Schippers and Bartleet

459

teaching studios, hospitals, halls, clubs, and temples. We visited local councils and community
centers to gather documentation about the broader communities surrounding the music activities
we were studying. The research also went beyond the more formalized interviews and observa-
tions; we shared many coffees, post-rehearsal drinks, as well as family meals with participants in
some of the communities. As ethnography is a method that is about forming relationships, these
interactions were obviously significant, but could never be exactly reproduced; as such, each com-
munity case study was subtly different (see Behar, 1996). Likewise, the research team also differed
slightly from trip to trip, with different team members participating. However, Bartleet attended
each fieldwork visit to ensure a consistency of approach.

The nine domains of community music in Australia

Given the fact that each of the six case studies was selected to represent a very different set of
circumstances and environments, many of the characteristics of the community music activities
observed were unique to their specific participants, facilitators, sites, contexts, aims, and infra-
structure. However, there were also strongly shared underlying similarities between the activities
as the data analysis progressed. Key characteristics of community music, critical success factors
and challenges were observed across three major areas: structures and practicalities; people and
personnel; and practice and pedagogy. These in turn covered distinct domains: ‘structures and
practicalities’ encompassed infrastructure, organization and visibility; ‘people and personnel’ rela-
tionship to place, social engagement and support/networking; and ‘practice and pedagogy’ dynamic
music-making, engaging pedagogy/facilitation, and links to school.
It gradually became clear that these nine domains were present (in varying degrees) in all com-
munity music activities observed, and indeed in the research team’s experience and recollection of
such projects across the world: Infrastructure; Organization; Visibility and public relations;
Relationship to place; Social engagement; Support and networking; Dynamic music-making;
Engaging pedagogy and facilitation; and Links to school (see Figure 1). This may well constitute
the most significant outcome of Sound Links.
As it represents the first community music research project juxtaposing six widely different
practices examined through a single methodology, the research team has been able to draw com-
parisons that were hitherto difficult or even impossible to make. Therefore, the nine domains may
well mark a significant advance in understanding the workings of most community music activities
from an international perspective. It achieves this without forcing normative behavior or entailing
value judgments; the framework of nine domains merely represents a demonstrably effective
instrument to describe and gauge community music activities in and between settings, as we will
try to demonstrate on the following pages.
These domains came to life across the case studies – some clearly observable, others more
intangible. In Domain 1 (Infrastructure), it became clear that with a building that can be used flex-
ibly in terms of accessibility, time and space can be a major positive force on the success of com-
munity music activities. However, health and safety regulations (and the accompanying liability
insurance requirements) may constitute a major threat for many small-scale community music
activities. In Domain 2 (Organization), the most strikingly consistent factor in successful projects
appeared to be the presence of an inspired individual. This individual works with the community
to create and realize a vision of a vibrant musical community, often against considerable odds. In
terms of organizational structure, the success of projects seems to depend on keeping middle
ground between too loose (with communication and planning falling apart) and too rigid (with the
risk of no longer being responsive to the changing needs of the community).
460 International Journal of Music Education 31(4)

Figure 1.  Nine domains of community music.

Schippers and Bartleet 461

In Domain 3 (Visibility/PR), the skill in involving local press was a striking feature observed in
many projects. Often less successful was creating continuous visibility for the activities (beyond
public performances). As they often occur in alternating, affordable, multipurpose spaces, it is dif-
ficult to create a permanent public face such as many sports possess: everybody knows where the
tennis courts are in their area, but few can identify the centre for community music activities.
Place-making is an important factor in Domain 4 (Relationship to place). This was crucial in
celebrating the relationship to country in remote Indigenous communities, but can also be a strong
factor in changing perceptions of low self-esteem for a socially disadvantaged suburb. Dispersed
activities or participants may be a major challenge to creating and sustaining a sense of community.
Domain 5 (Social engagement) was widely considered to be at the heart of many community music
activities; inclusion is one of the most widely upheld values, extending to those at the margins of
society. While laudable, this breadth also paradoxically entails the risk of exclusion; of losing con-
nection with others in the community on the basis of ethnic background, learning ambitions, or
cultural tastes. While some initiatives operated relatively independently, there are many examples
where Domain 6 (Support/networking) is highly developed in relation to local councils, and even
police, fire brigades and hospitals. Links to the local ‘for profit’ business sector (whether music
dealer or butcher) tended to be less developed.
The concept of Dynamic music-making (Domain 7) was found to be central to virtually all
activities described in this article, referring to non-reproductive, customized activities for each
specific group of people, their skills and their ambitions. As mentioned elsewhere, this may be less
of a reality due to the fact that facilitators are only human: they may steer musical activities in
particular directions, working with a specific ‘box of tricks,’ or specific music as ‘one-size fits all’
(which may be referred to as ‘the samba effect,’ by which widely different groups working with a
specific facilitator mysteriously all ‘choose’ samba as their preferred form of expression) (cf.
Higgins, 2008, p. 65).
As in most community music settings, the participants have no long-term contract or obligation
to participate (unlike music learners in education or in conservatoires), Engaging pedagogy/facili-
tation (Domain 8) is crucial. According to the situation, there may be a need for strict didactic
instruction, or facilitation of peer learning. The tension between producing an attractive perfor-
mance for an audience and following the dynamics of the natural development of the participants
(product or process) may present challenges, which are usually negotiated and resolved between
participants and facilitator. Finally, the Links to school (Domain 9) was largely realized by activi-
ties in the same building after school, ‘borrowing’ pedagogical strategies, or even as part of the
curriculum. In many cases, however, such synergies were barely explored due to different cultures
(real or perceived) of organization and divergent approaches to learning and teaching; an area that
requires and deserves considerable attention.

The presence of the nine domains in the case studies

To illustrate the validity of this framework, the presence and vitality of the nine domains were rated
by the research team on a scale from ‘not observed’ to ‘very prominent’ for each case study. In
themselves, these are not indicators of quality or success; they merely serve to indicate that any
specific domain seems to play a more or less significant role in a particular activity or organization
in different levels of prominence, depending on the context. The weighting of their prominence has
been sketched according the researchers observations from their week of fieldwork in each com-
munity, as well as materials collected before, during and after the Sound Links fieldwork, including
documentation, websites, reports, interview materials, observations, and a range of other field
resources. The characteristics specified in each domain may play a positive or a negative role in the