Undergraduate students’ strategies for negotiating emerging performer and teacher identities

Abstract

Nowadays, instrumental undergraduate students must often negotiate their emerging performer and teacher identities, and the results of this process affect the way they later balance their professional and personal life and their ability to sustain lifelong involvement in music. Drawing from recent sociological studies on bicultural identity integration, this study addresses two research questions: What strategies do undergraduate students adopt for negotiating both professional identities? And what are the characteristics of each strategy?

One hundred and twenty-one undergraduate performance students participated in this study. Using cluster analysis, a typology of eight strategies for negotiating performer and teacher identities was developed: moratorium, diffusion, dichotomy, involvement with narrow vision, performers who happen to teach, assimilation or unwilling teacher dominance, quasi-integration and integration. These categories are characterized by students’ level of personal commitment, involvement, perceived freedom, breadth and accuracy of the professional image, and personal and social professional recognition.

The strategies unfolded and described in this study could be useful for students who want to reflect on new ways of negotiating multiple professional identities and for researchers involved in musicians’ identity-building research.

Keywords

professional identity performer students identity integration performer identity instrumental teacher identity cluster analysis

The changing context of modern society demands that young professionals in all branches be flexible and competent in several fields. Professional music is not an exception in this regard; while the majority of students who enter a music academy wish to become performers (Burt & Mills, 2006), at the end of their studies most of them also will have a job as an instrumental teacher (Mills, 2007). The fact that a career as a soloist is characterized by uncertainty, instability, and mobility (Menger, 2005) seems to be one of the reasons most young musicians choose to join a professional field (teaching), in which professional life is more stable in the long term (Perrenoud, 2007). Teaching a musical instrument can serve as a compromise between the desire to become a professional performer and the need for a stable professional activity (Schlanger, 1997). However, combining performance and teaching work can be challenging at times: teaching demands time and energy that could be spent on artistic development, and the patience, seriousness, verbal explanations, and organization and planning inherent in the practice of teaching (Jorgensen, 2008) can seem to be incompatible with the virtuosity, intuition, elasticity, and emotion associated with performing (Wilson, 2002).

In this context, developing a multi-layered professional identity as a musician (Isbell, 2008) may help to find a successful balance between multiple professional tasks. For musicians, “linking personal interests, musicianship, and pedagogical skills” (Kerchner, 2002, p. 19) is especially important for career success. Allowing students to build a strong and broad professional identity has been recognized as an important task of higher music education institutions (Gaunt, 2008), and recent literature (Burt-Perkins & Lebler, 2008; Mills, 2004a) has emphasized “the importance of preparing students to be flexible and multi-skilled in order to be able to function in the contemporary workplace” (Gaunt, 2010, p. 19).

Recent research has also established the importance of developing a robust musical identity in shaping a personally enriching lifelong involvement with music (Evans & McPherson, 2015; Lamont, 2011). For example, different studies have reported the experiences of individuals who either continued to play in adulthood or made a break with music at some point (Pitts & Robinson, 2016; Pitts, Robinson, & Goh, 2014), have investigated the impact of initial musical learning on lifelong engagement with music (Pitts, 2012, 2015), or have explored the role that musical “possible selves” play in supporting subjective well-being in later life (Creech et al., 2014).

With regard to undergraduate music students, there are some studies that examine the attributes of commencing conservatoire students (Lebler, Burt-Perkins, & Carey, 2009), the personality traits of young instrumentalists (Bell & Cresswell, 1984; Cutietta & McAllister, 1997; Kemp, 1996), the identity of adult music students (Davidson, 2002), and the occupational identity of undergraduate music majors and pre-service music teachers (Austin, Isbell, & Russell, 2012; Isbell, 2008). There are also a number of studies about the connections between performer and music teacher identities (Pellegrino, 2009) and the beliefs and experiences of performance students as instrumental teachers (Mills, 2004a, 2004b, 2006). However, the way performance students negotiate their emerging performer and teacher identities during their undergraduate studies has received little consideration. An improved understanding of this issue could be useful for students who wish to reflect about new ways of negotiating multiple professional identities or to explore other musical “possible selves” (Creech et al., 2014), as well as for all those who interact with them during the complex process of professional identity-building, from instrumental teachers to families and peers.

Identity construction and negotiation of multiple professional identities

Nowadays, identity is commonly understood as a dynamic construct that includes both stable, enduring individual characteristics, and a changing, “liquid” (Bauman, 2000) dimension that is contextually and historically situated (Moran & John-Steiner, 2003). Among the different conceptualizations of the identity-building processes, two are especially relevant for this research: James Marcia’s identity status theory, and Charles Taylor’s concept of “socially situated freedom” that underlies his anthropology of identity. Marcia’s theory (Marcia, 2002) elaborates on Erikson’s suggestion (Erikson, 1982) that throughout each person’s lifespan different crises or conflicts between two opposite tendencies appear at certain moments, and that they should be resolved in order to progress to the next identity-development stage. Marcia’s concept of “identity status,” which is used in this study, describes the extent to which a person has explored diverse identity possibilities and the firmness of his/her convictions and commitment to one of them. According to him, the four possible identity statuses are diffusion (identity crisis not resolved, disorientation), foreclosure (identity decided/accepted from childhood, without crisis), moratorium (identity exploration, waiting to decide), and achievement (personal commitment to one identity after extensive exploration). Charles Taylor’s anthropology of identity (Taylor, 1989) is based on the concept of “significance”: according to him, each person defines his/her identity with reference to “meaningful” values, some of which can be taken as a life goal and thus orient the concrete lifestyle. Taylor acknowledges that identity-building conditions are socio-cultural (Taylor, 1991), because, through contact with others, each person learns about other persons’ “systems of significance.” However, Taylor argues that personal freedom is crucial, as it allows the person to critically assess his/her assumptions, transform them, and hence, reconfigure his/her own identity. This “socially situated freedom” (Taylor, 1997) allows one to determine autonomously and responsibly what important values will guide one’s own life and how one should be.

Professional identity is also constructed through a very individualized process that includes both enduring and changing, socially constructed elements (Adams, Hean, Sturgis, & Clark, 2006; Day, Sammons, & Stobart, 2007; Kasworm, 2005; Moran & John-Steiner, 2003). The social constructionist understanding of “musical identity navigation” (Davidson & Faulkner, 2015) is often used in recent studies about the transition from teenage musical engagement to adult music learner and, later, to working life (Burland & Davidson, 2004; Davidson & Burland, 2006; Juuti & Littleton, 2010, 2012). In this study, building on Taylor’s conceptualization of identity construction, I synthesized subjective (e.g., professional image construction, self-recognition), factual (e.g., career choice, work load), and social (e.g., socio-professional recognition, social status) aspects, which are complementary, into four key processual elements (see Figure 1), although they do not necessarily occur in a fixed order: (1) the shaping of a personal image about what is an ideal professional, including versions of typical life-courses or “paradigmatic trajectories” (Wenger, 1998); (2) the personal appropriation of this image, leading to the choice of a profession; (3) the involvement in the profession; and (4) the continuous re-questioning of self as professional, which includes personal and social recognition processes.

Figure 1.

Elements of the identity-building process.

In this study, I use the concept of bi-professional identity to designate the professional identity of a musician involved simultaneously in the world of performers and that of instrumental teachers, by analogy with the term bicultural identity, widely accepted in sociological studies. The results of these studies, which unbundle the different strategies individuals adopt when dealing with multiple cultural, social, or national identities, can be of some use when approaching bi-professional identity negotiation. Berry (1990) proposed four possible acculturation positions that an individual can adopt when living in a country with a dominant culture different from his/her own ethnic culture: assimilation (identification mostly with the new dominant culture), integration (high identification with both cultures), separation (identification largely with the ethnic culture), or marginalization (low identification with both). Cheng, Sanchez-Burks, and Lee (2008) use four terms to characterize the combination of two cultural identities: hyphenated (a mixture of the two cultures into a new one); dichotomy (keeping both cultures separate); integration (perception of high compatibility between two cultural identities; see also Benet-Martínez and Haritatos, 2005); and dominance (ethnic culture takes over). They also use the concept of cultural identity activation, which likewise is used by Roccas and Brewer (2002) to describe the strategies that individuals use to deal with multiple social identities: compartmentalization (only one or the other identity is activated, depending on the situation); merger (both identities are activated simultaneously in certain contexts); dominance (the main identity takes over the weaker, which remains “not activated”); and intersection (both identities intertwine to form a new one). LaFromboise and Rowe (1983) used the concept of “bicultural competence,” defined as the ability to be strongly and equally involved with and comfortable in both cultures in terms of both identification and behavioural skills. I will refer to some of these concepts during the cluster analysis to describe how students negotiate performer and teacher identities.

An earlier qualitative study was based on interviews with undergraduate performer–students enrolled at Jāzepa Vītola Latvian Academy of Music (JVLMA) and observations of the lessons given by them (Fernández González, 2010, 2012). The aim of the present work is to acquire a better understanding of the subject matter using a quantitative approach. The research question is twofold: Which strategies do undergraduate performance students use to negotiate emerging performer and teacher identities, and what are the characteristics of each strategy? Cluster analysis was used to identify the different strategies, and analysis of intra-group structures was used to reveal the characteristics of each strategy.

These questions are investigated at the JVLMA, the only higher music education institution for performers in Latvia. The context in which performance students negotiate their emerging identities is characterized by high-quality standards (Lūse, 2013), highly attractive performance opportunities but with quite low salaries, the necessity of combining performance with teaching, often without clear personal pedagogical motivation (see case studies in: Fernández González, 2012), and time-consuming teaching practices (45-minute or one-hour one-on-one lessons twice a week per pupil). At JVLMA, compulsory instrumental teacher training for performance students is modern and comprehensive, but without a clearly stated connection with students’ performer identities (JVLMA, 2009).

Method

In order to investigate students’ professional identity negotiation strategies, a questionnaire called “The Performer and Teacher Identity of Undergraduate Students at JVLMA” was used (see Supplementary Materials online). Using questionnaires to investigate professional identity issues is widespread in psychological research (see, for example, Holland, Daiger, & Power, 1980; Isbell, 2008; Jakovļeva, 2009). The questionnaire was adapted from Holland’s questionnaire on professional identity (Holland et al., 1980) and Isbell’s questionnaire on musicians’ professional identity (Isbell, 2008). These two questionnaires complement each other for the needs and theoretical background of this study: the former inquired about career choice and professional image building, while the latter provided a framework for inquiring about personal and social recognition and involvement in professional activities.

The adapted questionnaire was reviewed by three Latvian experts in research methodology in music education. The pilot questionnaire was tested by seven JVLMA students, their comments on the formulation of the questions and layout of the questionnaire were considered, and changes were made when applicable. The result of the inner consistency reliability test (Cronbach’s α = 0.78) showed that the questionnaire was highly reliable (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011).

Variables

The four key elements of identity construction (the formation of the image of the ideal professional, the choice of the profession, the concrete involvement in professional work, and the personal and social recognition processes) defined the structure of the questionnaire. For each component, several items were included. Some of the items addressed aspects directly related to the combination of both identities and were labelled “combination items.” Other items, labelled “specific items,” referred separately to both teacher and performer identities (see Table 1). The image of the ideal professional was captured through two items: one combination item, namely, the breadth of the professional image (the student’s opinion on the number of different professional profiles, e.g., performer, teacher, composer, researcher, leader, that should be included in a musician’s portfolio); and a specific item: the perceived accuracy of the professional image (how well the student thinks s/he understands the work of performers and teachers). Career choice was addressed through two combination items: the student’s perceived professional identity status (the student’s level of conviction that s/he made the right career choice) and the student’s perceived freedom in making a career choice. Students’ involvement in profession was addressed through three items: one combination item (the number of different music-related activities in which they are involved), one specific item (work load as teacher and performer in hours per day), and one item that included both combination and specific aspects: the overall perceived intensity of involvement with music (combination) and the perceived intensity of involvement as a teacher and as a performer separately (specific). Finally, the recognition dimension of the identity-building process was captured through four specific items that addressed self-recognition and perceived social recognition as a teacher and performer. A detailed description of the questionnaire can be found in the Supplementary Materials online.

Table 1.

Categories and indicators of identity-building process used in questionnaire.

Category	Indicators
	Items capturing the combination of performer and teacher identities	Specific items addressing “performer identity” and “teacher identity” separately
Image of the ideal professional	Breadth of professional image of a musician
Image of the ideal professional		Accuracy of professional image of performer and teacher
Career choice	Professional identity status (commitment to the choice of music profession)
Career choice	Perceived freedom in the choice of music profession
Involvement in profession	Diversity of activities related to music profession
	Intensity of involvement in music profession in general	Intensity of involvement as performer and teacher
		Work load as performer and teacher
Professional recognition		Self-recognition as professional performer and teacher
Professional recognition		Perceived social recognition as professional performer and teacher

In a further step, the scales of the five specific items that define “performer identity” and “teacher identity” (see Table 1) were summated in a single variable in order to make the cluster analysis clearer and easier to read. During the process of creating summated scales, the internal consistency of the variables that were going to be summated were verified using Cronbach’s α coefficient (Morgan, Leech, Gloeckner, & Barrett, 2012). The possibility of summating the scales of the five specific items that characterize the performer identity was analyzed first. The internal consistency coefficient of these five specific items was high (α = 0.76), and so they were grouped into Performer identity. The same process was used to create the summated scale Teacher identity (Cronbach’s α = 0.71, high). As a result, the number of variables to be included in the cluster analysis was reduced from 15 to 7.

Data collection

Data were collected in 2011 and 2012 at JVLMA. Respondents were asked to evaluate these variables using a five-point Likert scale, except for item Professional identity status of the student, for which four choices were offered, following Marcia’s theory (Marcia, 2002): 1 = diffusion (not clearly defined); 2 = moratorium (waiting); 3 = foreclosure (decided from childhood without crisis); 4 = maturity (searched, evaluated, decided, implemented). Each question asked the students to explain their choice. These comments were used in the description of the clusters.

Participants of the study were undergraduate students and had a profile oriented predominantly towards performance. In total, 257 JVLMA students fulfilled these criteria (see Table 2), and 124 of them filled out the questionnaire. This sample is representative within a 7% margin of error in the results (Fisher, Arkin, & Colton, 1995).

Table 2.

Undergraduate students in JVLMA (2012).

Program	All	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4
Wind instruments	51	16	17	9	9
String instruments	54	16	17	11	10
Keyboards	44	15	10	14	5
Percussion	5	3	1	0	1
All instrumental students	154	50	45	34	25
Vocalists	32	10	8	5	9
Choreography	39	14	14	5	6
Composition	8	3	2	1	2
Conductor	24	4	8	7	5
All other undergraduate students	103	31	32	18	22
Overall	257	81	77	52	47

The students filled out the questionnaire during one of their theoretical lessons. The data were computerized using a Google electronic questionnaire form in order to achieve fast and reliable transfer of the data into an Excel document, which was later transferred to the software SPSS 19.

Cluster analysis

Cluster analysis is a multivariate statistical procedure that has been used widely in psychology and education research and is appropriate for exploratory studies (Bailey, 1983). This method can identify different groups of individuals, such as students that are homogeneous internally, yet different from other groups. This information can be used to propose different pedagogic strategies tailored to sub-groups of students, depending on profile differences. Cluster analysis reduces the amount of data, minimizes problems of high standard deviation in means, and improves correlations (Zhukov, 2007).

In this study, cluster analysis was used to identify the concrete strategies students use to negotiate both professional identities: several student groups with maximum inter-group differences and maximum intra-group similarities were created. The intra-group interaction structures were analyzed in order to describe, in detail, the characteristics of each strategy.

Seven variables that characterize performance students’ strategies for negotiating emerging performer and teacher identities were used to conduct the cluster analysis: Performer identity (summated scale), Teacher identity (summated scale), Breadth of professional image (student opinion on the number of different professional profiles that should be included in a musician’s portfolio), Professional identity status (student level of conviction that s/he has made the right career choice), Perceived freedom (in the process of choosing a profession), Diversity of activities (number of different musical activities the student participates in), and perceived Intensity of involvement (professional musical activities).

To conduct the cluster analysis, only those students with teaching experience (n = 100) were selected, because the aim of the analysis was to find styles of negotiating performer and teacher identity. At the beginning of the cluster analysis, the two-step algorithm was used to determine the optimal number of clusters for the analysis. The Silhouette measure of cohesion and separation (Rousseeuw, 1987) showed that the quality of the cluster analysis was acceptable with three to six clusters. In order determine the widest range of different styles of dealing with both identities, I decided to make the analysis using six clusters, the maximum acceptable.

The hierarchical type of cluster analysis was chosen, which is the grouping technique most commonly used and most appropriate when the sample size is smaller than 200 (Everitt, Landau, & Leese, 2001). The method chosen was Average Linkage (Between Groups): first, the two cases with the highest correlations are joined together; then the next two most similar cases form the second cluster, and so on. All the other cases are placed into clusters based on the highest correlation to the original respondents (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). To calculate the average linkage, the Squared Euclidean Distance measure was used for the previously mentioned variables.

Results

Six clusters were created with maximum inter-group differences and maximum intra-group similarities. The dendrogram visualization shows the number of cases in the clusters and the individuals included in each cluster (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Dendrogram visualization of the clusters.

Given the characteristics of these data, which included rank scores and continuous data, I decided to use the Mean Rank (MR) and the Standard Deviation of Ranks (SDR) as the most appropriate form of measurement for this case (Morgan et al., 2012). In order to understand the characteristics of each cluster, the scores of each variable were compared to the general mean of this variable for each cluster (see Table 3; relevant figures are in bold) using methods noted in recent studies that used cluster analysis (Zhukov, 2007). If the scores of one variable of one cluster differed from the general mean by more than half of the standard deviation, they were labelled low or high scores. The scores whose difference from the general mean were larger than the standard deviation were labelled very low or very high scores. This comparison of the scores of the cluster with the general mean led to the recognition of specific student behaviors in each cluster and allowed describing the characteristics of the ways of negotiating both identities that were particular to each cluster and yet different between the clusters.

Table 3.

The scores of each variable in the clusters (relevant figures in bold).

Clusters	All sample		Cluster 1					Cluster 2	Cluster 3	Cluster 4	Cluster 5	Cluster 6
Clusters	All sample		Whole cluster 1	Cluster 1a	Cluster 1b	Cluster 1c	Cluster 1d	Cluster 2	Cluster 3	Cluster 4	Cluster 5	Cluster 6
Number of cases	100		49	14	10	16	9	25	4	9	3	10
Variables	MR	SDR	MR	MR	MR	MR	MR	MR	MR	MR	MR	MR
Performer identity	3.63	0.52	3.54	3.61	3.58	3.23	3.91	3.90	3.25	3.86	3.47	3.35
Teacher identity	3.12	0.87	3.19	3.13	3.43	2.77	3.74	3.31	3.40	1.31	2.03	4.13
Breadth of professional image	3.50	0.53	3.58	3.43	2.94	4.00	3.67	3.52	2.66	3.64	3.46	3.9
Identity status	2.85	0.89	2.29	2.00	2.30	2.33	2.67	3.96	3.50	3.00	2.33	2.5
Perceived freedom in professional choice	3.86	0.99	4.15	3.50	3.55	4.60	5.00	4.12	4.50	3.78	2.00	2.2
Diversity of musical activities	3.57	0.67	3.60	3.71	3.45	3.80	3.33	3.60	2.08	3.07	3.89	4.1
Intensity of involvement in work	3.37	0.36	3.33	3.14	3.54	3.07	3.78	3.40	3.34	3.39	3.31	3.4

In order to have a better understanding of the characteristics of each strategy, the analysis of the intra-group interaction structures is presented now. During the analysis of the data, I kept in mind the conceptual strategies of multiple identity negotiation that were presented in the theoretical section; the comments of participants in answering the open-ended questions were also considered. Clusters including less than five cases (No. 3 and 5) were not analyzed further.

Cluster 1 (49 cases)

This cluster is the largest. The students’ Professional identity status (their level of conviction that they made the right career choice) is quite weak (MR = 2.29, low), but their Perceived freedom in their current professional situation is moderately high (MR = 4.15). They are still waiting to decide on their future professional paths, and they identify as students rather than as professionals, having chosen not to choose for the moment. This cluster was labelled moratorium (waiting). Students in this cluster adopt various attitudes that were classified in sub-clusters. Students in sub-groups 1a and 1c, still undecided, prefer not to be involved as much in professional work, but those in cluster 1b and 1d prefer to become involved in the profession. We will look at those sub-clusters in more detail.

Sub-cluster 1a (14 cases)

The students in this sub-cluster have a low Intensity of involvement in the music profession (MR = 3.14, low). They possess a standard Performer identity and Teacher identity, but they have an exceptionally low Professional identity status (MR = 2, very low). Contrary to the general tendency in cluster 1, they have low Perceived freedom in their professional choice (MR = 3.5). One student in this group commented: “In my mind, it’s not possible to develop your talent in several profiles, because, by trying to do that, you will lose talents in each profile” (respondent No. 25, woodwind). This comment suggests that there is low interaction between their relatively strong teacher and performer identities and that they perceive them as separate or opposite realities. This inability to choose between strong performer and instrumental teacher identities could explain the low involvement and the doubts about career choice. This sub-cluster was labelled dichotomy: two professional identities compartmentalized, or in conflict.

Sub-cluster 1c (16 cases)

Students in this sub-group have the weakest Intensity of involvement in musical activities in the whole sample (MR = 3.07, very low), and their Professional identity status is also low (MR = 2.33). They have also a low Performer identity (MR = 3.23) and the lowest Teacher identity in this cluster (MR = 2.77, low): they do not identify themselves clearly as teachers or performers yet. However, contrary to sub-cluster 1a, these students feel very free in their current situation (MR = 4.60, very high), and they have a very broad Professional image (MR = 4.00, high): “A performer has to be a very open person with good knowledge of history, arts, literature, etiquette …” (No. 65, singer). It appears that they are not really worried about their professional future, and they are not actively looking for their professional path. This sub-cluster was labelled diffusion, passivity and idealism: weak professional identities, low professional involvement.

Sub-cluster 1-b (10 cases)

In contrast to the two previous sub-clusters, students in this sub-group have a relatively high Intensity of involvement in professional activities (MR = 3.54, high). Their most salient characteristic is a low Breadth of the professional image: “The more you concentrate in one unique profile, the more chances you have to succeed very well” (No. 68, conductor). Their value in this category is the lowest in this cluster (MR = 2.94, very low). This sub-cluster was labelled involvement with narrow vision.

Sub-cluster 1-d (9 cases)

The main characteristics of this group of students are their highly intensive Involvement in work (3.78, very high), but in limited activities (3.33, among the lowest scores), and their high Perceived freedom in choosing their profession (MR = 5.00, maximum): “Since childhood, I had the dream to become a musician … and now I’m close to my dream” (No. 142, woodwind). They have a relevant Teacher identity (3.74, high) and Performer identity (3.91, high), which places them close to the integration strategy (see comments to Cluster 2). This sub-cluster is quite the opposite of sub-cluster 1c (except for the common characteristic of moratorium) and was labelled involved freedom: balanced professional identities, strong professional involvement.

Cluster 2 (25 cases)

These students have a dominant Performer identity (MR = 3.90, high) together with a moderate Teacher identity (MR = 3.31): “I always get some prizes in competitions as a performer, and I also receive compliments as a teacher from my mentor and other academic staff” (No. 89, piano). Their Identity status is well defined (MR = 3.96, very high), which indicates that they feel very sure of their professional choice. The rest of the parameters correspond to the mean of the sample: the different aspects of the professional identity-building process are well balanced. They appear to be convinced and practicing performers who also have a stable pedagogical identity. They can operate both as teachers and performers and can activate, simultaneously, both identities in both contexts. This cluster was labelled professional identity integration, maturity.

Cluster 4 (9 cases)

These students have the lowest Teacher identity (MR = 1.31, very low): “I don’t see myself as a teacher” (No. 90, string), and a significantly reduced Diversity of professional activities (MR = 3.07, low). Their Performer identity is moderately high. For these reasons, they were labelled performers who happen to teach.

Cluster 6 (10 cases)

These students have a dominant Teacher identity (MR = 4.13, very high) and a low Performer identity (MR = 3.35, low). Their performer activity is quite reduced, as they usually spend a lot of time teaching, and they no longer feel comfortable as performers: “Now I play less, because I identify myself more with another musical role [instrumental teacher]” (No. 94, string, composition). Their image of the Ideal professional is quite broad (MR = 3.9, high), and they are involved in a high Diversity of musical activities (MR = 4.1, high). However, their Perceived freedom in choosing their profession is very low (MR = 2.2), which indicates that their performer identity is being absorbed into their teacher identity involuntarily. They negotiate this situation by diversifying the musical activities in which they take part. This cluster was labelled Teachers: assimilation without freedom.

Figure 3 shows the structure of the clusters and the distribution of the students in each cluster.

Figure 3.

Distribution of the students in each cluster.

Discussion

The results of the present work give insight into the strategies undergraduate performer students adopt for dealing with emerging performer and instrumental teacher identities at JVLMA, and reveal the characteristics of each bi-professional identity negotiation strategy. It is not the purpose of this study to discuss the pros and cons of these strategies. The results of this study can help to make students aware of the different bi-professional identity negotiation opportunities, and to activate both students’ agency and the comparative dynamics between the self and others that foster students’ continuous musical identity development (Juuti & Littleton, 2010). Recent research has pointed towards the importance of enhancing students’ reflection at early stages of career development. As Evans and McPherson (2015) argue, learners who possess a sense of where their future learning might take them and whose personal identity includes a long-term perspective of themselves as musicians are better positioned to succeed with their instrumental learning and sustain their careers. Our data point to the categories that may be useful for researchers in investigating identity negotiations further, and for students who wish to reflect on their own strategies or to explore other possible ways of configuring their musical identities in a lifelong perspective. We discuss some of them in this section.

When reflecting on the practical use of this study, for oneself or for one’s students, it should be kept in mind that these strategies may represent a particular stage of development of students whose music identities are in transition (Juuti & Littleton, 2010). Moreover, a young performance student may temporarily act as an integrator and then behave as a dichotomous student in two different pedagogical situations or even during a single lesson (Fernández González, 2012).

In this study, the diffusion strategy adopted by a number of students (cluster 1c) is characterized by doubts about one’s future professional profile and a low or very low involvement in both teaching and performance. This group evokes the findings of Juuti and Littleton (2010) about the strong emotions and feelings of insecurity and doubt experienced by young pianists recently admitted to higher music education institutions, who, after an initial period of flux and transition, no longer saw themselves as exceptional or special and reported difficulties associated with being just “one amongst many” talented pianists.

Cluster 1b characterizes students with a narrow image of their professional field. The situation was addressed by Brian Roberts when speaking about music teacher students. He reported that, at the beginning of their higher music education, students develop idealized notions of themselves as performer–musicians, and do not develop a music teacher identity until after finishing their undergraduate studies (Roberts, 1991). Recent research confirmed that, in some contexts, undergraduate music students’ occupational identity, if left unchallenged, may change very little as they progress through school (Austin et al., 2010). A follow-up study with the JVLMA students who participated in the study might be useful to examine whether students in this cluster were challenged at some point in their undergraduate studies or afterwards. An investigation of how to facilitate students’ adoption of a wider view of the professional field could also be interesting, taking into account that some recent research advocates multi-layered and broad professional identities (Gaunt, 2008; Isbell, 2008; Kerchner, 2002).

In our data, students who negotiate their emerging performer and teacher identities by adopting the strategy of assimilation (cluster 6) progressively abandon performance activity in benefit of their teaching, without a clearly deliberate choice on their part (very low Perceived freedom). Interestingly, a similar drift away from the original focus of the studies has been observed among students of music teaching, some of whom drift towards performance during their studies. For example, Froehlich and L’Roy indicate that, among music teacher students, the proportion of students in music teacher education programs who desire to become professional performers increases from the first year to last year, indicating a reduction of commitment to music education (Froehlich and L’Roy, 1985). And Bouij (1998) notes that many teacher students who desire to be performers gradually adopt performer identities in their teaching. Further study is needed to investigate the causes of these drifts away from the initial focus of studies, their possible association with students’ perceived freedom, and what, if any, measures should be taken to help students find the focus that best suits them.

It appears that dichotomous students (cluster 1a), students with narrow professional image (cluster 1b) and especially assimilators (cluster 6) reported a low or very low levels of perceived personal freedom in the choice of profession, while integrators (cluster 2) or quasi-integrators (cluster 1d) feel much freer in their choice. It could be fruitful to explore these results further using Taylor’s concept of “socially situated freedom” (Taylor, 1997). The apparent association of greater perceived personal freedom with higher levels of integration might suggest that the integration or reconciliation of performer and teacher identities is a conscientious process in which personal agency plays an important role. However, further study is needed to determine the order of cause and effect. Does greater perceived personal freedom make it easier for students to integrate different identities, or does successful integration or even the mere desire to integrate different identities lead to greater perceived personal freedom? A longitudinal study might help to shed light on this question by measuring the level of perceived personal freedom and the level of integration over time.

The integration strategy was adopted by 25% of the students, which is a high figure compared with other clusters. This finding merits consideration in the light of the challenges for combining performance and teaching that were mentioned in the introduction. Recent research (Youth Music, 2002) shows that young musicians nowadays often develop several core roles when starting professional work (performer, composer, leader, teacher), which provide them the opportunity to combine multiple identities during the early stages of their careers. In addition, it is possible to find common ground between performance and instrumental teaching that can facilitate identity integration, in spite of the challenges indicated in the introduction, since the content of the work of instrumental teachers and performers is very similar in many ways: the music itself, mastering the musical instrument, the use of repertoire, the technical abilities required, etc. The sociological studies previously mentioned (Benet-Martínez and Haritatos, 2005; Cheng et al., 2008; LaFromboise & Rowe, 1983) often present bicultural integration as more beneficial for individual and societal well-being than the other ways of negotiating multiple cultural identities, and some music researchers also argue that for young performer students it is important to integrate both identities (Kerchner, 2002). But more longitudinal research is needed to establish the benefits of this strategy for students. It could be interesting also to verify whether the students included in this cluster actually act as integrators who activate consciously their performer identity in a teaching context, i.e., if they play during the lesson they give or use their performer skills and attitudes in order to teach better.

In addition to the suggestions for further research mentioned above in the context of particular clusters, many other questions remain open for future research and discussion. To mention only some of them: if in Marcia’s theory the identity status “achievement” is characterized by personal commitment to one identity after extensive exploration, can the fact of having two identities and reconciling them, as bi-professional identity integrators do, be considered also as a desirable achievement to reach? Why, among the students who possess two relatively well established professional identities (performer and teacher), did some integrate both identities (cluster 2), but others remain compartmentalized or in conflict (cluster 1a)? To what extent did the participants in this study explore other possible strategies of bi-professional identity negotiation, and how strong is their commitment to a concrete strategy? The way bi-professional identity integration happens could be investigated also through longitudinal studies addressing, for example, the association of successful identity integration with students’ ability to learn while they teach (Guillot, 2002) and with their past experiences (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997; Vivero & Jenkins, 1999).

Conclusions

The cluster analysis presented in this study reveals a typology of different strategies young instrumental students use for negotiating performer and teacher identities and the main characteristics of each strategy: many students adopt a moratorium strategy—they feel more like students rather than as professionals—and, while waiting to decide on their future professional path, they can present different levels of professional involvement: some of them are quite passive and hesitant (diffusion); others get involved in both teaching and performing but do not connect the two identities (dichotomy); and some others are active practitioners in a narrow spectrum of musical activities (involvement with narrow vision). A relatively important group of students adopt the integration or quasi-integration strategy; they are confident and practicing performers who also voluntarily cultivate a stable pedagogical identity. Some students with a very low teacher identity adopt the performers who happen to teach strategy, reducing teaching practice to the minimum. Finally, on the other side of the spectrum, the teacher identity of some students included in the assimilation cluster takes over or absorbs their performer identity—in many cases without a voluntary choice on their part. The improved understanding of these diverse possibilities could be useful for students who wish to be more knowledgeable about their own identity-making process, to reflect on their ongoing identity-building strategies, or to explore new ways of negotiating their emerging performer and teacher identities.

The categories of identity negotiation identified in this study could serve students as a tool for reflecting on how to link creativity and artistic development with their teaching practice, possibly with the help of teachers or peers. For example, students whose teacher identity is absorbing their performer identity could recast their emerging professional identities by reinforcing their performer identity to serve as a role model for their pupils; in this case, their teachers could help them to get involved again in artistic life and personal practice. Dichotomous students could enrich their identity-building process by observing, either directly or online, some of the many good examples of highly skilled performers who teach musically; and their mentors or peers could discuss with them the challenges and benefits of teaching in the process of developing as an artist. Students who integrate both identities well could look for creative ways of developing further synergies between their performance and teaching activities, e.g., videotaping and watching the lessons they taught (Fernández González, 2011), allotting time to reading the scientific literature on this topic, or observing lessons of different instruments in diverse musical contexts. Students with a diffused identity status would need time to find their own path; their teachers could help by providing them opportunities for new experiences that inspire them (e.g., high-level artistic events, personal contact with renowned musicians) and could activate the exploration and decision-making process, which is, in itself, one of the sources of identity-building.

Footnotes

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: the European Social Fund within the project “Support for Doctoral Studies at University of Latvia.”

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for this project was given by the Doctoral Council of Pedagogy of the Faculty of Education, Psychology, and Art of the University of Latvia (ref. protocol No. 6/2012).

References

Adams

Hean

Sturgis

Clark

J. M.

(2006). Investigating the factors influencing professional identity of first-year health and social care students. Learning in Health and Social Care, 5(2), 55–68.

Aldenderfer

M. S.

Blashfield

R. K.

(1984). Cluster analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Austin

J. R.

Isbell

D. S.

Russell

J. A.

(2010). A multi-institution exploration of secondary socialization and occupational identity among undergraduate music majors. Psychology of Music, 40(1), 66–83.

Bailey

K. D.

(1983). Sociological classification and cluster analysis. Quality & Quantity, 17(4), 251–268.

Bauman

(2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity.

Bell

C. R.

Cresswell

(1984). Personality differences among musical instrumentalists. Psychology of Music, 12(2), 83–93.

Benet-Martínez

Haritatos

(2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 1015–1050.

Berry

J. W.

(1990). Psychology of acculturation. In Berman

(Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives: Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 201–234). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Bouij

(1998). Swedish music teachers in training and professional life. International Journal of Music Education, 32, 24–31.

10.

Burland

Davidson

J. W.

(2004). Tracing a musical life transition. In Davidson

J. W.

(Ed.), The music practitioner: Research for the music performer, teacher, and listener (pp. 225–250). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

11.

Burt

Mills

(2006). Taking the plunge: The hopes and fears of students as they begin music college. British Journal of Music Education, 23(1), 51–73.

12.

Burt-Perkins

Lebler

(2008). “Music isn’t one island”: The balance between depth and breadth for music students in higher education. Proceedings of the 17th International Seminar of the Commission for the Education of the Professional Musician (CEPROM). Spilamberto, Italy: International Society for Music Education (ISME).

13.

Cheng

C. Y.

Sanchez-Burks

Lee

(2008). Connecting the dots within creative performance and identity integration. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1178–1184.

14.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

15.

Creech

Hallam

Varvarigou

Gaunt

McQueen

Pincas

(2014). The role of musical possible selves in supporting subjective well-being in later life. Music Education Research, 16(1), 32–49.

16.

Cutietta

R. A.

McAllister

P. A.

(1997). Student personality and instrumental participation, continuation, and choice. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(2), 282–294.

17.

Davidson

J. W.

(2002). The solo performer’s identity. In MacDonald

R. A. R.

Hargreaves

D. J.

Miell

(Eds.), Musical identities (pp. 97–113). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

18.

Davidson

J. W.

Burland

(2006). Musician identity formation. In McPherson

G. E.

(Ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 475–490). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

19.

Davidson

J. W.

Faulkner

(2015). The transition from adolescent to adult music learner. In McPherson

G. E.

(Ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (2nd ed.; pp. 626–638). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

20.

Day

Sammons

Stobart

(2007). Teachers matter: Connecting work, lives and effectiveness. London: McGraw-Hill Education.

21.

Erikson

E. H.

(1982). The life cycle completed: A review. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

22.

Evans

McPherson

G. E.

(2015). Identity and practice: The motivational benefits of a long-term musical identity. Psychology of Music, 43(3), 407–422.

23.

Everitt

B. S.

Landau

Leese

(2001). Cluster analysis (4th ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

24.

Fernández González

M. J.

(2010). Professional identity building process -aspects in Latvian music students’ accounts about their teaching experience. In Proceedings of the International Spring university “Teacher of the 21st Century: Quality Education for Quality Teaching” (pp. 432–440). Association for Teacher Education in Europe. Riga, Latvia: University of Latvia.

25.

Fernández González

M. J

. (2011, 16–17 June). Using video in conservatories: Advantages and limits for students, teachers and researchers. In Proceedings of the international conference “The Future of Education” (Vol. 2, pp. 220–224). Florence: Pixel.

26.

Fernández González

M. J

. (2012). How do students learn to teach? A case study analysing instrument lessons given by Latvian undergraduate performance students without prior pedagogical training. Music Education Research, 14(2), 227–242.

27.

Fisher

Arkin

Colton

R. R.

(1995). Introducción a la estadística. México: Ateneo.

28.

Froehlich

L’Roy

(1985). An investigation of occupational identity in undergraduate music education majors. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 85, 65–75.

29.

Gaunt

(2008). One-to-one tuition in a conservatoire: The perceptions of instrumental and vocal teachers. Psychology of Music, 36(2), 215–245.

30.

Gaunt

(2010). One-to-one tuition in a conservatoire: The perceptions of instrumental and vocal students. Psychology of Music, 38(2), 178–208.

31.

Guillot

(2002). L’identité professionnelle de l’enseignant. Cahiers de recherches du Cefedem Rhône-Alpes et du CNSMD de Lyon, Enseigner la musique, 5, 45–80.

32.

Holland

J. L.

Daiger

D. C.

Power

P. G.

(1980). My vocational situation: Description of an experimental diagnostic form for the selection of vocational assistance. Palo Alto, CA: Psychologists Press.

33.

Isbell

(2008). Musicians and teachers: The socialization and occupational identity of preservice music teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 162–178.

34.

Jakovļeva

(2009). Profesionālā identitāte profesijas apguves sākumposmā [Professional identity at the beginning of professional life] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Daugavpils, Latvia.

35.

Jorgensen

E. R.

(2008). The art of teaching music. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

36.

Juuti

Littleton

(2010). Musical identities in transition: Solo-piano students’ accounts of entering the academy. Psychology of Music, 38(4), 481–497.

37.

Juuti

Littleton

(2012). Tracing the transition from study to a contemporary creative working life: The trajectories of professional musicians. Vocations and Learning: Studies in Vocational and Professional Education, 5(1), 5–21.

38.

JVLMA (Jāzepa Vītola Latvijas Mūzikas Akadēmija). (2009). Studies in JVLMA. Retrieved from http://www.jvlma.lv/english/page/1018.html

39.

Kasworm

(2005). Adult student identity in an intergenerational community college classroom. Adult Education Quarterly, 56, 3–20.

40.

Kemp

A. E.

(1996). The musical temperament: Psychology and personality of musicians. New York: Oxford University Press.

41.

Kerchner

J. L.

(2002). Keeping the artistry: Modelling the professional life. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 11(2), 14–21.

42.

LaFromboise

T. D.

Rowe

(1983). Skills training for bicultural competence: Rationale and application. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 589–595.

43.

Lamont

(2011). The beat goes on: Music education, identity and lifelong learning. Music Education Research, 13(4), 369–388.

44.

Lebler

Burt-Perkins

Carey

(2009). What the students bring: Examining the attributes of commencing conservatoire students. International Journal of Music Education, 27(3), 232–249.

45.

Lūse

(2013). Musician’s academic excellence characteristics. In Pedagogy and Teacher Education. Scientific Papers, University of Latvia (Vol. 790; pp. 74–85). Latvia: University of Latvia.

46.

Marcia

J. E.

(2002). Adolescence, identity, and the Bernardone family. Identity, 2(3), 199–209.

47.

Menger

P. M.

(2005). Profession artiste. Extension du domaine de la création. Paris: Textuel.

48.

Mills

(2004a). Working in music: Becoming a performer–teacher. Music Education Research, 6(3), 245–261.

49.

Mills

(2004b). Conservatoire students as instrumental teachers. Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education, 161/162, 145–153.

50.

Mills

(2006). Performing and teaching: The beliefs and experience of music students as instrumental teachers. Psychology of Music, 34(3), 372–390.

51.

Mills

(2007). Instrumental teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

52.

Moran

John-Steiner

(2003). Creativity in the making: Vygotsky’s contemporary contribution to the dialectic of development and creativity. In Sawyer

R. K.

John-Steiner

Moran

Sternberg

R. J.

Feldman

D. H.

Nakamura

Csikszentmihalyi

(Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 61–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

53.

Morgan

G. A.

Leech

N. L.

Gloeckner

G. W.

Barrett

K. C.

(2012). IBM SPSS for introductory statistics: Use and interpretation. New York: Routledge.

54.

Pellegrino

(2009). Connections between performer and teacher identities in music teachers: Setting an agenda for research. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 19(1), 39–55.

55.

Perrenoud

(2007). Les musicos. Enquête sur des musiciens ordinaires. Paris: La Découverte.

56.

Phinney

J. S.

Devich-Navarro

(1997). Variations in bicultural identification among African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7(1), 3–32.

57.

Pitts

S. E.

(2012). Chances and choices: Exploring the impact of music education. New York: Oxford University Press.

58.

Pitts

S. E.

(2015). Fostering lifelong engagement in music. In McPherson

G. E.

(Ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (2nd ed.; pp. 639–654). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

59.

Pitts

S. E.

Robinson

(2016). Dropping in and dropping out: Experiences of sustaining and ceasing amateur participation in classical music. British Journal of Music Education, 33(3), 327–346.

60.

Pitts

S. E.

Robinson

Goh

(2014). Not playing any more: A qualitative investigation of why amateur musicians cease or continue membership of performing ensembles. International Journal of Community Music, 8(2), 129–147.

61.

Roberts

B. A.

(1991). Music teacher education as identity construction. International Journal of Music Education, 18, 30–39.

62.

Roccas

Brewer

M. B.

(2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106.

63.

Rousseeuw

P. J.

(1987). Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20, 53–65.

64.

Schlanger

(1997). La vocation. Paris: Seuil.

65.

Taylor

(1989). Sources of self: The making of modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

66.

Taylor

(1991). Language and society. In Honneth

(Ed.), Communicative action (pp. 23–35). Cambridge: Polity Press.

67.

Taylor

(1997). La liberté des modernes. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

68.

Vivero

V. N.

Jenkins

S. R.

(1999). Existential hazards of the multicultural individual: Defining and understanding “cultural homelessness.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5(1), 6–26.

69.

Wenger

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

70.

Wilson

G. D.

(2002). Psychology for performing artists. Philadelphia, PA: Whurr.

71.

Youth Music (2002). Creating a land with music: The work, education and training of professional musicians in the 21st century. London: Youth Music.

72.

Zhukov

(2007). Student learning styles in advanced instrumental music lessons. Music Education Research, 9(1), 111–127.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.45 MB