similarly Blanford and Duarte (2004, p. 7) refer to it as ‘any collective music-making activity initiated by members of the community’.

Although ‘community music’ 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 ‘musical worlds’ she encountered in Milton Keynes where (2007, p. 206) ‘schools are something more than just channels to lay the foundation for “proper” musical participation in later life; they are themselves organised centres of music – a real part of local musical practice’. 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 ‘stark binaries between out-of-school music and in-school music (2012, p. 181) and Folkestad advocates that music learning should be regarded as ‘two poles of a continuum’ (2006, p. 135). Taking these views, ‘musicians constantly learn music in this way in all traditions i.e. in a dialectic between the formal and informal’ (Finney & Philpott, 2010, p. 9). The concept of ‘non-formal’ 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 ‘community’ and ‘practice’. ‘Online communities’ can be defined, according to Plant (2004, p. 54) as ‘a 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 space’. It is important to note here that the emphasis remains on ‘a collective’.

The CoP framework sits quite well in relation to online communities. It is argued, ‘Technology extends and reframes how communities organise and express boundaries and relationships, which changes the dynamics of participation, peripherality and legitimacy’ (Wenger et al., 2009, p. 11). Extending the concept of CoPs, such online ‘musical worlds’ (Finnegan, 2007) could also be conceptualised as ‘digital habitats’ (Wenger, White, & Smith, 2009, p. 38) where ‘members have developed to take advantage of the technology available and thus experience this technology as a “place” for community’.

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 ‘local’ musical communities to ‘global’ musical communities. Yet, in Kibby’s study of a popular musician’s chat page, she finds ‘a virtual place that facilitated the belief in a local music community’ (Kibby, 2000, p. 100). Furthermore, this study shows that the presence of an online ‘place’ did not necessarily translate into an automatic ‘community’ but rather, in a similar way to face-to face communities, ‘communities exist through dialogue; through an exchange of past social history and current social interaction’ (Kibby, 2000, p. 91).

Practice perspectives

Within the CoP model, Wenger characterises ‘practice’ as (2002, p. 38) ‘socially 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 accountability’. This notion of ‘practice’ clearly draws influence from the sociocultural theories of Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 1977, 1984, 1990, 2002; Bourdieu & Johnson, 1993). Bourdieu presents ‘fields of practice’ as a ‘field of forces’ (Bourdieu, 2002, p. 230) where the social and economic interactions of aesthetic experience are played out across social classes. Within this concept ‘ways of doing’ are generated through structures and interactions to acquire ‘habitus’ – a set of beliefs, dispositions, attitudes and practices. For the purposes of this book, ‘habitus’ is developed, negotiated and sustained through participation within CoMPs. Put simply, ‘practices are things we do and develop’, writes Burnard (2012a, p. 266), to acquire a ‘feel for the game’ (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):

learning, thinking and knowing are relations among people in activity in, with, and arising from the socially and culturally structured world. This world is socially constituted; objective forms and systems of activity, on one hand, and agents’ subjective and intersubjective understandings of them, on the other, mutually constitute both the world and its experienced forms.

Relating this to the CoMP investigated then, the ‘world’ relates to the social, cultural, geographic, economic and political framework, ‘agent’ to the actual actors or members of the CoMP and activity indicating the actual practice, discipline or domain involved – 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 ‘post-critical aesthetics’ where notions of beauty within aesthetic experience are reconnected with the situated nature of engagements (2008). Prior similarly notes, ‘not all aesthetic processes can be reduced to questions of power, symbolic exclusion and institutional process’ (2011, p. 125). Much of the criticism stems from Bourdieu’s deterministic view of art objects (including music) as manifestations of social forces as opposed to artistic forces. DeNora’s (2003) arguments for a ‘sociology with music’ (as opposed to a ‘sociology of music’) emphasise the need for researchers to attend to how music matters to groups who make it. While Bourdieu’s 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 ‘The Practice of Everyday Life’ (1984) have interesting insights for a consideration of CoMPs. Akin to Bourdieu’s theory of ‘habitus’, de Certeau discusses ‘formalities of practices’ and ‘operational schema’ (1984, pp. 29–30) as ‘ways of operating’ which conform to certain ‘rules’. De Certeau’s views on ‘place’ and ‘space’ are also useful. Using an example of a city street, ‘space’ is put forward as a place in practice (de Certeau, 1984, p. 117) whereby its walkers transform a street from a ‘place’ to a ‘space’. In this way, policies can decide on the ‘places’ where they wish to support music communities but it is the music community themselves and the operations within it that create a ‘space’ for a potential CoMP to develop.

The praxial philosophies of David Elliott offer thought-provoking parallels to the concepts of ‘practice’ and ‘habitus’ as they are rooted in the idea of music as action or ‘doing’ (Elliott, 1995; Elliott, 2005; Elliott & Silverman, 2014). It is claimed, ‘musical action and musical context work together to co-produce musical understanding’ (Elliott, 1995, p. 61). ‘Musical practice’ 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, ‘The core of the community of practice concept resides in the importance of doing . . . it is about local meanings, and individuals’ management of their identities’.

Ethnomusicologist John Blacking discusses the use of the term ‘music’ and ‘musical’ by relating how musical processes generate music products (1995, pp. 148–68). Taking his view of a ‘musical community’ (p. 168), this book too chooses the term ‘communities of musical practice’ 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), ‘music 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/communal—and more’.

As well as this, the term ‘communities of musical practice’ is the most common version used in literature when linking music with a ‘community of practice’ 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.

Figure 1.1 Summary of key concepts and definition of CoMP

Margaret Barrett in examining children’s musical cultures (2005a) refers to ‘children’s communities of musical practice’. Through its application Barrett aimed to gain ‘a greater understanding of children’s musical cultures, and the ways in which musical meanings are negotiated within these cultures’ (2005a, p. 190). It was found that children were ‘active social agents’ (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), ‘One 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...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Foreword by Etienne Wenger
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part I A place for communities of musical practice
• Part II Illustrations of communities of musical practice
• Part III Insights from communities of musical practice
• Appendix A Breakdown of data gathered
• Appendix B Interview schedules
• Appendix C Guiding questions for participant logs
• Appendix D Main findings and conclusions
• References
• Index