Practice through partnership: Examining the theoretical framework and development of a “community of musical practice”

Abstract

This article examines the development of a “community of musical practice” (CoMP) which emerged within a research case study in Limerick, Ireland. The case study was a music education partnership between a third level institution, a resource agency and a primary school. Using a “community of practice” (CoP) theoretical framework to underpin the study and data analysis, the research seeks to “unpack,” problematize and interpret the development of a community of musical practice, as well as the complexities that surround issues such as membership and role within partnership initiatives. The study provides a means of exploring musical practices within a socio-cultural process where learning is “situated” and “shared,” in this case within a community of musical practice. The inter-relatedness of musical and social interaction as well as favorable models of meaningful musical and “community” experience are highlighted.

Keywords

community musical learning partnership practice social interaction

Introduction

This study sets out to examine the relationship between community, music and learning through the application of the “community of practice” (CoP) framework as an analytical and interpretive tool. A case study of a music partnership project between a third level institution, a resource agency and a primary school in Limerick, Ireland is presented. The findings on shared leadership, problem solving, roles assumed, participation and enjoyment all help to characterize the process of building a “community of musical practice” (CoMP) and how it develops over time. The wider context of the project gaining support through partnership (in this case, through two government-funded organizations) gives the research findings further meaning in relation to setting aims, policies and goals. The partnership, in allowing the “community” flexibility to interpret their own agendas and practices, aided the development of a CoP as was evident in this study. In the spirit of the socio-cultural viewpoints of “situated learning,” “shared learning” and “communities of practice,” the research presented offers a means of examining the complexities of collective and collaborative music education practice.

The partnership project

Taking an instrumental case study approach of one CoMP, the broad research question of how a CoMP developed through this partnership project is examined. The investigation took place during a two-month music education partnership project between final year student teachers from Mary Immaculate College (MIC),¹ the Learning Hub (LH)² and a primary school.³ The central aim of the project was to deliver a high-quality, innovative after-school initiative to complement and enhance the primary school music curriculum through a mentorship approach between student teachers and primary school children. The student teachers taught in teams of five or six in the workshops with the children where leadership roles were intended to be fluid and negotiated through musical practice. The musical activities undertaken involved performing, listening and composing where the children played a significant role in guiding their own learning, and the student teachers responded to this in a mentorship role.

The socio-cultural, political, geographical and economic context of the research is of particular relevance. This is due to the location of the school and the partnership with the Learning Hub which deals with high levels of educational disadvantage and early school leaving experienced by local communities in Limerick City. The school where the partnership took place is in an area well known in both local and national media for gang wars, violence, crime and social issues such as unemployment, lone-parent families and anti-social behavior. The children have a very limited musical background, only having access to school music classes. The partners selected an after-school group of children from 3rd–6th class (9–13-year-olds) to partake in this project.

Theoretical frameworks, definitions and perspectives

Using a socio-cultural theoretical lens, this article advocates that learning is shaped by culture, is socially constructed and jointly created through shared experience. This study explores the multifaceted nature of such a learning experience encompassing issues related to “practice,” “community” and “situated learning,” examined within a CoMP framework.

Practice, worlds and community

The notion of “practice” is particularly relevant to this case study. Bourdieu (2002, pp. 230–231) puts forward a theory of “fields of practice” which he argues are the social and economic interactions of aesthetic experience across social classes. This provides an interesting perspective which Bourdieu likens to a sporting field, claiming:

Agents and groups of agents are thus defined by their relative positions in this space … the space can also be described as a field of forces: in other words, as a set of objective power relations imposed on all who enter this field. (2002, p. 230)

Taking this view, the research is situated within a social field of play with several “agents” (third level institution, resource agency, the primary school, the children, the students, the researcher) and the common ground or “field” are where these interactions and “power relations” occur and are played out. Within such a model the boundaries are clear (a two-month project, set objectives, set time, space etc.) and the “agents” through a mutually constructed set of “rules” create a “habitus.” In other words, the social group acquires a set of beliefs, dispositions, attitudes and practices through the development of a CoMP. The actual music making or “doing” itself then can be seen as “the practice.”

The influential work of David Elliott offers interesting parallels to these notions of “practice” and “habitus” as his praxial philosophies on music are rooted in the concept of music as action or “doing” (Elliott, 1995, 2005). The idea of “musical practice” as social practice that is context-bound is emphasized in the praxial concept of music; “musical action and musical context work together to co-produce musical understanding” (Elliott, 1995, p. 61). In this way, the music-making of the partnership project cannot be separated from its own environment.

Ruth Finnegan in her authoritative ethnographical work on local music in the English town of Milton Keynes puts forward an idea of “musical worlds” or “pathways” (Finnegan, 2007) to describe the music communities she encountered in the 1980s. Finnegan describes these “musical worlds” as:

… distinguishable not just by their differing musical styles but also by other social conventions: in the people who took part, their values, their shared understandings and practices, modes of production and distribution, and the social organisation of their collective musical activities. (2007, p. 32)

Mans extends this notion of “musical worlds” as a “conceptual and practical organisation of sound, movement, meaning, values, and rules” (Mans, 2009, p. 5). Theoretically positioning this article within such concepts and Bourdieuian understandings (Bourdieu, 1977, 1984, 1990, 2002; Bourdieu & Johnson, 1993), CoMPs are situated within social “fields” where several “agents” mutually construct meaning and acquire “habitus” or “ways of operating” through musical practice. The “place” where such a CoMP occurs thus has the potential to transform to a “musical world.” These theories share an epistemology with the case study that knowledge building is collaborative and occurs within specific contexts or environments.

Within the field of music education, there has been a growing concern and change 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; Colley, Eidsaa, Kenny, & Leung, 2012; Cottrell, 2004; Downing, Lord, Jones, Martin, & Springate, 2007; Duffy, 2000; Finnegan, 2007; Higgins, 2012; Kenny, 2009, 2011, 2012; O’Neill, Sloboda, Boulton, & Ryan, 2001; Pitts, 2005; Shuker, 2008; Slobin, 1993; Veblen, Elliott, Messenger & Silverman, 2013). In examining musical learning within a CoMP this case study is built on the premise that learning is “situated” (Koopman, 2007; Lave & Wenger, 1991).

“Situated learning” or “authentic learning” emphasizes the centrality of the acquisition of knowledge through participation in socio-cultural contexts (Koopman, 2007; Lave & Wenger, 1991). From such a stance, the context of such local music practices is highly significant to studies in this field and inevitably has many implications on music learning and music practices. This relationship between music and locality is of particular relevance to the case study where CoMPs are potentially a means of understanding and making sense of the “place” where one exists.

Community of practice framework

The CoP framework (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) is operationalized within this article due to its focus on the social processes of learning and significant potential for conceptualizing, understanding and analysing this particular case study. The CoMP studied was identified based on an assumption that the three dimensions of mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) were present. In addition, Wenger’s (1998, p. 125) set of 14 indicators that form a CoP were used to identify the development of a CoP within the partnership project which included such aspects as: “shared ways of engaging;” “knowing what others know, what they can do, and how they can contribute to an enterprise;” “local lore, shared stories, inside jokes;” and “rapid flow of information and propagation of innovation.”

The CoP framework encapsulates Bourdieuian theory (Bourdieu, 1977, 1979, 1984, 1990, 2002) and further reflects the socio-cultural theories of Vygotsky (1962; Vygotsky & Cole, 1978; Vygotsky, Rieber, & Carton, 1993), Bruner (1996), Lave and Wenger (1991), and Scardamalia and Bereiter (1991, 1996), particularly in the notion of “situated learning.” The study underpinned by such worldviews then investigates the nature of this experience as it occurs within this CoMP and how this learning and meaning making occurs within this community both collectively and individually. Within such a socio-cultural learning framework that constitutes a CoP as holding varying levels of shared expertise, fluid membership roles that span from “legitimate peripheral participation” to “expert,” a shared purpose within a domain of knowledge as well as concepts including: collaborative learning; negotiated goals; shared repertoire; the importance of shared knowledge as opposed to individual knowledge; and social interaction, operationalizing the CoP framework is ideally situated within this case study. In this way, the CoP framework is employed as an analytical and interpretative tool during the data analysis.

The CoP model has been utilized by some music education researchers although not to a large degree. Margaret Barrett particularly used it as a conceptual framework to examine children’s “communities of musical practice” (Barrett, 2003, 2005) as “a location of meaning making and communication” (2005, p. 262) and to gain “a greater understanding of children’s musical cultures, and the ways in which musical meanings are negotiated within these cultures” (2005, p. 190). The CoP framework was further employed in a series of case studies of high school music programs in Canada (Countryman, 2009). Countryman found that the CoP model provided “nuanced and fluid vehicles for learning” (2009, p. 96) during the analysis of the research data. Blair (2008) considered the growth of a CoP amongst five novice music teachers in a narrative inquiry study in the US. Here she used the term “music teacher community of practice” (Blair, 2008, p. 109). This article extends its use and examines its potential as a means of analysing and interpreting “situated” and collaborative music practice. The emphasis on practice particularly makes the CoP model an appropriate framework for the study. Davies (2005) 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. (p. 560)

Ethnomusicologist John Blacking discussed the use of the term “music” and “musical” by relating that musical processes generate music products (Blacking, 1995, pp. 148–168). Taking his view of “musical community” involving “musical” activities this study too chooses the term “communities of musical practice” as opposed to music practice for its emphasis on musical process and practices as opposed to music outputs. As well as this, the term “communities of musical practice” is the most common version of linking music with “community of practice” (Barrett, 2003, 2005; Campbell, 2002; Harwood, 1998; Marsh, 1995; Waldron 2009) and so aims to provide consistency across music education discourse.

The three dimensions of Wenger’s criteria for CoP are described in Table 1 in relation to the case study investigated.

Table 1.

Wenger’s criteria for CoP (1998) in relation to the case study.

CoP criteria	Description	Case study
Mutual engagement	Related to the actual domain, the regular interaction and sets of relationships that form a common endeavor. Regular interaction is required.	The mutual engagement for this CoP is the music making workshops. The relationships, interactions and negotiated meanings between the actors of the music partnership are of relevance here.
Joint enterprise	Wenger describes as “… all the energy they spend …” (1998, p. 78), in other words the process itself and the interactions, shared goals and negotiation that it entails. This involves stated goals, negotiated goals and mutual accountability through the collective practice.	Stated and negotiated aims of the partnership are of relevance here. How the actors problem-solve in response to the local context and situations negotiates the CoP’s enterprise.
Shared repertoire	Relates to the actual practice, ways of doing, joint pursuit and shared resources that are used to make and negotiate meaning. It is a sharing of “communal forms of memory and reflection” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 109) through indicators such as stories, routines, gestures, jokes or conversations that build on a history of mutual engagement.	For the purpose of this study, this consists of the practice, or built up communal resources that belong to the music partnership project. This shared repertoire is used to negotiate meaning through practice.

The conceptual tools outlined all serve to illuminate and explain the nature of the actual practices and musical engagement experienced within the CoMP studied. As this study deals with a social process of learning through music, the CoP socio-cultural theoretical framework in particular underpins the research in order to shape the interpretation and analysis of the data findings.

The case study

To examine how a CoMP developed through this partnership project a qualitative instrumental case study approach was used. Data were collected over a period of two months beginning in February 2010 and included: five 50 minute videotaped workshop sessions (six student teachers and a group of 15 children); one student teacher focus group interview; four interviews with child participants (two boys, two girls); an interview with the LH project manager; a document analysis (involving LH policies and project documents, MIC policies and course documents and actual partnership documents); as well as six student teacher participant logs. This article also endeavors to make a contribution to the existing information gap (Hibernian Consulting with Insight Statistical Consulting & Drury, 2006, p. 43; Kenny, 2009, 2011; Lunn & Kelly, 2008; National Economic and Social Forum, 2007) on arts education programs/projects and more specifically music education partnership projects in Ireland.

The case study underpinned by a constructionist viewpoint and socio-cultural lens, employs a CoP theoretical framework to guide the study and in particular its analysis of findings. Thus the study explores the usefulness and appropriateness of such a framework to music education research studies. Figure 1 provides an overview model of the study where the key partners, participants and the use of the CoP framework are outlined.

Figure 1.

Overview of the case study.

The data collected went through a thematic analysis under the three CoP criteria of mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire (Wenger, 1998, pp. 70–73). The process was both inductive and deductive allowing for emerging categories as well as the thematic analysis to occur. In this way, categories were refined, themes established, meaningful patterns came to light, assumptions were tested and multiple perspectives considered. The analysis investigated where each of the three CoP criteria manifested themselves across all data sources. The document analysis linked into the other forms of data to illuminate the interpretations, complexities and relationships between policy and practice. The software package NVivo was used to aid the thematic analysis.

The dual researcher position

For the study, the researcher position I held was a dual role of researcher and lecturer/partner in the project. From the point of view of lecturing the student teachers as part of their Music Education Elective course on the Bachelor of Education degree, coupled with my participation in the actual workshop sessions, I was an “insider” (Creswell, 2007, p. 44) or “participant observer” (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, pp. 310–314) in the research. From the school’s point of view I was an outsider but affiliated under a well-known institution in the country and especially Limerick (for example, most of the teachers in the school would have studied at MIC).

Due to this position, “researcher effect” was taken into account (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Efforts to ensure reflexivity included: data methods that enabled me as researcher to actively participate in the workshops (video recordings were crucial here); “data triangulation” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) through the use of multiple research methods; transcriptions were all completed by the researcher; and member checks with the adults of the study were also carried out. This was also aided through conversations with colleagues through a process of “peer debriefing/support” (Robson, 2002).

Findings and discussion

Within this case study, complexities surrounding the development of the CoMP through mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire emerged in the many data sources analysed. In this way, it relates back to Wenger’s description (1998, p. 77) where, “[a] shared practice thus connects participants to each other in ways that are diverse and complex. The resulting relations reflect the full complexity of doing things together.” Taking the triumvirate of the CoP model, the findings are discussed.

Mutual engagement

Within the CoP model, mutual engagement is characterized as people or relationships “engaged in actions whose meanings they negotiate with one another” (Wenger, 1998, p. 73). The type of mutual engagement was never clearly defined but rather was shaped and often blurred through the development of a common practice or “habitus” throughout the project. This manifested itself in a number of ways within this CoMP and was apparent in all data sources. Some examples are described here.

The student teachers recognized from the outset the mutual engagement required to ensure the project’s success. At focus group interview stage Tom commented:

Well it’s a learning experience as well; they will learn from us, we will learn from them, so it’s reciprocal, the way we learn from each other and our outlook on how we teach music and their outlook on how music is taught to them. (Tom, focus group interview, 18 February 2010)

The student teachers very much saw their role as one of mutual participants in the project as opposed to a top-down, teacher-centered approach. Such a role was evident from the beginning of the project but also continued to develop over the five-week workshops. Wenger (1998, p. 74) states, “whatever it takes to make mutual engagement possible is an essential component of any practice.” This characteristic of “enabling engagement” (1998, p. 74) collaboratively proved to be crucial in ensuring mutual engagement from both the student teachers and the children.

The set up of the room and placement of the participants each week highlighted an example of the development of mutual engagement throughout the project, as exemplified in the following extract:

Typical classroom, chairs placed in circle by students, desks moved away by students, “Welcome” written on board with cartoon image of a sun, four of the students sat together in the circle, two placed themselves apart, amongst the group. School has a warm, welcoming, busy atmosphere. (Video 1, associated fieldnotes)

While great efforts were made to create an inviting atmosphere the placement of the student teachers is significant here. Only two of the six students spread out around the circle to allow children to sit between them. This may illustrate a nervousness or apprehension due to it being the first session or could indicate a process of “legitimate peripheral participation” where the modus operandi had yet to be “negotiated” and “learned” within the group (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Interestingly, in the four following weeks of the music workshops the student teachers were always spread out amongst the children. This physical statement allowed for a more inclusive atmosphere and balance of power amongst the group in the subsequent sessions. In an interview with the LH partner, this was further elaborated on:

… it’s that the learning is participative. Maybe it was the way we set it out initially or it developed but there was a nice sharing of the work in the groups so there was not this – we’re up here and you’re down there. They [student teacher] sat with them [children] in a circle, they talked to them, they knew their names … (LH partner interview, 23 May 2010)

The overriding use of mutual leadership roles throughout the project sessions was one of what Wenger describes as “complementary contributions” (Wenger, 1998, p. 76) whereby “participants in a community of practice know how to give and receive help rather than try to know everything yourself” (1998, p. 76). The video fieldnotes below highlights one such example of this. Here the student teachers have introduced a new action song “Tony Chestnut” to the children:

Claire [student teacher] has the lead. Tom [student teacher] accompanies the movements during demonstration. Tom interjects with instruction. Lots of laughing between the student teachers and children during activity … Claire loses starting note, Tom looks over and hums it to her … Anthony [child] makes a suggestion on what words to leave out next, Claire states “Let’s try it …” (Video 4, associated fieldnotes)

Within this activity, there was a lot of musical and social interaction as well as an interplay of support between Tom and Claire which was to be observed between many of the student teachers repeatedly in all sessions. This type of mutual engagement was never clearly defined but rather was shaped and negotiated through the development of a common practice throughout the project. In the interview, one of the children commented, “… when ye first came in here I didn’t know ye, and now I know ye so well” (Rob, child interview, 15 March 2010). In this way, it relates directly to one of the main indicators of a CoP, “sustained mutual relationships” (Wenger, 1998, p. 125), which are built up over time.

Joint enterprise

Joint enterprise entails the actual process within a CoP whereby the enterprise is negotiated, indigenous and entails a regime of “mutual accountability” (Wenger, 1998, pp. 77–82). Taking the feature of joint enterprise, examining the stated as well as the negotiated goals is of relevance. The organizing or institutional partners Mary Immaculate College (MIC), the primary school and the Learning Hub (LH) drew up the aims of the project. Wenger (1998, p. 81) claims, “even when the enterprise is reified into a statement, the practice evolves into a negotiated interpretation of that statement.” In this way, the partner’s aims were refined and developed throughout the project. For example, the importance of the actual disadvantaged context in which the project took place emerged as a central feature to this project although not so explicitly stated in the original aims.

This disadvantaged context was a particular concern for the students leading up to the project. The student teachers’ participant logs often commented on their pre-conceived notions or stereotypes of the area and the change in perception following the project:

I’ve learned an important lesson as regards teaching: that children are always children, no matter where they live or what their family background is. (Claire, participant log)

Prior to the five weeks, my expectations were a bit low to be honest, and I thought the children wouldn’t respond at all due to being from a disadvantaged school. But when I went out there, the children were dying to learn music and it got me really motivated to get the best out of them for the weeks that we were there. Over the weeks, my expectations grew and it got me thinking, what could I do next? (Eve, participant log)

Involving the children in the music elective concert at MIC was also an idea that came about during the actual sessions through informal discussions with the student teachers, after-school teachers and the LH partner. This negotiated enterprise became a significant aspect of the project in terms of musical performance but also in an effort to break down notional barriers between a third level institution and a local disadvantaged community. This resonates with Bourdieu’s ideas on the potential for enhancing social and cultural capital, in this case, with the group of children involved. The LH partner reflects on the final performance:

It was very important, because it means they get to see the other side. This is where teachers come out of … it gave the primary students a sense of what they can achieve as well as a true sense of involvement in the process of the previous weeks. (LH partner interview, 23 April 2010)

The student teachers’ engagement with the project as part of their assessment for their elective course as well as the fact that their assessor (the researcher) was present, are aspects of the indigenous enterprise which cannot be ignored. While the students were working within certain course outlines and assessment guidelines Wenger (1998, p. 80) argues, “it is only as negotiated by the community that conditions, resources, and demands shape the practice.” Within a CoP model then the student teachers negotiated and interpreted their own sets of rules and roles as well as a regime of mutual accountability throughout the practice over the project’s duration. The communal sense of accountability manifested itself very clearly when the students had to problem-solve or think “on their feet.” An example of this can be seen in this short incident within one of the sessions:

Eve points out the structure of the song on the handout to the children. Eve asks Cathy and Tom out loud to demonstrate the rhythm section to the group. Children struggle with this. Tom drops the slapping and clapping and asks the group to just clap the rhythm. Children find this easier. (Video 2, associated fieldnotes)

Seen from this example, there was a sharing in the teaching and learning. Eve played to strengths of the group just as Tom responded to events as they occurred. In this manner, the student teachers learned through mistakes and let the children guide the activities to a large degree. The children were aware of this new way of engaging too and noted the difference to what they saw as “school music:” “we can make up our own ideas so it’s better” (Clara, child interview, 22 March 2010). This flexibility of response in the teaching and learning was something all of the student teachers commented on in their participant logs. Cathy stated, “… we had to build on the work carried out week after week. We had to change our original plans as a result of each workshop, we adapted our approaches …” (Cathy, participant log).

Shared repertoire

The third dimension of the CoP framework is shared repertoire which can be described as the “frameworks, ideas, tools, information, styles, languages, stories and documents that community members share” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 29). In light of this case study, it is essentially the actual practice built up by its members through processes of mutual engagement and joint enterprise which they utilized as a resource to negotiate meaning. Aspects such as routines, behavior, interactions and communal activities are of importance here and some examples of this are described below.

A sense of sharing and group participation was especially prevalent within this groups’ emerging practice. The children commented:

Audrey:

It’s just like, we have teamwork and stuff …

Clara:

Yeah.

Researcher:

Do you think?

Clara:

Yeah, it just shows you like, ‘cause we’re not arguing.

Audrey:

Yeah, ‘cause we all like what’s going on in the room.

(Audrey and Clara, child interview, 22 March 2010)

Here the children used terms such as “teamwork” and a measurement of “not arguing” to demonstrate how well they felt the group got along together. Another child, Anthony, saw such support as confidence building in both a musical, social and emotional sense:

Researcher:

Do you think the group works well together?

Anthony:

Well because you know the way we have the group, it lets us be friends and all.

Researcher:

How?

Anthony:

‘Cause ye know each other, you are in groups, in teams and then you know each other because you are talking to each other … it feels fun. And when you are singing you think you have a good voice – you think that in your head. (Anthony, child interview, 15 March 2010)

As well as this, the children recognized the musical practice in the project as being distinct from musical practices in school as referred to earlier. Clara comments “school has boring music and this music is cool” (Clara and Audrey, child interview, 22 March 2010). The element of this music practice being “fun” and school music being “boring” was something which was significant amongst the data collected. On running a text search query in NVivo the words “fun” and “enjoy” were referenced 41 times in nine different data sources. Clearly, the importance of enjoyment and fun through musical learning and collective experience was hugely important in the development of this CoMP.

This norm of “fun” in the partnership project manifested itself increasingly as time went on and the group became more familiar with each other and the musical activities. It was typical to observe the children and student teachers laughing, smiling, moving to the music, being playful with the activities and furthermore, enjoying the familiarity of the music and actions as the project moved on. There was a sense of community, in the actions being carried out simultaneously, in watching one another and taking cues from each other, all building up to a shared practice of musical learning. The LH partner remarked:

I got to see how they interact, have fun with learning. That for me is where the process is accelerating and they are learning without even realizing it on both sides. (LH partner interview, 23 April 2010)

Conclusion: Lessons from the case study

The use of the CoP framework of mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire provided parameters to shape the findings of musical practice, participation, relationships, roles and learning processes within this particular socio-cultural context studied. In this manner, the inter-relatedness of musical and social interaction as well as favorable models of meaningful musical experience were highlighted. It was significant to note the consistent differentiation made between this music project and “school music” by all stakeholders and participants. An important question that arose during the analysis was: were the students teaching the children or the children teaching the students? In the spirit of socio-cultural viewpoints adopted in this study of “situated learning,” “shared learning” and CoP, the teaching and learning occurred on both sides.

The use of the CoP theoretical framework was of considerable benefit to the case study. It enabled effective focus for data analysis and ensured an informed understanding of how the musical community interacted, learned, formed relationships, participated, made meaning and constructed knowledge. In this way the case study, although specific to one context and particular CoMP, hopes to contribute to theory building. Further research across multiple sites, differing stages of development, varying genres and environments to further investigate the complexities surrounding CoMP is warranted. This will offer serious potential to extend the use of the framework to aid deep insights into the socio-cultural perspectives of musical learning and experience within communities.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

Author biography

Dr Ailbhe Kenny is a Lecturer in Music Education at Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, Ireland where she teaches across a range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Ailbhe holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge which focussed on “communities of musical practice.” Previously, Ailbhe was a research fellow at St Patrick’s College in Dublin, worked as a primary teacher in a mainstream, learning support and specialist music teacher capacity, and also held a position as Arts and Education Officer in “The Ark – a cultural centre for children” in Dublin.

References

Barrett

(2003). Meme engineers: children as producers of musical culture. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(3), 195–212.

Barrett

(2005). Musical communication and children’s communities of practice. In Miell

MacDonald

Hargreaves

D. J.

(Eds.), Musical communication (pp. 261–280). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bennett

(2000). Popular music and youth culture: Music identity and place. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.

Blacking

(1995). Music culture and experience: Selected papers of John Blacking. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Blair

D. V.

(2008). Mentoring novice teachers: developing a community of practice. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(2), 97–115.

Bogdan

Biklen

(2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Bourdieu

(1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu

(1979). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste ( Nice

, Trans.). London, UK: Routledge.

Bourdieu

(1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

10.

Bourdieu

(1990). The logic of practice (3rd ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

11.

Bourdieu

(2002). Language & symbolic power (6th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

12.

Bourdieu

Johnson

(1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

13.

Bruner

J. S.

(1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

14.

Campbell

P. S.

(2002). Early childhood musical development. In Bresler

Thompson

(Eds.), The arts in children’s lives (pp. 57–71). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

15.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Oxon, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.

16.

Colley

Eidsaa

R. M.

Kenny

Leung

B.W.

(2012). Creativity in partnership practices. In McPherson

Welch

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (vol. 2, pp. 408–426). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

17.

Cottrell

(2004). Professional music-making in London: Ethnography and experience. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.

18.

Countryman

(2009). High school music programmes as potential sites for communities of practice – a Canadian study. Music Education Research, 11(1), 93–109.

19.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE.

20.

Davies

(2005). Communities of practice: legitimacy not choice. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(4), 557–581.

21.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA and London, UK: Sage Publications.

22.

Downing

Lord

Jones

Martin

Springate

(2007). Study of creative partnerships’ local sharing of practice and learning. Slough, UK: NFER.

23.

Duffy

(2000). Lines of drift: festival participation and performing a sense of place. Popular Music, 19(1), 51–64.

24.

Elliott

D. J.

(1995). Music matters: A new philosophy of music education. New York, NY and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

25.

Elliott

D. J.

(2005). Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26.

Finnegan

(2007). The hidden musicians: Music-making in an English town (2nd ed.). Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyen University Press.

27.

Folkestad

(2006). Formal and informal learning situations or practices vs. formal and informal ways of learning. British Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 135–145.

28.

Harwood

(1998). Music learning in context: A playground tale. Research Studies in Music Education, 11, 52–60.

29.

Hibernian Consulting with Insight Statistical Consulting & Drury, M. (2006). The public and the arts. Dublin, Ireland: Arts Council Ireland.

30.

Higgins

(2012). Community music: in theory and in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

31.

Kenny

(2009). Knowing the score: Local authorities and music. Dublin, Ireland: St. Patricks College, Wexford County Council and Sligo County Council.

32.

Kenny

(2011). Mapping the context: insights and issues from local government development of music communities. British Journal of Music Education, 28(2), 213–226.

33.

Kenny

(2012). ‘Scene and heard’: exploring a jazz ensemble as a community of musical practice. In Coffman

D. D.

(Ed.), Proceedings from the International Society for Music Education (ISME) 2012 Seminar of the Commission for Community Music Activity (pp. 7–14). Retrieved from http://issuu.com/official_isme/

34.

Koopman

(2007). Community music as music education: on the educational potential of community music. International Journal of Music Education, 25(2), 151–163.

35.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Lunn

Kelly

(2008). In the frame or out of the picture? A statistical analysis of public involvement in the arts. Dublin, Ireland: NESF.

37.

Mans

(2009). Living in worlds of music: A view of education and values. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

38.

Marsh

(1995). Children’s singing games: composition in the playground? Research Studies in Music Education, 4, 2–11.

39.

National Economic and Social Forum. (2007). The arts, cultural inclusion and social cohesion. Dublin, Ireland: NESF.

40.

O’Neill

Sloboda

Boulton

Ryan

(2001). Young people and music participation project: Practitioner report and summary of findings. Retrieved from University of Keele, http://rymeyouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Keele.pdf

41.

Robson

(2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner–researchers (2nd ed.). Madden, MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

42.

Scardamalia

Bereiter

(1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: a challenge for the designing of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.

43.

Scardamalia

Bereiter

(1996). Student communities for the advancement of knowledge. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 36–37.

44.

Shuker

(2008). Understanding popular music culture (3rd ed.). Oxon, UK: Routledge.

45.

Slobin

(1993). Subcultural sounds: Micromusics of the west. Hanover, NH: Wesleyen University Press.

46.

Veblen

K. K.

Elliott

D. J.

Messenger

S. J.

Silverman

(Eds.). (2013). Community music today. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

47.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1962). Thought and language. New York, NY: MIT Press/Wiley.

48.

Vygotsky

L. S.

Cole

M. E.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

49.

Vygotsky

L. S.

Rieber

R. W.

Carton

A. S.

(1993). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. New York, NY and London, UK: Plenum.

50.

Waldron

(2009). Exploring a virtual music ‘community of practice’: informal music learning on the internet. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 2(2/3), 97–112.

51.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

52.

Wenger

McDermott

Snyder

(2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School; London, UK: McGraw-Hill.