Music education and democratisation

As described in chapter 1, the concept of democracy is applied in this thesis following Woodford (2005), with a focus on individuals’ opportunities to develop their capacity and participate in society. More specifically, the concept of democracy is connected to every child’s democratic right to music education, in line with both music education research (Georgii-Hemming & Kvarnhall, 2015; Laes & Kallio, 2015; Vestad, 2015) and international and national policies regarding cultural and educational rights (Myndigheten för kulturanalys, 2021; OECD, 2017; Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2021; Regeringskansliet, 2020; UNHCR, 2021; United Nations, 2021a, 2021b). The policy processes in focus for this thesis involve the democratisation of music education through SAMS, which have the potential to contribute to every child’s and adolescent’s right to culture and education, as they can be considered to operate at the intersection between education and culture, following Mulcahy’s (2017)

is not based on a proven causality between arts education and social improvement but on the perspective of cultural and educational rights. Causality in the field of arts education is generally difficult to prove (Galloway, 2009), but cultural and educational rights are assured by policies on different levels and explored in music education research.

The leaders’ engagement in the policy processes can be analysed through the concepts of policy cycle (Ball, 1994), policy enactment theory (Braun et al., 2010) and contemporary approaches to policy making (Schmidt, 2012, 2017). SAMS leaders are engaged in the national policy process and influence the other contexts in the policy cycle. This approach aligns with a contemporary approach to policy making and policy enactment theory; policy is already being enacted by the leaders during the ongoing process for a national policy for SAMS and in relation to the contextual complexities of each school and municipality. However, traditional views of policy making are also noticeable in the results, in a way that aligns with earlier and more structuralist conceptions of policy processes, such as those described by Lasswell (1956), Anderson (1975), Jenkins (1978), May and Wildavsky (1978) and Brewer and deLeon (1983).

The traditional views of policy making can be connected to the tension between freedom and regulation, which is in line with the views of policy implementation as challenging (Schwartz, 1994; Tivenius, 2008). These results show the complexity of the enactment of policies as constituted within and through SAMS leaders’ discursive practices.

Applying Foucault’s (1976/2002, 1980) concept of power/knowledge, it is interesting to look at two tension fields from Article I: number four (regulation versus freedom) and number five (informal norms versus curriculum implementation). In a Foucauldian sense, there are always power relations regulating what is possible to say, think and act, and such power relations are present even when there is apparent freedom. Considering the concept of power/knowledge, informal norms regulate what is possible to say, think and act, even if there is no official curriculum to be followed, which needs to be considered in any argument for freedom.

The boundaries of normality discussed by Foucault (1961/2010) and Ball (2013) shed important light on this discussion of the results. The normality discourse in Article II works to demarcate normality with clear boundaries. Such a discourse contributes to the construction of some pupils as the ones that SAMS can include and others as in need of care and not possible to include in SAMS. The discourse can contribute to a legitimation of exclusionary practices as necessity, as the only possibility. As recommended in Article II, that discourse needs to be challenged. Discourses, ruled as they are by the exercise of power, shape opinions, thoughts, actions and statements (Lindgren, 2006) and can even make some statements and thoughts impossible to conceive (Ball, 2013; Foucault, 1971/1993). When a discourse is revealed and what is

taken for granted is defined as a constructed regime of truth (Foucault, 1971/1993) rather than a natural truth, resistance and subject agency can become possible. The idea of multicentric inclusion connects to an activist approach towards the end of exclusion, or towards new ways of thinking of and constructing normality, as Ball (2013) indicates when he argues for the inclusive potential of policies. The concept of multicentric inclusion is coined and applied in the analyses in Article II; it is also put to use in Articles III and IV.

The results in Article III show how new target groups are discursively constructed in policies and practices and how problematisation processes (Ball, 2013; Foucault, 1999) construct topics and subject positions. The inclusion of refugees is problematised in policy documents and in the focus group conversations with the leaders. When described in policy documents and in the leaders’ talk, this target group is discursively constructed in different ways, as subjects with agency or as objects for inclusion policies and in need of care and concern. Such constructions have consequences for the inclusion or exclusion of this group, which might compromise their cultural and educational rights and the processes of democratising music education. The analyses of how terminology in relation to inclusion of refugees is conceptualised by SAMS leaders and policy documents show how the different discursive formations around the concepts of refugees, newly arrived and those with immigrant background might have consequences for viewing the children as subjects with agency capacity or as objects for inclusion policies.

In Article IV, the results show collaboration is a central theme legitimised by contextual complexities and economic, market-driven and inclusionary aspects. Adding a Foucauldian perspective to the analyses of the article reveals that there are several discourses at play: a collaboration discourse, a market discourse, an economic discourse and an inclusion discourse. The collaboration discourse is the overarching discourse, constructed through and within the other discourses at play. The collaboration discourse challenges the notion of a sharp separation between the SAMS discourse and the compulsory school discourse. In line with a Foucauldian analysis, the arguments of the leaders can be interpreted as ways of legitimising their subject positionings. When arguing for collaboration, the leaders take different subject positions, namely: (1) as employers when arguing for their own employees, (2) as “leaders for learning” when arguing for the pupils, (3) as work partners when arguing for how compulsory schools benefit from collaborating with SAMS, (4) as politically engaged individuals when arguing for inclusion and diversity, (5) as managers when arguing for protecting their own schools and (6) as policy workers when using their framing capacity to connect different levels of policy. The different subject positions become available through the collaboration discourse and at the same time contribute to the discursive formations

be connected to the tension field between management discourse versus leadership for learning discourse in Article I. The management discourse exposed connects to Jeppsson (2020), who has pointed out that the economic field influences the work of SAMS leaders. The importance of the economic field is interesting in relation to the policy practice of the leaders. While discursively shaped, the policy practice is also shaped by economic and material conditions.

The dominant position of the collaboration discourse is partly explained by the contextual complexities of sparsely populated areas in Sweden. These areas are more prominent in Article IV, which is based on three focus group conversations, than in Article I, which is based on only two. The market-driven and economic discourses connect to two tension fields from Article I: number 1 (between financial versus educational accountability) and number 2 (between management discourse and leadership for learning discourse).

In Articles I and II, rhetorical strategies are identified as ways of legitimising certain positionings. The analyses from the four articles show how problematisations occur discursively and how they construct subjects and topics. On the basis of all four articles, it can be concluded that SAMS need to embrace a multicentric view on inclusion to work for the democratisation of music education.

Drawing on the four articles, I can state that the discourses of innovation and inclusion are dominant, even though, as my analyses have exposed, they are struggling with other dominant discourses like the normalisation discourse. The discourse of innovation is in line with research based on leadership perspectives (Jeppsson, 2020;

Rønningen, 2019). The discourses of innovation, inclusion and collaboration constitute and are constituted by leadership positioning in relation to policy processes for the democratisation of music education. The normalisation discourse can be interpreted as a discourse of exclusion. Some groups of children and adolescents are constructed as those outside the limits of normality, in line with what Foucault exposed (1961/2010). Such constructions have an impact on the policy processes and on the enactment of policies, as Ball has explained (2013).

Politically, historically and conceptually, some individuals and groups of individuals have been considered to belong to society while others have been regarded as not belonging (Foucault, 1961/2010, 1974/2004). The results and conclusions from the four articles point to the presence of similar discourses of inclusion and exclusion, where the normality discourse includes certain groups of individuals even as it excludes others.

The concept of multicentric inclusion (Di Lorenzo Tillborg, 2019a) offers a way to problematise narrow notions of inclusion and demarcations of the limits of normality.

6.1.1. Accomplishments and social utility

Taking into consideration Vlachou’s (2004) call to “begin to consider the pathologies of schools that enable or disable students” (p. 7), this thesis contributes to the exposition of policies and policy practices that can enable or disable students and shows how the lack of inclusion policies can disable potential pupils and the SAMS themselves. The lack of inclusion policies constitutes and is constituted by discourses of exclusion. The thesis aligns with Vlachou (2004) as to how inclusivity priorities sometimes are considered an extra burden by schools. The results presented in the four articles are an example of how education for social justice might, in accordance with Ball (2008), be the most complex policy agenda we can confront as teachers, leaders, parents or citizens, particularly when we consider that “policy discourses work to privilege certain ideas and topics and speakers and exclude others” (p. 5).

The national policy process for SAMS has thus far resulted in centralisation to a certain extent. For instance, there has been a centre for SAMS as part of the Swedish Arts Council since 2018 (Kulturrådet, 2020), and there a new teacher training programme was launched at six Swedish higher education institutions in 2019.¹³ In Article II, I refer to the teacher training courses as a new education degree specific for SAMS (Di Lorenzo Tillborg, 2019a), but this is a simplified picture. The new teacher training courses do not lead to a teaching degree; they lead to a certificate when 90 ECT have been achieved, with the option of complementing that work with more courses. Both the new SAMS centre and the teacher training courses can be viewed as attempts to contribute to a process of democratising music education and arts education. One example of the role of the SAMS centre (Kulturrådet, 2020) in relation to such processes is that they are responsible for distributing grants that SAMS can apply for to reach out to new target groups or to work for the inclusion of pupils with disabilities, amongst other purposes. The new teacher training courses also share the rationale that SAMS need to be accessible to new target groups (Prop. 2017/18:164).

The courses add to the diverse field of music teacher education that has been reported elsewhere (Sæther & Di Lorenzo Tillborg, 2019).

The SAMS system remains a highly decentralised or loosely coupled system (Weick, 1976), as described in Article I. As part of the national inquiry (SOU 2016:69), there was a recommendation for a new evaluation after a few years to analyse the need for a mandatory national policy. For a new policy to be mandatory, a legal framework would be necessary. As articulated in both the focus group conversations and the policy

13 The six institutions that offer the new teacher training programme (in Swedish

Kulturskolepedagogutbildningen) are Lund University, Gothenburg University, Stockholm University, Stockholm University of the Arts, Umeå University and University College of Music Education in

documents analysed in the present study, such a legal framework could be developed in a similar way to the national legal framework for the libraries, which states that each municipality must have at least one library. For SAMS, the legal framework could state that every municipality needs to finance a SAMS, possibly in collaboration with one or more municipalities. A legal framework as a foundation for SAMS would make it possible to enact mandatory inclusion policies that could help fulfil the potential of SAMS to contribute to democracy in the sense of Woodford (2005) and more specifically to the democratic rights to culture and education that have been defended in research (Georgii-Hemming & Kvarnhall, 2015; Laes & Kallio, 2015; Vestad, 2015) and in policies (Myndigheten för kulturanalys, 2021; OECD, 2017; Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2021; Regeringskansliet, 2020; United Nations, 2021a, 2021b; UNHCR, 2021). A national policy for SAMS has been advocated by Holmberg (2010) in order to enforce teachers’ legitimacy. I would add to that advocating for a legal framework to promote inclusion, to ensure the democratisation of music education and to fulfil the democratic potential of SAMS.

The tensions between the inclusion discourse, which enforces the multicentric inclusion of all children and adolescents, and the specialisation discourse, which enforces the improvement of a few children’s special skills, can be fruitfully analysed in relation to the historical development of SAMS. The discourses represent the two main aims in the creation of SAMS as music schools in the 1930s and 1940s. The goal of providing music schools for all children, regardless of economic background (Brändström & Wiklund, 1995) corresponds to the multicentric inclusion discourse.

The aim of preparing new local and professional musicians (Svenska kommunförbundet, 1984) corresponds to the specialisation discourse. Such tensions also connect to the antagonist discourses of breadth and depth revealed in previous research (Björk et al., 2018; Holmberg, 2010; Jordhus-Lier, 2018). Jordhus-Lier (2018) found that the breadth discourse was dominant in policy documents, while the depth discourse was dominant amongst teachers. In this thesis, the corresponding antagonistic discourses appear in the focus group conversations with the leaders. The results therefore confirm that these historical contrasting aims remain relevant for SAMS. The multicentric inclusion discourse is one of the discourses of inclusion constituting and constituted by leadership positioning. The specialisation discourse is a discourse of exclusion constituting another possibility for leadership positioning and constituted by that positioning.

By reconnecting to the history of SAMS, we can try to question what has been imposed as “truths” in a Foucauldian sense (Foucault, 1971/1993). The point here, inspired by Ball (2013), is to look at the connections between the present and the past, to question such connections, to make discourses of exclusion unacceptable and to reject a future in line with such discourses. It is no longer possible to see the cultural

rights and artistic development of children with disabilities and refugee children as a matter for specialists or as an extra burden. It is within the scope of SAMS, publicly funded institutions at the intersection between education and culture, that all children’s cultural rights need to be secured.

Gergen’s (2015) first question, “what do you want to accomplish?” can be answered as follows. Naturally, I wanted to accomplish the aims of the research project. I have critically investigated SAMS discourses connected to policy processes for the democratisation of music education for all children and adolescents, and the present analyses have contributed to knowledge on the development and enactment of policy processes for the democratisation of music education. With respect to the overall research questions, I have exposed discourses of inclusion and exclusion, how the enactment of policies is constituted within and through SAMS leaders’ discursive practices and how the inclusion of all children is constituted within and through SAMS leaders’ discursive practices and policy documents with relevance for SAMS.

Gergen’s (2015) second question is “what is the social utility of this accomplishment?” This research study can contribute to SAMS inclusion policies and practices and lead to the inclusion of diverse groups of pupils, including individuals with disabilities and refugees. When exposing discourses of inclusion and exclusion, established ways of thinking and speaking about groups of pupils can be challenged and new ways of thinking made possible. By doing so, this study can contribute to the development of sustainable societies, where the democratic right to culture and the right to arts education are secured.