5. Main findings
6.1. Music educators’ collaborative learning in critical intercultural educational
21st-cen-tury globalizing music education. As a starting point, this dissertation work began with the view that globalizing music education encompasses the individual, insti-tutional, and global dimensions as equally relevant layers. Therefore, I will discuss this PAR process from the point of view of music educators’ individual professional development, music teacher education institutions, and the broader music education scholarship. The issue of politics is incorporated into the discussion on all levels. I will conclude the chapter by offering my vision for a 21st-century globalizing music education.
6.1. Music educators’ collaborative learning in critical intercultural educational development work
“I don’t have any of my familiar surroundings… I am in a vacuum far from my own life and have to learn everything from the beginning. I have to challenge all my earlier thoughts, there is no other option. In this work, we are all learn-ing from each other. I just have to keep on challenglearn-ing my own thinklearn-ing and keep on learning.” (Team discussion, March 2016, researcher)
As discussed in Chapter 2, this inquiry has been constructed on views that call for expanding the notions of music teachers’ professional learning from musical and in-strumental skills towards an ethically engaged professionalism (see, Allsup & Wester-lund, 2012; Bowman, 2010; WesterWester-lund, 2006) that enables teacher educators to pre-pare their students to work in rapidly changing teaching and learning environments.
A particular focus of this inquiry has been to support the participating educators in their efforts to occupy the process of learning through practitioner-research and
be-coming active producers of knowledge (see, Burnard, 2016; Colwell, 2010; Gaunt &
Westerlund, 2013b). The collaborative learning that took place in the intercultural music educator group has offered a site for exploring how intercultural features might intensify the process of learning to encourage attitudinal professional development (Sachs, 2015), a process which incorporates societal aspects and inherently addresses the politics that frame our practices (ibid). The specific platform for this process was the Teachers Pedagogical Studies (TPS) program, where the contents of the studies fostered individual teacher knowledge, judgement, and insight (see, Kennedy, 2016), moving beyond a limited focus on technical classroom practices.
The four NMC teachers’ commitment to pursue comprehensive studies based on the Finnish teacher education ideals, albeit the studies were tailor-made to support ed-ucational development at NMC, provided a fruitful platform for reciprocal learning between the Nepali and Finnish music educators. However, the setting also gener-ated multifaceted ethical and political questions about the use and abuse of power, as illustrated in Articles I and III. This critical perspective also begs the question of whether the environment of the Teachers Pedagogical Studies program can be called a joint platform for learning when the Finnish educators were, in fact, the teachers conducting the courses whereas the Nepali teachers were the students. Is it possible that the setting illustrates a form of collaboration where “the marginalized are im-mersed with the voice of the powerful”? (Markovich, 2018, p. 15), or can the setting of the TPS program be seen as a response to Appadurai’s (2013) call for expanding the global elite by offering the opportunity to conduct research to those who have been so far excluded? The answers to these questions remain complex and ambivalent, as we highlight in Timonen, Juntunen and Westerlund (in press). Regardless of the ambivalence of the answer, addressing these questions highlights the complexity of intercultural educational development work, and thus need to be addressed.
Similarly, my own role in the Teachers Pedagogical Studies program calls for further critical examination. I perceived my role in TPS mainly as a mentor and a ‘critical friend’. Even though I was a student conducting my doctoral studies within the
pro-cess and simultaneously learning to read music education literature together with and alongside my Nepali colleagues, I can hardly escape the role of being hierarchi-cally positioned in the core group. Although I address these activities of the core team as studying together in a study group (see, Timonen, accepted, in revision; Timonen, Houmann & Saether, 2020), and the study modules were taught mainly by other Finnish educators than myself, there are traits that differentiate my positioning in the core group. The course structure followed the Finnish curricula, and the ways of working (e.g. reflective practices) and conceptual level pedagogical terminology were somewhat new for my Nepali colleagues and more familiar to me. Importantly, most of the literature we were reading and reflecting on was written by Western ac-ademics, who inevitably base their theories and worldview on the Western academic and educational canon, which again is inescapably more intelligible to me than to my Nepali colleagues. The differentiated positioning of myself in the core group could thus be articulated with the words of Sanger (1996), who points out that the priv-ileged position of the researcher is often manifested in having a “meta-view, or su-perordinate vantage point over others” (p. 153). Even though we developed a trustful environment among the core team (see, e.g. Timonen, Saether & Houmann, 2020;
Timonen, accepted, in revision), the critical approach again begs the question: Could our core team work be interpreted as “friendly oppression” (Markovich, 2018, p. 15), where the national-political aspects might be insufficiently addressed, and therefore be re-producing privilege? Or, can our core team’s work be seen as an invitation for deep professional learning for us all equally (see, Timonen, Juntunen & Westerlund, in press)? Or can these questions be seen as two sides of the same coin, and address-ing them is just a matter of focus? If so, Jackson & Mazzei’s stance in ‘Thinkaddress-ing with theory’ (2012), where the researcher brings the empirical material in connection with various methodological and philosophical lenses that provide several equally rele-vant insights to the phenomena under scrutiny, might prove a necessary tool in order to understand the complexity and ambivalent nature of any intercultural endeavours.
As the findings of this inquiry highlight (see, Timonen, Juntunen & Westerlund, in press), both the ambivalence and the ramifications can be interpreted as being at the heart of any intercultural work, and therefore contribute to understanding why this
kind of work is by no means easy or straightforward, and thus also prone to being heavily criticized.
As the findings of all three articles point out, the learning processes in this intercul-tural educational development work were indeed intense, and called for transition-ing from reflection (see, Bolton, 2010) to a reflexive and critical questiontransition-ing of the foreground contextual features of music education (see, Cunliffe, 2004; Westerlund, Karlsen & Partti, 2020). The three articles of this research have clearly illustrated how this intercultural participatory research has triggered the participants’ “deep professional learning” (Feucht, Brownlee & Schraw, 2017), which more precisely can be understood as epistemic reflexivity, an ability to critically reflect the “particulari-ties of one’s working context” whilst they are concurrently “also being fundamentally questioned” (Kelchtermans, 2004, p. 269). This kind of engagement with “difficult truths and alternative histories” (Martin, Pirbhai-Illich & Pete, 2017, p. 252) inevi-tably is an invitation to displeasure, as illustrated in the findings of some of the oth-er Global Visions project research (see, Kallio & Westoth-erlund, 2020) as well as this inquiry itself (see, Timonen, accepted, in revision; Timonen, Houmann & Saether, 2020; Timonen, Juntunen & Westerlund, in press). Engaging in a process of deep professional learning involved the participants going through extremely complicat-ed emotions, and requircomplicat-ed abilities to tolerate insecurity and uncertainty relatcomplicat-ed to
“questioning oneself and one’s identity” (Martin, Pirbhai-Illich & Pete, 2017, p. 252), which is a challenging task for anyone and inevitably causes discomfort.
In the process of this study, the participating teachers accumulated notable emo-tional turbulence, particularly in the discussions related to teacher agency. As de-scribed in Chapter 1.4.1., both public and private life in Nepal are still largely based on hierarchical structures built on the caste system (see, e.g. Bennett, 2008). These structures do not support social mobility, and furthermore create an environment where the young generation is subsumed by the elder generation’s decision-mak-ing, in both their private and public lives. Moreover, in Nepal, both music-making and teaching as a profession involve a certain stigma (Treacy, Thapa & Neupane, in
print) that similarly derives from the structures in the caste system. Thus, the con-templation of whether the relatively young NMC music educators could see their role in society as someone with strong agency and leadership generated a fundamental questioning of their own power and powerlessness within the hierarchical structures.
As such, the intercultural interaction in this inquiry unveiled how professional agen-cy is inevitably constrained and resourced by “historically formed socio-cultural and material circumstances” (Eteläpelto et al. 2013, p. 62), and how the manifestations of agency are “always specified in terms of the multiple ways and purposes of it”, and
“related to local contextual conditions” comprising “power relations, work cultures, dominant discourses, and subject positions available” (Eteläpelto et al., 2013, p. 60).
Through the turbulence caused by the Finnish starting perspective (see, e.g. Teacher Education Forum, 2016), in which it is believed that all teachers ought to develop strong agency and leadership, it became obvious that increasing teacher agency could notably counteract the prevailing socio-culturally constructed conditions inside the institution, and even beyond in broader Nepali society (see, Timonen, Houmann &
Saether, 2020). As addressed by Schmidt (2012), “to be sure, agency does prepare us to address external mandates” (p. 154) and therefore subordinates the status quo to individual judgement. Consequently, the findings of this inquiry stress that strength-ened teacher agency that is associated with socio-cultural, educational, and political change might be notably restrained - or enhanced - according to the participating individuals’ capabilities in adapting to new identities and roles. Similarly, the find-ings support the views of Biesta, Priestley & Robinson (2015), who write about how an individual’s capabilities are inevitably “influenced by what we refer to as cultural, material and structural resources” (p. 627). There is no doubt that intercultural de-velopment work notably intensifies individual and social turbulence. Consequently, the concept of teacher agency may, then, provide tools for understanding the com-plex issues of the democratic possibilities and constraints in and of intercultural mu-sic education, and also for identifying the political and cultural stresses associated with addressing these matters in and through music education practices in diverse contexts.
As the findings of the three articles point out, one of the key elements in this inter-cultural educational development work was that the participating individuals were able to overcome the emotional struggles related to their emerging deep profession-al learning and increased agency - in other words their professionprofession-al “re-invention”
(McLaren, 1998). By definition, this kind of turbulence is anticipated in the method-ological frame of critical participatory action research and illustrates the particular-ly political nature of PAR (see, McTaggart,1997; Kemmis, 2006; Herr & Anderson, 2005). However, these emotional aspects have not previously been integrated into the discussion about music educators’ in-service training or ongoing professional development (see, Chapter 2.2). Therefore, we argued in article I (Timonen, Hou-mann & Saether, 2020) that the emotional aspects of educational change should be considered as equally relevant as the cognitive ones. Indeed, most of the individual struggles in the process of this inquiry were emotional in nature (ibid). Importantly, if “deep professional learning” (Feucht, Brownlee & Schraw, 2017, p. 234) causes such discomfort, particularly in intercultural contexts, and may also generate sig-nificant struggles in and with one’s own surroundings, the ethical responsibilities of educators and researchers call for increased scrutiny of the process (see also, Karlsen, Westerlund & Miettinen, 2016). Even I, as a researcher, who had recognized and ac-knowledged these aspects through the literature, at times felt overwhelmed, helpless, and vulnerable when facing these struggles. If intercultural collaborative educational development through the PAR approach potentially requires exposure to such un-easiness, then should not a system of methodological and practical support also be required in order to overcome these tensions? Furthermore, should not this kind of emotional support system be seen as the necessary starting point for any educational development endeavours aiming towards agentic professional development (Sachs, 2015), in order for them to be successful? And, should uneasiness be seen as a pre-requisite condition for educational development in the first place?
As illustrated in the findings of this inquiry, the process of overcoming these struggles was notably supported by the emerging sense of trust, both in oneself and one’s own capabilities, and importantly the trust among the team members, achieved through
practices that supported collaborative learning (Timonen, accepted, in revision; Tim-onen, Houmann & Saether, 2020). Day and Hadfield (2004) have articulated this phenomenon in a felicitous way:
If the partnership is to be successful, trust is essential. It is important in net-work learning because, if a netnet-work is to achieve success, its members will need to be willing to take risks (i.e. risk vulnerability), rely upon each other to gain in self-efficacy (a sense of increased competence), exercise honesty and openness, and be emotionally confident in their relationships with each other (Day & Had-field, 2004, p. 583).
Similarly, Renshaw (2013) has pointed out that if collaborative learning is to achieve any of its potential for generating development, “it is essential to create conditions that are based on shared trust” (p. 237). He further continues by specifying the el-ements that build up a trustful environment: “The dynamics and the chemistry of a group, the interaction between members of a group, the active listening in a group and the flow of energy within a group” (Renshaw, 2013, p. 237). To expand on these elements, I will suggest that one particular asset for music educators in building trust in a process of educational development could be to play music together. As the find-ings of articles, I and II highlight, in the process of this inquiry one important turning point in my relationships with the Nepali teachers was when we started making mu-sic together. Also, in one of the discussions I asked the other core team members why they thought that our collaboration had been successful and relatively easy, and one of the NMC teachers replied with a twinkle in his eyes: “You know, in the end, you are a musician too” (Nepali teacher of the researcher in a core team group discussion, 26.3. 2016). Therefore, in this process Dervin’s (2016) notion of an interculturality that draws from commonalities instead of differences found its manifestation in our musicianship and playing music together. Working from our commonalities instead of our differences laid the ground for building trust and mutual understanding, which then acted as a catalyst in the educational development process and also enabled the participatory approach in this research.