Abstract
Traditionally, composers create music individually and autonomously. The egalitarian relationships in inclusive music ensembles, with their blend of conventional and technological music instruments and their focus on collaborative composing processes, however, might challenge professional composers to work differently. This begs the question: Which attitude, knowledge, and skills do composers need to compose collaboratively with inclusive music ensembles? To answer this question, we set up a qualitative survey study in which participants of the project
Introduction
Ensemble music-making can potentially exclude persons with disabilities (Gall et al., 2018). Howe (2016) observes that this seems particularly true of classical music ensembles, where musicians often play conventional instruments, and where there are high expectations of their technical skills – including speed, agility, and precision – and musical sensitivity – such as nuance and emotionality. Musicians with disabilities for whom music tuition has been less accessible, who do not play a traditional instrument, or cannot meet the expectations of playing such an instrument, can be excluded from these ensemble practices (Bremmer, 2023; National Foundation for Youth Music [NFYM], 2020; Samuels, 2019).
Yet there are semi-professional contemporary music practices facilitated by organisations such as the National Open Youth Orchestra (United Kingdom), Drake Music Scotland (Scotland), Tabula Rasa (Switzerland), and ShareMusic (Sweden) which offer different, inclusive approaches to music-making (Bremmer & Van Miert, 2022; Gall et al., 2018; Samuels, 2019). If we take a closer look at these practices, several shared characteristics emerge.
The first characteristic is that these inclusive music practices want to provide access to both able-bodied and disabled musicians (AEC, 2021; Sound Connections, 2022). Crucially, the able-bodied musicians are ‘not there to ‘bolster’ the disabled musicians’ (Sound Connections, 2022, p. 19). Instead, these ensembles strive to create a level playing field for all the musicians involved (Åsenlöf, 2022; Samuels, 2019; Schroeder et al., 2019; Sound Connections, 2022). As such, hierarchical structures within these ensembles and orchestras are challenged, as they emphasise egalitarian relationships between their musicians, who ideally all contribute equally to the music-making process (Churchill & Laes, 2021; Schroeder et al., 2019).
Another feature is that both conventional and technology-based music instruments are used and often blend together in these music practices (AEC, 2021; Åsenlöf, 2022; Gall et al., 2018; Sound Connections, 2022). Over the past decades, instruments such as the Soundbeam (sensor technology translating body movement into sound), Magic Flute (an electronic wind instrument), Clarion (a gaze-controlled music interface) or LinnStrument (an expressive MIDI controller) have provided musicians with disabilities access to music-making (Frid, 2019; Lines et al., n.d.; NFYM, 2020; SKUG centre, n.d.). Even though these digital music instruments have become more common, combining conventional instruments with technology-based ones can challenge what an orchestra or an ensemble looks and sounds like due to the unique set up of each ensemble (Sound Connections, 2022).
A third aspect of these inclusive music practices is the variety of music notations that are simultaneously used (Åsenlöf, 2022). Usually, ensemble and orchestra members playing Western classical music rely on traditional sheet music notation, but in inclusive music practices, not every musician reads this notation due to their musical background or disability (Åsenlöf, 2022; Laes, 2017). Next to traditional sheet music, therefore, these music practices tend to integrate a variety of music notations, ranging from FigureNotes (notation that uses colour and shape to convey all the information of traditional music notation) to graphic and tactile scores (Åsenlöf, 2022; Laes, 2017). In this way, the repertoire is made accessible through different notational means.
Fourth, an element of inclusive music practices is their novel and dynamic repertoire (Gall et al., 2018; Sound Connections, 2022). Conventional instruments and music technology meet in this repertoire, and music is often composed through collaborative processes or includes parts in which musicians improvise (AEC, 2021; Åsenlöf, 2022; Gall et al., 2018). Furthermore, during rehearsals, musicians can actively share their views on tempi, dynamics, phrasing, and articulation; thus, they have more ownership of the music (Sound Connections, 2022).
In this article, we will look at which attitude, knowledge, and skills professional composers need to compose with inclusive music ensembles collaboratively. According to Williamson and Luebbers (2023), collaborative composing is still a relatively rare phenomenon. Traditionally, after composers have agreed to the terms of a commission, they will start composing individually and autonomously (Craenen & Schuijer, 2023; Williamson & Luebbers, 2023), except maybe for an exchange with the future performers about certain instrumental or vocal limitations and possibilities. As soon as the composition is ready, composers will hand the score to the performers, who will start studying and rehearsing the music. Ultimately, the ensemble will perform the music for an audience, expressing the composer’s creative vision (Mateos-Moreno, 2011; Williamson & Luebbers, 2023).
In inclusive music ensembles or orchestras, however, the egalitarian relationships, the blend of conventional and technology-based music instruments, the use of varying types of music notations, and their focus on collaborative composing processes may challenge composers to work, at least partially, in a different way. Therefore, in this study, we asked ourselves: What attitude, knowledge, and skills do professional composers need to compose collaboratively with an inclusive music ensemble that includes music technology? As the research was conducted by and at the Conservatoire, we also wanted to understand the following: What education do students in higher music education need to develop as professional composers in inclusive music practices?
Project collaborative composing with inclusive ensembles
To answer our research questions, we interviewed the participants of the 4-day project
The CvA invited Drake Music Scotland (DMS) to facilitate the collaborative composing process. DMS provides music-making opportunities for persons with disabilities and additional support needs, and has extensive experience with collaborative composing. In the project, ‘collaborative composing’ was seen as the joint activity of composing, focussing on generating and revising new musical material, during face-to-face interactions, reaching a result that one cannot attain as an individual (Burnard & Younker, 2008; Williamson & Luebbers, 2023). To support the collaborative composing process during the project, DMS familiarised students with a range of music technology instruments and different music notations (e.g. graphic notation and Figurenotes).
Next to practice-based work, DMS also discussed the concept of inclusion with the students. Inclusion is a complex concept (Biesta, 2009, 2019; Dunne, 2008; Laes, 2017; Schroeder et al., 2019). For instance, Laes (2017) notes that the discourse of inclusion also implies one of exclusion. She asks whether including some marginalised groups can produce new forms of exclusion, and if every kind of inclusion is good. Schroeder et al. (2019) critically note that the naming of specific groups to demonstrate inclusion might also highlight perceived differences and, thus, further normalise already established ways of being. Biesta (2009, p. 97) too, observes that inclusion can be problematic when it is seen as a process of including those groups that have been assigned to being ‘outside’ by others who are ‘inside’. Through discussions with DMS, students came to understand that inclusion is not a straightforward concept but one that needs to be questioned continuously. To gain further insight into inclusive music practices, a professional Disabled composer was invited as a guest lecturer to talk about composing with inclusive music ensembles and the philosophy underpinning such practices.
Regarding the inclusive music ensemble, two musicians with physical disabilities from the foundation My Breath My Music (MBMM) joined for the 4 days. These musicians are part of the foundation’s semi-professional band, De Bridge Band, and they play the Magic Flute (an electronic wind instrument) and electronic keyboards with sensitive keys. One of them was also a guest lecturer on music technology, displaying a broad range of electronic instruments (further) developed by MBMM. The music group Friends at Work also participated in the ensemble for 2 days. This group consists of seven musicians with physical and learning disabilities, their musical leader from the Music School Amsterdam Noord, and one support worker. The group has been playing weekly for two years, mostly traditional instruments but also digital instruments such as Thumbjam and EyePlayChords.
Under the guidance of DMS, students collaborated on a composition with the musicians of MBMM and Friends at Work and performed it with the ensemble for an audience at the end of the project. The composition consisted of a collection of pieces: ‘Home-Travelling-Breath-Homesick-Home’, with a duration of around 20 min.
Methodology
Research design
This study was set up as a qualitative survey study, which aims to provide different perspectives on the same topic to gain a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of it (Jansen, 2010; Lambert & Loiselle, 2008; Santoro, 2014). In our study, the composer’s attitude, knowledge, and skills for collaborative composing in inclusive music practices was explored through, for example, the composer’s and musician’s perspectives. In a pre-structured qualitative survey research, some main topics are defined beforehand, and the interviews are guided by a (semi)structured protocol for questioning, which also was the case in this current study.
A limitation of our qualitative survey study is the difficulty of generalising the findings because of the project’s specific context and the small number of participants in the study. We do aim to achieve transferability, however, and invite readers to make connections between elements of this study and their personal experiences, applying findings that resonate with their own contexts (Stahl & King, 2020).
Participants
The project
• Twelve students of the CvA: six bachelors in composition (for whom the project was mandatory), two bachelors in music education, two bachelors in music, two masters in music, and one student in a post-professional programme;
• Two workshop leaders from DMS;
• Two musicians from MBMM;
• The music group Friends at Work (FW);
• Two professional composers who compose for inclusive music ensembles. The first was the guest lecturer in the project. The second composer was the only participant not directly involved in the
• The project leader (who was present during the whole project) and a teacher of the Composition department (who was present during 2 days of the project), both from the CvA.
All participants were informed about the study before the project; and they (or their carers) provided the researchers with active consent prior to their interview. Furthermore, we gave the musicians and the guest composer the choice of whether they wanted to be mentioned person-first (Person with a disability) or identity-first (Disabled person) or in any other terms. The musicians wanted to be mentioned as ‘musicians with disabilities’ and the composer as ‘Disabled composer’.
Research methods
All the participants took part in an online or offline semi-structured interview or an online questionnaire. Before the project, we interviewed the two composers individually online for about an hour. We chose to interview these composers beforehand as their perspectives could inform the questionnaire for the other participants in the project. Examples of questions were: ‘How would you describe the professional identity of composers who work with inclusive ensembles?’, ‘What attitude, knowledge, and skills do you feel are necessary to compose with an inclusive ensemble?’.
On the project’s last day, all 12 students anonymously filled in an English or Dutch online questionnaire consisting of open questions, for example, ‘What did you learn or experience during the project?’, ‘What attitude, knowledge, and skills do you feel are necessary to compose with an inclusive ensemble, which differ from what you have learned until now?’ and ‘How do you feel a conservatoire should prepare students to be able to work with inclusive ensembles?’
Within a month after the project, we interviewed the project leader and composition teacher in a single session. The two workshop leaders of DMS were also interviewed together, as were the two musicians of MBMM. Each of these three online interviews lasted about an hour. We asked them similar questions as the composers, such as: ‘What attitude, knowledge, and skills do you feel are necessary to compose with an inclusive ensemble?’, ‘How do you feel a conservatoire should prepare students to be able to work with inclusive ensembles?’, but also ‘What do you feel the students have learned from the project?’
The music group Friends at Work was interviewed offline. This interview lasted about 40 min. Examples of questions were: ‘What did you think of the music you composed together?’, ‘What was different about making music in the project from your music lessons at the music school?’ and ‘Who do you think was the composer of the piece?’
Data analysis
The open-ended interviews and textual responses enabled a qualitative analysis of the data. First, all interviews were audio- or video recorded and transcribed verbatim. Then, we analysed the data through thematic analysis, which can be used to identify themes across a corpus of data (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Miedema, 2019). In the process of thematic analysis, we first applied deductive coding to all the participants’ data, using preexisting themes derived from our research questions. The main themes derived from our first research question were: attitude, referring to one’s feelings and beliefs regarding a specific topic; knowledge, which refers to an understanding or information one possesses; and skills, which refers to the abilities and expertise in performing specific tasks needed for composing with an inclusive music ensemble. Although the distinction between attitude, knowledge, and skills was helpful for the data analysis, we do realise that in practice they are more intertwined. The main theme derived from the second research question used for analysis was ‘educating students’.
After deductive coding, we applied inductive coding within these main themes and clustered codes into subthemes based on their shared characteristics (Saldaña, 2009). Subthemes we found for the main theme ‘attitude’ were ‘equity and reciprocity’, ‘openness’, and ‘patience’; subthemes for the main theme ‘knowledge’ were ‘inclusion and disability’ and ‘music, music-making, and composing’; and subthemes for the main theme ‘skills’ were ‘pedagogical skills’ and ‘musical skills’. Finally, for the main theme ‘education’, we divided our data over the subthemes ‘approach’ and ‘yields’.
Lastly, with regard to the findings, Tufford and Newman (2010, p. 91) critically note that researchers may be tempted ‘to foreground certain voices while relegating others to a background position’. To ensure that different voices would be heard in the findings section, we used quotations from the broad variety of participants. The findings section was also sent to the participants for a member check to ascertain they were quoted in the right context. For accessibility reasons, we translated the findings back to Dutch for the Friends at Work music group. To stay anonymous to the researchers, students could send their comments to the project leader. None of the participants requested that their quotes be altered or removed.
Findings
Composer’s attitude
Subtheme: Equity and reciprocity
Participants felt that working from a sense of equity was an important attitude for composers in inclusive music practices: for example, MBMM musician 1 mentioned that composers and musicians with and without disabilities should work ‘on the basis of equity’, and student 2 noted that composers needed to feel that ‘everybody is equal’. Some participants explained this attitude contrasted with a composer’s more traditional role. For instance, student 1 observed: ‘Classically, we think of what our performers can do for our piece, now we’re thinking of what our piece can do for our performers. It’s a very different attitude’. Similarly, DMS workshop leader 2 mentioned that composers should leave their ‘ego’ behind and go ‘to the musician, rather than expecting the musician to come to you’.
This sense of equity seemed to be closely linked to valuing musical reciprocity in the process of collaborative composing. Composer 1 observed: ‘I like to give other people an opportunity to show me how they see [the music]. If you’re open to that, you can improve on your own work as you go’. Due to this sense of reciprocity, FW musician 2 critically questioned: ‘Who, then, are the composers?’
Subtheme: Openness
Participants felt that a composer’s open attitude towards the outcomes of the collaborative composing process was important: composers have to ‘start with an open mind; you can see where it brings you’ (student 3) and have to be ‘comfortable with not knowing the outcome’ (student 5). The participants did not view this as a laissez-faire attitude. They felt that composers should believe that inclusive music ensembles could produce ‘high-quality performance work’ (composer 2) and, therefore, should not be too ‘quickly satisfied with what [is] created, [but] raise the bar’ (FW musical leader).
Subtheme: Patience
Practically all participants stressed that patience was a valuable attitude during the process of collaborative composing: you need to have ‘a patient attitude’ (student 12) and to be ‘patient’ (student 9). Composer 1 observed that composers in more traditional music practices are used to rush and ‘get through all this material because you’ve got a very limited amount of time’. This composer explained that, on the other hand, in inclusive music ensembles, ‘People [might] take a longer time to be able to understand, [or] perhaps you have to play things the whole way through because people are listening and understanding where their part is, rather than reading from a score’.
Composer’s knowledge
Subtheme: Inclusion and disability
According to the participants, composers should have a broad understanding of what inclusion in music looks like: for example, ‘properly including everybody at the level that makes sense for them’ (composer 1) and understanding that ‘everyone who wants to make music, can make music’ (student 6). Interestingly, participants were ambiguous about whether composers needed to know about specific disabilities. MBMM musician 1 felt that composers should at least have ‘some knowledge about different disabilities’, and the composition teacher, too, mentioned that having ‘knowledge of the target group’ was necessary. Yet DMS workshop leader 1 explained that knowledge about a specific disability might also feed into particular (negative) assumptions, such as ‘assuming too much about the capabilities’ of musicians. Participants did, however, agree that composers should know their musicians very well to be able to compose with them. They should know the musicians’ ‘level, their taste, what they’re good at’ (student 6) and what their ‘interests are and what they might like to do’ (composer 2).
Subtheme: Music, music-making, and composing
Participants expressed that, in inclusive music practices, composers should have a broad understanding of music, music-making, and composing. Student 9 explained that ‘the social aspects of music-making as an artistic expression by a group of musicians that use their individual musical abilities to contribute to the greater sum of its parts’ contrasts with a more traditional understanding of composing that gives ‘priority to honouring the craftsmanship of the composer or the soloists’. Composer 1 reiterated this idea: ‘Rather than try and work out how we can bring this person into ‘our’ [musical] world, let’s lean into what ‘their’ music sounds like’. According to student 11, composers should understand it is the collaborative composing that ‘makes the music unique’.
Technology and music notation
At a more practical level, participants mentioned that composers should have knowledge of ‘different strategies’ (project leader) and a ‘repertoire of tools’ for a collaborative composing process (composition teacher). Furthermore, participants mentioned that composers should have ‘knowledge of music technologies’ (student 10) but also should know how to make music technology ‘musically expressive’ (composer 2). Lastly, participants mentioned that composers should understand different notational systems, for example, ‘conventional notation and unconventional notations, and respective graphic notations’ (DMS workshop leader 1).
Composers’ skills
Subtheme: Pedagogical skills
Participants mentioned that composers needed ‘leadership skills and pedagogy’ (student 6) to be able ‘to teach people with many different needs’ (student 5). The DMS workshop leader 2 explained that composers should inhabit a ‘more music-in-education role of a music leader’ as they need ‘varied ways of getting ideas across to musicians’. To get ideas across, participants stressed that non-verbal communication was an important skill, too: composers should be able to ‘physically demonstrate [what you want to hear]’ (FW support worker) and to communicate by ‘making eye contact or a musical gesture’ (student 1). Moreover, participants expressed that pedagogical skills were necessary to be able ‘to estimate someone’s level’ (MBMM2 musician) and to find ‘a challenge for people’ (composer 2), fitting that level.
Subtheme: Musical skills
In the process of collaborative composing, according to the participants, composers should develop the skills to co-create music that is both simple and engaging. Student 10 reflected: ‘We always strive for something complicated [. . .]. But when you work to create an inclusive environment, the people are the priority and not ‘showing off’. Participants did feel that simplicity should not impact the quality of music. Student 11 elaborated: ‘music can be made in a simple way, but still be professional [. . .] it is not always necessary to use complicated methods for good music’. Therefore, within the music that is generated collaboratively, composers need to be able to distinguish that ‘piece of material that will give the whole performance a kind of distinctive flavour, that that means it’s a piece of art’ (DMS workshop leader 1).
Participants also mentioned that composers should develop some ‘digital sound production skills’ (student 3) and be ‘handy with technology’ (student 2). DMS Workshop leader 2 explained why these skills were valuable: ‘If you’re going to work with a mixed ensemble, say, a chamber group plus three musicians playing iPads, [you need] a little bit of sound design skills, [because] it really helps meld the two worlds together’.
Lastly, nearly all the participants mentioned creativity, problem-solving, and flexibility as valuable skills during the collaborative composing process. According to participants, composers should possess ‘creative/out-of-the-box thinking skills’ (student 3) and be able to ‘find solutions’ (student 4); these skills are necessary because composers need to be ‘flexible with pre-written material’ (DMS workshop leader 2), and to ‘be able to adjust [musical material] to every person’s need’ (student 12).
Education
Subtheme: Approach
The question of what type of education students would need to work in inclusive music practices met with different answers. Composer 1 stressed the importance of exposure to best practices in this field: ‘People have to see the quality of what’s already out there to understand what they can add to that’. Other participants, like student 8, mentioned ‘more opportunities’ to work with musicians with disabilities. MBMM musician 2 endorsed this idea, believing one ‘will learn the most from practice’. DMS workshop leader 1 concurred: ‘It’s not like you can write a book, and somebody could read the book and do it’. Student 6 even suggested conservatoires ‘have a programme for students with disabilities’ to foster collaboration in inclusive ensemble settings. While some participants preferred education dedicated to working with musicians with disabilities, others suggested further developing more generally applicable skills. The project leader, for example, mentioned generic courses in ‘co-composing’ and ‘technology’. There was also a difference between students who suggested offering ‘a regular course’ (student 7) or ‘an elective’ (student 11) on inclusive music-making and others who would enjoy shorter but more intensive projects ‘like this one’ (i.e. the project discussed in this article, student 1).
Subtheme: Yields
As a possible yield of any such education, composer 1 mentioned the fostering of an ‘inclusive attitude’. Student 10 added that this would make it easier to ‘expand on a talk’ about disabilities in music: ‘People are sometimes intimidated or awkward about discussing disabilities or approaching people with disabilities’. Composer 2 saw an additional advantage of students’ involvement in such collaborations: composers expand their skill set with the ‘music leadership skills’ that enable them ‘to draw together various musical components’. In the view of this composer, a new type of creative leader may emerge when such a role can be assumed by ‘people who identify as having disabilities’. For the musicians, a project like this can have an empowering effect. MBMM Musician 1 noted that it took until day 4 for the conservatoire students to see them ‘as fellow musicians’. Reversely, the project lets students of composition experience the value of collaboration – a value in which they should want to invest, according to the composition teacher: ‘We should not only deliver students who are 100 percent self-involved’. As a last educational benefit of the project, DMS Workshop leader 1 mentioned the involvement of multiple departments: ‘[Students] learned a bit more about the different ways of teaching at [a] conservatoire’.
Discussion
Concerning the
Participants also frequently mentioned the composer’s open attitude towards the collaborative composing process and being comfortable with not knowing its musical outcome. Yet, an open attitude might not always be easy to maintain: composers need to manage and tolerate uncertainty during collaborative composing and might experience lesser control over the composition than they are traditionally used to (Dons, 2019; Verneert et al., 2024). Such an attitude is, thus, distinctive for a composer working with inclusive music ensembles, not only regarding the outcomes of the collaborative composing process but also with regard to the innovative instruments and different notational systems.
Moreover, being patient was noted as a valuable attitude of the composer when working with inclusive music ensembles. Krehl et al. (2019) critically note that time is ‘rarely contemplated as a significant contextual dimension’ in inclusive practices; even though it is a crucial factor contributing to how musicians with or without disabilities can make sense of collaborative composing. By slowing down the working tempo and resisting the temptation to rush, the composer and the ensemble can engage meaningfully with each other and create a space that fosters collaboration. From the perspective of Disabled Theatre, McCaffrey (2023, p. 6) does acknowledge that at times ‘the push, the rush’ is needed to come to an end result.
Looking more closely at professional composers’
Furthermore, participants expressed that composers should have a broad understanding of music and music-making in inclusive music practices. Due to the diverse instruments and musical backgrounds, a music’s structure, tempo, rhythm, harmony, and timbre might take on a different form for inclusive ensembles than for more conventional ensembles (Verneert et al., 2024). Moreover, having a broad conception of music seems to cohere with an open attitude towards the outcomes of a collaborative composing process, and its combination may be a condition for co-creating novel music. Participants did, however, feel that composers need not come entirely unprepared to the collaborative composing process and leave its course to chance (Higgins, 2012). They noted that composers could come partially prepared, for example, by having knowledge of a practical toolbox to help set up and sustain collaborative composing or by having a (loose) musical framework to work from through which their musical signature might become apparent.
Regarding the
Concerning musical skills, participants felt that, during collaborative composing, composers must distinguish which piece of musical material stands out as both artistically viable and ‘playable’, and can be used to shape a composition. In a more traditional composition process, composers – very generally speaking – will tend to strive for a degree of compositional complexity, both for their musicians and the audience. Yet, with the inclusive ensemble, composers seem to strive for musical material that is both simple
Lastly, the discussion on composers’
Conclusion
In this study, we explored the attitudes, knowledge, and skills that professional composers need for collaborative composing with an inclusive music ensemble using music technology. Two main domains emerged in which composers (need to) develop certain attitudes, knowledge, and skills: the social and musical domain.
From a social perspective, composers in inclusive music practices develop an understanding of the complex construct of inclusion and disability, can work from a sense of equity and reciprocity, resist the temptation to rush and draw on pedagogical skills to communicate verbally and non-verbally about music. Integrating these attitudes, knowledge, and skills can allow for a shift to occur: from composing for instruments to composing with people, thereby creating a space for a hybrid compositional voice to emerge.
From the musical perspective, composers develop a broad understanding of the concepts of music and music-making, take an open attitude to the process and outcomes of collaborative composing, can co-compose simple yet engaging music material, and use digital sound production skills to integrate an analogue and digital world of music. These attitudes, knowledge, and skills are valuable for working with inclusive ensembles: being open to the diverse capabilities of the players and the innovative technological instruments can lead to the discovery of new musical qualities and, ultimately, to compositions that are original in their own right.
Carrying out a project like the one described in this article, with people coming from such diverse musical and personal backgrounds, requires great dedication from composers and a body of experience collected over an extended period of time. And yet, collaborative composing should not be considered a specialism, but part of the professional training of composers at conservatoires (Westerlund & López-Íñiguez, 2024). Fundamentally, learning to compose collaboratively with inclusive music ensembles calls on the development of competences every composer needs: to assign musicians a role that challenges them while at the same time enabling them to express themselves and to provide them with a sense of individual ownership while also being part of a communal experience.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all the participants in this research study for sharing their thoughts and insights on the AIR-project.
Author contribution(s)
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The project was funded by the Artist in Residence programme, the Thematic Collaboration Programme and the Conservatorium van Amsterdam of the Amsterdam University of the Arts.
Ethical approval
Before the research, ethical approvals were sought and gained from the Research Group Arts Education Ethical Review Board of the Amsterdam University of the Arts. This ensured that participants were informed about the study before the project
