Pauwke Berkers

This study investigates how educators understand and address gender within cultural entrepreneurship education (CEE) in art and design higher education in the Netherlands. CEE has become central to preparing students for increasingly precarious cultural labour markets and, in Europe, is informed by fields long criticised by feminist scholars for privileging traditionally masculine-coded norms such as competitiveness and risk-taking. Despite this, gender has received virtually no explicit attention in CEE policy and research. Drawing on interviews with 18 CEE educators and (co-)heads of Fine Art programmes across all eight state-funded institutions in the Netherlands, the study identifies a disconnect between educators’ awareness of gender inequality and its largely ad hoc integration into teaching. Despite their awareness, educators reinforce this disconnect through gender blindness and non-performativity. Their accounts sustain the belief in CEE’s neutrality, potentially disadvantaging women despite their majority presence in Fine Art higher education.

This research examines how white, cisgender, and straight men negotiate masculinity in inclusive nightlife. Drawing on fourteen semi-structured interviews with inclusive nightlife visitors in Rotterdam (the Netherlands), we identified two distinct strategies of how the participants performed a hybrid masculinity while navigating an inclusive environment: 1. Translational masculinity (translating subordinate masculine practices), and 2. Inconspicuous masculinity (toning down hegemonic masculine practices). These strategies emerge in a paradoxical inclusive space: a space that allows for different and inclusive forms of masculinity but simultaneously feels exclusionary for white, cisgender, straight men because of their hegemonic position. The participants negotiated their power position and legitimate unequal gender relations by co-opting feminist discourse while positioning themselves opposite of LGBTQ+ people and women and as belonging less in inclusive nightlife. The distinction between the two strategies allows future studies to better identify different, and possibly previously missed, practices of hybrid masculinity.

Leadership in higher popular music education presents distinct challenges, especially as it establishes itself within traditionally classical music-dominated institutions. The gradual institutionalization of popular music is reflected in how European higher music education institutions (HMEIs) have progressively embraced it over the past four decades. However, these programmes often follow classical music structures, which may not fully align with the needs of students who study popular music. This study examines the perspectives of institutional leaders on the integration of popular music education, using survey data and semi-structured interviews from across European HMEIs. It explores the development of popular music programmes, their relevance to the labour market and the balance between tradition and innovation. The findings suggest that while popular music education is expanding, many programmes in popular music still follow traditional classical structures, focusing on instrumental proficiency and music theory. Skills specific to popular music are often overlooked, highlighting the need for a more tailored approach.

Research has illustrated how some cultural forms that were once excluded from higher education institutions become incorporated over time through a process known as “cultural legitimation.” While this process has been well documented for arts forms such as jazz and film, less is known about artforms in the middle of this process, as definitional boundaries and educational aims remain in flux. To better understand this, we ask: how do music educators define popular music and what are their perspectives on educational aims? Using data from an original survey, we analyze opinions using a mixed-methods approach, bringing the results of Q methodology and a thematic analysis together using multiple correspondence analysis. The results suggest the existence of four perspectives on institutional popular music: (a) musicians as professional culture producers, (b) popular music as institutionally legitimate, (c) popular music as an aesthetic enterprise, and, finally, (d) a lack of definitional form.

Risk management and the navigation of loss are inherent to working conditions within the festival industry. With festivals cancelled, postponed or redesigned, the coronacrisis has deeply affected the already uncertain festival sector. Based on thirty-five interviews with Danish, Dutch and British music festival organisers, this article examines which losses organisers experienced when faced with a social trauma that disrupted their ontological security. Additionally, it analyses how they have coped and responded to this situation via organisational and emotional strategies. Three phases in how organisers cope with loss are identified, where organisational and individual responses play varying, complementary roles: (1) imminent short-term loss and its realisation, (2) acceptance of short-term loss and (3) moving beyond loss. The analysis reveals how managing potential personal loss and facing organisational crisis should not merely be seen in terms of a rational decision-making process but is also mediated by emotional losses organisers experience as not only their livelihood, but their work identity is existentially challenged. Implications are drawn on the nature of cultural work, with attention to the entwinement of personal and professional identities.

There has been a steady increase in popular music programs at Higher Music Education Institutions (HMEIs) across Europe. However, what students actually are supposed to learn at popular music bachelor/master programs has remained largely understudied. Based on 12 in-depth interviews with leaders in higher popular music education, this paper addresses: (1) how popular music is defined and possibly canonized, (2) what the position of popular music programs is, and (3) how the content of popular music programs is constructed—at HMEIs. First, participants struggle to provide a clear definition of popular music. Therefore, they differ in how they name their program – as popular music, pop music or something else. Because there is little consensus over a canon of popular music, our interviewees work from a mini-canon of British/American popular music, add local music to the curriculum, use jazz as a basis and/or work without a canon. Second, despite their growing popularity, popular music programs still struggle to position themselves, particularly at HMEIs with strong classical music departments. Third, program leaders navigate between different approaches of content construction within the constraints of their institution: (a) craft-centered (top-down, teacher-driven, skill-oriented), (b) arts-centered (bottom-up, student-driven, creativity-oriented), and (c) market-centered (side-to-side, industry-driven, commercially-oriented).