21 Engaging in Policy-Making Through Community-Oriented Work

The Oxford Handbook of Community Music
Brydie-Leigh Bartleet (ed.), Lee Higgins (ed.)
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190219505.001.0001
Published: 2018 Online ISBN: 9780190219529 Print ISBN: 9780190219505
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34637/chapter/295104361 by OUP site access user on 25 February 2024

CHAPTER
21 Engaging in Policy-Making Through Community-

Oriented Work 
Patrick Schmidt
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190219505.013.30 Pages 403–420

Published: 05 February 2018
Abstract
This chapter argues that community-oriented work should be approached both as a contributor to, and
consumer of, policy-thinking and analysis, and would bene t from becoming more broadly
conceptualized as an agent within cultural policies, its study, and practice. It highlights the impact of
integrative approaches whereby working synergistically within various stakeholders and areas of
action we expand our chances to partner with purpose. The chapter suggests that in order to achieve
greater engagement with policy, individuals and organizations must focus on how to develop a framing
disposition—that is, the wherewithal (individual or organizational) to generate opportunities and put
innovative projects to practice.
Keywords: policy, community-oriented work, equity, framing disposition, community music, activism,
cultural policy
Subject: Ethnomusicology, Music
Series: Oxford Handbooks
Collection: Oxford Handbooks Online
Setting the conceptual context
THE fast developing in uence of community music and its relative legitimacy—exempli ed by this
Handbook—require that we both ‘take stock’ and suggest new avenues for the eld. The integrative outlook
to community-oriented work that I propose in this chapter aims to make a small contribution to the latter.
It borrows its lens from policy work, and thus implicitly claims that a closer relationship between
community music and policy-thinking can be bene cial to all involved. This chapter cannot address a full-
edged agenda for policy-thinking related to community music. It can, however, o er an entry point to the
entwined network of policy, and thus promote deliberations and future inquiry.
To this end in what follows I will delineate four notions. First, community-oriented work should be
approached both as a contributor to, and consumer of, policy-thinking and analysis, and would bene t from
becoming more broadly conceptualized as an agent within cultural policies, its study, and practice. Second,
while the work of community musicians remains at the epicentre of action, attention should be given to
organizations and their potential to serve as political and policy conduits for growth; to this end I will later
address the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as one example. This chapter highlights the
impact of integrative approaches whereby working synergistically within various stakeholders and areas of
action we expand our chances to partner with purpose, and consequently, build upon the geographical needs
and a ordances from whence programmes can be initiated and sustained, particularly given our

p. 404 understanding that geography can be a powerful element in e ective community engagement. Third, in
order to achieve greater engagement with policy, individuals and organizations must focus on how to
develop a framing disposition—that is, the wherewithal (individual or organizational) to generate
opportunities and put innovative projects to practice. Finally, all together this scenario delineates an activist
disposition for community music in the twenty- rst century, which in the words of Stuart Cunningham
(1992) works to ‘avoid a politics of status quo—a sophomoric version of civics’ precisely by focusing on the
‘well-springs of engagements with policy’ (p. 9). This is crucial in sustaining and expanding non-
normative spaces where music education can ourish, providing an education in, and through, music that is
equally concerned with aesthetics and equity, sound and interaction, skill and participant voice.
I contend that the merger of the four practices just outlined—policy-thinking, framing disposition,
geographic awareness, and activism—can help us address today’s market-compelled environment of
accountability and push back at it. Signi cantly, these practices can become leading dispositions towards
more diverse models of interaction with music-learning, music-making, and music-practicing that are
‘out-in-the-world’, as well as new roles for the community worker (Laes & Schmidt, 2016; Schmidt, 2014).
As the reader will see, the guiding bias in this chapter is that policy can, and must, be taken on as critical and
democratic work, and that such work is indispensable to any sustainable and meaningful community-
oriented work. But why policy, and what is the value of policy-thinking to a eld traditionally perceived to
be un-institutional, critical, and variant?
It is certainly not di cult to nd community workers, particularly those with critical dispositions, who tend
to see the policy sphere as ‘peopled with those inexpert and ungrounded in theory and history or those
wielding gross forms of political power for short-term ends’ (Cunningham, 1992, p. 9). To understand the
potential impact of approximating ourselves to policy, it is necessary that we engage di erently with what
policy means, and change ‘our command metaphors of resistance and opposition’ that ‘predispose us to
view the policy making process as inevitably compromised, incomplete and inadequate’ (Cunningham,
1992, p. 9). On the other hand, in order to abandon a purist (and misplaced) understanding of policy as
established rules and regulations yielded by the few, and come to see it as temporary signposts for the
actions of the many; we need new ways to talk about policy—and that has been a signi cant part of my work
and a through line in this chapter (Schmidt & Colwell, 2017). In summation then, I propose that allowing
ourselves to participate with policy can be bene cial because the complex, adaptable, and networked nature
of policy engagements are also central to community-oriented work. In other words, policy and community
work share far more than is commonly realized.
New politics for a new vision of policy engagement
If policy engagement has anything to o er to community music, it would be more integrated thinking and a
p. 405 clear stance upon which to take on an ethos of equivalency—which can be described as a symbiotic
relationship where community music educators construct practices that are aligned with broad social-
educative policy aims (Karraker & Grams, 2008). On one hand, this ethos is already visible, as the diverse
work that community music educators do does impact how music educators in general approach culturally
responsive practices, value social justice, develop contextually-based practices, and understand the
importance of being open to di erence. On the other hand, this ethos of equivalence asks for a better

balance between the realpolitik of ‘practical aims’ and up-surging critical discourses. The aim here is to
value pragmatic matters while supporting vision work that drowns out zero sum and simplistic discussions
about practice versus theory, or myopic quarrels on who has the right (read earned legitimacy) to claim
participation in community music. Here, in this pragmatic balance towards systemic ways to impact
cultural and educational thinking and action, the eld lacks.
I argue then that policy engagement might be an important way to foster what Angela McRobbie (1996) calls
a programme for change, which attempts to operationalize in a systemic way the disposition towards practice
critique and change that already exist within the community music eld. Policy engagement then can be
presented as both a disposition and another strategic way of thinking the eld. This would mean that
community music would place itself further a eld into cultural politics and cultural policy, justifying this
move in pragmatic terms, the establishment of a realpolitik that impacts cultural policy, as well as in
ideological terms, the recognition that cultural politics are a direct conduit to cultural rights.
While unaware of a similar framing within the community music literature, it seems patent to me that
cultural policy-thinking already permeates much of community music action. Consider for example that
while much of the academic music literature remains heavily concerned with the politics of heritage—the
selective preservation of a carefully curated cannon—community music, I would argue, generally situates
itself much closer to a progressive, cultural studies view where agency rather than quality is prioritized.
When placed in comparison with music educators working within schools, community music educators also
tend to me more aware of how, and understand the extent to which, ‘governments, unions, colleges, social
movements, community groups, and businesses aid, fund, control, promote, teach, and evaluate ‘creative’
persons’ (Lewis & Miller, 2003, p. 18). What community music work seems to indicate, even if the literature
does not yet clearly name it, is an understanding of how policy spheres impact our capacity to frame ideas
and actualize goals.
My argument for policy engagement then is predicated on the idea that ‘once we introduce notions of policy
[they] assists us in excavating the structures that push cultures in certain directions’ (Lewis & Miller, 2003,
p. 19), leading us to accept our own role in it, be it passive or active. In crude ways, the hope is that by talking
back to policy we become better integrated in its implementation and begin to see ourselves as policymakers.
As I see it this leads to an awareness of policy as a eld of action and provides a better understanding of how
policy discourses can be in uential. I argue that this understanding is essential for anyone doing
community-oriented work. Further, and perhaps as signi cantly, by looking at what is seemingly non-
p. 406 negotiable (written policy or law) and engaging with it at the local level, we often discover it to be
incomplete and porous, and in need of our input. In this process we come to ask ourselves what are the non-
negotiables of our own musical and educational endeavours, and in what ways can we establish
conversations that attempt to de ne such non-negotiables on the basis of clear and contextually based
criterion, rather than on a priori determinations, reverence to tradition, or structural inertia.
I argue that policy engagement is an agency-building project that does not compete with educational or
musical goals, but works symbiotically with them. In the next section I exemplify the notion of policy-
thinking as represented by the work of NGOs and argue that it shows an attainable balance between
activism, practice, and politics.
Non-governmental organizations as a collective space for action
I have written elsewhere that balancing the tension between macro and micro non-negotiables (for
example, between governmental or institutional conventions and communities or interpersonal relations)
are at the centre of the work of NGOs. NGOs function as a joiner between two existing, but insu ciently

capable, entities—namely, the State and private or communal enterprise. NGOs, therefore, have been
particularly successful in places where governments recognize the need for social welfare, or where industry
is signi cantly conscious or economically incentivized to work in tandem with social-cultural-educative
organizations (Schmidt, 2014). In simple terms, where adaptability is required, NGOs tend to be more
1
e cient than government and more civic-minded than corporations (United Nations [UN], 2010). NGOs
are an apt model for those interested in learning more about policy work.
NGOs can be easily recognized across the globe, as entities addressing social, communal, economic, and
educative needs of the citizenry (Gordenker & Weiss, 1995). They are present throughout the globe, but
particularly signi cant to the educational ecosystem of emergent nations and underserved communities.
There, NGOs function not only as a synergic force between communities and their members, but also, and
perhaps most importantly, as an impetus towards educational adaptation (Hikiji, 2006; Reiter, 2009;
Weiland, 2010). The elements that often characterize NGOs—the capacity to identify local needs, weigh
alternatives, develop vision, and adjust to contextual realities—can also serve as patterns to be used in other
structured educational organizations, providing inside-out change while attending to State mandates. In
other words, NGOs inhabit the tension between that which di erent parts of society and community claim
as non-negotiables.
The World Bank classi es NGOs as operational or advocacy based, the rst working to implement projects,
and the latter supporting a cause by in uencing policy. Mittman (1998) o ers six categories of NGOs: (1)
p. 407 relief and welfare, (2) technical innovation organizations, (3) public service contractors, (4) popular
development, (5) grassroots development organizations, and (6) advocacy groups and networks. Mittman
argues that they are ‘well-positioned to tap into local energies, utilize local capacities and provide an outlet
to accurately represent the needs and priorities of the communities in which they work’ (p. 2). Naturally,
critics are rightly concerned with misrepresentation and co-optation of communal interest, and warn
against the development of a myth, which attempts to sell the unlimited potential embedded in NGOs
(Schmale, 1993). Regardless of the de nition or one’s valuation of their work, NGOs are grounded in
adaptable and contextual work, and that is key for the argument developed in this chapter.
Also important here is the fact that NGOs are social-cultural-educative spaces that o er the means for
diverse educative practices and often foster alternative visions for democratic practices as educational ends
(see Bloch & Borges, 2002; Hailey & James, 2002). Furthermore, they could be proposed as a collective
representation of community music, but embedded with a framing disposition that comes out of constant
interaction with geographic awareness, policy savvy, and an activist disposition. Successful NGOs then are
de ned by the concept of partnering with purpose, which I introduced earlier, whereby geographical needs
and a ordances are carefully considered, and action is funneled through activism, a framing disposition, as
well as through clear policy considerations, both internal and external. Figure 21.1 delineates a visual
representation of this idea.
Figure 21.1
Non-integrative model of community oriented work.
Non-integrative model of community oriented work.
p. 408 What I would like to highlight from Figure 21.1 is the notion that community-oriented work often is, and can
be, further aware of, and engaged with, all four elements I presented earlier. Key to the argument I want to
introduce, however, is a revision of the representation and value of each of these elements—namely
geography awareness, activism, framing disposition, and policy engagement—as well as the roles they play

in community-oriented work. I contend that they can be approached within an ethos of equivalence, which
would require a more balanced distribution of their usage and value. As the model in Figure 21.1 suggests,
and as I will continue to argue in what follows, what I see in struggling NGO and community music work in
general is a dis-synchrony between all four elements. What I have observed (and continue to observe) is a
strong presence of geographic awareness where musical, cultural, and social (less so) contexts are the focus.
This is followed by a diminishing value given to dispositions/engagements with forms of activism, framing,
and policy work. I suggest that this imbalance leads to (1) diminished e ciency, (2) less cohesive advocacy,
and (3) weakened socio-cultural-educational impact.
My interest in concerted e orts towards this ethos of equivalence—where multiple stances are cohesively
driving strategy and practice—follows my experiences with over thirty NGOs in several parts of the globe.
During this time, I interacted with NGO structures that can serve as robust examples of how we may
‘challenge normative ways of looking at separations between local/global, micro/macro and
informal/formal’ (Yudice, 2003, p. 45). This ethos is also a more opportune and suitable representation of
the increasingly networked and complicated reality within which social and cultural work is developed
today. No matter where, what it asks of us is that we dedicate as much towards the socio-political
conditions of cultural/artistic work, as we have committed to informal or formal musical and teaching
practices.
While I acknowledge that forms of didactic knowledge are not unimportant, in terms of ‘educational,
political, cultural, aesthetic and economic everyday impact, their boundaries are [becoming] signi cantly
less meaningful’ (Schmidt, 2014, p. 45). The point here is that oating musical and teaching practices, those
that operate in the absence of the four elements outlined earlier, can easily become inconsequential and, at
times, contra-productive, particularly in relation to socially just educational action. This is an issue that
a ects us all, and one we should more actively discuss. The emerging concern then is that while innovative
cultural pedagogies require innovative environments within which to thrive, innovative environments
emerge only out of awareness of and concerted action to match the complexity of community contexts.
This emerging picture of the NGO and other community-oriented cultural work is already present in the
research and work of some community musicians (Bradley, 2009; Hallam et al., 2012; Higgins, 2007). By
placing music as a form of educational intervention, as well as a form of cultural capital development
(Wright, 2010), this work demonstrates, often without naming it, that policy engagement as I characterized
it here has a contribution to make to meaningful community action. Most signi cant to this new vision of
policy work is the notion of developing framing dispositions, to which I turn next.
p. 409
Framing dispositions or schemata for interpretation
Given today’s challenging educative contexts, community music educators can and must amplify their
critiques of practices and policies that generate misguided authority or dominance, especially those that
may ‘mark out children as di erent, as de cit, as objects of the o cial knowledge, and human silences of
policing and welfare’ (Luke, 1996, p. 36). Engaging with and developing a framing disposition—where voice
and creative agency are built from an informed understanding of contextual complexities—is thus a
professional right as well an ethical responsibility. Acting upon this right to frame, I argue, is what leads to
the ‘demand for a rights approach as a central component of policy action’ in education (Barton &

Armstrong, 2007, p. 6). The weight of a framing disposition, viewed as a critical and creative impetus for
informed action, is made manifest by the fact that the challenges NGOs and community arts workers face
are often, if not generally, linked to non-imaginative ways of approaching challenges. Just as Rietzschel,
Nijstad, and Stroebe (2007) have argued, unoriginal ideas—that is, those ‘mentioned very often, well-
known complaints about [learning], ideas that concern measures that have already been taken, or ideas that
involve only a minor change of the existing situation’ (p. 935) are pervasive, and present a serious
impediment to those interested in change.
A framing disposition for me is a ‘disposition towards unusual connections and a facility to engage with
unconventional concepts’ (Schmidt, 2013, p. 24). This, I believe, is an essential consciousness for educators
of all stripes, but particularly those in the arts. Later in this chapter, I suggest practical examples of how
such dispositions are taking place within community-oriented work in the United States, Finland, and
Brazil. What I believe can be seen in these examples is the idea that framing is predicated on adaptation and,
consequently, on a disposition towards constantly re-evaluating or re-framing. Thus, ‘framing capacity as I
see it, is not de ned as “schemata of interpretation” but rather “schemata for interpretation”; that is, a
creative disposition rather than simply a perceptual sorting skill’ (Schmidt, 2013, p. 27). I would say that
many of the NGO leaders with whom I interact share such a perspective. In fact, these leaders often link the
notion of framing with a capacity for empathy, which can be de ned as ‘involv[ing] actions of imagination
that are required to “grasp” the other’s inner consciousness—but not to take it as one’s own’ (Cross,
Laurence, & Rabinowitch, 2012, p. 340). A framing disposition is what leads one to value adaptability, and
much of the literature recognizes that community work relies and heavily depends on it. However, to be of
concrete use, a framing disposition is also dependent upon a clear understanding of the complexity within
any context. The import and impact of complex contexts, or what I am calling here geography, is explored
next.
p. 410
The role of geography in community-oriented work
The notion that socio-educative issues are fundamentally geographic remains an underexplored area in
music education. Regardless of the growing examination of place (Stau er, 2009), the interest in musical
realities of immigrants (Karlsen, 2014), the pedagogico-social possibilities of music in complex
environments such as refugee camps (Howell, 2011), or the economics of musicking in urban settings
(Lashua, 2013; Schmidt, 2011), geography remains under-theorized and methodologically under-surveyed.
It is not ‘new’, however, to argue alongside Adam Krims (2007) that music is an agent of spatiality and can
serve as a ‘unique location in a front of worldwide change’ (Krims, 2007, p. 32). What is more scarcely
argued, however, is that geography provides a rather more integrated frame from which to raise questions
of space and context.
Geography is the central concept against which all music is shaped. It is also a critical marker in the
formation of any community, and therefore, critical to community music explorations. The challenge is that
while space and context can serve as important tools in the formation of the schemata of interpretation
(outlined earlier), they also, and often, function as reactionary forces, establishing both the patterns of
recognition that are de nitional to communities, and also those that perniciously facilitate segregation and
conformity within them (Kahne, Westheimer, & King, 1996; Nancy, 1991). As a lens, geography is not
automatically more progressive, but it tends to work as a schemata for interpretation, and not of
interpretation. This means, for example, that to look at the geography of a musical practice is to rely on
networked and transient outlooks that see the individual and the music produced as one among several
constructs—such as economics, race, and politics—constantly establishing and restructuring social and
cultural life and thus directly impacting, if not shaping, that practice. The preoccupation that propels

investigation and action forward then is not just what questions are authentic to a given community, but
also the questions that are currently emergent, unasked, or those that diverge, as well as how they have
developed in the past and how they might develop in the future. In other words, when one attempts to
develop schemata for interpretation, one is attempting to understand the unfolding or the dislocation of a
community—that is, a community’s geography. A geographic outlook is therefore less anthropological—
interested in establishing key characteristics and core identities of communities; and more sociological—
interested in relations, processes, and negotiations that trace the movement of environments and their
communities.
What I call geographic awareness is then a critical tool in the production of meaningful interactions with
community music education, as is the process of policy engagement, and the strategic and adaptive work
that NGOs require. Central to this argument is that geographies are not static and simply space delineated,
but rather they are complex livable and living things, encompassing politics and economics, as well as social
and cultural relations. The ‘take away’ is that geographies are constantly drawn, expanded, and collapsed in
p. 411 the social and educational landscape, and it behooves us to be able to conceptually and pragmatically
actively join in their construction and disruption. Key then is to understand that ‘the richness or complexity
of our geographical experiences and consciousness is highly correlated to our capacity for conceptual
adaptation or inventiveness, and consequently impinges on the nature and quality of our actions’ (Schmidt,
2015).
The link that emerges between the notions of policy engagement, developing framing dispositions, and
geography, is that they can all actively contribute to the formation and enactment of in uence. Consider, for
example, that while relying on their framing dispositions, being more aware of geographic realities, and by
approximating policy to their daily work, several NGOs change the meaning of in uence, placing it beyond
the simplistic peddling of power. In uence becomes an example of schemata for interpretation, helping us
to recon gure our relationship with our eld of action, which means greater awareness of the complex
structures shaping the spaces where one works and potentially greater capacity to recognize and disrupt
their patterns of action—the proverbial ‘ways things are done’.
What follows are not a collection of exemplars but cases. The aim is simply to highlight the dispositions that
animate community-oriented work, the intellectual ethics they follow, and consequently the practices they
establish. This work follows the call delineated by Sutherland and DeNora (2012), where musical and
educational innovation can lead to participatory work as ‘a tool for social action’ (p. 77). They are also an
example of re exive processes that unfold into framing dispositions and thus become ‘a resource and tool for
managing and acting within situational incongruity’ (Sutherland & Denora, 2012, p. 83). The capacity to
address situational incongruity is central to the role I see for policy thinking and action. This means not
simply a capacity to be adaptable, but a realization that adaptation to complexity is a foundational element
and process within any community-oriented enterprise. This is the ‘truth’ I have found in the work of these
NGOs, and it is a key standpoint in the di erent approach I suggest we take towards policy engagement.
Enacting these ideas, however, go beyond the acceptance of its rhetoric and logic. It asks for an
understanding of and commitment to a certain level of activism as a force and factor. And that is the subject
to which we turn next.
Developing an activist disposition: Looking beyond the product
Conceptually, what I believe to be formative to the notion of activism is a problem-solving and problem-
posing disposition (Freire, 1970). Pragmatically, activism involves a disposition to understand, confront,
and address what Lindblom (1990) has called ‘agents of impairment’, such as dominant ideology, lack of

information, and bureaucratic restrictions, among others. Activism then comes to be de ned by a ‘what if’
p. 412 outlook. An activist disposition, or activism as I am articulating here, is not a position of radicality, not
even necessarily counter-culture work, but it is motivated, ethical, and imaginative. Further, and of
particular signi cance, this disposition depends on risk-taking and integration. In simple terms, it is a call
to a reengagement with leadership.
The shift I am suggesting is exempli ed in Figure 21.2, and presents a departure from strong reverence to
our ‘assumptive worlds’. Marshall and Mitchell (1991) argue that our assumptive worlds are basically
formed as insider information is delineated and operationalized by ‘exhibiting loyalty, avoiding trouble,
keeping con ict private, and avoiding unvalued work’ (p. 412). In many ways activism as I observed in
several NGOs and in much of community-oriented work (Laes & Schmidt, 2016) is based on a stance that
directly challenges—at times denying, at times expanding—the structuring behaviours that Marshall and
Mitchell (1991) tell us constitute assumptive worlds. To cite a few:
(1) Limit risk taking to small and nite projects
(2) Do not display divergent or challenging values
p. 413 (3) Remake policy quietly as a street-level bureaucrat
(4) Avoid moral dilemmas
(5) Make displays of commitment to the profession and sponsors
(6) Avoid getting a troublemaker label
(7) Cover and guard all areas in your job description (p. 413).
Figure 21.2
Integrated model for community oriented work.
Integrated model for community oriented work.
In contrast, the model suggested in Figure 21.2 establishes a di erent vision, a distinct ethics outline and
practice from the admittedly cynical outline developed by Marshall and Mitchell. The four areas, already
articulated exemplify elds of action (Bourdieu, 1999) that are of growing signi cance, and form the
complex milieu in which cultural and educational enterprises take place. These four elds of action intersect
with each other and these intersections demonstrate areas of development where thinking and action by
individuals and organizations takes form. So, for example, at the intersection of the elds named policy
engagement and framing disposition, we see the need for and the exertion of informed autonomy by those
working in NGOs. At the intersection between the geographical awareness eld (and all the contextual,
cultural, ethnic, and economic elements that it involves) and activism, we see the exertion of accountability
and appropriate representation. At the intersection between the policy engagement eld and geographical
awareness, we see a leading concern with the responsiveness of the constituents involved in one’s projects
and a penchant for better understanding their contexts, including their histories, possibilities, and
limitations.
What we start to see is that while the intersections appear to be two dimensional—a limitation of the
printed text—in reality a spherical relationship exists where all elds interact and sub-categories impact
one another. This does not imply that leadership, particularly individual leadership, requires skill in all these
areas. It does suggest, however, that participative leadership is on the rise and will be required to deliver
meaningful work within complex communities. Thus, accountability is not only generated by one’s concern

for the community-oriented work the individual will be developing in a particular geography.
Accountability is also impacted and moderated by analyses based on policy engagement, guided by an
informed autonomy, instituted via a framing disposition. Possibly, all this could also be in line with a
change management predicated by the individual or the organization’s activist stance. I do not claim that
this spherical complexity is functioning in its entirety all the time. I do o er, however, that awareness of
this sphericity is in place (Schmidt, 2009), even if tacitly, in several examples of community-oriented work,
including those I outline next.
Situating ideas via cases
I would like to suggest that the work of the International Contemporary Ensemble (ICE) is an interesting
p. 414 representation of the recent kind of responses that cultural communities and individuals have o ered to
the challenges articulated by Grams and Farrell’s (2003) critique that,
the success of big business in de ning the ‘national character’—through everything from
advertisement to investment in think-tank punditry—has created an image of the United States in
which public forms of culture are seen at best as irrelevant and at worst anathematic to the
nation’s self image. (p. 6)
It seems to me that in order to reclaim cultural work, particularly in the United States, groups or individuals
need to engage with the four elements outlined by this chapter—geography, framing disposition, activism,
and policy-thinking. ICE is therefore an interesting case in that the group is clearly aware of US cultural
geography. All its members, thirty-three at the time of this writing, have attended colleges where
community related work is not only secondary but at times understood to be contradictory to proper cultural
and artistic development. ICE work shows an a nity for, and attention to, recent cultural policy in the
United States, engaging with its language, and indeed nancing their own work by honing policy savvy and
advancing policy engagement with foundations and with government. Given that their work focuses on
creatively altering the aesthetic—performatic and environmental notions of how, where, and for whom
music is generated—they undoubtedly use adaptable skills that, I argue, spring from a level of comfort with
and internalization of a framing disposition. Lastly, as ICE has become more pre-eminent in the eld, its
choices have avoided commoditizing well-honed strategies and models. Rather, an activist temperament
seems to have emerged as a modus operandi where innovative dispositions towards the art form are
equivalent to dispositions towards the cultural politics that the ensemble seems to embody (see
http://iceorg.org); this is particularly evident in its community and educational e orts.
As mentioned earlier, the goal in introducing cases in three contexts is not to provide exemplars, but to
indicate how the integrative dispositions represented in Figure 21.2 are not only feasible but a signi cant
characteristic of innovative community-oriented cultural work. Thus, as one explores ICE’s projects,
experiences its performances, or engages in their collaborative and educational work, the idea of an ethos of
equivalency is clearly available. Claire Chase, the founder of the ensemble, explains the aim and rationale for
their ICELAB project as multifaceted, focusing at the same time on multiple directions. In one way the goal
is to generate new music; in another, it is to create di erent interactive spaces for the performance of said
music; and in yet another, it is to radicalize the process in which creation, interpretation, and consumption
of music are dealt with. Further still, the goal is also to develop critical and virtual dialogue, from which the
impetus for Digitice, a web-based platform for sharing music, ideas, and process seems to emerge. From an
US perspective, two elements seems quite signi cant. One, ICE is rede ning the link between ‘high art’ and
‘community work’, moving beyond traditional service approaches based on air drop practices. Two, it is
establishing an NGO structure, bridging the gap between private and government supported work. These
p. 415 elements clearly fall within the sub-categories one can see in Figure 21.2. For example, ICE’s activism

and framing disposition is clearly made manifest in their vision and how they manage change. At the same
time, ICE’s engagement with policy and grants is an example of how their framing capacity and policy-
thinking allows them to enact an informed autonomy.
The second case takes us to Brazil, where certain NGOs share the sensibility of some work done by ICE. With
a focus on socio-transformative work whereby music is one tool within a larger set of cultural and
educational goals, the Electrocooperativa in Bahia involved a distinct geography, but it was also, as ICE,
interested in pushing the conceptual boundaries of aesthetic docility. When I visited, Electrocooperativa was
engaged in policy-thinking that did not dismiss the economic impact of ‘creative economies’ (UN, 2010),
but instead was attempting to make this discourse concrete by addressing employment placement, cultural
development, education, and community work within their spheres of in uence. This is in line with
Brazilian cultural policy (Ministry of Culture and Education, 2012) that foments work that links symbolic,
economic, and civic aspects. This NGO understands that expanding organizational goals to include all three
areas (Senge, 2006) is key to making good on, and being funded by, these larger policies. Referring back to
Figure 21.2, we can see another way in which policy engagement and geographic awareness intersect,
creating contextualized analysis and responsiveness. As one of the directors pragmatically articulates:
For a fraction of my budget I can support a very important music program, but most importantly to
me, I can bring the a ective engagements that are so powerful in connecting with this underserved
population … a tool that otherwise I would not have at my disposal. (Schmidt, 2014, p. 45)
Several NGOs in Brazil are developing work that is aligned with an ethos of equivalency, where concern for
community is not only based on appropriate representation of need, but also on reciprocity. Here time is
spent not simply servicing a community, but producing valuable work together, and in the process hopefully
facilitating innovation and change for the NGO and the community. Community-oriented work then comes
to emphasize autonomy, building through agency, and adaptive accountability—a nal point of intersection
from Figure 21.2, now between activism and geographic awareness. Just as with the work of ICE, several
NGOs make the case that autonomy and accountability are co-dependent and not contradictory. The
autonomy NGOs display are kept functioning by internal accountability that addresses how, to whose
bene t, and towards what ends, the models operate. Flexible accountability is then seen as positive as it
supports autonomous behaviour that is not averted to risk—a disposition that in turn facilitates innovation
and asserts diversity.
At another quite distinct geography, but rather similar in tone, Finnish macro policy language outlines that
‘educational institutions [must] develop education for democracy’ where ‘instruction will include more
contents and procedures which foster participation, in uence, and the development of political and societal
p. 416 literacy’ (Ministry of Culture and Education, 2012, p. 12). What this policy seems to acknowledge is, as I
argued earlier, the extent to which educational engagement with culture in general and music in speci c,
remains heavily concerned with the politics of heritage. This policy hopes to move and expand this notion.
Community directed work o ers a clear pathway where without dismissing quality and/or tradition, choice is
emphasized. Naturally, the move from excellence to di erence is never just an innocent technical
calculation and requires critical practice and analysis. The outcome, in the words of Robert Dworkin (1985),
is the formation of a ‘rich cultural structure’ where di erence is supported.
Resonaari is a music school mainly o ering instruction to students with disabilities. The uniqueness here is
the activist manner in which its members have approached the geography of disability in Finland— ghting
the spatial oppression students with disability experience in light of absent or restrictive musical
opportunity. The activism of Resonaari could be said to begin by critically challenging the geographic
economy of music (and cultural productions) in a large city, Helsinki, where music is o ered in over 400
music schools, but where transformative musical spaces for disabled students was virtually nonexistent.

Resonaari’s exible co-teaching practices and use of multiple musical instruments have created a teaching
laboratory, wherein many music educators have learned and practised their metier, enabled by partnerships
and the school’s open-door policy. Resonaari, unlike other schools, has also invested heavily in researching
and documenting their innovative pedagogical e orts. The school has focused on practices that propel the
students’ musical agency inside and outside the school, sometimes in unexpected ways. A powerful example
of this is a punk band comprised of former Resonaari students with Down syndrome that gained
international success and is now the focus of the acclaimed documentary Punk Syndrome.
As with the two previous cases, Resonaari strives for alternative means to develop constantly adapting work.
This integrative disposition—linking policy, activism, geography, and framing disposition—is behind the
excellent educative opportunities created by their community work, as well as the convincing impact-
indicators that persuade governmental authorities and private funding alike. As important, this integrative
disposition is nding a meeting point with the policy discourse of the Finnish ministry, which has
established that ‘equal opportunity is realized when all, whatever their background, have the possibility to
pursue education without their background predetermining participation or learning outcome’ (Ministry of
Culture and Education, 2012, p. 10). This is what community-oriented work that is in synchrony with
policy-thinking and action looks like.
Conclusion
In this chapter I propose that policy can and should be seen as critical and democratic work, indispensable
to any sustainable and meaningful community-oriented work. Further still, I argue that policy engagement
is akin to, and an essential element in, community music. My goal is to highlight the fact that ‘through the
kind of extended community connections … [some] arts organizations are providing a reinvigorated form of
p. 417 civic leadership’ (Grams & Farrell, 2008, p. 5), and they push the conversation forward using policy-
thinking and action to articulate and demonstrate, clearly and emphatically, the impact and value of
community-oriented work.
This chapter also suggested that community-oriented work should be approached both as a contributor to,
and consumer of, policy-thinking and analysis, and would bene t from becoming more broadly
conceptualized as an agent within cultural policies, its study and practice. It raised the notion that while the
work of community musicians remains at the epicentre of action, attention should be given to organizations
and their potential to serve as political and policy conduits for growth. NGOs were used as examples. The
chapter highlighted the impact of integrative approaches whereby working synergistically within various
stakeholders and areas of action we expand our chances to partner with purpose, and consequently, build
upon the geographical needs and a ordances from whence programmes can be initiated and sustained—
particularly from an understanding that geography can be a powerful notion in e ective community
engagement. The chapter argued that in order to achieve greater engagement with policy, individuals and
organization must focus on how to develop a framing disposition—that is, the wherewithal (individual or
organizational) to generate opportunities and put innovative projects to practice. In closing, I proposed that
together this scenario delineates an activist disposition for community music in the twenty- rst century,
which in the words of Stuart Cunningham (1992) works to ‘avoid a politics of status quo—a sophomoric
version of civics’ precisely by focusing on the ‘well-springs of engagements with policy’ (p. 9).
A consequence of the work here articulated is the expansion of the role community workers would play, in
that ‘regardless of political realities and policy contingence’, they would be asked to act as
(1) leaders and content providers;
(2) re ective constructors of curriculum;

(3) innovative collaborators;
(4) community builders;
(5) continuous learners; and
(6) political communicators. (Schmidt & Robbins, 2011, p. 98)
This multiplicity is both a response to the adaptability needed to thrive in the complex environments
present in all community-oriented work today, as well as an expression of new needs and challenges in the
enactment of critical leadership. This is crucial in sustaining and expanding non-normative spaces where
community music education can ourish in meaningful and transformative ways.
Reflective questions
(1) Consider in what ways your own experiences in community-oriented work can be analysed or
p. 418 delineated from a framing disposition standpoint?
a. In what ways can the capacity to frame and structure an issue or action-set be a signi cant skill
to be developed by a community musician or community music educator?
b. In what ways might the development of a ‘framing disposition’ be akin to that of an

improvisational disposition?
(2) Look at the Integrated Model of Community-Oriented Work shown in the preceding and place your
work or the work of your organization within each of the intersecting elements/areas.
a. Are you taking in consideration an appropriate level of interaction between these elements?
b. If not, in what ways might you generate a new structure for action (workshop, programme)
where these factors are addressed?
c. Do you think that this more integrative model would amplify the impact of workshops or
programmes you may o er? And would participants bene t?
(3) Consider what your own de nitions are of activism. Now consider in what ways the notions of exible
accountability and risk-taking are part of your de nition?
a. Can activism that is balanced between these two notions serve to more aptly engage in ground-
level work, instead of being placed at rhetorical or ideological levels?
b. Could this pragmatic way of looking at activism also provide greater engagement with autonomy
and agency? For you? For participants in your programme or workshop?
See also the vast diversity of civic issues addressed by UNDEF projects at http://www.undemocracyfund.org.
Note
1.
References
Barton, L., & Armstrong, F. (2007). Disability, education and inclusion: Cross-cultural issues and dilemmas. In G. Albrecht,
K. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), The Handbook of Disability Studies (pp. 34–67). London: Sage.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC
Bloch, D., & Borges, N. (2002). Organizational learning in NGOs: An example of an intervention based on the work of Chris Argyris.
Development in Practice, 12(3), 461–472.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Bourdieu, P. (1999). The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Bradley, D. (2009). Oh, that magic feeling! Multicultural human subjectivity, community, and fascismʼs footprints. Philosophy of
Music Education Review, 17(1), 56–74.
Cross, I., Laurence, F., & Rabinowitch, T. (2012). Empathy and creativity in group musical practices: Toward a concept of empathic
creativity. In G. McPherson & G. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Music Education (Vol. 2, pp. 337–353). New York: Oxford
University Press.
p. 419 Cunningham, S. (1992). Framing Culture: Criticism and Policy in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Dworkin, R. (1985). A matter of Principle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Gordenker, L., & Weiss, T. (1995). NGO participation in the international policy process. Third World Quarterly, 16(3), 543–555.
Grams, D., & Farrell, B. (2003). Entering Cultural Communities: Diversity and Change in the Nonprofit Arts. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Grams, D., & Farrell, B. (2008). Entering Cultural Communities: Diversity and Change in the Nonprofit Arts. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Hailey, J., & James, R. (2002). Learning leaders: The key to learning organisations. Development in Practice, 12(3/4), 398–408.
Hallam, S., Creech, A., Varvarigou, M., & McQueen, H. (2012). Perceived benefits of active engagement with making music in
community settings. International Journal of Community Music, 5(2), 155–174.
Higgins, L. (2007). Acts of hospitality: The community in community music. Music Education Research, 9(2), 281–292.
Hikiji, R. (2006). A música e o risco: Ethnografia da performance de crianças e jovens. São Paulo: Edusp.
Howell, G. (2011). Do they know theyʼre composing: Music making and understanding among newly arrived immigrant and
refugee children. International Journal of Community Music, 4(1), 47–58.
Kahne, J., Westheimer, J., & King, S. K. (1996). Visions of community and education in a diverse society. Harvard Education
Review, 12(2), 234–239.
Karlsen, S. (2014). Exploring democracy: Nordic music teachersʼ approaches to the development of immigrant studentsʼ musical
agency. International Journal of Music Education: Research, 32(4), 422–436.

Karraker, D., & Grams, D. (2008). Partnering with purpose. In D. Grams & B. Farrell (Eds.), Entering Cultural Communities: Diversity
and Change in the Nonprofit Arts (pp. 91–113) New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Krims, A. (2007). Music and Urban Geography, New York: Routledge.

Laes, T., & Schmidt, P. (2016). Activism within music education: Working towards inclusion and policy change in the Finnish
music school context. British Journal of Music Education, 33(1), 5–23.
Lashua, B. (2013). Community music and urban leisure: The Liverpool One Project. International Journal of Community Music,
6(1), 235–251.
Lewis, J., & Miller, T., eds. (2003). Critical Cultural Policy Studies: A Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lindblom, C. (1990). Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Luke, A. (1996). Text and discourse in education. An introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research, 21, 3–47.
Marshall, C., & Mitchell, B. (1991). The assumptive worlds of fledgling administrators. Education and Urban Society, 23(4), 396–
415.
McRobbie, A. (1996). All the worldʼs a stage, screen, or magazine: When culture is the logic of late capitalism. Media, Culture, and
Society, 18(3), 335–342.
Ministry of Culture and Education (2012) Education and Research 2011–2016. A Development Plan. Reports of the Ministry of
Education and Culture, Finland, 3.
p. 420 Mittman, J. (1998). Building for the bottom up: A userʼs guide to the capacity building of local non-governmental organizations
(Masterʼs thesis), American University, Washington, DC.
Nancy, J. (1991). The Inoperative Community. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Reiter, B. (2009). Fighting exclusion with culture and art: Examples from Brazil. Journal of Social Work, 52(2), 155–166.
Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2007). Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: The e ects of
knowledge activation on the quantity and quality of ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 933–946.
Stau er, S. (2009). Placing curriculum in music. In T. Regelski & T. Gates (Eds.), Music Education for Changing Times (pp. 175–186).
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Schmale, M. (1993). The Role of Local Organization in Third World Development. Aldershot, UK: Avebury Press.
Schmidt, P., & Colwell, R. (2017). Policy and the Political Life of Music Education. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, P. (2015). The geography of music education: Establishing fields of action. In P. Burnard & J. Sodeman (Eds.), Music
Education and the Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge.
Schmidt, P. (2014). NGOs as a framework for an education in and through music: Is the Third Sector viable? International Journal
of Music Education, 32(1), 31–52.
Schmidt, P. (2013). Creativity as a complex practice: Developing a framing capacity in higher music education. In P. Burnard (Ed.),
Developing Creativities in Higher Music Education: International Perspectives and Practices (pp. 23–36). London: Routledge.
Schmidt, P. (2011). Music education in urban contexts: A redress. Action, Criticism, and Theory Journal, 10(1), 1–14.
Schmidt, P. (2009). Reinventing from within: Thinking spherically as a policy imperative in music education. Arts Education Policy
Review, 110(3), 39–47.
Schmidt, P., & Robbins, J. (2011). Looking backwards to reach forward: A strategic architecture for professional development in
music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(2), 95–103.
Senge, P. (2006). Presence: An Exploration of Profound Change in People, Organizations, and Society. Cambridge: Society for
Organizational Learning.
Sutherland, I., & Denora, T. (2012). Musical creativity as social agency: Composer Paul Hindemith. In D. Hargreaves, D. Miell, &
R. MacDonald (Eds.), Musical Imaginations: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Creativity, Performance, and Perception. New York:
Oxford University Press.
United Nations (2010). Human Settlements Programme. The challenge of Slums: Global report on human settlements (pp. 1–
309). United Nations—UN-Habitat.
Weiland, R. (2010). Relações entre projetos comunitarios e música na perspectiva de profissionais da área musical em Curitiba:
Algumas contribuições da psicologia social comunitária e da educação (PhD dissertation), Universidade Federal of Paraná,
Curitiba.
Wright, R., ed. (2010). Sociology and Music Education. London: Ashgate.
Yudice, G. (2003). The Expediency of Culture: Uses of Culture in the Global Era. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

21 Engaging in Policy-Making Through Community-Oriented Work

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

21 Engaging in Policy-Making Through Community-Oriented Work

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Oxford Handbook of Community Music

Brydie-Leigh Bartleet (ed.), Lee Higgins (ed.)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34637/chapter/295104361 by OUP site access user on 25 February 2024