Abstract
This research study evaluated an Artist-in-Residence-project (AIR-project) at the Conservatory of Amsterdam, focusing on inclusive music education. For this project, the Conservatory invited the organization Drake Music Scotland to work with its students. The project’s aim was to provide students with practical skills regarding music technology, to discuss the social model of disability, and to play in an inclusive music ensemble with a musician with a severe physical disability. The perceived learning experiences of students, the experienced value of the project, and recommendations for its improvement were explored through online questionnaires with the students and online semistructured interviews with the AIR-project leader, the musician with a disability, and the two workshop leaders of Drake Music Scotland. Findings suggest that alongside learning practical skills regarding music technology, students changed or broadened their perceptions about people with disabilities and inclusive music-making in positive ways. Furthermore, participants valued that the project created a space in which “taking enough time” and “belonging” could be experienced; these values are important in inclusive music environments as they can empower musicians with disabilities. The main recommendation for similar projects was that students wanted to gain hands-on experience in inclusive music education.
Introduction
Despite the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, it is still problematic for people with disabilities to access music education in the Netherlands and beyond (Darrow, 2009, 2015; Landelijk Kennisinstituut Cultuureducatie en Amateurkunst [LKCA], 2020; National Foundation for Youth Music [NFYM], 2020; Schoonheim & Smits, 2019). People with disabilities can encounter all kinds of barriers when trying to take part in music education, ranging from the lack of adequate transport to music lessons to the absence of sheet music made available to blind and visually impaired musicians (NFYM, 2020). Not surprisingly, people with disabilities are, therefore, relatively underrepresented in music education and the music industry (Bell, 2017; Floch & Baltà Portolés, 2021; NFYM, 2020).
Music educators can (unconsciously) play a significant role in upholding at least some of the barriers that people with disabilities can encounter (Kivijärvi & Rautiainen, 2021). For instance, they may be unfamiliar with or lack experience using adapted or assistive musical instruments, or do not view newly developed electronic instruments as instruments in their own right (bell et al., 2020; NFYM, 2020). Also, music educators can be unfamiliar with pedagogical approaches to inclusive (music) education, such as Universal Design for Learning, FigureNotes, and Notion, or with pedagogical strategies for adaptive or assistive instruments (Darrow, 2009; Gall, 2017). Some music educators may be nervous about working with people with disabilities, fearing they will not be effective educators (Darrow, 2009). Finally, they may rarely have heard the “lived experiences” of people with disabilities. This can lead to imagining how disabilities are experienced from an able-bodied perspective and then designing solutions from this perspective, which may not fit the needs and wishes of people with disabilities (bell et al., 2020; NFYM, 2020).
Accordingly, music educators may feel uncertain or unprepared to meet the needs and wishes of people with disabilities, which can prevent them from making music education accessible and inclusive (Laes & Westerlund, 2017; NFYM, 2020; VanWeelden & Whipple, 2013). Music educators’ roles in upholding barriers to music education might, however, be better understood if we consider the lack of resources, pedagogies, and ideas for working in inclusive music educational environments provided during their training in higher music education (Gall, 2017; Laes & Westerlund, 2017). If they learned how to identify barriers to inclusive music education during their studies, music educators might feel more confident in exploring solutions to remove them (NFYM, 2020).
Indeed, there is a growing consensus that higher music education needs to address diversity in its curriculum (Ballantyne & Mills, 2008; Figueiredo et al., 2015). Yet disability can be overlooked as an important part of diversity (bell et al., 2020; Darrow, 2015). Moreover, when diversity and inclusion courses are included in higher music education, they are not without criticism. For instance, Dobbs (2012) and Laes and Westerlund (2017) argue that such courses should move beyond inclusiveness as a way of improving students’ knowledge and skills regarding people with disabilities, to encourage future educators to become more politically engaged and anti-ableist. Similarly, Ballantyne and Mills (2008) and Gall (2017) note that courses should not only focus on good practices within inclusive music education but should also deepen awareness of broader issues of social justice in music education.
In recognizing that it does not prepare their students optimally—neither in a practical sense nor in creating awareness regarding social justice—the Conservatory of Amsterdam decided to develop an Artist-in-Residence-project (AIR-project), which would focus on both these aspects of inclusive music education. For this project, the Conservatory collaborated with Drake Music Scotland, a leading arts organization that provides music-making opportunities for people with disabilities and additional support needs. To gain an understanding of the perceived learning experiences of the students of this project, its perceived value, and recommendations for improving similar projects, a qualitative evaluation study was set up. Before turning to the methodology and findings of this study, I will first take a closer look at the central concepts underlying the AIR-project as well as its content.
The AIR-project with Drake Music Scotland
Underlying concepts of the project
When developing the AIR-project, the Conservatory of Amsterdam and Drake Music Scotland decided that it would not only provide students with practical skills for inclusive music education but also discuss the medical and social models of disability. In short, the medical model of disability frames disability as a deficit with respect to normal standards, which should be diagnosed and treated (bell et al., 2020; Howe et al., 2016). The goal of the treatment is to cure a person and to facilitate a person’s return to the state of “normal” (Imrie, 1995, p. 397). The medical model has been criticized as it serves as a social marker of negative difference and presses a person to adapt to the norms of society (Dobbs, 2012). The social model is a theoretical approach developed within disability studies that states that people are inherently different, and that disability is not a deficit but an aspect of human diversity (bell et al., 2020). How society reacts to these differences determines whether a person will experience disability (bell et al., 2020), and categorizations of who is (dis)abled are viewed as sociocultural constructions (Davis, 2002). In contrast to the medical model, the social model frames the experience of disability as a societal problem rather than the problem of a person and, consequently, looks toward society to adapt and accommodate (bell et al., 2020; Howe et al., 2016; Rathgeber, 2017). This latter model underlies the work of Drake Music Scotland.
Strongly linked to the discussion of the medical and social model is the concept of “ableism.” The basic premise of ableism is that able-bodied people are privileged over people with nonable bodies, therefore disadvantaging people with disabilities (Darrow, 2015; Derby & Wexler, 2015). In general, music academies have high expectations of able-bodiedness: Students are usually asked to showcase their musical skills (including complex techniques involving speed, agility, and precision) and musical sensitivity (including nuance and emotionality) (Howe, 2016). Musicians who cannot conform to these able-bodied practices are often excluded from music academies, ultimately complicating pathways to professional musical development.
In the AIR-project, students were presented with the medical and social model of disability and ableism. Time was taken to discuss these models and to provide a space to explore and challenge perceptions on disability in a safe manner (Darrow, 2015).
The content of the AIR-project
The 4-day AIR-project was an elective course of one European Credit, and its goals were for students to:
discuss the medical and social models of disability,
gain hands-on experience with the accessible music notation software Notion (intuitive notation software) and FigureNotes (notation that uses color and shape to convey all the information of traditional music notation),
gain hands-on experience with the iPad as a musical instrument and the music app ThumbJam (an app with real instrument samples, ready-to-load scales, and expressive techniques such as vibrato or tremolo achieved by tilting or shaking the iPad),
make compositions for the inclusive ensemble, applying music technology,
perform as a member of an inclusive music ensemble.
During the first day, the two workshop leaders from Drake Music Scotland discussed the medical and social models of disability with the students, and how that informs the ways they approach inclusive music making. This resulted in discussions on disability that would continuously permeate the rest of the project. They also introduced their Digital Orchestra as an example of inclusive music-making, sharing examples of the orchestra’s performances, and discussing the music technology involved. Afterwards, students were provided with opportunities to explore the iPad as an instrument, and they were introduced to the music app ThumbJam. Finally, the students were joined by a musician from the My Breath My Music foundation. Having very limited use of her arms and being a wheelchair user, she introduced the students to her instrument, “the Magic Flute” (an electronic wind instrument that allows her to adjust the pitch by raising or lowering her head) and gave an account of her lived experiences as a musician with a physical disability.
On the second day, the workshop leaders shared examples from previous projects, such as a collaboration with the National Youth Jazz Orchestra of Scotland. Students were also introduced to Notion and FigureNotes. Afterwards, the students and the musician with a disability were split into three smaller groups and tasked with composing a new piece of music for an inclusive ensemble, including the use of iPads and ThumbJam.
On the third day, the Drake Music Scotland workshop leaders presented the various aspects involved when preparing for a performance with an inclusive ensemble. This gave the students insight into the barriers musicians with disabilities can face—ranging from access to a music venue to not having enough energy for a dress rehearsal. Then, the students continued working on their compositions and prepared their presentation for the conference, My Music Ability, on inclusive music education the next day. On the fourth day, the inclusive ensemble performed its compositions and both students and the musician with a disability shared their personal experiences about what this project had meant to them.
The intention had been to invite a Drake Music Scotland workshop leader with a physical disability along with one of the able-bodied workshop leaders. However, because COVID-19 posed such health risks, it was decided that two able-bodied workshop leaders would lead the AIR-project. Furthermore, several musicians with disabilities had been invited to join the inclusive music ensemble, of which two committed to participate. Unfortunately, at the last minute, one could not join due to health issues.
Methodology
Research questions and research design
The goal of this study was to provide insight into the perceived learning experiences gained by the students through the AIR-project, the value of such projects, and the recommendations the participants had for improving similar projects in the future, at and beyond the Conservatory of Amsterdam. In this study, therefore, the following questions were addressed:
To answer the research questions, the study was set up as a qualitative evaluation study. Within this type of research, the purpose is to evaluate the impact of an intervention, such as a newly developed educational project, through qualitative research methods (Anastas, 2004). The research results—both participants’ positive and negative perceptions—can be used to adapt a project to enhance the success of its design (Anastas, 2004).
A limitation of this qualitative evaluation study is the difficulty of generalizing the results, because of the small number of participants that took part in the study. Instead, this study aims to establish transferability: Readers might find the results of this research to be applicable to their own educational settings or projects. Therefore, they are invited to make connections between elements of this study and their own educational experience (Stahl & King, 2020).
Participants
A total of 11 students of the Conservatory of Amsterdam took part in the AIR-project and research study: six bachelor’s students in Music in Education, two bachelor’s students in Music (Jazz), and three master’s students in Music (Classical). Due to COVID-19, not all students participated in the AIR-project on all 4 days, and 10 out of the 11 students participated in the performance at the conference. Students were informed about the study and provided the researcher with active written consent prior to the AIR-project.
The project leader of the AIR-project of the Conservatory of Amsterdam also took part in the study. She was responsible for the organization and content of the project, and attended each of the 4 days. A musician with a disability from the foundation My Breath My Music also participated in the study. The foundation My Breath My Music aims to give people with severe physical disabilities the opportunity to play music, using either self-adapted electronic instruments or electronic instruments that have been developed by the foundation in close collaboration with musicians with disabilities. The musician with a disability played in the inclusive ensemble on her Magic Flute and was invited to share her lived experience with the students. Given the choice, she wanted to be mentioned in the article as the “musician with a disability.”
The two workshop leaders from Drake Music Scotland took part in the study. They are experts in inclusive music technology and specialist teaching methods that support people with a wide range of disabilities to make and learn music independently. All these participants were informed about the study prior to the AIR-project and provided the researcher with active verbal consent prior to their interview.
Research methods: Online questionnaire and online semistructured interviews
On the last day of the AIR-project, students were asked to fill in an anonymous online questionnaire, which consisted of open questions formulated by the researcher in cooperation with the project leader. They could choose between a Dutch or English version. In total, 8 out of 11 students filled it in. Examples of questions were “What did you learn or experience during the AIR-project with Drake Music Scotland?” “In which way has your view on disability changed or not changed?” “How did you experience the artistic level of playing in an inclusive ensemble?” “What would you still like to learn in the future?” and “Do you think that projects such as this should be part of the regular programme/curriculum? If so, why?”
In addition, the project leader and the musician with a disability took part in individual online semistructured interviews, and the two workshop leaders participated in a joint online semistructured interview. During a semistructured interview, some questions are formulated beforehand, but it also leaves space for interviewees to bring in their own thoughts (Bremmer, 2015). An advantage of a semistructured interview is that participants can partly be asked the same questions, which can enhance comparability. The interviews lasted approximately 40 to 60 min, were audiotaped, and transcribed verbatim. Examples of the questions were, “What do you feel the students have learned during the AIR-project?” “What would you like to change a next time such a project runs?” and “Do you think that projects such as this should be part of the regular programme/curriculum? If so, why, and how?”
Data analysis
The data were analyzed through thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). First, the process of top-down coding was applied, in which preexisting themes were used to code the data. Participants’ data from the online questionnaire and the online semistructured interviews were coded according to three themes: (a) the perceived learning experiences of students, (b) the value of the AIR-project, and (c) recommended improvements for similar future projects. Second, bottom-up coding was applied within the theme that consisted of the most quotations, namely, the perceived learning experiences of the students. During this bottom-up coding process, codes were clustered together based on their shared characteristics (Saldaña, 2009). This process resulted in three subthemes: (a) gained knowledge and skills, (b) changed perceptions about disability, and (c) changed perceptions about music technology and inclusive music ensembles.
Finally, when summarizing the findings, the researcher made an effort to use quotations from all the participants, ensuring that different voices could be heard (Tufford & Newman, 2010). The findings were also sent to the participants for a member check: They were asked to check whether they could recognize themselves and whether they were quoted in the right context. To stay anonymous to the researcher, students could give their comments to the project leader. None of the participants requested the quotations or the contextualization of quotations to be altered.
Findings
Theme 1: Perceived learning experiences of students
Subtheme: Knowledge and skills
As had been a goal of the AIR-project, students’ knowledge of (adaptive and assistive) music technology had expanded. The project leader observed, “I think they all learned to broaden their abilities in terms of using technology.” For instance, Student 1 remarked, “I was especially surprised how much technology there is,” and Student 4 expressed that they had become more skilled “in using digital tools and instruments.” More specifically, students noted they had become acquainted with the app ThumbJam, and Workshop Leader 1 mentioned that a student had gotten “quite into the crafting of the sound and into some of the details of ThumbJam.” Student 7 also described the broader knowledge and skills that students had gained, such as “we were taught about a notation method named FigureNotes [. . .] and we learned more about the logistics involved in rehearsing and performing with an inclusive ensemble.”
Subtheme: Changed perceptions about disability
By working with the musician with a disability, students mentioned that they had become more comfortable with interacting with people with disabilities. Student 7 wrote, I came to the project with a degree of fear of doing something wrong when working with musicians with disabilities. [. . .] this week has shown me that sharing music making [. . .] is nothing to be afraid of.
Student 5 remarked, “I still have little experience with working with people with disabilities, but I will feel more comfortable now.”
Although not planned as part of the project, the meeting between the students and the musician with a disability elicited discussions about the complexities of “giving” and “helping,” thereby affecting participants’ perceptions of these notions. Regarding “giving,” the musician with a disability noted what the project had given her: “Working in such an ensemble can provide me with a higher level of music making.” Vice versa, Workshop Leader 2 added that the musician with a disability had “given” her experiences on how she approaches challenges in her life and how she makes music. The process in which both students and the musician with a disability had something to give and take caused Workshop Leader 2 to note, “I think the students have learned that there’s an equality that is incredibly exciting.” Furthermore, Student 6 also noted a changed view on “giving music” to people with disabilities: “Now I don’t see it as the community musicians to be giving [italics added] something to the other participants, but rather, they are there to make the path clearer for musicians with disabilities to explore and express themselves artistically.” Moreover, students mentioned that they changed their perspective on the notion of “helping.” Student 3 was struck by the realization that able-bodied people can fill in solutions for people with disabilities and concluded, “It is best to just always ask the person how they do or do not want to be helped.” Student 7, too, explained, “The notion of helping when it is required but never filling in or being over-powering is something that has altered my attitude.”
Finally, most students referred to the discussion on the medical and social models and how it had changed their perspective on disability to believe that society should accommodate people with disabilities. Student 5 remarked, “We must think in possibilities, solutions, in what someone can do, instead of thinking in obstacles, problems,” and Student 6 wrote, “What I have learnt most is to shift my focus from what a disabled person cannot do to now focusing on how to provide tools to amplify their capabilities.” In response to the social model, several students felt that they should take on an active role to include people with disabilities in music making. For instance, Student 2 wrote how important it is “to actively work to include people who are excluded from being able to make music.”
Subtheme: Changed perceptions about music technology and inclusive music ensembles
Students noted positive changes in their perceptions about digital instruments. Student 6 found that “the digital instruments are very versatile and have a tonal quality that is much better than I had previously expected,” and Student 5 remarked “music made by people with disabilities with digital instruments is not ‘lesser’ music.” The musician with a disability also observed, “I feel their eyes have been opened about music technology: it doesn’t just make an electronic sound, it can also produce a really good sound, therefore, you can play a full-fledged instrument.”
Students also developed a positive attitude toward inclusive music ensembles, reassessing their ideas of the quality of such ensembles. Student 7 observed, “The artistic level was very high [. . .] and inclusive ensembles [can] perform music with emotion, a narrative, and communication.” Student 3 commented, “It didn’t feel like we had to adjust to each other or take it down a notch to get our [musical] result.” Workshop Leader 2 observed, “I believe they understood it is not a different quality of music that you make, [. . .] it’s just a matter of having a slightly different way of producing it.” Finally, Student 2 added a more overarching reflection, questioning society’s conventional expectations of music: “Our conventional values and expectations of music don’t apply to all situations, and we shouldn’t judge people’s ability to make music on these factors.”
Theme 2: Perceived value of the AIR-project
Participants mentioned different aspects of the project that made it valuable to them. The workshop leaders found that being able to offer students “enough time” was a valuable aspect of the AIR-project, as this is a core value in their work in inclusive music environments, where people with disabilities might need more time for learning or performing music. They observed that taking “enough time” often contrasts with students’ experiences in Conservatories, where a lot needs to be done in a short time. Workshop Leader 2 noted that “the idea that you can take more time and do less—but it’s better—is a very hard idea for students to take on.” However, Student 8 appreciated that there was “no stress or time pressure to produce something good, but that you had time to experiment musically.” The project leader, too, observed, “One of the things that the workshop leaders kept saying was ‘things take as long as they take’. [. . .] that’s something students don’t often get in the rest of their degree.”
Another aspect that was mentioned by participants as worthwhile was the feeling that the group of musicians was accepting, which allowed for a sense of safety and belonging. Student 4 wrote, “I felt that being welcomed in the group with what I have gave me more space to express my potential.” The project leader observed that it is “really great, when you belong to something and they all felt that strongly [. . .] That’s just a beautiful reminder in that sometimes slightly competitive [music] world, to be part of something.”
Several participants also commented positively on the interdisciplinary aspect of the project. Student 1 enjoyed working with students coming from the music education, jazz, and classical departments, “which doesn’t happen often at the Conservatory,” and Student 8 wrote, “I really like working with students from other departments.” The project leader went on to explain a positive aspect of working in an interdisciplinary group of bachelors and masters: “it gives students a really different perspective on music making.”
Finally, participants felt the project was valuable because it broadened their view on music making and working with diverse groups. Student 6 described that the AIR-project broadened their “horizons to other more versatile forms of music making.” Furthermore, Student 4 remarked how AIR-projects can facilitate an inclusive environment in which students are able “to interact with a variety of groups.” Workshop Leader 2 reflected that “all professional musicians in the future will be required by their work to think [. . .] about how they’re working with a wider and more diverse group of people. So, any training institution needs to recognise that.”
Theme 3: Recommendations for future projects
Students felt that working under supervision in an inclusive music environment outside of the Conservatory was missing from the project. Student 4 would have liked to have worked “with a group of people with disabilities [. . .] where we as students and the group of people with disabilities can work, teach, and provide knowledge to each other.” Student 6 wrote, “I would probably gain from some hands-on experience by observing someone else leading musical sessions to then be fully confident in doing it myself.” Workshop Leader 1 acknowledged that “fully supported project work following on a reasonably quick timeframe after workshops like these [. . .] would help students to be more confident to work in inclusive music environments.”
Some students also noted that in the future, they would like to learn more about the practical use of music technology. For instance, Student 8 noted regarding digital instruments: “I can still learn a lot about how everything works,” and Student 3 wanted to know “which other forms of music technology can be applied.”
Furthermore, participants in the study commented that future projects should continue to involve musicians with disabilities. According to the musician with a disability, the workshop leaders were very capable but, in the end, they did “not have a disability.” She went on to note that the students’ eye-opening experiences were provoked by hearing her lived experience and by working with her. Workshop Leader 1 did, however, note that in future projects, it would be good “if there were musicians [included] at varying stages of their musical journey.” This workshop leader found the presence of the musician with a disability crucial, but asked, “What if there was a musician who was less experienced? [. . .] Those kinds of musicians would have enriched the experience and would be more representative of what inclusive music making is actually like.” Similarly, Student 5 observed that “how to make music with people with mental disabilities—we haven’t done that,” confirming the importance of working with a group of musicians with varying (dis)abilities in future projects.
Discussion
Regarding the first research question about the learning experiences of students, the data exemplified that, next to developing practical skills regarding music technology and FigureNotes, students experienced changes in or a broadening of their perceptions about people with disabilities and inclusive music-making. For instance, some students mentioned feeling less anxious and more comfortable about working with people with disabilities. This outcome aligns with research showing that direct contact with people with disabilities is likely to produce positive attitudes toward inclusion as encounters can help diminish anxieties due to newly acquired knowledge about each other (Cassidy & Colwell, 2012; Salonen & Van den Brekel, 2020).
Moreover, working with a musician with a disability enabled participants to change their perceptions of “giving” and “helping.” Regarding the notion of “giving,” one of the students noted a critical change in perception about not merely “giving” music to people with disabilities, but instead aiming toward their musical empowerment (Morris, 1997). This implies a major shift in how students might perceive their own roles as musicians: from playing for and giving to an audience of people with disabilities, to playing with and (co)creating a space for people with disabilities to gain musical agency. From the perspective of the musician with a disability, her account of her lived experience was “received” well by the students; however, “giving” this account might not be without problems. Grue (2016) calls our attention to a possible uncritical reception of the lived experience of people with disabilities as it can represent “disability as a problem located in individual bodies, to be overcome through individual efforts” (p. 841) and, thereby, might obscure systemic and structural causes of disability. Providing students with the medical and social models, therefore, seemed an important aspect in the AIR-project to contextualize the lived experience of the musician with a disability.
The notion of “helping” also raised different questions in the project. For example, does care restrain people with disabilities from developing and making use of their capabilities (Laes, 2017)? And do solutions from an able-bodied perspective fit the needs of people with disabilities (NFYM, 2020)? Due to the openness between the musician with a disability and students, perceptions about how power structures are involved with care and how care might enforce excluding and marginalizing processes could be explored in safe ways (Laes, 2017). It was through this mutual openness that perceptions about “helping” could be altered, and reciprocity and a sense of equality could be established. Nonetheless, not all musicians with disabilities might be as vocal or open as the one participating in the AIR-project, or simply do not feel the need to talk about their disability (NFYM, 2020). Therefore, if the notions of “giving” and “helping” are part of a future project, they may need to be addressed in a different way.
Discussing the medical and social models was also one of the goals of the AIR-project, offering students the possibility to create new narratives about disability and to reflect on how society plays a role in (not) accommodating people with disabilities (Churchill & Laes, 2021). Although the discussions on the models were mind-provoking for students, further in-depth discussions may have presented them with an even more complex view on the construct of disability. For instance, Bell (2017) proposes that, like the medical model, the social model is not wholly unproblematic. For example, a person might experience physical problems that cannot be attributed to a society’s (mis)treatment, or some individuals may choose to identify as disabled. Therefore, providing different theoretical and lived experience perspectives on disability would be helpful to facilitate the development of nuanced understandings of the construct of disability in future projects (bell et al., 2020).
Furthermore, students mentioned that the project had challenged their traditional views on what instruments, music making, and “quality music” can encompass. The AIR-project raised awareness that disability is not only shaped by culture, but that culture (including music culture) is shaped by disability (Howe, 2016). In other words, musicians with disabilities can have unique experiences of and perspectives on the world and can produce new music with unique instruments, not necessarily fitting conventional ideas about (the quality of) music (Arts Council England, 2018; Watts & Ridley, 2007). As such, the AIR-project invited students to broaden their perspectives on (innovative) music practices, opening vistas on multiple ways of music making and on the possibility of participating in a diversity of musical practices (Dobbs, 2012).
Concerning the second research question about the perceived value of the AIR-project, the data indicated that the AIR-project was experienced as valuable because it provided a space where “taking enough time,” “belonging,” and “appreciating differences” could be experienced. These values ideally underlie an inclusive music environment but are often opposed to what students might experience at Conservatories, where they need to reach a high standard, in a relatively short time, for a competitive music world.
Because the workshop leaders constantly reminded the inclusive music ensemble to take enough time in combination with their lecture on the preparation for a performance of an inclusive ensemble, students were made aware that time is a substantial element to be considered in inclusive music-making practices. If too little time is given, some musicians are benefited over others, and people with disabilities may be disempowered (Saul, 2020). As such, time can play a role in increasing or diminishing equality between able-bodied and disabled musicians (Saul, 2020). Furthermore, instead of competitiveness, students mentioned a sense of belonging and equality in the inclusive music ensemble, which can be challenging to establish in inclusive and diverse settings (Cullinane, 2021). Interestingly, the diversity in their group was felt to be a positive aspect by students, and they were accepting of their (relative) differences—this in turn might have enhanced the feeling of belonging and equality. Yet, it should be noted that the AIR-project was an elective and could have attracted students who were already open to differences and new experiences. Although such projects could be made compulsory (Ballantyne & Mills, 2008), mandatory participation might complicate the acceptance of differences, possibly jeopardizing a sense of belonging and equality (Salonen & Van den Brekel, 2020).
Regarding recommendations for future projects, the data illuminated the feeling that practical work in an inclusive music setting was missing from the AIR-project. Laes (2017) reiterates that change in music education is not possible only through thinking differently—as was achieved through the AIR-project—but demands action. To be able to put their new knowledge, skills, and values into practice, students need to have access to inclusive music environments where they can learn and work with more experienced (dis)abled music educators or musicians leading musical sessions.
Conclusion
This qualitative evaluation study demonstrated that through an AIR-project on the topic of inclusive music education, students not only learned practical skills regarding music technology and alternative music notations but also changed or broadened their perceptions about people with disabilities. This allowed for new narratives on disability to emerge, in which notions of “giving” and “helping” could take on new meanings based on reciprocity and a sense of equality. It also provided students with new insights into inclusive music-making because their conventional ideas of musical instruments and the quality of music had been challenged. As such, an AIR-project can add another valid perspective on what music practices can look like beyond those that music students are prepared for in Conservatories. An AIR-project holds the possibility to create a space in which interrelated values of “taking enough time,” “belonging,” and “accepting differences” can be experienced. These values are important in inclusive music environments as they can empower—rather than disempower—musicians with disabilities. Finally, the main recommendation for future projects was to add a practical component: Students wanted to gain hands-on experience in the field of inclusive music-making. If an AIR-project ultimately aims at making music education a more socially just field, then it should provide students with the opportunity to take action in that field. After all, it should be a joint effort of Conservatories, teacher educators, workshop leaders, musicians with disabilities, and students to make change happen, to dismantle barriers, and to make the field of music education inclusive.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author is deeply grateful to all the participants in this research study for sharing their thoughts and insights on the AIR-project.
Ethical approval
Prior to embarking on 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 prior to the AIR-project. Active written consent by the students and active verbal consent by the project leader, the musician with a disability, and the two workshop leaders were provided to the researcher prior to their interviews.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The AIR-project was funded by the AIR-program of the Amsterdam University of the Arts .
