Reflective Practice

International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives

ISSN: 1462-3943 (Print) 1470-1103 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crep20

On building a community of practice: reflective

narratives of academic learning and growth

Margaret S. Barrett , Julie Ballantyne , Scott Harrison & Nita Temmerman

To cite this article: Margaret S. Barrett , Julie Ballantyne , Scott Harrison & Nita Temmerman
(2009) On building a community of practice: reflective narratives of academic learning and growth,
Reflective Practice, 10:4, 403-416, DOI: 10.1080/14623940903138233

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940903138233

Published online: 17 Sep 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 380

View related articles

Citing articles: 12 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=crep20
Reflective Practice
Vol. 10, No. 4, September 2009, 403–416

On building a community of practice: reflective narratives of

academic learning and growth
Margaret S. Barretta*, Julie Ballantynea, Scott Harrisonb and Nita Temmermanc
a
School of Music, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia; bGriffith University,
Logan, Queensland, Australia; cUniversity of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia
Reflective
10.1080/14623940903138233
CREP_A_413996.sgm
1462-3943
Original
Taylor
402009
10
Prof.
Margaret.Barrett@utas.edu.au
00000September
MargaretBarrett
and
&Article
Francis
Practice
(print)/1470-1103
Francis2009 (online)

This paper traces the evolution of an academic community of practice and

identifies the individual and collective outcomes of participation for the members.
The impetus for the community was the joint development of a learning and
teaching project grant application that aimed to improve teacher education in
music curriculum, and the subsequent implementation of that project. The paper
draws on a range of data sources including individual reflective journals, audio-
records and transcriptions of meetings, email archives and discussion board posts
of the project team members. The purpose of the paper is to illuminate and
interrogate the processes and enabling conditions that supported the development
of this academic community of practice, and consider the implications for
academics.
Keywords: community of practice; reflective practice; higher education; music
education; collaboration

Dear Margaret,
I am interested in applying for a Carrick institute grant (national competitive learning
and teaching grant). The area that I was interested in exploring was the effectiveness of
teacher education programs in preparing teachers to teach music (following on from the
recommendations in the National Review of School Music Education). This would
follow on nicely from my PhD into this area, which focused on secondary teachers, but
is also relevant to work you have done with regard to the arts …
In terms of the grants, I believe this research could fit into funding priority number 1
in that it would
● Build on the national recommendations in the priority area of music education in iden-
tifying learning and teaching issues in teacher education that are impacting on music and
arts education in schools nationally
● Recommend strategies to address these issues, including curriculum development and
support for preservice and inservice teachers.
Would you be interested in being a researcher with me on this project? I know this is
a bit out of the blue, but it would certainly help my application to be working with some-
one who has previously been successful in competitive research grants in this area.
Best wishes,
Julie. (Email received 4.27 pm, Friday 3 March 2006)

*Corresponding author. Email: m.barrett@uq.edu.au

ISSN 1462-3943 print/ISSN 1470-1103 online

© 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14623940903138233
http://www.informaworld.com
404 M.S. Barrett et al.

Introduction
This paper traces the evolution of an academic community of practice. The impetus
for the community was the joint development of a learning and teaching project grant
application1 that aimed to improve teacher education in music. Underlying the
development aims of the project was a mutual concern from project team members to
combat the isolation that many music education academics experience in tertiary
environments, an isolation that is often reflected in the early teaching experiences of
graduates. Academic isolation is experienced by both Early Career academics
(Akerlind, 2005; Bazeley, 2003; Adams & Rytmeister, 2000), and those who are
more experienced (Mamtora, 2004). For those working in ‘specialist’ discipline
areas such as arts education or music education, the experience of isolation may be
exacerbated.
As academics working in music education at different institutions, we experience
isolation in our working contexts. Faculties and schools of education in Australia that
deliver courses in music education typically employ one full-time academic staff
member. Often, this individual is not only responsible for developing music curricula
but also for other creative arts including dance, drama and the visual arts. This practice
can be both physically and professionally isolating as the solo music education
academic becomes occupied with institutional priorities and local issues. Research
suggests that ways to address ‘barriers of isolation’ (Huling-Austin, 1990, p. 545)
include increasing communication and collaboration amongst academics across
universities (Kreber, 2000). Given the relative isolation of music education academics
within institutions, music education academics need to look beyond their institution
for collaborative opportunities.
The investigation of collaboration in higher education is a recent phenomenon
(Martin & Murphy, 2000). This paper traces the evolution of a cross-institutional
collaboration in higher education and the community of practice that emerged. The
paper draws on data sources including individual reflective journals, audio-records
and transcriptions of meetings, email archives and discussion board posts of the
project team members. Our purpose is to illuminate and interrogate the processes and
enabling conditions that supported the development of this academic community of
practice.

Out of the blue. An email. ‘Would you be interested in being a researcher with me on
this project?’ Hmmm, interesting. Who is this Julie person?

I remember sitting at my desk, late on a Friday afternoon, thinking about the idea. And
then being overtaken by something: a student, a colleague, a phone ringing or some
other vitally important piece of business that couldn’t possibly wait until after the long
week-end. And so, it was Julie who waited.

Late on a Thursday afternoon the following week, when every-one else had locked their
offices and left for the day, I sent a response; interested, but testing.

‘Would you see the focus on researching what is or perhaps developing a Participatory
action research approach on trialling some models?’

And so the team came together through a teleconference on a Friday afternoon in late
March, 2006; ready for action, interested in change, and willing to take the risk.
(Margaret, meta-reflection, June 2007)
 Reflective Practice 405

Theoretical framework: communities of practice

‘Communities of practice’ theory has informed the description and analysis of

the processes, practices and outcomes of professional learning and knowledge
development. Lave and Wenger’s work has underpinned the theorisation and opera-
tionalisation of communities of practice in educational settings. They describe a
community of practice as ‘… a set of relations among persons, activity and world,
over time and in relation with other tangential and overlapping communities of prac-
tice’ (2002, p. 115). This description nests a specific community of practice within
larger networks or ‘constellations of practices’ (Wenger, 1998), emphasising the fluid
and multi-dimensional nature of structure and involvement for all participants.
In other work the topic or practice that lies at the core of the community of practice
is the central concern. A community of practice consists of ‘… group(s) of people who
share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their
knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis’ (Wenger,
McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 4). Whilst communities of practice take a variety of
forms they are characterised by three fundamental elements ‘… a domain of knowl-
edge, which defines a set of issues; a community of people who care about this
domain; and the shared practice that they are developing to be effective in this
domain’ (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 27, emphasis in original).
Communities of practice are distinguished from other types of communities by
five key features: their purpose, the personnel, the nature of the boundaries, the cohe-
sive factor/s, and their longevity (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 42). The purpose of commu-
nities of practice is knowledge creation, management and exchange that benefits both
groups and individuals within a particular domain of knowledge. Communities of
practice are made up of individuals who self-select into the community on the basis of
‘expertise or passion for a topic’ (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 42). This ‘expertise or
passion’ becomes the cohesive factor for the community. The boundaries of the
community of practice are often blurred as participants self-select to move between
greater and lesser degrees of involvement within the community, and the longevity of
the community is linked to the continuing relevance of the practice to individuals and
the group, and their continuing ‘value and interest in learning together’ (Wenger et al.,
2002, p. 42).
Five stages in the life-cycle of a community of practice are identified, those of:
potential, coalescing, maturing, stewardship, and transformation (Wenger et al.,
2002). These stages are not fixed and immutable; rather, they are indicative of the
patterns of formation and transformation through which a community of practice
develops. In the potential stages, like-minded individuals who share similar issues and
concerns seek out each other to explore the possibilities of forming a community. The
community begins to coalesce as activities occur and preliminary plans are imple-
mented. As the community matures, a shared vision leads to the identification of
specific goals, standards, and established courses of action. Through this process the
community clarifies its focus, its role in the context of other communities of practice
(intersecting and overlapping), and its boundaries. During the period of stewardship
the activities of the community of practice may lose some momentum as the focus
becomes one of sustainability rather than one of continuing growth and development.
In this period membership and roles may change. Such changes may in turn transform
the community as individuals leave, others join, and the goals and directions of the
community are re-viewed and re-focused as a consequence of these changes. The
406 M.S. Barrett et al.

outcomes of transformative periods might include a renewed community of practice,

or the demise of the community of practice as its period of relevancy has reached a
conclusion.
In what follows we draw on these features and structures of communities of prac-
tice to reflect on our involvement in and development of an academic community of
practice in music education.

Context of the study: the ‘practice’

The study reported in this paper is nested in a larger project, ‘Bridging Gaps in Music
Teacher Education’ (Ballantyne, Harrison, Barrett, & Temmerman, 2006–2008).
This two-year project has developed and implemented an interactive web-based
learning environment, ‘Music Teachers OZ’ (http://www.musicteachersoz.org), that
engages students in ‘authentic’ problem-based learning (see Figure 1 for opening
page). The site provides pre-service teachers with access to five ‘rooms’ (project,
context, student, research, public) in which they participate in a range of collabora-
tive and independent learning tasks. The project room provides information about the
project, publications and resources for music education. The context room features
15 case studies of classroom teachers describing their teaching context and outlining
the challenges they face in implementing a music program. The student room
provides pre-service teachers with access to discussion boards, a reflective journal,
dreaming room, project wiki, and an online chat room to investigate and solve the
teaching ‘problems’ observed in the context room. Academics can meet in the
research room for online discussions and reflection, whilst the public room provides
opportunities for music educators nationally and internationally to interact with the
project.
Figure 1. Music Teachers OZ interactive website opening page (2006–2008).

Figure 1. Music Teachers OZ interactive website opening page (2006–2008).

 Reflective Practice 407

Music teacher educators from four institutions (Griffith University, University of

Tasmania, University of Southern Queensland and Charles Sturt University) have
incorporated this teaching innovation into pre-service music teacher education course-
work for both specialist and generalist primary students. The pilot implementation
occurred in Semester 1, 2007 at the University of Tasmania. Feedback from this pilot
resulted in minor changes to the course-work implementation, before implementation
in pre-service teacher education courses at Universities of Southern Queensland,
Griffith, and Charles Sturt.2
On-going evaluation indicates that the approach has been beneficial for both pre-
service teachers and the teacher educator implementers. Outcomes for pre-service
teachers include student reports of increased confidence in their capacity, interest and
ability to implement music education in their future teaching practice. Students value
the opportunity to interact with pre-service colleagues in other institutions and to
consider other contexts, systems, and approaches to music education. For the teacher
educators, the opportunities to interact purposefully with colleagues in other institu-
tions, share teaching and learning theories and practices, and access other resources,
have been reported as outcomes.
As the project has developed we have begun to consider the nature and structure
of our collaboration across the institutions in which we work, the factors that have
facilitated and constrained its development, and its future(s). Consequently, we have
documented throughout the project our reflections on these issues. The guiding
questions for these reflections are:

(1) What are the characteristic features of this community of practice?

(2) What are the outcomes of participation in this community of practice?

Research design and methodology

To address these questions a qualitative approach incorporating a range of data gener-
ation methods (Brannen, 2005; Cresswell, 2003) was employed. Data generation
methods included the maintenance of email logs, recordings and transcriptions of
meetings and online discussions, individual reflections, and meta-reflections. The
latter utilise critical reflection practices – individually and in groups. Engagement in
reflection enhances awareness of one’s personal practical knowledge and can lead to
transformative learning (Settelmaier, 2007), and contribute to the development of the
community of practice. Our interest in the unfolding story of this community of prac-
tice has been explored through employing a narrative approach to data analysis and
presentation (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Dawson, 2007).

Participants
At the commencement of the project we were four academics based in four different
institutions in Australia, each with expertise in different areas of music education and
academic work. Two of us, as Early Career academics (Ballantyne and Harrison),
brought a mix of recent school and current tertiary music education teaching and
research experience to the project. Two of us, as experienced academics, brought
knowledge in higher education program development (Temmerman), design, imple-
mentation and evaluation of inquiry in research (Barrett), rich understandings of
408 M.S. Barrett et al.

music education as it is practised in school, youth arts, and informal settings, and
strong organisational and mentoring skills to the project. The project provided an
opportunity for four academics who might not otherwise have had occasion to work
together, to create and foster a community of practice. In that process we were able
also to create a large pool of new ideas and access individually and collectively the
emergent community’s narrative knowledge (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Whilst we
started the project at four different institutions within the first year of the project, two
of us had moved to take up new positions, resulting in two academics located at
Griffith, one at University of Southern Queensland, and one at University of
Tasmania; an apt illustration for us of the need for flexibility in the ways in which
communities of practice need to accommodate continual change within their
structures and processes3.

Data generation methods and techniques

Simultaneous and sequential data generation has ensured a broad spectrum of data are
available for analysis. The project grant application development occurred through
email and teleconference communication, with the first face-to-face meeting occur-
ring in September 2006. The aim of this meeting was to finalise the design of the
curriculum model and the implementation strategy of the project. Subsequent meet-
ings usually had one or more team members connecting by telephone. These meetings
were followed by summarising emails. Meeting discussions were initially recorded,
documented, and summarised as a formal record of decision-making. Email logs were
kept of all email interactions. Simultaneously, we began to record individual written
reflections, drawing on discussion notes, email logs, and meeting transcriptions. Ten
months into the project (June 2007) we met face to face to review this body of data.
To summarise, data generation included:

● Individual reflection: We each reflected on thoughts and feelings in relation

to the project’s progression, our perceptions of emerging patterns, alterations
of position of self within the group, and potential areas for improvement
throughout the development and implementation of the project (Fish & Twinn,
1997).
● Email logs: Records of email communication have proven to be a rich source of
data, and analysis of this form of communication has allowed further insight into
the developing community of practice.
● Online discussions: Online discussions support interactions among the team to
facilitate the exchange of knowledge and ideas (Maier, 2004; Turban, Leidner,
McLean, & Wetherbe, 2006). The use of online discussions has allowed us to
work together independently from time and location (Maier, 2004). All online
discussions have been transcribed and therefore represent another set of data.
● Meta-reflections: Ten months into the project (June 2007), we each reviewed all
reflections and our contributions to the project (recorded in transcribed discus-
sions, email and online discussions). We each then wrote a further extended
reflection, with the intention of providing a summary of our perceptions of the
beginning of the project and the nature of the collaboration up to that point in
time. These were then shared at the face-to-face meeting. Through joint discus-
sion and analysis of these meta-reflections, themes and ideas emerged and
informed the on-going in-depth analysis of all data.
 Reflective Practice 409

● Final reflection: A final reflection took place in November 2007, in a face-to-

face meeting, where we discussed the learning that had occurred in terms of
collaboration over the course of the project.

Analysis
Data analysis has been on-going. During the meta-reflection process all written
individual reflections were shared and discussed. During the discussion it emerged
that the theoretical frame of communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 2002; Wenger,
1998; Wenger et al., 2002) provided a powerful lens through which the experience of
academic collaboration could be understood. The written individual reflections were
subsequently re-visited against this theoretical frame to develop a narrative about the
emerging peer collaboration experienced in this project.

A domain of knowledge
Music education is the domain of knowledge at the centre of this project. A crucial
component of the first face-to-face meeting of the group (September 2006) was a
sharing of perspectives that individuals held about this domain. This was important as
prior to this project we had not worked as a group; indeed, some of us had not met.
Whilst we were aware of each other through our respective publications, and had
developed a working acquaintance through the grant application process via email and
teleconference exchange, there was some residual uncertainty amongst us individually
and collectively concerning the degree of coherence in our philosophical views.

I recall we spent some time in that first meeting engaging in a ‘no holds barred’ sharing
of our philosophical beliefs about the purposes of music education, and identifying those
theories and practices that we felt were stifling the profession’s growth, relevance, and
viability. It was surprising, but perhaps not so, to find that we held mutual beliefs about
the purposes of music education, valued similar practices, and identified similar
outcomes as the goal of music education in schools and tertiary settings. The ‘getting-to-
know you’ features of that meeting revolved around who we were as music educators, as
professionals, as learners and teachers.

We discussed the outlines of those units in our respective courses that might provide the
trial context for the project. This process led us to consider collectively what was ‘worth-
while’ putting into an introductory course for teacher education generalist primary
students, what would whet students’ appetite for further engagement with music as
learner, as teacher, as person… I have a strong recollection of being comfortable with
the views and values that were expressed in the group – of the valuing of student
constructions of music, of music learning experiences that were formal and informal, of
the need to ground music education in the students’ communities of home, school, the
local, and the global. (Margaret, meta-reflection, June 2007)

Sharing our perspectives on music and music education was perhaps the most important
part of our initial discussions. There were great synergies in the team regarding our
understandings of what constituted ‘useful’ music education in a pre-service course. We
all agreed on getting students involved in music making experiences that connected to
the real world of music participation. We noted that some practices in music education
tend to hinder such motivation among pre-service teachers – for example an over-
emphasis on music writing, and playing recorders did not enable students to feel
confident in their ability to teach music as generalist teachers. We agreed that music
teacher education should be constructivist, should be linked with the community, and
410 M.S. Barrett et al.

should be available and accessible by all students (not just the musically talented). We
also agreed on the importance of having realistic problem-based learning that established
links between general education and other areas in teacher education. We came up with
the main framework of our approach at our first meeting, and this has not deviated
significantly since then. (Julie, meta-reflection, June 2007)

In these meta-reflections the early stages of the life-cycle of a community of

practice are evidenced, specifically potential and coalescing, as similar issues,
concerns, and viewpoints are shared, and the first actions of the community are
outlined. Through the processes of identifying common issues, beliefs, and values,
and being prepared to speak openly and honestly, the nature of the collaborative
relationship of the team took shape early on.
I came armed and prepared but we cut straight to the core of what we were all on about
– to improve teacher preparation, to support each other in this mission and to gather the
momentum to draw others along with us. How refreshing! (Scott, meta-reflection, June
2007)

A community of people who care about this domain

As the opening meta-reflection from Margaret suggests, the impetus for the commu-
nity was an email contact initiated by Julie in March 2006, putting forth an idea for a
grant application, and seeking expressions of interest. Yet, that idea had a history
within the project team.
The notion of formalising a research proposal around this topic is something that I recall
talking with Julie and later with Julie and Scott about, at music education conferences a
couple of years prior to our actual Carrick project commencing.

So for me, I had been in some respects collaborating informally with 2 key players for a
few years and was very familiar with Margaret’s work although had not had an opportu-
nity to collaborate with her on any projects.

There was quite a bit of reflection and associated discussion on the current state of play
around Australia based on the National Review of School Music Education along with
sharing of findings into school music education that emanated from commissioned
reports, doctoral studies and the like and again the theme of isolation featured. This time
in relation to the effort and resources that had been attributed to improving school music
education, which appeared to replicate effort rather than result in broad-scale, real
improved outcomes. (Nita, meta-reflection, June 2007)
The impetus for the project was significant as its ‘practice’ and ‘domain’ resonated
with larger educational, social and political developments in music education. The
project and grant application sought to address a specific problem that held ramifica-
tions for intersecting and overlapping communities of practice (Nita, meta-reflection).
This is also evident in Scott’s initial recollections of project beginnings.
My earliest recollections are from a conference in September 2004 when I can recall
hearing papers by Nita, Julie [and others]. The initial attraction was not necessarily the
subject matter, but recognising that these people were switched-on in their academic
lives as teachers, administrators, researchers. As an impressionable Early Career
academic three months into my appointment at Griffith University, I was impressed!
(Scott, meta-reflection, June 2007)
All members of the community of practice hold expertise in and are passionate
about the topic (music education), and are committed to further learning and
 Reflective Practice 411

development of the domain. These elements are reflected in Wenger et al.’s (2002)
account of the characteristic features of community of practice members, and are
evidenced in Julie’s reflections on the initial prompting for her email contact.
I wanted to learn from others, and so (together with Scott) I asked Nita and Margaret to
be involved in the project. I remember being so nervous about contacting these senior
academics that I wrote and re-wrote the introductory email about 5 times, and just before
I called them I was shaking and sweating! I remember the enormous relief that I felt
when they were interested in talking to us. I was so grateful that they both had put time
and effort into reading my initial (unformed) ideas, and giving insightful, useful
comments. (Julie, meta-reflection, June 2007)
As the membership of the project team was confirmed, email contacts were
supplemented by teleconferences in which the project and the grant application took
shape, and the identity and working processes of the team began to emerge.
That first teleconference was surprising on many levels. Surprising in the speed with
which the group moved into the key issues; surprising in the ways in which individuals
were willing to share points of view that were disruptive of the status quo; and, surpris-
ing in the ways in which a project about professional isolation and academic mentoring
took shape as four individuals who did not know each other well, if at all, began to work
together. (Margaret, meta-reflection, June 2007)
The surprise element for me when we first commenced our collaboration, was how
immediately we clicked as a group and engaged with the key goals i.e. commenced work
on the substantive issues, rather than having to spend time getting to know each other as
professionals, even though it was a first time meet for Margaret with Scott and Julie. All
four project participants were well versed in each other’s publications and it was very
quickly obvious, that although coming with diverse expertise and backgrounds, there
was immense synergy in our philosophical stance. The first face-to-face meeting also
included very forthright and robust discussion about how that diversity of expertise was
a strength and what each player anticipated that would bring to the project.
Another positive acknowledged by all four was the isolation we each had and/or
continued to face in our work environment, due to being the only music educator on a
campus or within a faculty and how rich an opportunity the project provided us in terms
of a productive four way partnership (which would soon grow via introduction of the
implementers and reference groups). (Nita, meta-reflection, June 2007)
The success of the grant application, announced in August 2006, provided us with
our first opportunity to meet face to face (September 2006). It was in that meeting,
conducted over two days, that we began the important work of implementing the
project, further developed a common understanding of music education, and estab-
lished our individual and collective interest in and care for the domain of music
education. Through this process the community of practice began to mature as
specific goals and activities were implemented.
The proposal was really a result of our combined ideas emerging from our common
interests in music teacher education, and although talking on telephones from four differ-
ent parts of Australia was difficult – talking on the phone was far more productive than
simply emailing. When we were successful with the grant application, it was time to
begin enacting what we had envisaged, and this meant a face-to-face meeting.
Meeting up face-to-face was even more productive and exciting than meeting on the
phone. As I reflected in October 2006:

‘We seemed to be talking along the same lines right from the very beginning. And it
wasn’t exactly what I expected necessarily, I thought we might end up there. But we
412 M.S. Barrett et al.

started at a point further along from where I expected that we would start philosophically
which was really exciting for me as an Early Career academic, hearing other people
expressing thoughts that – I thought I was the only one that was actually thinking those
sorts of things.

Because I know that … as an Early Career academic … I feel like I found some people
who philosophically I match with and who are looking at teaching and research in a simi-
lar way to me in terms of it being constructive, linking with the community, having prob-
lem based learning and letting all students have access to that sort of music education.
That sort of synergy that I’ve found is really important for me and I’m looking forward
to working with all of you’. (Julie, meta-reflection, June 2007)

The shared practice

The shared practice of this community of practice is the ‘Music Teachers OZ’
interactive web-based learning site (Ballantyne, Barrett, Temmerman, Harrison, &
Meissner, 2009). As we work to ensure the site’s use and dissemination (see account
of study context above) we are entering a period of stewardship, as we consolidate
developments and work to ensure the sustainability of the project beyond its initial
period of implementation. We envisage that as others take on this practice, the nature
and extent of our involvement in this particular practice will change. In that process
the shared practice may transform as new members enter the community and take on
roles within the community.

Overall, I am happy about the way the project has progressed so far. The very positive
feedback from people outside the group has been particularly encouraging. If what we
are doing is useful to academics, teachers and students, then we are achieving our
outcomes even earlier than we thought we would.

I know that being involved collaboratively with the four members in this group has been
really valuable for me. I think we manage to inspire one another, and keep each other on
track, even beyond the scope of the project. All of the other three members of the team
have had conversations with me since the beginning of the project offering advice on
career choices, research approaches and contacts that have been invaluable. I hope that
once the project settles down into its implementation stage, we can move forward with
other ideas, which will produce benefits for the profession as a whole. (Julie, meta-
reflection, June 2007)

My own role within the group has changed. When I started, I was approached by Julie
as an expert in the field with international standing; and as someone who Julie had turned
to for academic mentoring a few years earlier (a role which I thoroughly enjoyed). By
end of 2006 I had secured a new senior role at USQ. The latter entailed a geographical
relocation and as a result a shift in university involvement in the implementation phase
away from Deakin University to Charles Sturt University in NSW… Personally, it is a
real struggle for me to devote the time and energy to the project – even in terms of reflec-
tive thinking and development work, that had been possible up until beginning of 2007.
I think Scott put it nicely when he said (and I paraphrase), we all contribute in different
ways and different volumes at different times depending on our circumstances. This was
much appreciated. (Nita, meta-reflection, June 2007)

Outcomes of participation in a community of practice

An outcome of participation in this community of practice has been the addressing of
a problem that initiated the project: academic isolation. Through the project we have
increased our knowledge individually and collectively of the resources and strengths
 Reflective Practice 413

within the team, and can and have drawn on these in other contexts and for other
purposes.

There are times when working on the project has been hard work – making decisions
about the project and more recently writing papers with four (sometimes 5) people
involved. This is the reality check about working in a true collaboration – all these expe-
riences potentially contribute to our data. We are stronger because of our diversity and
the hard work is worth it because we have such a strong corporate sense of conviction
about the project and what it can achieve. (Scott, meta-reflection, June 2007)

Our experience has been one of ‘complementary collaboration’ (John-Steiner,

2000), where each team member has brought skills and attributes to the project that
have complemented those of others. Importantly there are some shared qualities of
interaction that have helped the team cohere:

Thinking on what has been achieved in the ten months since the project funding was
announced, that initial ‘dreaming’ has been realised in a ‘product’ that has far exceeded
my hopes and expectations. How have we done this?

Honesty: no grandstanding by any individual, no cover-ups about what can be done,

should be done or hasn’t been done. Trust: to say outrageous things knowing that others
will go past the ‘outrage’ to identify the possibility of the idea at the core. Pragmatism:
a blunt recognition of what is possible, and what is not possible, a recognition that
doesn’t stifle and stop discussion but rather, leads to other possibilities. Generosity: each
member of the team ‘gives’. Importantly, it is recognised by all that each gives different
things at different times, that there is no need to ‘check’ if things have been ‘fair’. Learn-
ing: I’ve learnt an enormous amount from this project, and that learning has been from
team members, from students, from the case-study teachers, and from the public
responses. I suspect that rich learning has been a feature for all the project team
members. There is a mutual respect and willingness to listen to others’ viewpoints.
Importantly, everybody is a contributor and wants to do something for music education,
rather than just for themselves – everybody wants to make a change – and that’s very
attractive. (Margaret, meta-reflection, June 2007)

Our experience has also been one of adapting to change, and looking to the
potential benefits of these changes as our community of practice has evolved:

Our first face-to-face meeting (on reflection, our only face-to-face meeting to that
point, several months into our initial coming together) made tangible the learning
community we were becoming. We were all eager to get the project under way having
had some two months elapse since the successful announcement. We were also slightly
at odds as to what the project might ‘look like’ – who would be involved, at what insti-
tutions, and in what capacities. To complicate matters Nita’s professional life was
transforming as she changed jobs, states, and professional identities, and I was aware
that an imminent change in my professional role would shape the ways in which I
would contribute to the project. On reflection, change has been a constant in the way
the project has progressed: Julie too has changed jobs and institutions; the original part-
ner institutions have changed; and, the implementation personnel around the project
have changed. Perhaps the responsiveness of the team individually and collectively to
change is one of the features that helps this learning community cohere? (Margaret,
meta-reflection, June 2007)

A unique aspect of this project has been the bringing together of Early Career and
experienced academics. In a reversal of the usual roles and patterns of mentoring, it is
an Early Career academic who has led this project from its inception. The collabora-
tion has evolved with each team member taking on different roles – including ‘leader’,
414 M.S. Barrett et al.

‘writer’, ‘ideas generator’, ‘implementer’ and ‘evaluator’. Leadership has been

distributed through the group with each member taking leadership in different phases,
taking ‘the initiative to explore new territory’ (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 36).

[I] came to this very much as a learner myself and for me it’s a process of being mentored
and learning then to become – and it’s about that process of becoming and I think it’s
becoming a collaborator and learning to play in the sandpit. (Scott, meta-reflection, June
2007)

Concluding comments: ‘learning to be brave’…

We have provided an account of the development of a community of practice. Whilst
our experience resonates with that of other communities of practice, there are some
features that are perhaps unusual. Key amongst these is that the ‘germ of an idea’ that
started the community was presented by an Early Career Researcher. ‘Getting a foot
on the academic ladder’ has been described as a ‘daunting prospect’ (Tynan & Garbett,
2007, p. 411) for Early Career Researchers. Early Career Researchers find themselves
in a vulnerable space where, without mentoring or encouragement, embarking on
research proves difficult (2007, p. 412). Collaboration is one means by which those
initial steps towards developing a research portfolio might be taken. Often Early
Career Researchers collaborate with other Early Career Researchers, seeking to work
with those who share similar experiences, knowledge and expertise. From our experi-
ence we would encourage Early Career Researchers to ‘be brave’: to seek out more
experienced academics to work in an ‘horizontal’ rather than ‘hierarchical’ (Bond &
Thompson, 1996) collaboration where Early Career and experienced researchers work
on an equal basis. Through such collaborations unexpected learnings may occur:

It’s things that I didn’t expect, like learning how to manage grants, how to apply for
grants, what are the key things. Even the encouragement … and the fact that we can just
spend time meeting. There’s a kind of almost like the tacit exchange stuff that takes
place, but again is not necessarily articulated. (Scott, reflection, November 2007)

For me there is a lot of learning to be had … [it] might not actually relate to the project
at all, but it might relate to [understanding] what does it mean to go ‘up the tree’ in
academia; and what does it mean to work collaboratively with people from different
institutions, at different levels. (Julie, reflection, November 2007)

Thinking about our collaboration through the lens of communities of practice has
illustrated the strengths of complementary collaborations, and the potential these hold
for developing transformative change within a domain of practice.

what I’m trying to say here is ‘be brave’ to ECRs [Early Career Researchers]. Encourage
them to go out and approach others. To experienced academics – I say trust those with
less experience to bring something worthwhile to the project and to take the leadership.
Be prepared to step back, to let go, to be the support right from the beginning. (Julie,
meta-reflection, June 2007)

Acknowledgements
Support for this project has been provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council
(formerly the Carrick Institute of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education), an initiative of
the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
 Reflective Practice 415

The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Learn-
ing and Teaching Council.
We thank Ellen Meissner and Susanne Garvis for their work as research assistants in this
project.

Notes
1. ‘Bridging Gaps in Music Teacher Education’ (Ballantyne, Harrison, Barrett, & Temmer-
man, 2006–2008). Grant awarded by the Carrick Institute of Learning and Teaching in
Higher Education.
2. In Australia, music teacher education occurs in a number of guises. In some institutions, it
occurs within general ‘arts’ education courses, and in others, it takes place in a stand-alone
course. The project provided a context by which these diverse approaches could utilise a
curriculum resource that encouraged dialogue between academic and student participants
(please see Ballantyne et al., 2009, for further information on this project).
3. Subsequent to the submission of this paper two academics have moved from the University
of Tasmania and Griffith University respectively to the School of Music at the University
of Queensland.

Notes on contributors
Margaret Barrett is Professor and Head of the School of Music at The University of Queens-
land. Her research interests include the developmental psychology of music, aesthetics, and the
pedagogy of creative thought and practice. She is an editor of Research Studies in Music
Education, and an associate editor of Psychology of Music. She has published extensively in
the key journals and monographs of the discipline. She is a former national president of the
Australian Society for Music Education, a commissioner for the Research Commission of the
International Society for Music Education, an elected board member to the International
Society for Music Education, and Chair of the Asia–Pacific Symposium for Music Education
Research. Recent publications include Narrative inquiry in music education: Troubling
certainty, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Publications (with Sandra Stauffer).

Julie Ballantyne is a Senior Lecturer in music education and Director of Learning and Teaching
in the School of Music at the University of Queensland. She has conducted and published
research in the areas of teacher education, social inclusion and the social and psychological
benefits of musical engagement. Julie is on the editorial board of the International Journal of
Music Education, and is the Secretary of the Asia–Pacific Symposium for Music Education
Research.

Dr Scott Harrison is Lecturer in Music and Music Education at Griffith University, with teach-
ing and research commitments across the Faculty of Education and Queensland Conservato-
rium. He leads the Music Education and Training team at the Queensland Conservatorium
Research Centre where his research interests include music teacher education and the music/
health interface. He has also published and presented extensively in the field of masculinities
and music. Scott is current President of the Australian National Association of Teachers of
Singing.

Professor Nita Temmerman is Pro Vice Chancellor Academic Quality and Dean of Education
at the University of Southern Queensland. Nita’s research/scholarship in Arts Education is
exemplified by: over 80 publications in refereed international and national journals, books and
conferences; numerous citations; invitations to serve as guest lecturer/consultant in arts educa-
tion nationally and internationally; active participation in University research groupings; a
term as National Secretary of the Australian Association of Research in Music Education; and
editorial board membership of the International Journal of Research in Education, Interna-
tional Journal of Music Education and the Australian Journal of Music Education. She was the
Australian Council for Deans of Education representative on the National Review of Music
Education Steering Committee (2006).
416 M.S. Barrett et al.

References
Adams, M., & Rytmeister, C. (2000). Beginning the academic career: How can it best be
supported in the changing university climate? In Flexible learning for a flexible society.
Conference proceedings of the Australian Society for Education Technology and Higher
Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, University of Southern
Queensland, July 2–5. http://www.ascilite.org.au/aset-archives/confs/aset-herdsa2000/
procs/adams.html.
Akerlind, G. (2005). Post doctoral researchers’ roles, functions and career prospects. Higher
Education Research and Development, 24(1), 21–40.
Ballantyne, J., Barrett, M., Temmerman, N., Harrison, S., & Meissner, E. (2009). Music
Teachers Oz Online: A new approach to school–university collaboration in teacher educa-
tion. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 10(6). Retrieved March 10, 2009,
from http://www.ijea.org/v10n6/
Bazeley, P. (2003). Defining ‘early career’ in research. Higher Education, 45(3), 257–279.
Bond, C., & Thompson, B. (1996). Collaborating in research. HERDSA Green Guide No. 19.
Canberra: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.
Brannen, J. (2005). Mixed methods research: A discussion paper. Economic and Social
Research Council National Centre for Research Methods. London: University of London
Institute of Education.
Connelly, F.M., & Clandinin, D.J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry.
Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2–14.
Cresswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches. London: Sage.
Davenport, T.H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organisations manage what
they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Dawson, V. (2007). Exploring students’ learning experiences through narrative tales. In P.C.
Taylor & J. Wallace (Eds.), Contemporary qualitative research: Exemplars for science
and mathematics educators (pp. 83–91). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Fish, D., & Twinn, S. (1997). Quality clinical supervision in the health care professions.
Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Huling-Austin, L. (1990). Teacher induction programs and internships. In W. Robert Houston
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 535–548). New York: Macmillan.
John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kreber, C. (2000). How university teaching award winners conceptualise academic work: Some
further thoughts on the meaning of scholarship. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 61–78.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2002). Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice.
In R. Harrison, F. Reeve, A. Hanson, & J. Clarke (Eds.), Supporting lifelong learning. Vol
1: Perspectives on learning (pp. 111–126). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Maier, R. (2004). Knowledge management systems: information and communication technol-
ogies for knowledge management. Berlin: Springer.
Mamtora, J. (2004). Pacific academics and the Internet. Australian Academic and Research
Libraries, 31(1), 35–52.
Martin, J., & Murphy, S. (2000). Building a better bridge: Creating effective partnerships
between academic and student affairs. Washington, DC: National Association of Student
Personnel Administration.
Settelmaier, E. (2007). Excavating a researcher’s moral sensitivities: An autobiographical
research approach. In P.C. Taylor & J. Wallace (Eds.), Contemporary qualitative research:
Exemplars for science and mathematics educators (pp. 175–188). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer.
Turban, E., Leidner, D.E., McLean, E.R., & Wetherbe, J.C. Information technology for
management: Transforming organisations in the digital economy. Hoboken: Wiley.
Tynan, B.R., & Garbett, D.L. (2007). Negotiating the university research culture: Collaborative
voices of new academics. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(4), 411–424.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.