Centre for Excellence in Music Performance Education (CEMPE): an inquiry into institutional change processes in higher music education

ABSTRACT

This study explores change processes in higher music education by following the development of the Centre for Excellence in Music Performance Education (CEMPE) at the Norwegian Academy of Music (NMH) over the period 2014–2023. The following research question is addressed: How has institutional change been enabled in a higher music education context through the activities of a Centre for Excellence in Education? The theoretical framework for the inquiry is drawn from institutional theory. Applying an instrumental case study design, data were collected from twelve semi-structured interviews with staff in management roles at CEMPE/NMH and from strategic documents, such as applications, action plans, annual reports, minutes from steering group meetings, and publication lists. The findings show that change was enabled through various leadership visions for change and the friction created through centre activities. The most significant area of change is reported to be increased student agency and involvement.

KEYWORDS:

• Higher music education
• institutional change
• institutional theory
• student agency
• leadership

Introduction

Recently, there has been an increased focus on institutional change in higher music education (HME), often disseminated through a scholarly emphasis on the importance of empowering the student’s voice (Gies and Sætre 2019; Holmgren 2022) and meeting societal needs (Gaunt et al. 2021; Minors et al. 2017). However, various HME members fulfil different institutional roles, some of which are more affected by the current calls for change than others. As the mandates of (higher) music education are under negotiation, scholars discuss how institutional members should partake in change processes and, indeed, who should be empowered to act (Angelo, Varkøy, and Georgii-Hemming 2019; Karlsen 2019). The resulting landscape presents a situation in which developments in HME are inextricably linked to institutional survival, not only in terms of financial resources but by upholding legitimacy in the field (Ski-Berg and Røyseng 2023). The quest for legitimacy and the conflict between external pressures for change and the internal need for stability may sometimes result in what Moberg and Georgii-Hemming (2021, 36) denote ‘dis/harmonic personas’: institutions presenting themselves to the outside world as open and progressive while maintaining conservative practices and values on the inside. Against this backdrop, one may ask how leaders, administrators, and staff navigate institutional change in HME and what promotes or hampers their capacity to instigate and lead such change.

The research project presented here follows the development of a Centre for Excellence in Education (CEE) in Norwegian HME, from its initial ambitions to its final outcomes over the period 2014–2023. The Norwegian CEE scheme was established in 2010 ‘to support innovation and enhancement of teaching and learning in Norwegian higher education’ (Kottmann, Westerheijden, and van der Meulen 2020, 3). It was a politically driven initiative, governed by the Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills (HK-dir), to promote teaching as an equally important activity as research in the university sector, and the aim was to contribute to ‘excellent quality’ (3) in this regard. The excellence was measured foremost as the ability of a milieu to foster innovative practices and instigate change in higher education, and being awarded CEE status came with a generous economic grant as well as the expectation of the host organisation to allocate money and other resources to the centre. In fall 2023, a political decision was made to close the CEE scheme.

The centre in question in this article, is the Centre for Excellence in Music Performance Education (CEMPE) at the Norwegian Academy of Music (NMH), which was established with a mandate to be a catalyst for generating knowledge about teaching and learning in HME and to instigate innovation within this particular educational frame. The Norwegian Academy of Music belongs to ‘the European conservatoire tradition’ (Jørgensen 2009, 12), a tradition characterised by ‘extensive individualisation of teaching and learning’ (Nerland 2007, 399), a ‘separation of theoretical and practical work’ among staff groups (Gaunt and Westerlund 2013, 2), and the ‘skills paradox’ – that is, the challenge of combining ‘knowledge of collective, established traditions [with] an individual, well-developed artistic identity’ (Johansson 2012, 59). At the core of music performance education, one finds the one-to-one main instrument lessons and a culture privileging ‘specialised performance, facilitated by expertise in an instrumental or vocal specialism’ (Perkins 2013, 204). The relationship between the instrumental teacher and the student is thus essential to students’ artistic development within this context, described by instrumental and vocal teachers in a study by Gaunt (2008, 230) as an ‘indispensable, intense and intricate’ part of musicians’ education, and therefore also a key practice for generating innovation and change in HME.

In this article, we consider CEMPE a particularly fruitful setting for exploring the phenomenon of institutional change because of its explicit mandate of leading change and innovation, the external funding received for a long period of time, and the national CEE status. We, in this connection, are three music education researchers who have been involved in CEMPE in various roles: as administrative staff, PhD candidates, steering group members, and leaders. Acknowledging our insider positions and combining this with our professional scholarly expertise, we ask the following research question: How has institutional change been enabled in an HME context through the activities of a Centre for Excellence in Education?

Previous research

Scholars claim that HME institutions (or organisations in institutional theory) are currently ‘undergoing substantial changes’ (Georgii-Hemming, Johansson, and Moberg 2020, 246) and face enormous challenges, ‘from labour to equity, artistic risk to curricular needs’ (Schmidt 2019, 54). Multiple research projects have addressed the current challenges, including the shifting music industry and the discrepancy between the industry and the content of HME (Minors et al. 2017), the implementation of student-centred learning and teaching methods (Gies and Sætre 2019; Holmgren 2022; Zhukov and Sætre 2021), the call for ‘expanding professionalism’ in music and HME (Westerlund and Gaunt 2021), and the urgent need to address social inequities in the music education system (Kallio et al. 2021). Considering such issues, it has been argued that there is a ‘burning rationale’ for members of HME to ‘reflect collectively’ on the societal impact of HME today (Gaunt et al. 2021, 16); otherwise, judgements about change processes will ‘be left to non-musicians’ (Angelo, Varkøy, and Georgii-Hemming 2019, 96).

Pressures for change confront HME also from the outside, through for instance political processes similar to those that led to the establishment of the Norwegian CEE scheme. Although acknowledged as highly prestigious, few studies have examined these centres and their impact on institutional change. Bråten (2014, 6) noted that one of the prerequisites for being recognised as a CEE, and a common characteristic of the organisations awarded this status was that they had teachers who ‘were stimulating innovation and driving the academic community forward and pushing for educational change’. Likewise, Helseth et al. (2019, 51) found that these centres were thought to represent ‘a strategy for change in higher education’ and were considered vehicles that could ‘challenge organisational cultures’ from within. Part of this transformation was thought to originate from engaging in student partnerships (Holen et al. 2021), which was a politically endorsed strategy for enabling educational change.

However, it is doubtful whether the Norwegian CEE scheme has had the desired effect. As Kottmann, Westerheijden, and van der Meulen (2020, 81) noted, ‘The question of how and to what extent the SFU [the Norwegian abbreviation of CEE] initiative has stimulated enhancement in teaching and learning cannot be answered unambiguously’. Moreover, ‘no explicit Theory of Change [has been] guiding the SFU initiative’ (81), and the centres’ achievements and innovations have not been monitored systematically. Clearly, more research is needed to clarify how Norwegian centres for excellence in education have navigated change processes.

Theoretical approach

We lean on institutional theory to examine how institutional change has been enabled in an HME context through the activities of a centre for excellence in education. Specifically, we employed a sociological approach to neo-institutionalism in which actors are conceived of ‘not simply as influenced by the wider environment, but as constructed in and by it’ (Meyer 2017, 835). Through this theoretical lens, how to act in an institution ‘is not a choice among unlimited possibilities but rather among a narrowly defined set of legitimate options’ (Wooten and Hoffman 2017, 55). Institutions are viewed as overarching social orders that constitute society at large, and institutional scholars seek to understand ‘how social choices are shaped, mediated and channelled by the institutional environment’ (Wooten and Hoffman 2017, 55). However, what is often referred to as HME institutions in music education research are HME organisations in institutional terms. In Norway, allocated centres for excellence operate as units within higher education organisations. Positioned in a nested context, higher education institutions (including HME) are globally oriented and often compete for student enrolment (Höllerer, Walgenbach, and Drori 2017). Moreover, despite their powerful position in ‘knowledge society’ (Meyer 2017, 839), they must continuously legitimise their existence.

According to neo-institutionalism, institutions can exist only as long as they reflect societal beliefs and behaviours. Hence, social credibility is deemed necessary for institutions’ survival (Höllerer, Walgenbach, and Drori 2017), a premise that contrasts with the more economics-oriented notion that survival is ensured when organisations meet their efficiency needs. For instance, foregoing ceremonial rituals to promote organisational efficiency can undermine the sense of ‘ceremonial conformity’ that provides an organisation with legitimacy in the field (Meyer and Rowan 1977, 341). The concept of institutional isomorphism (Meyer and Rowan 1977) – that is, the ability to conform to and be legitimated by institutions in the surrounding environment – is central here. Leaders in higher education may rely on organisational strategies as tools for building legitimacy (Stensaker et al. 2019) or provide ceremonial rituals (e.g. exam concerts) to uphold a sense of membership among organisational members (e.g. music students and staff). However, during institutional change processes, friction can emerge between an organisation and opposing pressures from the field (DiMaggio and Powell 1983) or due to internal conflicts between constellations of organisational members, some of whom assume the role of change agents. Indeed, visions for change may vary even among leaders, presenting a frictional organisational landscape in which change processes are simultaneously enabled and hampered.

Methodology

Design and sampling

The inquiry presented in this article can be understood as an instrumental case study (Stake 1995) since the study of CEMPE is ‘instrumental to accomplishing something other than understanding this particular [centre for excellence]’ (3), namely learning how change in HME may be enabled. Given the extraordinary circumstances surrounding CEMPE – its status as a centre for excellence, the financial possibilities that came with it, and the explicit expectation that such centres should challenge organisational culture – CEMPE can be viewed as ‘an unusual case’ which can ‘maximise what we [can] learn’ (4).

This single-case study was based on a qualitative research approach that combined semi-structured qualitative interviews (Kvale and Brinkmann 2015) with staff in management roles at CEMPE and NMH and an analysis of strategic documents, such as applications, action plans, annual reports, minutes from steering group meetings, and publication lists from CEMPE’s inception in 2014 until the end of 2022. Using purposive sampling (Patton 2014), twelve current and former staff members occupying management roles at CEMPE or NMH during the centre period were invited to participate in interviews. To protect the interviewees’ anonymity, no information on their specific roles in the organisation is disclosed.

Procedures

Documents were collected from CEMPE’s archives and prepared for analysis by ordering them according to type and year. The twelve interviews were semi-structured and individually conducted in the workplaces/offices of the interviewees lasting approximately an hour. Questions centred around change processes associated with CEMPE’s work, perceptions of CEMPE’s main aims and achievements, and interviewees’ significant experiences from being part of CEMPE. As higher education leaders in powerful positions, they inhabited the status of being elite interviewees (Kvale and Brinkmann 2015) and were interviewed in the capacity of their professional role. All interviews were transcribed by the researchers.

Analysis

The documents and interviews were first analysed separately using different approaches. An institutional reading of the applications and action plans was conducted to identify visions for change. The steering group minutes and annual reports were coded according to activities that the centre initiated and activities in which it engaged. This information was subsequently ordered in a timeline to observe the developments and shifts in activities over time. Publication lists spanning CEMPE’s lifetime were coded based on the focus areas covered, type of publication, and target groups. Overall, the document analysis provided rich information about how institutional change had been planned, sought to be implemented, and recorded in publications, including alterations of planned activities.

All staff interviews were analysed and coded using NVivo software. This analysis followed three strands: two originating from theoretical propositions about how institutional change is brought about and becomes detectable (see ‘theoretical approach’ above) and one focusing on change as openly shared by the interviewees. One researcher coded the material with respect to discernible visions for change, another analysed it in terms of detectable friction, and another focused on areas of change as described directly by the interviewees. Despite the two theoretically connected strands, this work can best be described as data-driven coding (Kvale and Brinkmann 2015).

In the final stage of the analysis, the findings of the sub-analyses of the various data sets were brought together and discussed by all three researchers in view of the overall research question. These discussions facilitated data, method of analysis, and researcher triangulation (Patton 2014) and the formulation of the overall findings of the inquiry. Although the findings are presented through interview quotations, the various topics represent phenomena permeating the data as a whole.

Ethical considerations

This project was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data, and the interviewees provided written consent before participating. However, there are several ethical considerations inherent in conducting research within one’s own organisation, particularly when the study involves interviewing individuals with whom the researchers have a pre-existing relationship (Costley, Elliott, and Gibbs 2010). We acknowledge the ethical complications of the fact that all three researchers have had various roles at CEMPE and that two of them were themselves interviewed in this study due to their management roles at CEMPE. To remedy these potentially conflicting roles, the staff interviews were conducted by the researcher who did not hold such a role. Similarly, the various forms of triangulation described above were implemented to strengthen the trustworthiness of the findings. All quotations from the interviews used herein were sent to the interviewees for verification through member check, and the participants are referred to by numbers to protect their anonymity.

Findings

CEMPE has developed steadily since it was established in 2014 at NMH. This development appears to have been affected by four distinct visions for institutional change driven by key organisational members in and around the centre. The initiated change processes have also been affected by friction between academic milieus and organisational norms and structures. The resulting landscape encompasses five key areas of change. In this section, we present a synthesis of how (i.e. visions) and why (i.e. friction) CEMPE’s activities have enabled institutional change.

Visions for change

We identified four visions through the analysis, depicting CEMPE as a catalyst for (1) incremental change, (2) systemic change, (3) synergistic change, and (4) change through exploration, respectively. Building on the interviewees’ recollections of CEMPE’s mandate, culture, and organisation, we found what can be described as constellations of key members who shared similar ideas about how institutional change could be enabled through CEMPE. Although the visions overlap to some extent, each interviewee emphasised one more than the others.

The first vision is characterised by the notion that accommodating incremental change (i.e. gradual improvement of established structures) was a favourable approach to enabling institutional change. As illustrated in Table 1, the interviewees described a combined top-down and bottom-up management, noting the importance of both an invested rectorate and engaged individuals. A foundation was laid through lobbying by influencing organisational members to join and initiate centre activities that addressed challenges (to ‘not be as conservative’) through planned objectives.

Table 1. Vision 1 – incremental change.

Interviewee	Quotations
5	We were concerned about delivering on the commitments made in the [CEE] application … One of the reasons why CEMPE has done well, I believe, is that the rectorate was invested from the start – not to mention that a solid foundation had been prepared.
4	The rectorate was invested … [They] considered [CEMPE] an opportunity to promote HME and work on challenges, particularly in vocal and instrumental teaching … There were few arenas where instrumental teachers could reflect on teaching.
2	CEMPE’s activities weren’t meant to turn the institution on its head but to offer new directions to people – to not be as conservative. Individuals were key: leaders can have great ambitions, but they still need the staff to join them.

The second vision is characterised by the view that systemic change (i.e. alteration and creation of formal structures) promoted institutional change, drawing from CEMPE’s activities (e.g. new debate forums, collaborative teaching methods). As illustrated in Table 2, the interviewees considered top-down incentives that would attract individuals to be important measures. However, they also claimed that leaders were unwilling to enforce change and that this reluctance (or ‘disagreement’) was associated with institutional culture.

Table 2. Vision 2 – systemic change.

Interviewee	Quotations
6	There was a disagreement on the conceptual idea that I think has affected CEMPE throughout its period … conventions need to be challenged … It’s not about money; it’s about attitudes towards knowledge development and the recruitment of individuals.
1	Much of what was done in CEMPE didn’t generate new knowledge … we explored group teaching, found that it worked well … that changes still can’t be made [at NMH], it’s frustrating. With a budget, we can expand, as with FRIKA [study programme], where CEMPE was involved.
3	There is still work to be done with regard to incentives … The formal structures are not arranged to facilitate a collaborative learning environment. Fora need to be open to all … Institutionally, I think leaders must dare to lead.

The third vision is characterised by the idea that change is synergistic (i.e. linked to a larger system), insofar as institutional change can be enabled by amplifying change processes within the institutional environment. As illustrated in Table 3, the interviewees considered it challenging to define, measure, and convey what CEMPE (the ‘satellite’) was. A degree of fluidity in both objectives and leadership was embraced, including student partners, which contrasted with the relative rigidity of Visions 1 and 2.

Table 3. Vision 3 – synergistic change.

Interviewee	Quotations
8	[The] challenge of how to lead CEMPE according to the standards of the authorities … If something important and exciting turned up, we needed to explore it and integrate it instead of saying ‘this is not part of CEMPE’s objectives’.
11	[It is] challenging to comprehend what CEMPE is … It’s been constant work to remind people that CEMPE exists … And then there are replacements in leadership … Including student partners in the centre’s leadership and funding student-driven projects have created strong ripple effects.
9	It’s difficult to be a satellite that is supposed to create change … to help the student discover what to contribute through art and in the music industry and in this way provide the art and music scene with a diverse student group … These are trends that are also emphasised in other settings, and I think CEMPE has contributed to this.

The fourth vision is characterised by the view that exploration can inspire institutional change. As illustrated in Table 4, the interviewees described CEMPE as a space for exploring and attracting individuals who were full of ideas. Through CEMPE, they could initiate projects, raise questions, travel, and network, and such experiences led to new insights. However, individuals affiliated with CEMPE also experienced considerable friction, as discussed in the next subsection.

Table 4. Vision 4 – change through exploration.

Interviewee	Quotations
12	[CEMPE] has been a goldmine for some teachers [in terms of] exploring, raising questions, travelling, meeting new colleagues … Change is enabled when competent people come together to think with an instructor and a framework – that’s how change is more likely to happen, not due to a strategic plan written on a paper.
10	CEMPE’s culture has perhaps been affected by being a space for exploration. Many individuals are full of ideas and want to enable change in different ways … Perhaps CEMPE attracts people who envision change and have the ability to adapt quickly.
7	The experience is that we learn a lot from these processes [the CEE application] … [In CEMPE,] there have been explorative projects on instrumental teaching … These kinds of projects don’t need to be large. They can be quite small and still offer new insights.

Friction during change

We identified six areas of tension in the analysis of the friction experienced due to attempted change through CEMPE. Many accounts of friction were connected to the perceived conflict between staff autonomy and the need for workplace community – the first area of tension. The interviewees emphasised that autonomy needed to be respected to have people on board (Table 1, Interviewee 2) but also that change was hard to bring about in a strongly individualised organisational culture, even if it was accepted knowledge that student development required ‘a collaborative culture’ (Interviewee 3).

The strength of individualisation was also prominent in the second area of friction: research-based knowledge versus practical knowledge. From CEMPE’s inception, considerable energy had been expended to connect staff members with different types of expertise and to form working groups with both researchers and main instrumental teachers to enhance mutual knowledge development. However, not all constellations produced new knowledge (Table 2, Interviewee 1), and although collaboration and subsequent development certainly occurred, established practices and traditions often remained unchanged (Table 2, Interviewee 6), leaving a feeling that it was hard to establish a real ‘culture of sharing’ (Interviewee 12) across staff groups.

The third area of friction, incremental change versus radical change, was visible in the different priorities of the various leaderships involved in CEMPE. Some embraced smaller projects and bottom-up approaches as the optimal tools for facilitating lasting change: ‘One needs to take small steps … so that each individual does not feel too big a change for herself’ (Interviewee 2; see also Table 4). Others favoured top-down changes and more forceful leadership (see Table 2).

The fourth and fifth areas of tension were related to CEMPE/NMH versus external structures and CEMPE versus NMH. Regarding the former, working with other national and international organisations, other Norwegian centres for excellence in education, and HK-dir provided ideas and fruitful collaborations. On the other hand, some of these relations became strained when external standards were unclear or felt enforced according to NMH’s own organisational logic (Table 3, Interviewee 8). The fifth tension area, CEMPE versus NMH, was characterised by a constant struggle to prevent CEMPE from becoming an organisational satellite (Table 3, Interviewees 11 and 9) and to enable CEMPE’s change agents to explore without becoming alienated from the main organisational body (Table 4, Interviewees 12 and 10).

Finally, the sixth friction area, student as apprentice versus student as agent, showcased the gradual development towards deeper student involvement. Over time, this development seemed to dissipate friction and resulted in rather unanimous praise of student involvement as one of the main drivers of change (Table 3, Interviewee 11).

Areas of change

The identified visions for change generated friction, and five areas of perceived change emerged from this frictional organisational landscape. The first area, enhanced learning and teaching models, involved collaboration across teacher studios, institutional roles, disciplines, and organisations. It also involved explorative approaches and a mindset for sharing knowledge. Early in CEMPE’s timeline, a bottom-up approach was promoted (see Table 1). Instrumental teachers and music education researchers worked together on pedagogical development projects – at that point a novel form of collaboration in HME. Collaboration was close and often quite practical:

In many projects, [the researchers] didn’t have a distanced researcher role. We were involved as supporters, facilitators, and discussion partners, so in this sense, it didn’t result in traditional research but, I think, led to better practices. (Interviewee 5)

CEMPE was described as an ‘incubator’ (Interviewee 4), as a ‘set of test lanes’ (Interviewee 10), and as having particular value for ‘the more impatient people at NMH’ (Interviewee 8). The development of new learning and teaching models was facilitated by CEMPE through a grant scheme which afforded teachers from HME organisations extra research and development (R&D) time to test small-scale adaptations to their practices ‘without making a full-scale implementation right away’ (Interviewee 10). However, the transition from incremental to systemic change was difficult: ‘What I’m a little doubtful and perhaps a little disappointed about is that we haven’t made more progress in developing elements to be implemented in the ongoing ordinary activities’ (Interviewee 7).

Although it is difficult to pinpoint what led to changes in learning and teaching, a plausible interpretation is that several areas of friction favoured this development, such as staff autonomy vs workplace community, research-based vs practical knowledge, incremental vs radical change, and CEMPE vs NMH, through the involvement of change agents.

This amalgamation probably also characterised the second change area, namely expanding the free bachelor’s programme (FRIKA). In this programme, students can play more than one main instrument/genre and develop multiple specialities. Thus, expanding FRIKA entailed actual systemic change. Although not one of CEMPE’s explicit goals, this change was thought to be brought about by the general climate of open dialogue and cultural change that characterised the centre: ‘CEMPE contributed … to creating openness, a sense of legitimacy in the teacher group that it’s not so dangerous [to expand the programme] … and I think that’s very interesting’ (Interviewee 6).

The openness created by CEMPE expanded to NMH, which started discussing HME’s societal relevance more openly. This change area was visible in CEMPE-initiated public debates about topics such as #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, and decolonisation, which were mostly suggested by students. Student initiative thus allowed CEMPE (and NMH) to relate to broader societal issues. As one interviewee stated, ‘I’m not sure if this would have happened if CEMPE hadn’t paved the way for a more open dialogue climate, allowing major social issues to be discussed in HME’ (Interviewee 10). It is conceivable that this new openness was enabled by the friction between CEMPE/NMH and external structures and between CEMPE and NMH but also by the (dissipating) friction between student as apprentice/agent.

The same can be said of another socially related change area: increased organisational focus on musicians’ health and well-being. While students’ physical health was addressed in the early days of CEMPE, mental health came into focus when student involvement later increased. Consequently, CEMPE organised several activities on musicians’ mental health from 2020 onwards, including seminars, internal talks, public debates, and an international conference.

Overall, increased student agency and involvement was highlighted as CEMPE’s most significant endeavour. This change emerged mainly through the friction between the student as an apprentice and the student as an agent, which was later dissipated, as previously noted. While students in CEMPE’s first years partook in activities through their teachers, a turning point came when the centre started to recruit students as partners in the managerial team and created a grant scheme for student-led activities, for which an important selection criterion was that projects ‘had to be about education and lead to something of importance or relevance to more students than the ones involved’ (Interviewee 8). Vesting students with trust and responsibility and creating various arenas for gaining experience led to a ‘qualification of the student’s voice’ (Interviewee 1), both at CEMPE and NMH.

Discussion

The Norwegian CEE scheme has undoubtedly played a significant role in challenging NMH’s organisational culture through CEMPE’s activities. In essence, recruiting individuals and funding their projects (R&D and student-driven projects) established CEMPE as an ‘incubator’ for staff and students from Norwegian (and later other Scandinavian) HME organisations. The activities resulting from these grant schemes and the centre’s initiatives (e.g. conferences, seminars, and debates) pushed for change, as is expected of a centre for excellence (Bråten 2014; Helseth et al. 2019). However, the criteria and incentives offered by CEMPE in the context of these grant schemes did not exist in a vacuum. Calls for change are also often emphasised in other settings, as evidenced in recent studies on HME, in which, for instance, student-centredness (Gies and Sætre 2019; Holmgren 2022; Zhukov and Sætre 2021), employability (Angelo, Varkøy, and Georgii-Hemming 2019; Georgii-Hemming, Johansson, and Moberg 2020; Minors et al. 2017; Westerlund and Gaunt 2021), and musicians’ social responsibility (Gaunt et al. 2021; Kallio et al. 2021; Schmidt 2019) reverberate among music education researchers (Ski-Berg and Røyseng 2023). Considering this interplay, how exactly has institutional change been enabled through the activities of CEMPE?

Positioned in a nested context, individuals with management positions in HME are placed under various and even opposing pressures regarding how to navigate change processes. For instance, many of the individuals interviewed in this study were obligated to meet the requirements for funding while simultaneously responding to current societal developments according to the field of HME (e.g. Gaunt et al. 2021; Minors et al. 2017) to ensure legitimacy (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). At the same time, CEMPE would not have been able to instigate or even enable change without maintaining its social credibility among organisational members (Meyer and Rowan 1977), most of whom partook in ‘an exclusive expert culture, where one-to-one teaching is taken for granted’ (Moberg and Georgii-Hemming 2021, 37). Instrumental lessons are highly individualised in HME (Johansson 2012; Jørgensen 2009; Nerland 2007; Perkins 2013), although some efforts to include more collaborative methods have recently been made (Gaunt and Westerlund 2013; Gies and Sætre 2019; Holmgren 2022; Zhukov and Sætre 2021). CEMPE was established to ‘work on challenges’ that involved precisely more collaborative and reflective approaches to learning and teaching. Although the interviewees navigated this conundrum differently, the recruitment of individuals – including students – was crucial for enabling institutional change.

However, our findings show that individuals who assume the role of change agents enter a frictional organisational landscape in which some areas of change appear more legitimate than others and even vary between constellations of members. If how to act in an institution is determined by a ‘defined set of legitimate options’ (Wooten and Hoffman 2017, 55), then institutional change is indeed intertwined with ‘attitudes towards knowledge development’ and is ‘enabled when competent people come together to think’, as our interviewees pointed out. Because higher education organisations are decentralised, insofar as their social orders build on the expertise of individual members (e.g. instrumental teachers), leaders may feel free to lead only when they adhere to ‘legitimate options’. CEMPE was, in fact, affected by leadership changes that resulted in a restructuring of its management and vision. Overall, the question of how to stimulate change was characterised by ambiguity (as found also in Kottmann, Westerheijden, and van der Meulen 2020), except for the effects of increased student involvement (aligning with Holen et al. 2021). CEMPE actively pushed for more student agency, and students, in turn, greatly affected the centre (see also Ski-Berg and Stabell Forthcoming). As researchers and insiders, we consider this a positive attribute yet find ourselves pondering: Are we outsourcing change processes to our students?

Concluding remarks

Institutional change processes in HME organisations are hard to navigate. Our findings show that staff in management roles are affected by a frictional organisational landscape in which some changes appear to be more or less ‘legitimate’ in the field of HME. Thus, it makes sense that recruiting individuals and providing incentives and funding contribute productively to change processes, however, relying on lobbying and resources alone may prove more difficult if legitimacy or funding is lacking. We propose that a heightened awareness of leaders’ ability and opportunities to instigate change in HME is necessary going forward to negotiate what is legitimate and to meet societal needs (e.g. social equity, employability, health and well-being). In line with Interviewee 3, we believe that sometimes leaders must dare to lead. Although change requires the involvement of all organisational members, our findings implicate that change agents can be burdened if the responsibility for change is delegated to them without the proper support from leaders. Friction can be a powerful motivator for change but is also symptomatic of resistance. Because student agency has proven to be particularly effective in overcoming resistance to change, we suggest that further research is needed to investigate students’ experiences of institutional change in HME.

Disclosure statement

This article presents a research project that investigated a Centre for Excellence in Education (CEE) at the Norwegian Academy of Music (NMH). The project was suggested by the centre's international advisory committee and executed by three researchers from NMH affiliated with the centre in question. During the research process, the ethical guidelines of the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD) have been upheld (approval number 661056) to avoid any conflict of interests, including additional measures to ensure transparency and validity (see ‘ethical considerations’).

Additional information

Funding

This research project was funded by the Centre for Excellence in Music Education (CEMPE) at the Norwegian Academy of Music (NMH). CEMPE received some funding from NMH, but was for the most part funded by the Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills (HK-dir) as part of the Centre for Excellence in Education (CEE) scheme. The funding of this research project constituted extra R&D time for the researchers involved and contains no grant number.

Notes on contributors

Veronica Ski-Berg

Veronica Ski-Berg is a researcher at NIFU Nordic Institute for Studies of innovation, research and education. She was previously affiliated with the Centre for Excellence in Music Performance Education (CEMPE), the Norwegian Academy of Music, where she completed her PhD thesis entitled Pressures for change: Institutional politics in higher music education (2023). Her research work is centred on institutional power dynamics, including inquiries into how individuals and organisations navigate change processes and how student creativity is institutionalised in higher education.

Ellen M. Stabell

Ellen M. Stabell was Head for the Centre for Excellence in Music Performance Education (CEMPE) from 2021 to 2023, a centre working on projects and initiatives aimed at advancing music performance education. Stabell is also a lecturer in music pedagogy and didactics at the Norwegian Academy of Music. In 2018, Stabell completed her doctoral thesis on learning cultures in talent development programmes with the title Being talented – becoming a musician. Her research interests include talent development on the pre-college level, learning cultures in higher music education, one-to-one tuition, and sociological perspectives. Prior to her roles at CEMPE, Stabell received her education as a pianist and music teacher and has several years of experience from teaching piano.

Sidsel Karlsen

Sidsel Karlsen is currently vice-principal for research at the Norwegian Academy of Music, and also professor of music education at the same institution. She has published widely in international research journals, anthologies, and handbooks. Her research interests include, among other things, the sociology of music education, various aspects of musical gentrification, cultural diversity in music education, and higher music education. She is co-editor of the recent books Musical Gentrification: Popular Music, Distinction and Social Mobility (2021, Routledge), The Politics of Diversity in Music Education (2021, Springer) and Visions for Intercultural Music Teacher Education (2020, Springer). Together with professor Heidi Westerlund, Karlsen led the research project Global visions through mobilizing networks: Co-developing intercultural music teacher education in Finland, Israel and Nepal from 2015 to 2020. This project was funded by the Academy of Finland. She has also worked within two projects funded by The Research Council of Norway: Musical gentrification and socio-cultural diversities (2013–2017) as well as The social dynamics of musical upbringing and schooling in the Norwegian welfare state (2018–2022).