Research about music education and democratisation

Many researchers have pointed to how a focus on democracy in music education may pave the way towards the inclusion of all children. Some even claim that music teachers and researchers have a responsibility to focus on the marginalised (Dyndahl, 2006;

Vestad, 2015). As I interpret the following quotation from Vestad, democratic music education and inclusion of all children are two sides of the same coin: every individual’s right to participation can only be achieved when every individual is included.

Democratic music education can be described as a form of music education in which everyone’s voice is heard, and inclusion is understood as a process that counteracts the marginalisation processes, and contributes to children’s participation in and sense of belonging to the social group. (Vestad, 2015, p.

171)

This argument implies that participation in arts education can lead to social improvement and is often used as a rationale for inclusion policies and practices in music education. One counterpoint to this claim of causality between participation in arts education and social improvement is that it is not easy to prove. This critique, according to the policy scholar Galloway (2009), might be valid, but it is not unique to participation in arts education; rather, the same difficulty in ascertaining a causal relation is a problem in various policy areas. As Galloway puts it, “definitive proof of causality is elusive” (Galloway, 2009, p. 17). Furthermore, Galloway encourages researchers to avoid a simplistic approach to causality and to consider the contextual complexities of the impact of participation in arts education.

The relation between participation in arts education and social impact has been investigated by a group of eight scholars (Sloboda et al., 2020) in a report on the initial phase of a research project. They have focused on musical projects with social impact as the main goal in the following countries: Belgium, Colombia, Finland and the UK.

For example, they examined an opera project in the UK in which homeless people perform with professional artists. Their results show a growing field of activities with a strong emphasis on access to culture, social inclusion and activism. Interestingly, Sloboda et al.’s results expose a common characteristic in all four countries: a “very high dependence on public funding, which is in turn dictated by government policy” (p.

135), which might indicate that politics and public policy have had a high level of influence on the growth in art projects with social impact as their main aim.

A connection between politics and music education practice has also been addressed by Kertz-Welzel (2020). Her take on the democratisation of music education encourages an approach that raises “awareness for the political dimensions of our work as music educators, globally and nationally” (p. 40). Kertz-Welzel’s arguments build on the notion that politics can influence cultural diversity in music education, which is one reason for engaging in political discourses about culture, music and education.

In the Nordic countries, participation in arts education is often connected to democratic rights to be included in society as a whole and in artistic and cultural activities in particular. Several different aspects of the democratisation of music education and inclusion of all children have recently been the focus of music education scholars in those countries. For example, Karlsen and Westerlund (2010), Hofvander Trulsson (2010) and Sæther (2014, 2016) have focused on cultural diversity, Bergman (2009), Björck (2011), Borgström-Källén (2014) and Kvarnhall (2015) on gender, Nilsson (2014) and Laes and Schmidt (2016) on disability, while Hofvander Trulsson et al. (2015) have turned to the digital revolution and Jordhus-Lier et. al (2021) have exposed included and marginalised music genres. Karlsen (2017) has noted that the field of music education practice is becoming more connected to equality policies. In a research review of the Nordic research field on art and music schools, Rønningen and colleagues (2019) have noted that the body of research about such schools with a focus on democracy and inclusion of all children has been increasing in recent years. Even outside the Nordic countries, inclusion of all children in music activities has been a topic for scholars such as Benedict et. al (2015), Hess (2015, 2019) and Schmidt and Colwell (2017).

Many researchers would probably agree with Georgii-Hemming and Kvarnhall (2015) that equality “concerns awareness of respect for different groups and cultures”

(p. 28). However, Hess (2014) problematises the concept of equality since it does not take into consideration different conditions for individuals or groups of individuals when purportedly giving the same opportunities to everyone. A better concept, according to her, is equity, which considers such differences in a way that leads to working for compensation when necessary (Hess, 2014).

The Finnish researchers Laes and Kallio have made a statement that I consider a summary of how music education, democracy and the inclusion of all children can and should be related:

The aim of inclusion cannot be to “accommodate”, “tolerate”, or “transform”

difference with the idea to reproduce harmony or consensus. Difference, and the equality of individuals – not in spite of, but because of – their differences, should be welcomed – regardless of whether or not the combination of these individual melodies, rhythms, meters, and timbres are always pleasing to the ear. (Laes &

Kallio, 2015, p. 80)

In their approach, the idea of a harmony where all differences are adapted to fit in is not the aim of inclusion. On the contrary, inclusion is to welcome all individuals and their differences. Building on Laes and Kallio’s (2015) approach, welcoming and including all individuals and their differences might be a productive way to democratise music education.

A democratic foundation consisting of equality is fundamental to music education, according to Georgii-Hemming and Kvarnhall (2015), and they it can be achieved by facilitating meetings between all kinds of people. According to the European Music School Union (2017a), Sweden already has this kind of democratic approach to music education to an even higher degree than the other Nordic countries. As an indication of that approach, the European Music School Union (2017a) points to the fact that 14 per cent of Sweden’s population under the age of 25 take music classes, leading the Nordic countries and surpassed in Europe only by Liechtenstein. I see a need to question which groups of pupils are included in those 14 per cent, and consequently to expose which groups of pupils are excluded. Another indication of that approach is the principle that every pupil’s musical development is stressed in the music curriculum for compulsory schools (Skolverket, 2011). As to SAMS, parents expect that system to be open to all because of the fact that the schools are publicly funded (Lilliedahl &

Georgii-Hemming, 2009). Both the goals and outcomes of the government-commissioned inquiry described in section 2.3 highlight the inclusion of all children and adolescents (SOU 2016:69). However, the inquiry takes a critical stance and problematises the democratic foundation of SAMS, pointing to the exclusion of certain groups of children and adolescents.

Recent research on the Swedish compulsory school context (Ahmed et al., 2020) has shown that potential pupils with an ADHD diagnosis are discriminated against by schools when parents apply for a place. The present study does not do a corresponding experimental study to evaluate whether this kind of discrimination is tangible at SAMS, but it has a similar focus when analysing the inclusion of certain groups of children and adolescents in SAMS through the perspectives of leaders and policy documents.

In order to counteract marginalisation and promote democracy, there is, in Foucault’s terms (1971/1993), a need to expose the repressed and excluded discourses.

However, this is not to say that counteracting marginalisation and promoting

positions of empowered groups are also challenged. Resistance, most probably from the empowered groups, is thus to be expected (Burr, 2015). Beyond the expected resistance, there is also always a risk that those actively working to counteract marginalisation and promote democracy contribute instead to “hierarchization, cultural appropriation, exoticization, stereotyping, and trauma”, as expressed by Hess (2019, p. 154). The approach that Hess encourages is useful when engaging with activism within music education: it is important to remain aware of these possible risks, and “how we address those ‘slips’ with students matters greatly” (p. 154). Inspired by what A. Persson (2003) has advocated sociologists to do, perhaps music education scholars should take a stand for the marginalised by working for their right to free themselves.

The several examples offered in this section have pointed to a growing field of research with a focus on the democratisation of music education. Across studies from different countries, it is possible to discern discursive formations around the ideas of inclusion of all children in arts and music education as a way to promote what has been stated in Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2021): children’s democratic rights to participate in society’s cultural and artistic life.

3. Discourse and policy theories in