Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore interstitial spaces in higher music education. Interstitial spaces are small-scale settings where individuals interact around common activities. Drawing from the learning experiences of three students, the disparate feelings that students have within the interstices are unpacked. Specifically, we lean on Michel Foucault’s notions of power and hierarchy as a way to explore the dynamics in the teaching and learning relationships between students, and how the power that institutional structures might wield could shape the pocket conversations taking place. In the context of higher music education, we explore the ways that such spaces offer special moments where students see themselves in new ways. We explore how Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning might latch on to the potential that these interstitial spaces offer. We argue that potentials for transformative learning encounters described by the three students seem to be situated within interstitial spaces. The article considers what it means to be in the peripheral locations of student learning and contributes to the need to revisit interstices as an important location to understand how knowledge and creative interactions can be made in higher music education.
Music education in the conservatoire is distinctive for high standards of performance excellence, with the intention to prepare musicians for the artistic profession (Duffy & Broad, 2015; Gaunt, 2010). While present-day institutional contexts provide a “lifetime of specialised work requiring multiple advanced skill sets” (Bridgstock & Hearn, 2012, p. 108), there is limited documentation about how students in such environments develop beyond their areas of specialization. This article explores how students encounter learning, apart from traditional or expected spaces of teaching and learning.
Specifically, this article draws from the experiences of three music students studying at a higher education arts institution in Singapore, and the disparate feelings that they experience in the “interstitial spaces.” Interstitial spaces can be defined as “small-scale settings where individuals from different fields interact occasionally and informally around common activities” (Furnari, 2014, p. 440). These spaces are critical in facilitating interactions that temporarily break free from existing structures and are locations where students can experiment collectively with new activities. By unraveling interstitial spaces, there is also an investigation in this article about how the three students reconcile tensions in such spaces, and how disconnections, connections, and even the occasional solitary moments in interstitial spaces play out.
In this regard, we seek to examine this space through the theories of Michel Foucault (1972, 1977, 1971/1993) and Jack Mezirow (1997, 2000, 2003), to offer grounding for ideas explored in this study. Foucault’s (1977) notions of power and hierarchy are drawn on as a way to explore the dynamics occurring in the teaching and learning relationships, and how the power that institutional structures might wield can shape the interactions taking place. Furthermore, we engage with Mezirow’s (2000) theory of transformative learning that might latch on to the potential that these interstitial spaces offer. We argue that the “a-ha” moments, or what could be viewed as transformative encounters in the learning, described by the three students who are the focus of this study seem to be situated in interstitial spaces. The article considers what it means to be in such peripheral locations of the student learning experience, and illustrates the need to revisit interstices as an important location to understand how knowledge and creative interactions can be experienced in higher music education. In the context of higher music education, we explore the ways in which such spaces offer special moments in which students can see themselves in new ways.
Interstitial spaces, power, and transformation: A conceptual overview
Before embarking on a methodological overview and sharing findings, we offer a concise insight into relevant literature and theoretical frames we are contemplating.
Interstitial spaces
Interstices are explored with some degree of depth in a variety of contexts. From an anthropological perspective, Lave (1994) focuses on learning in the interstices by looking at family life, professions, somewhat neglected areas of cultural production (e.g., rock music), and sports. Lave (1994) acknowledges that the formation of informal communities of practice can be found in schools, “mostly outside the classroom” (p. 78). Lave (1994) describes these interstitial communities of practice as examples where “newcomers generate distinctions between ‘real, valued knowledge’ and what they themselves do” (p. 78). This is a space where newcomers are in a safe space to experiment and generate knowledge among peers (Lave, 1988). Drawing from Lave’s (1994) theory of Situated learning, communities of practice are located “interstitially in institutional settings (both schools and workplaces) that prescribe their own versions of organization and proper practice” (pp. 79–80). However, unlike communities of practice, interstitial spaces are normally not found in structured curriculum time. Considered “a new phenomenon” (Webb et al., 2019, p. 588), an interstitial space is interpreted as a position where complex connections, transformations, and even transpositions arise. This beckons for the exploration of interstitial spaces that are perceived as low in structure but high in transformative power. As Lorenzi and White (2019) evince, these spaces empower through the establishment of equalitarian communities either among students themselves or between teachers and students.
There are also other, different, interpretations of interstices. In a study of institutional theory, Furnari (2014) defines interstices as “small-scale settings where individuals interact occasionally and informally around common activities to which they devote limited time” (p. 440). In this conceptual paper, Furnari identifies two conditions within interstices that facilitate new activities to emerge, namely, successful interaction rituals that “produce high levels of mutual attention and emotional energy” and catalysts that facilitate the “mutual interactions and construction of shared meaning” (p. 447). Furnari highlights three features of interstitial spaces: first, the importance of social interactions between individuals positioned in different disciplines; second, that these are occasional and informal interactions, and sometimes episodic; and third, that there are common activities within a short space of time.
Two other studies of interest explore examples of “interstices” in creative contexts. First, Savin-Baden and Falconer (2016) introduce the idea of “interstice” to describe the interface between the virtual and physical. Here, the interstice is described as “the state of belonging completely and simultaneously to two different autonomous worlds” (Linds, 2006, p. 993). According to Savin-Baden (2010), students engaged in simulations of authentic experiences and activities in the virtual world would either feel immersed, or become disengaged and experience “stuckness” in learning. In another study, Berk (2015) outlines interstices as a borderland space of otherness, where an individual’s professional identity is reshaped, altered, or re-combined according to their multiple functions as creators, designers, artists, and/or educator. In this space, individuals experience heightened perceptions, and anticipate, predict, or experience intermittent flow experience. This is a space where “professional identities are evenly balanced in a both/and structure, where contradictions and similarities are accepted” (Berk, 2015, p. 214).
A physical description of an interstitial space is drawn from Gale (2017), who proposes an alternative arts school as an extra-curricular and non-credited collaboration. This space encourages students to reframe their experiences and ambitions from a more critical position and to inspire change through creative dissent and dialogue. In yet another example of an extra-curricular participatory type of project, Haynes and Pedersen (2016) propose an artwork/teaching initiative called The Long Lunch to draw out interstitial spaces between creative practice, radical pedagogy, and social learning. Creatively, artist-educators describe this Malmö University project as dialogues that extend beyond “formal learning contexts,” which “explores the borderlines between art, professional practices and everyday life” (p. 3). Both examples from Gale (2017) and Haynes and Pedersen (2016) describe staff–student collaborations. This is where a sense of an egalitarian community is prevalent, where students and teachers engage in a safe environment of “dialogue, empowerment and transformation to co-produce knowledge through non-hierarchical collaboration” (Lorenzi & White, 2019, p. 199).
In exploring literature, varied understandings of interstices can be noticed, ranging from interventions such as lunches and hobby spaces, to more abstract understandings of virtual space and/or time (Furnari, 2014; Gale, 2017; Haynes & Pedersen, 2016; Lindsay, 2010). Arising from a generally broad discourse about what are to be considered as interstitial communities of practice, there has been a “widespread generation of negative identities and misrecognized or institutionally disapproved interstitial communities of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 79). This issue is especially pronounced in institutional learning, which tends to wrestle control of learning through the “narrowing, trivialization, and decomposition of full participation” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 79). Arising from a general dearth of understanding on a somewhat neglected area of learning, this study focuses on how interstitial learning takes place within a higher education arts institution in Singapore, while also considering what could be described as “pocket” or “corridor” encounters that emerge without the formality of institutional learning, in a small-scale setting for creative conversation.
Power in music learning spaces
Foucault’s theories have been chosen to support the analysis and discussion in this research, particularly his perspectives on social hierarchies, discipline, power, knowledge, and discourse, which will be used in relation to understanding experiences the three students share. Foucault’s ideas have been widely applied to discussions and unpacking of education, and also various arts learning contexts. In Foucault’s (1977) view, the goals of knowledge and the goals of power cannot be separated, with both being used to control knowledge and how it is formed. Foucault’s theory of power/knowledge could be applicable to aspects of this research, as it is viewed to be in everything we learn, teach, respond to, and position ourselves within.
The hierarchical structures involved in music learning can reflect a particular power relationship between student and teacher, or students and students, and reinforces the notion of power/knowledge (Poblete et al., 2019). Foucault (1977) emphasizes that power is not discipline; rather discipline is simply one way in which power can be exercised, and that both discipline and power are ways in which to create “normalization” of the body, of actions, of thinking and understanding, as he explains:
The judges of normality are present everywhere. We are in the society of the teacher-judge, the educator-judge, the “social worker”-judge; it is on them that the universal reign of the normative is based; and each individual, wherever he may find himself, subjects to it his body, his gestures, his behaviour, his aptitudes, his achievements. (p. 304)
Foucault’s (1977) notion of control, power, and knowledge that any given society or group exerts over individuals could ultimately be understood as responsible for shaping who we are, how we behave, and what we think. This can be directly applied to understanding higher music students’ experiences in the music learning environment, by investigating their encounters and the different spaces and modes in which learning occurs.
Transformative spaces for music making
Transformative learning theory, developed by Mezirow (2003), is also relevant for the direction we seek to take in this article. The term “transformation” in relation to this article and the use of Mezirow’s theory refers to a marked shift of thought, perspective, or practice, which for the most part could be considered to be positive. Mezirow (1997) explains that transformative learning “is the process of effecting change in a frame of reference” (p. 5). Mezirow (2003) perceives transformational learning to involve re-structuring assumptions to think differently about a particular subject or issue, defining the notion as “learning that transforms problematic frames of reference—sets of fixed assumptions and expectations (habits of mind, meaning perspectives, mindsets)—to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective, and emotionally able to change” (p. 58).
Transformations through learning are explored deeply within Mezirow’s work, particularly in relation to adult education, while in the music teaching and learning context, these transformations have also been unpacked (O’Neill, 2012; Qi & Cesetti, 2019). Mezirow (2000) notes conditions that help facilitate transformative dialogue, which include creating a safe environment where trust can be established, having accurate information, using student-centered approaches in the classroom, and examining issues through problem-solving activities and critical reflection (Taylor, 2000). In relation to this article, the discussion of transformative encounters emerged through various experiences and interstitial moments.
Having offered a succinct contextual and theoretical overview, the terrain of our study prompts us to ask the following overarching research question:
Research Question 1. What can interstitial spaces look and feel like for students in higher music education?
The study of the interstitial spaces seeks to understand experiences within the lifeworld of three students in a conservatoire context. It serves to highlight the importance of such spaces through the voices of the three participants by raising awareness of what goes on in the interstices. Furthermore, we also highlight how such spaces may inadvertently transform learning in the institutional space. By illuminating a particular context, this study hopes to open up new ways of thinking about the potentials of interstices in higher music learning.
Setting the scene: Methodological considerations
The methodology for this study is grounded within a qualitative research frame, to explore the divergent learning experiences of higher music students. Within this frame, we hooked into aspects of ethnographic inquiry. Our intention was to delve into the lived culture experienced by students within a specific higher music learning environment, investigating their everyday experiences of learning. The interstice of the learning that the students encountered was a focus. With this in mind, conversational semi-structured interviews were used as the methods to form narratives that served as the basis for this study and were carried out over a 3-month period in 2019. The researchers, who are the two authors of this article, conducted the interviews in person. It is to be noted that we did not engage in observations as part of the methodology; however, we see that this could be an extension for the study in the future. The conversational and semi-structured design (Roulston & Choi, 2018) allowed the interviews to be flexible in format and style, while giving opportunities to ask questions in a different order or wording for each participant and for new topics to be introduced if and when they were required. The themes explored within the interviews and zones of questioning centered on stories where community was a part of the participants’ music making and music learning. Each participant was interviewed twice for approximately 1 hr each, with each interview being audio-recorded and later transcribed. The decision to interview the participants twice emerged in light of the first hour-long interviews revealing that more time for conversation was needed.
The narratives that emerged from the interviews were then analyzed by the researchers. For the purpose of this article, the narratives are shared as small vignettes rather than full narratives, to draw out relevant points revealed from the analysis process. When we use the term “narratives” in our work, we refer to “stories that are present in the wider cultural environment that people draw upon in their daily lives” (Amadasi & Holliday, 2018, p. 243).
The data were analyzed by both researchers through an inductive thematic approach (Riessman, 2008). An inductive approach can allow for a range of themes and ideas to emerge (Barrett & Stauffer, 2009; Clandinin & Connelly, 1996), and draws out themes from the researcher’s data (Kiger & Varpio, 2020). A thematic approach is one that cuts across firm academic disciplinary boundaries, and in turn, offers creative and interpretive possibilities to work with data that are both “artful and art-full” (Barrett & Stauffer, 2009, p. 20). Within this research, a thematic approach toward the narratives gathered can enable a way to inquire into diverse perspectives of music education (Angelo, 2015), highlighting the “multiple stories, multiple voices, and multiple meanings of music and musicking” (Barrett & Stauffer, 2009, p. 19) specifically in the context of higher music education.
This study took place in a higher education arts institution in Singapore. All 12 students who initially volunteered to participate in the study were interviewed during the first round of interviews. From exploring the interview transcripts of the first round of narratives, three students were identified for follow-up due to their different instrument backgrounds, disciplines, and years of study, with a varied range of involvement in internal and external music-making opportunities. Student A is a second-year diploma student majoring in violin in the music teaching program. Student B is a third-year student majoring in clarinet in the music diploma performance program. Student C is a first-year degree student majoring in piano in a BMus degree program. Each of these three students has their own unique background, skills, and practices. For example, Student A participates in one of the string ensembles and select orchestral performances of this higher education institution. Student B is a member of a new clarinet studio at the academy that mentors junior instrumentalists in their performance specialization. Student C’s experience in ensemble performance is largely within accompaniment positions or participation in the choir.
With these different experiences, each of the three students has encounters with varying learning environments. For example, as a pianist, Student C comes from an individual music-making discipline, which refers to specific ways of music practice, most often in isolation. However, they are also involved in collaborative piano performance. In contrast, Student B, who plays the clarinet, and Student A, who plays the violin, tend to work in what could be identified as more collective music-making activities, which refer to music performance within chamber, solo, or orchestral settings. All three students, to some degree, have participated in common institutional learning situations, including the types of groups that are organized in the curriculum, such as ensembles and sectionals. Throughout, we adopt a gender-neutral reference to the three students. We do this first because the study does not intend to interrogate how gender may or may not shape and inform the experiences offered. Second, many identity markers could be used in relation to the student’s context, history, and background, with gender being only one of many possible ways of identifying students. Third, we as the researchers do not assume the gender identities of the students involved in this study.
Ethical clearance was obtained from Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts, which is the site-specific location of this research. Participation was voluntary and informed consent was obtained. The audio recordings and transcripts were securely stored. While the Dean of School was aware of the selection of these participants, we did not approach the individual Heads of Studies to recruit students for this research to purposefully mitigate power relations and coercion. However, the lead researcher had personally tutored all three students in their academic studies over previous years. Pseudonyms have been used to assure confidentiality.
Findings
An interstitial space is an encounter, experience, or a fleeting moment that is something not tangible or concrete, making its articulation in words highly challenging and its interpretation subjective. However, through the analysis of the three students’ experiences, an indication of what interstitial spaces might look like emerged.
What was noticed early on in the analysis process was that the experiences shared by the three students convey an understanding of intersecting spaces as sites where self-identified “newcomers” can complement the practices of existing “old-timers.” At the same time, it seems that the students saw themselves as professionals in these interstitial spaces; they did not just consider themselves functioning as students in a community who are making music. This step into professionalism includes taking discussions to different levels; initiating engagement with their peers; feeling involved, excited, comfortable to take on leadership positions, self-regulating, while also expressing enjoyment in the process of musicking; and complimenting and complementing one another’s artistic points of view.
Interstitial spaces exist outside of formally arranged learning environments, rehearsals, or lessons. These include online chat groups that connect peers and pop-up encounters, such as practice in a corridor. The following two student accounts describe locations that could be viewed as interstitial spaces, and what they experience within these:
We have our own WhatsApp chat group . . . when they [juniors] do see you practicing in the corridors, sometimes they will sit by, just listen and give you tips. Or if I’m having trouble, sometimes I will just look for them, see whoever is around school. If they are in a practice room, I will ask them for help. (Student A—Violinist) So they [senior students] did the same thing to us, to both of us, either of us. For example, if I were to ask David to listen to me, I would also ask Daniel to come and listen too. And after that, likewise, we had a studio and we listened to each other and tested each other and acted like examiners to each other, so that we had a mock test, mock exam, before any of our tests or any of our performances. (Student B—Clarinetist)
As Student A points out, a variety of responses and ways of engaging with others might occur in these interstitial spaces, including listening, offering “tips,” or garnering more explicit moments of support. It is apparent from student accounts that the idea of listening to each other within these spaces is of value, and the two students both explain that they feel they can ask those within such an interstitial space for help. Within the above accounts emerge a sense of the trust between those in their peer group and the idea of reciprocity in the encounter—as Student B notes, their senior peers “did the same thing to us.”
The experiences that the three students offered convey a strong sense of enthusiasm for moments of learning afforded by interstitial spaces, as the students regarded them as helpful and wanted in their music education. In the words of Student B, the clarinetist:
I think yes, we should proceed with this kind of coaching, mentor, senior-junior. It’s more approachable than teacher-student. There’s something about how you relate or talk to a friend compared to a superior. You will talk to somebody that is not so old, but still old enough to tell you what to do.
It was also clear that they saw this work together as an opportunity to develop as musicians. Along these lines, the clarinetist (Student B) spoke about being driven by the concept of “growing” together as one body of “sound,” noting that
. . . by playing together helps the whole section to grow together, especially when I’m the younger one there. So, of course, my experiences are lesser than them, and I wanted to know how they play and also try to aspire to become like them as well.
From the clarinetist’s experience, it seems that being a newer member of the group did not make experiences any less significant. Instead, new participants engage in self-governance to assimilate into the collective practice and expectations of the wider group. As Student B notes, there is a desire to “aspire to become” and perhaps shape practices and behaviors to suit the collective that they find themselves in. In turn, this could be considered self-governance in the sense that they are employing regulation of themselves without targeted involvement from an authority external to themselves (Foucault, 1977).
However, it is also apparent that the students are encountering some challenges and tensions within the interstices they find themselves located in. That tensions exist in the interstitial spaces is not surprising, as learning practices are shaped, enabled, and constrained within relations of power (Contu & Willmott, 2003; Perkins, 2013). Student C, the pianist, explained a desire to step beyond what might be considered the normative expectations of and within a group. The student explained,
I think, sometimes, we do want to go out of the box. So whatever the teacher has suggested, it’s usually within the box. For me, in my own experience, quite rarely do you see someone suggesting something that is quite “out of the box.”
It seems that the difference in opinion is an occasion where tensions begin to exist within the interstitial spaces. One example of negotiating collective practice is given by Student A (violinist). Here, the student describes the process of rehearsing a passage of music:
The seniors will book a room and we arrange how we usually sit. After that, the first chair, he would ask us to play this part. When he feels that it’s not very together, he will ask us to try again at a slower tempo. If it’s still not together, he will ask one or two people that he feels have some issues with that part to play alone first. Because there is no teacher there, maybe that’s why we feel more comfortable. You can play better with less pressure. It helps us build up that confidence from that level.
In the narrative above, Student A articulates how the sectionals enable them to get a fuller understanding of their music making, which is likely to have arisen because they are positioned within an interstitial space of learning. The slowness that Student A speaks of is, in a literal sense, a slowing down of tempo. This requires a closer consideration of slowness in relation to practice, and how interstitial spaces might offer scope for slow practice to emerge. Slow practice in music emphasizes the importance of having space to plan, fail, retry, relish, question, reflect on outcomes, and comprehend at the learner’s own pace. According to Shaw et al. (2013), slow mindful learning in general terms, is about being “orientated away from rapid results or competitive features and toward inquiry, dialogue and learner autonomy” (p. 321). With such ideas in mind, there is space for further exploration of what slow practice might offer within higher music education and the development of interstitial spaces. At the same time, there is a possibility to consider what the transformative learning potentials of slow practice in music might be, and if there is further space for “a-ha” moments of transformation to take place through slowness, where habits and patterns could be unraveled (Mezirow, 2000).
One possibility of what slow practice in music might offer is the space for dialogue to emerge. Literature has noted that generative dialogue within collaborative learning contexts can support Mezirow’s notion of transformative learning processes (see, for example, Gunnlaugson, 2006). With this in mind, in the context of interstitial learning spaces, dialogue might also be considered to play a part in transformative learning opportunities of such encounters. Drawing from a past experience in collaborative music making, Student C describes an ensemble situation that was “not working,” and how tensions are navigated through dialogue:
. . . it wasn’t so much of a quarrel or anything, but it was more someone will voice this out and then I would voice something out and then we would just discuss and try both ways out to see whatever fits.
Such peer-to-peer types of free exchanges—arising from interstitial encounters—could foster opportunities for transformative learning (Mezirow, 2000). The concept of dialogue, in itself, is core to “relational forms of meeting and knowing” (Gunnlaugson, 2006, p. 3). Coupled with the notion that the “practice of conversation . . . supports the emergence of transformative learning” (Gunnlaugson, 2006, p. 15), we can observe how interstitial spaces play a unique and fluid role between collaborative music making and transformative potentials.
With such a view, it can be suggested that such space for transformative learning leads to a shifting of identities and disciplinary boundaries. As Student C expresses in a collaborative piano encounter,
In chamber playing, you have to . . . drop your identity, your role—like, “I am a solo pianist,” kind of look. So, it’s about fitting in, and the goal of playing in chamber music, I believe, is you are playing it as a unit. You are not alone.
Further to this, the student even appears to be conscious of the social-collective aspects of the communities they are working within, noting,
. . . when we deal with disagreements, in a way, we must also take care of how we tell the other person. So, on a personal level also we cannot overlook that, because we are good friends, so I don’t want this experience to be bad for any of us.
It is also worth highlighting that Student C views tensions in interstitial spaces as “discoveries.” As this student shares, “there were no conflicts [in the musical decision], because it was more like a discovery.” Discovery learning is vital in the transformative learning encounter (Mezirow, 1997). However, in the context Mezirow refers to, the educator is still positioned somewhat centrally in the facilitation of this discovery learning, as “facilitator and provocateur” (p. 11), rather than looking at such moments as being possible without educator engagement. It is possible that interstitial spaces could further elicit new types of discovery learning beyond what institutional formalities could traditionally afford, as learners are further challenged to identify and examine assumptions, including their own, with minimal tutor guidance.
What can be said is that interstitial spaces give rise to fresh ways of appreciating learning environments. These do not equate to institutionally acknowledged learning (Lorenzi & White, 2019). Rather, interstices are spaces that sway toward the temporal and incidental, as individuals break away from pre-existing boundaries. This is an important “recess” to uncover of what really happens in-between the structures, especially in schools between the curriculum, teacher, and learner. Student C (pianist) reminisces on how interstitial moments of learning may coexist within the institutional space:
There must be pockets of space that you can be free, but you are still within the structure. So that structure is school I would say. So, in a school, I would, of course, follow what is needed and do what I need to do to become a professional, but I wish there were places where I can explore.
The “pockets” that Student A speaks of are, in a literal sense, actual physical spaces that shift the locus of control from institutional learning into self-regulated music learning. As Lonie and Dickens (2016) claim, “the core sites of musical learning cannot be reduced to the designated and sanctioned spaces of formal music education” (p. 88). Hence, interstitial spaces can help musicians to fully realize their self-potential and to set their own professional and personal goals.
Having explored what interstitial spaces might be like for the three students, and the tensions they encounter in these spaces, attention can be turned to their views of how these interstitial spaces operate in an institutional context—that of the higher music institution. The interstitial spaces found in the institution appear to be highly valued by Student C (pianist) who normally practices in isolation. Student C accounts for how the piano ensemble arrangements in the curriculum enhance their learning:
To me, it’s [collaborative music making] important. I do feel that we are human beings. I don’t think anyone can go without interacting with people. Not sure, but I don’t think that’s really a good way of living. So, for me, interacting is one big way I learn from people.
In the interstitial spaces of music learning, there is the possibility that students can occupy spaces where what is “other” is also within. That is to say, students can not only continue to sustain an individual practice according to their disciplinary expectations, but also encounter collective practice and opportunities to interact with colleagues. These interstitial spaces offer scope for discursive practice. A discursive practice, as defined by Foucault (1972, 1971/1993), refers to a practice in which a particular pattern of action arises in accordance with the rules prescribed by the discourse. From a post-structuralist view, discourse is understood as a social practice in which object and subject have historically been shaped and reshaped in interaction and action by means of specific power strategies. Student B, the clarinetist, views the engagement with others in their learning as indispensable, but yet underplayed in the institutional context. Student B explained that
. . . they [incoming freshmen] don’t realize the importance of it [collaborative music making], and they will not realize the importance of it until they reach a certain level. And so, they don’t realize the importance of joining an ensemble or being a part of the community, they wouldn’t know until three or four years into it. So yes, they wouldn’t know that, wow, it’s green pastures.
Foucault’s (1977) notion of “normalization,” through social practices and institutional structures and regimes, could be applied to the experience shared above by Student B. Foucault’s view of normalization is that it is not neutral, rather loaded with and formed through power, acting as a potential for control of individuals. The idea that newer students were yet to “realize the importance of joining an ensemble or being a part of a community” could be viewed as something that changes over time as they “normalize” within the institutional context. If the newer students become more epistemologically aware of the benefits of such collective encounters, or what could be viewed as interstitial learning spaces, then this could both support their development as musicians and also assist the peers that they would then have the opportunity to engage with. At the same time, a sense of “being a part of the community” could be fostered through “normalization” as outlined by Foucault and encouraged by Mezirow’s transformative learning theory. The bridge between transformative learning, collective learning, and interstitial spaces could offer a way to enhance the quality of interstitial spaces while also expanding the boundaries of what transformative learning might look and feel like (Schugurensky, 2002). It could be argued that a stronger emphasis on the episteme where students may have the opportunity to step into interstitial spaces to engage in transformative learning needs to be considered by the institution where the students are situated.
Conclusion
The experiences shared by three students highlight how interstitial spaces offer a condition of possibility through a relation with others in the music learning process. In these spaces, there is engagement in dialogue, which can lead to possible transformative moments in music education. With this in mind, it could be suggested that there is further space for interstices to be cultivated in higher music education, extending the potential of alternative options in learning experiences (Ballantyne & Baker, 2013). The tensions encountered in interstitial spaces are not necessarily viewed as “conflicts,” but rather as opportunities for “discoveries.” These moments of discovery highlight the potential that interstitial learning might offer in provoking a “disorienting dilemma” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 22) for students, where an event (or series of events) can shake a person from their previous ways of thinking. The experiences shared by the students go some way to conveying insights of how educators and institutions might guide and foster better communities of musical learning in a student’s higher learning journey. At the same time as presenting opportunities, these interstitial spaces challenge and illuminate power relations, while prompting students to engage in critical reflection about their own music learning.
We acknowledge that there are other ways of learning that take place with/in the institution. And very much so, this recognizes that what is afforded in institutional learning may be different from what interstitial spaces can offer. These interstitial spaces may not significantly change the position of learning music in higher education. The coexistence of interstices is neither disruptive to formal educational systems nor challenging to the professional learning of artistic development. Rather, if well cultivated as part of the institutional cycle, they would complement how music students may actively add value and flavor within an existing institution, to collectively re-generate experimentation, discovery, and artistic confidence. Interstitial spaces could be found in diverse corners and corridors of educational or institutional life. These “borderlands” give rise to creative improvisation. Encouraging these conversations and moments of interaction that operate within interstitial spaces may indeed provide higher music education institutions with the key to unlocking the full potential of both their students and their curriculums.
Further studies can open the space for exploring how interstitial spaces of learning shift the locus of control from institutional learning into self-regulated professional learning, at the same time offering scope to explore the quality and health of such spaces. The advent of technology in COVID-19 times, self-actualizing, self-isolation, and remoteness in the pandemic creates new intersection points through which knowledges can be transmitted. Yet, there is minimal acknowledgment that students could generate an excellent quality of artistry independent of the educational setting. Recognizing that interstitial spaces empower students to transit from one space of learning to another in a hybrid modality will allow for new identity formation. While underappreciated in previous studies, studying these interstitial spaces would be a particularly attractive constituent to explain a missing factor in learning music in higher education.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first author is a recipient of the Tan Poey Quee Doctor in Education Scholarship for her EdD research at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
