Expanding the music circle through networked improvisation in an inclusive ensemble

Abstract

People with disabilities are confronted with many barriers to participation in inclusive music making, including but not limited to challenges accessing appropriately adapted program curricula and pedagogical approaches. This article reports on a partnered research project ‘Expanding the Music Circle’ that brought professional orchestra musicians, special music educators and adults with profound disabilities together to make improvised music online via Zoom. The authors, experts in improvisation pedagogy and special music education, designed and delivered a curriculum aimed at facilitating an inclusive ensemble experience for all participants. Following a modified Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology, the study comprised 16 facilitated improvisation sessions for adults with disabilities, with observation and feedback by orchestra musicians and special music educators. Subsequently, the three participant groups were formed into integrated ensembles for eight additional sessions. Data, analysed through thematic coding, includes participant observation, videoed Zoom calls, journals, focus groups and interviews. Results include positive feelings of community in the integrated ensemble, mixed experiences making music using networked, online technology and the value of using accessible and adaptable improvisation in a mixed abilities ensemble, especially when presented with some predictability and structure.

Participation in music making activities is increasingly linked with benefits to social and emotional wellbeing (Creech et al., 2013; Williamson & Bonshor, 2019). Access to these potential benefits is particularly important for people with disabilities as they are at greater risk of social isolation and mental health challenges (Emerson et al., 2021; Macdonald et al., 2018). Despite this need, people with disabilities are confronted with many barriers to participation in music making, including but not limited to challenges accessing appropriately adapted program curricula and pedagogical approaches.

The Expanding the Music Circle project (EMC) was developed between researchers and partner organizations to explore the ways that musical improvisation can be used as a tool to build community and inclusive participation. It builds on the Music Circle, a program initiated in 2012 as a collaboration between the National Arts Centre Orchestra (NACO) and Lotus Centre for Special Music Education (LC), a non-profit organization focussed on adaptive music programming for people with disabilities in Ottawa, Canada. Through this ‘expanded’ form of the program, improvisation was introduced as an important element of the music making process. Networked – synchronous online – delivery was selected for two reasons. First, to explore its viability as a means of connection for people with disabilities who may not have access to specialized programming in their communities and would benefit from removing geographical barriers to accessibility. Second, to gain insight into the experience of creating improvised music in an adaptive music setting online.

In this article we report on the lessons we learned through empirical research conducted in collaboration with orchestra musicians, special music educators and adults with disabilities and, by extension, demonstrate an innovative model for increasing equity and access to participation in music for everyone (Culp & Clauhs, 2020; Higgins, 2012).

Contextualization

Approaches in adaptive and inclusive music education

Adaptive and inclusive music education is the development and delivery of music learning programs that provide accommodations and modifications to create an accessible environment. Note that ‘adaptive’ and ‘inclusive’ are used here in slightly different contexts. Adaptive music education refers to adaptations that are specifically designed to allow full participation from disabled musicians, while inclusive music education refers to an ensemble that includes both disabled and non-disabled musicians. Inclusive music education may feature adaptive elements but focusses on integrating them into a pedagogical approach that allows for participation from a non-homogeneous group. A critical part of the research design was to ensure that both the musical content and the pedagogical approach would be appropriate for all participants. We worked with adults with severe disabilities, defined as having profound cognitive impairment and social functioning, as well as more than one additional disability, usually including sensory or physical impairment; they may also present with autism or mental illness or challenging behaviours or an associated medical factor (Bellamy et al., 2010).

Two established strategies for adaptive music programs are structure and familiarity (Taylor & Preece, 2010). This includes structure within the lesson plan, such as hello and goodbye songs at the beginning and end of the class (Lee & McFerran, 2012), maintaining the same lesson plan structure from one class to the next (de l’Etoile, 2005) and structure within the music itself (Beebe, 2021) through the use of strophic or other structured musical forms (Perry, 2003) or through the use of beat and rhythm to provide an underlying constant (Bharathi et al., 2019).

When working with participants with cognitive or physical impairments, there may be delayed response to facilitator-initiated prompts (MacDuff et al., 2001) due to challenges in auditory processing (Gopal & Pierel, 1999) or motor coordination (Piek & Skinner, 1999). Building in additional response time is an important adaptation in accessible music making settings as it allows equal opportunity for participation. This can be challenging when working with music that has an underlying rhythmic component, which creates the expectation for a coordinated response; however, flexible improvisation strategies can allow for equity of opportunity without a timed response (Finch et al., 2016).

Some musical concepts can be difficult to grasp for those who struggle with understanding abstract experiences. Incorporating multimodal strategies can aid students to find meaningful ways to relate to and participate in musical activities (Bremmer et al., 2021). Tactile, kinesthetic, visual and narrative elements have been demonstrated to contribute to such engagement (Ockelford, 2020; Salmon, 2006). Schmid (2015) provides a helpful framework for using multimodality in music instruction with students with disabilities, which includes weaving in elements of embodiment (gestures and movement), narrativity (storytelling or programmatic music), materiality (tactile or visual elements) and sociality (shared meaning-making). We incorporated these strategies in the EMC project, including making touch boards with sound producing elements such as crinkly paper, sandpaper and bells.

Inclusive music ensembles and community music

Several studies examine strategies for ensemble participation by musicians with high support needs. Working with Drake Music Northern Ireland, a leader in adaptive music (Searle, 2018), the Performance without Barriers research group at the Sonic Arts Research Centre explored the potential of musical improvisation to enhance social inclusion of people with disabilities (Samuels & Schroeder, 2019). Samuels and Schroeder outline how concepts of accessibility and musical improvisation were put into practice by creating adaptive digital instruments to meet each musician’s needs. While the EMC project used traditional instruments such as unpitched percussion and guitar, we also employed iPads running the Adaptive Use Musical Instrument (AUMI) app, a motion-activated sampler designed for improvisation (www.aumiapp.com).

A few studies explore bringing together disabled and non-disabled musicians in an ensemble. Hamburg-based Station 17 has been providing opportunities for musical engagement in mixed ensembles since 1988 (Elflein, 2009). One of its stated purposes is to remove disability as a factor – it is an ensemble of musicians in which some happen to be disabled. All members can be involved in every aspect of the music, including composition. The Otoasobi Project (Numata, 2016) also brings together disabled and non-disabled musicians ranging in age from 5 to 18 years. The purpose of the project is to ‘foster a sense of community across social and medical boundaries and explore new forms of expression through musical improvisation’ (p. 49).

Critical improvisation studies and networked improvisation

In developing an adaptive improvisation pedagogy, we drew on insights and methodologies from critical improvisation studies, an interdisciplinary field that ‘seeks to examine improvisation’s effects, interrogate its discourses, interpret narratives and histories related to it, discover implications of those narratives and histories, and uncover its ideologies’ (Lewis & Piekut, 2016, p. 3). A recurrent theme relates to the role(s) that improvisation can play in negotiating differences of various kinds (Siddall & Waterman, 2016). In addition to musical differences (between professional classical musicians, improviser-academics, special music educators and adults with disabilities), the EMC project explored improvisation’s capacity to negotiate differences in age, social and professional background and physical and cognitive function.

Networked music making allows ‘remote musicians to interact and perform together through a telecommunication network’ in a (very nearly) synchronous manner (Rottondi et al., 2016, p. 8823). Networked music did not begin with COVID-19, but the pandemic’s sudden elimination of live music on a global scale in 2020 led to an exponential increase in geographically disparate musicians making music with one another online, resulting in significant advances in networked improvisation by individuals (Fischlin et al., 2021), and organizations such as NowNet Arts (https://nownetarts.org/) and the Glasgow Improvisers Orchestra (MacDonald et al., 2021).

Among the myriad platforms musicians use to make music online are Zoom, MS Teams, Skype and Google Meets, as well as lower-latency audio-only platforms such as JamKazam, Ninjam, Soundjack, JackTrip, Jammr.net, SonoBus and Jamulus. The EMC project used Zoom because it carries both audio and video, has special music settings, is widely available, was already familiar to many participants and is easier to use than many other platforms. Networked music poses challenges due to latency – delays in the transmission of digital information – which makes it difficult for performers to lock in with one another rhythmically. However, such latency also reinforces an improvisational ethics of care (through active listening, respect and spaciousness) that allows for potential differences in processing by disabled musicians.

Methodology

Aims and research questions

Our main goal was to expand the existing Music Circle program by developing a networked musical improvisation pedagogy and thus create a model for inclusive participation in music. We followed a modified Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology in which all participants were considered valued contributors to the research process, whether through providing active feedback or simply through their participation. PAR advocates for ‘the recognition of the capacity of people living and working in particular settings to participate actively in all aspects of the research process’ (Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 4). At every stage, consultation, feedback and input by participants was sought and integrated into the iterative sessions. ¹ For participants with disabilities, this included both the audiovisual record of their participation in music sessions and feedback from their support workers that helped shape the developing musical activities.

Our principal research questions were: (1) How can improvisation foster dialogue and create a sense of community and (2) How can this best be achieved online? Co-creation was at the heart of our study. Instead of having orchestra musicians and special music educators deliver a music program to disabled participants, we wanted to explore how improvisation could help all participants to make music together.

Participants

Our project comprised four groups of people: the research team, professional musicians from the National Arts Centre Orchestra, special music educators from the Lotus Centre and participants with disabilities from Sonshine Community Inclusion Centre with their support workers.

The research team comprised flutist Ellen Waterman and percussionist Jesse Stewart, both music professors with experience in improvisation research and pedagogy (Stewart & Waterman, 2024); Erin Parkes, special music educator and researcher, founder and executive director of the Lotus Centre for Special Music Education; Geneviève Cimon, then senior director of learning and community engagement, at the National Arts Centre; and Nicola Oddy, then a doctoral candidate and registered music therapist.

The National Arts Centre Orchestra is Canada’s preeminent orchestra with a mandate to reach out to Canadians with a wide range of programming and community engagement (National Arts Centre, 2024). NACO musicians were recruited through an open call for participation facilitated by Cimon. They included six performers on French horn, trumpet, trombone, violin, viola and flute. Three had previously been involved in the Music Circle program. Five reported little previous experience with improvisation.

The Lotus Centre for Special Music Education (2024) is a charitable organization that provides music lessons to students of all ages and disabilities. The opportunity was made available to all LC music teachers through Parkes. Three teachers, keyboard and guitar players, decided to participate in the research project. They reported little to no previous experience with improvisation.

Sonshine Community Inclusion Centre runs day programs for adults with disabilities, supported by staff or family members (Sonshine Families, 2020). Recruiting at Sonshine was done through executive assistant Meagan Babe, whose energetic participation was crucial to the success of the project. Eight Sonshine clients participated. All are adults with multiple disabilities, with wide variations in their level of intellectual disability (from moderate to profound), mobility (from full to extremely limited) and communication differences (from low verbal abilities to non-verbal). Two participants are blind, and several require hand-over-hand assistance. In advance of the first session, we asked Babe to share information about participants’ musical tastes (90’s pop music and Disney songs were popular), and information that would inform session facilitators in creating a comfortable learning environment for participants (e.g. verbal or facial responses, stimming, sensitive startle reflex and types of instruments enjoyed).

Like the researchers, NACO and LC musicians participated online from their homes. The Sonshine musicians participated from their day program facility either individually or in small groups.

Structure of sessions

Prior to our research, the NACO musicians and LC educators were introduced to improvisation techniques and strategies through a series of professional development workshops led by Stewart and Waterman. The research itself comprised two series: (1) sessions with Sonshine clients only and (2) integrated sessions with Sonshine, NACO and LC musicians. Observational notes were taken during the sessions to assist with reviewing and refining activities, and the sessions were also recorded for later analysis (see Data Collection Section).

Sonshine sessions

Sixteen sessions for Sonshine clients were held on Tuesdays and Thursdays for both morning and afternoon clients over 4 weeks. The morning sessions comprised two clients plus one staff member in the same room. The afternoon sessions comprised six clients plus support workers distributed across three rooms.

Parkes, Stewart and Waterman facilitated the sessions, dividing activities among them. Through an iterative process including reflection and refinement, we adopted a clear and consistent structure with short activities lasting about 20 min in total. Each activity had scope for individual expression and improvisation (Table 1).

Table 1.

Activities and structure during Sonshine sessions.

Activity	Facilitator	Description
Hello Song	Parkes	Invite individuals or small groups to respond to their names through music and movement.
Play Along Song	Waterman	Using karaoke track, sing familiar Disney song. Invite musical participation through prompts (e.g. play loud or soft, shake maraca).
Exploring New Instruments	Stewart	Demonstrate an unusual instrument and use it as basis for improvisation: for example, waterphone (metal idiophone with water-filled reservoir and cylindrical array of rods that are bowed or struck), handpan and phonotonic (small disc containing an accelerometer and gyroscope that, when moved, triggers beats via Bluetooth). Not used in Integrated Sessions.
Call and Response	Waterman	Invite each person to respond to a short melody played on the flute. Not used in Integrated Sessions
Story Telling	Waterman	Participants are named protagonists in a story about a special activity (e.g. a day at the beach, a trip to the zoo). Participants create accompanying music and soundscapes using instruments and touch boards. (Weeks 3 and 4)
Freeze Game	Stewart	Groove on handpan and phonotonic; invite people to play along but freeze when the groove stops.
Goodbye Song	Parkes	Invite individuals or small groups to play/say/gesture a musical farewell.

During weeks 3 and 4, we invited NACO and LC participants to observe the sessions. After being introduced, they turned their cameras off to avoid distractions and an overly crowded Zoom screen. Observing provided opportunities for questions and brainstorming in advance of the integrated sessions and helped the NACO and LC participants to become more familiar with the program. We also conducted a feedback survey of the eight Sonshine participants (see Results Section).

Integrated sessions

The final eight sessions comprised groups of NACO, LC and Sonshine participants playing together over 2 weeks, again following the morning and afternoon schedule at Sonshine, and balancing numbers in each group wherever possible. Sessions varied from one to six Sonshine participants (plus support workers) and three to five NACO/LC participants, plus the research team.

We followed a consistent structure derived from our previous Sonshine sessions. NACO and LC musicians remained on Zoom for 20 min after each session to provide feedback so that we could make necessary adjustments.

Data collection

We used an iterative and qualitative methodology for data collection that included a preliminary assessment of participants’ experience and musical tastes (via email); making music together; feedback from Sonshine participants via a questionnaire and a meeting with support workers; individual exit interviews with NACO and LC participants; and guided exit interviews with Sonshine participants and support workers conducted by MT Oddy. We also encouraged the NACO and LC participants to keep a journal of observations which informed their exit interviews. Using a Grounded Theory approach (Boeije, 2010), Oddy, Parkes and Waterman independently read all the interview and Zoom-session transcripts of participant feedback for the first round of open coding, and collated their individual results to arrive at a set of common themes for analysis (axial coding). The data were then divided up among Cimon, Oddy, Parkes and Waterman for a third round of coding in which we applied the themes to arrive at our conclusions (selective coding; Saldaña, 2021). At each stage, results were discussed among the research team. In a fourth round of analysis, we compiled videos containing all iterations of a single activity (e.g. all hello songs), which enabled more detailed assessment of Sonshine participants’ engagement across different iterations of the activity. Parkes, an expert in special music education, reviewed the audiovisual data which were interpreted relative to each Sonshine participant’s known context. For example, ‘engagement’ for a verbal and mobile participant was expressed differently than for non-verbal participants with involved physical conditions (Ockelford, 2020).

Results

Sonshine survey results

At the end of the Sonshine sessions, a short questionnaire was administered by support workers who regularly participated in the sessions. Intimately familiar with the Sonshine participants and their diverse needs, they were best equipped to help their clients respond. Because of the complexity and severity of the clients’ disabilities, however, the answers necessarily reflect their support workers’ interpretations (Webb et al., 2024). Included were three questions on a 5-point Likert scale related to participants’ levels of engagement (4.625), enjoyment (4.625) and developing music making abilities (2.875) during the Sonshine sessions. Another question asked which elements in the program were seen as beneficial. All eight participants selected ‘making music with friends,’ ‘improving mood,’ and ‘enjoyment’. Seven out of eight participants selected ‘creative outlet,’ and ‘sensory stimulation’. A smaller number of participants selected ‘working with professional musicians’ (5/8) and ‘learning new skills’ (3/8). A final question asked how the program could be improved. Six participants felt that no improvement was necessary, one was not sure, and one would have preferred an in-person format. Finally, the questionnaire asked if/how the client’s mood had been affected by the sessions. Comments noted that the sessions put participants in a good mood that extended into the rest of the day (6/8), and that they enjoyed the sounds and actively making music (4/8). Other comments mentioned the break from routine and meeting new people as beneficial. For one participant, whose only voluntary response is facial expression, the sessions produced ‘a lot of smiles’.

As several comments noted, the effectiveness of the program was related to participant engagement: when participants were actively engaged, they enjoyed the activities. Part of the agency of Sonshine participants was that they might choose not to be engaged during a given activity. Overall, this survey reassured us that the program was enjoyable. It also showed that learning new skills was a lower priority than making music together. It helped us to refine the program for the integrated sessions, and as a result we focussed on maintaining a positive, enjoyable atmosphere and strategies for directly engaging participants.

Emergent themes from integrated sessions data

Theme 1: Pedagogical and curriculum choices

Throughout the sessions, NACO and LC participants were forthcoming with ideas and frank in their critiques, but overall, very positive in their journals and interviews. They found the session routines were helpful and encouraged participation. The Hello Song had a ‘clear and simple melody, and everyone [was] included’ (NACO P3); it ‘worked to let everyone shine’ (NACO P1). ² The Goodbye Song had the same positive effect, encouraging participants to play as a solo, duo or trio and worked well ‘in trading ideas or sounds off of each other’ (NACO P2). This was reflected in the reactions from the Sonshine participants, who demonstrated engagement through smiles at each other and at the camera, playing their instruments (some with hand over hand assistance from their support workers), verbalizations (saying ‘hi’ from the one speaking participant and other vocalizations from non-speaking participants) and gestures or movements, including rocking and waving arms.

Many found the Freeze Game to be highly successful in bringing the entire group together: ‘it was fun, rhythmic and makes you want to listen’ (NACO P1). The group ‘was an ensemble of equal players. . .and allow[ed] us to experiment with following [Jesse Stewart’s] drumbeat in different ways’ (NACO P2). A musician commented that the game ‘creates good opportunity for familiar actions to be incorporated, connections made, and [increased] engagement with the instruments’ (NACO P3). For many participants accustomed to playing composed, tonal music, the Freeze Game struck the right balance between familiar structured music and unfamiliar free improvisation: ‘I found that a lot of the time the improvisations sounded better when there was someone that we were following’ (LC P2). Another participant noted, however, that the success of a given activity differed from session to session, adding that ‘The cool thing about this [iterative] project . . . is you know you can do it again next time. So, you're kind of in this constant dialogue with people around you’ (LC P1). Sonshine participants also demonstrated a positive response to this activity. Their ability to successfully freeze when the music stopped showed their attention and engagement. Though several of the participants required prompting to stop, this allowed for positive interactions with their support workers.

The NACO and LC participants also commented on pacing: ‘the key here is the giving of space. The sessions haven’t felt rushed, and each participant has the time to say what they want musically’ (NACO P2). This leads to increased competencies: ‘through experimentation, we develop confidence, feel less inhibited and explore some fun new teaching techniques’ (NACO P4). Spaciousness was also important for the Sonshine participants, who often demonstrated a delayed response or required prompts from their support worker.

Theme 2: Facilitating connection and building community

NACO and LC participants were highly motivated to connect in meaningful and equitable ways with members of the Sonshine community and wanted to ensure their full participation. For example, acknowledging people by name during the songs and stories was noted as a powerful way of connecting and creating community. ‘It’s about life. And whether they are reacting or not, they’re hearing their name’ (NACO P4). As one participant explained ‘All of us are a band. It doesn’t matter if you have a kazoo or French horn. You’re a full member of the band. . .We’re all exploring music and sound together. . . Each person had unique and valuable things to contribute to that experience regardless of physical or other abilities’ (NACO P6).

Seven out of nine NACO and LC participants, however, wished they could have felt even more connected to the Sonshine participants and their support workers, something they found difficult to do online. One explained: ‘I wanted very much to be able to do something that would elicit a response or to have a back and forth. I must say that I didn’t connect as much as I wanted to. . .I would have liked to see or know. . .how they responded to my sounds’ (NACO P2). Another recommended more direct communication with Sonshine participants, such as ‘asking them to interact in a way that I can actually see. Or getting some validation from somebody else that's in the room’ (LC P1). Several participants mentioned their desire to know more about the individual Sonshine participants including how they move and express themselves, their favorite songs, food, activities and times of day. As one explained: ‘these can all be used to help us create the sense of community and connect with them during activities’ (NACO P4).

Support workers contributed greatly to the energy in the room and played an important role in helping the participants access and use instruments. A few participants observed that some of the support workers looked tired holding instruments for long periods of time; while one observed that a participant was not responding well to a support worker who, while well intentioned, seemed to them to be forcing the participant to engage. They felt that knowing the support workers better and receiving feedback from them after each session would help them adjust the sessions to ensure an optimal experience for all involved: ‘They know the participants better than we do and would be a valuable resource to understand how the sessions are being received’ (NACO P1).

Theme 3: Improvisation as dialogue

NACO and LC participants shared that the improvisation activities opened space for listening, collaboration and creative expression. One reflected that ‘responding is not the same as listening and the way you want to expand an idea is not necessarily about imitation’ (NACO P5), while another observed that ‘a lot of it was learning about showing intention through sound’ (NACO P6). The experience of developing and nurturing a dialogue within an inclusive ensemble was positive: ‘In general, in society there needs to be more things like that. I think it's nice because it made us think differently than when we're just working with other professional musicians’ (LC 2). Reciprocity in sharing and receiving was valued: ‘I want[ed] to share my musical expressions with a combination of introducing new sounds while always being mindful of the group and the way we’re all interacting’ (NACO P2). Some felt that smaller ensembles would have facilitated more interaction: ‘Fun to have lots of people but also harder to judge engagement’ (NACO P1).

Over the course of the project, participants’ increasing comfort with improvisation was readily observable. Many expressed a desire to incorporate improvisation in their practice and teaching. One LC teacher noted that improvising more freely inspired him to expand his ‘boundaries’ and ‘open up’ with his students (LC P1). Another was surprised to find that she was more comfortable making ‘funny or abstract sounds’ than improvising tonally and noted that the project gave her new tools to use with her students (LC P3). After the project, one NACO participant was motivated to form a professional improvisation ensemble. As another participant shared ‘I think in general the whole word ‘improv’ has changed for me. I feel much more confident to be more playful’ (NACO P4). Several participants wished there had been more time to create an ensemble feel, with one noting that by the end of the project ‘we just got it down and it would have been good to see what would have happened if we ha[d] switched it out and what range of things would have gone well’ (LC P2). Another felt that our improvisation-based program modeled ‘the means to allow all people, including those with [disabilities], to share on an equal basis. This type of free non-competitive improvisation is a gift to those who feel that they have a lot to communicate’ (NACO P2).

Theme 4: Technology as mixed blessing

The main challenge the technology posed for NACO and LC participants was the limited visual environment on Zoom. Often, they could not see the faces of the Sonshine participants well enough to gauge their reactions nor read their body language, especially when several were in one room. ‘More full-body physical movement might help [us] to engage each other and develop a better connection with participants of varying cognitive ability’ (NACO P1). As one participant noted, however, ‘Even though communicating online can seem two-dimensional. . ., it is a powerful and effective way to bring people closer together who may never otherwise have an opportunity to make music together’ (NACO P2). Participants recognized that a well-supported hybrid engagement would enable those participants who are vulnerable and need to remain isolated to engage in the Music Circle, because ‘it is easier to control the sensory environment at home’ (LC P3).

Several LC and NACO participants noted that, as a business platform, Zoom is not designed for networked music making. Latency was a considerable source of frustration. They also observed that having multiple rooms at Sonshine engaging at once often led to sound distortion. Fewer participants would ease this burden on the system. In contrast, support workers at Sonshine did not report any difficulty with the virtual setting. They felt that it worked well and that the Sonshine participants enjoyed the experience, with only one report that a participant would have had better engagement with in-person sessions. As one LC participant noted, the online environment is still ‘unclear social territory. People don't know when it’s appropriate to ask for a moment because their connection’s bad’ and noted that we need to level ‘the playing field in terms of expectations’ (LC P1).

Discussion

The purpose of this project was to explore the ways in which improvisation can be used to bridge differences in musical abilities and build community among professional orchestra musicians, adaptive music educators and adults with severe disabilities. A virtual format was chosen and allowed further exploration into how these objectives can be achieved through networked music making. Despite the challenges, all participants reported generally positive experiences. Improvisation was a highly successful strategy for facilitating adaptive and inclusive participation, though the networked environment received mixed reviews.

NACO and LC participants reported that they found the experience of creating with musicians of different abilities to be enlightening, and this speaks to the value of adaptive and inclusive ensembles for all participants. These musicians gradually gained confidence in their new improvisation skills, and many noted that improvisation seemed to come naturally to Sonshine participants. Certainly, improvisation allowed everyone to participate more fully. Using body percussion and small percussion instruments, adaptive instruments like the AUMI, and vocalizations in combination with the NACO and LC participants’ instruments created a unique soundscape.

It is not surprising that different musical preferences were reported both among individuals and among the three participant groups and the researchers, since we are all shaped by our positionalities. NACO musicians are used to performing scored music with great efficiency under highly controlled acoustic and technological circumstances. LC special music educators are experts in tailoring music lessons to the needs of an individual student, a process that relies on a variety of sensory feedback. Sonshine clients have diverse tastes but, in the context of their day programs, structure and repetition are familiar and comforting. Indeed, as researchers, we also brought our individual preferences and biases to the project (including our ‘pro-improvisation’ bias!). By its very nature, an adaptive and inclusive ensemble necessitates the negotiation of aesthetic preferences and musical value judgements, an improvisational process that is as much social as it is musical (Siddall & Waterman, 2016). The most important value, which we found to be respected by all, was the willingness to treat everyone as ‘members of the band’.

While the Sonshine participants reported no difficulties with the virtual setting, several of the NACO participants found it challenging. They found the uneven audio quality and latency to be a barrier to the excellent performance that is their professional norm. The LC participants reported less difficulty, noting that they had experience teaching virtually to students with similar profiles. While acknowledging the difficulty of recognizing and responding to student reactions online, they had learned to overlook these challenges and enjoy the connections that could be made. Of course, Sonshine participants who were in the same room as one another were able to see and hear the other participants individually on the Zoom screen, while the NACO and LC participants were trying to see several Sonshine participants and support workers in a room. Managing expectations and providing ongoing technical support are key factors in networked music.

Several LC and NACO participants observed that the interactions between the Sonshine participants and their support workers were crucial for sustained engagement. During project design we consulted closely with Babe, but not with other support workers. Because they were clearly integral to the project, including support workers explicitly as members of the ensemble would have been beneficial. In particular, the inability to see the Sonshine participants clearly on Zoom made it difficult for LC and NACO participants to accurately assess engagement. Having consistent input from the support workers throughout the process would have facilitated a better understanding of the experience of the Sonshine participants and possibly would have allowed LC and NACO participants, as well as the researchers, to create deeper engagement.

The overarching purpose of the Expanding the Music Circle project was to develop new improvisatory pedagogical tools that can be incorporated into the existing Music Circle program, particularly when delivering the program to participants with severe disabilities. But we hope that these tools and the lessons we learned will be valuable for anyone involved in accessible music programming. To that end, we have published a digital report and video toolkit at https://carleton.ca/mssc/research/expanding-the-music-circle-through-networked-improvisation/ to aid others in creating truly inclusive and adaptive participatory music. All participants reported benefits from the experience of using improvisation to create connections among diverse musicians. As one participant beautifully summarizes: ‘This way of music making is a world of difference and. . .has opened up new doors for me as to how I can best interact with other musicians of all levels. . . I believe that, even in the short time we spent together, the entire group came closer and closer together in our improvisatory reactions/interactions’. (NACO P2).