Community Music in Higher Education : Addressing Excellence (Standards) and Inclusivity (Accessibility)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.036 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".