Community Music in Higher Education : Addressing Excellence (Standards) and Inclusivity (Accessibility)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In rethinking concepts and redefining common terms in university music study, this \ndiscussion addresses issues that pertain to the place that community music has opened up in both undergraduate and graduate programs. With reference to the conference sub-theme of Tradition, Locality, and Cultural Identity we locate this within a university setting. Concepts that underpin cm principles and oriented in the notion of people, places, participation, inclusion and diversity (Higgins and Willingham, p. 4), are discussed as music for whom, by whom and with whom. Terms such as inclusivity and excellence are embedded within cultural norms and protocols. We claim that these concepts merit a fresh look and an updated, \ncurrent reframing. History shows that this is not necessarily a new challenge. The Cairo Congress of Arab Music, 1932, brought scholars and performers from throughout the Arabicspeaking world as well as European musicians including Béla Bartók and Paul Hindemith in the hope of acknowledging a relationship between European classical and Arabic music. While the Arab contingent chose to represent their traditions with ensembles, the Europeans chose musicologists, composers and solo performers. An agreement to recognize the interrelationships failed to occur, resulting in a schism between conservatory musics and intercultural community music (Bohlman). This examination of musical practices between two or more distinctly different cultures resulted in considerable documentation and \npublication, but little more in terms of ongoing practice and collaboration. Outcomes were not mobilized into practice. In examining boundaries and community, we seek to deepen the concept of inclusion to exceed the conditions of removing financial barriers or privileging solely musical expertise. In further thinking about inclusion/exclusion, we address aspects of procedural, structural, musical, social and leadership within the music for/by/with discussion. Within this framework, the question how can a curriculum that privileges Western European classical music be attractive to students whose desires for music learning are driven by the lives they have led in diverse and vital music traditions outside the Western canon? Where in our curriculum do students have opportunities to explore and experience the deeply social and cross-cultural valuing that music powerfully provides? As community music programs find homes in academies of higher education, institutions are adapting to non-traditional approaches in scholarship in the interest of utilizing relevant and practical strategies to support courses, programs and research. This presentation, reflecting on the theme of Life’s Journey Through Music, Partnerships and Social Cohesion, explores a \ncollaboration between two university programs in community music, one in Germany and the other in Canada. As the program coordinators who come from different learning cultures have found ways to work together and forge future plans much discussion has taken place most specifically on matters of research and teaching. Finally, we explore the demographics of participation; who is in and who is missing. Our goal is to strive for the ideal of always inclusive community and to identify the boundaries that inevitably emerge as a part of community construction.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,042 |
| Communication savante | 0,024 | 0,027 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,036 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».