What Does Ambiguity Mean for Instrumental and Vocal Pedagogy? A Report from the Symposium “Embracing Ambiguity”
We’re currently living through an era of profound social change, change that often goes hand in hand with crises. Though observations like this one are no longer exactly breaking news, what is indeed interesting—and also more challenging—is the question of how a successful approach to dealing with these changes might look. This idea was the starting point for the symposium “Embracing Ambiguity. Zur Rolle der Instrumental- und Gesangspädagogik in Musikpädagogik, Bildungspolitik und Gesellschaft” […On the Role of Instrumental and Vocal Pedagogy in Music Education, Education Policy, and Society], which was held at the mdw on 29 and 30 May 2026.
The title “Embracing Ambiguity” itself, beyond simply being thought-provoking, served as an invitation to resist viewing the ambiguities that accompany change as things to be overcome, to endure and perhaps even embrace them rather than aim for their quick resolution or suppression. Just what this can mean for an artistic and pedagogical discipline—along with the attendant implications for university studies, the profession, and research—was explored by a total of seven presenters, 15 panellists, and around 120 international participants in the beautiful setting of the Neuer Konzertsaal at Rennweg 8 as well as online. A musical reception provided an atmospheric welcome, and a number of iPads set up in the foyer provided guests with impressions from the daily working lives of instrumental and vocal teachers in various professional contexts.
Embracing Ambiguity – But why and how?
Throughout the symposium, current changes and challenges in the field of instrumental and vocal pedagogy were examined from various perspectives. The symposium proper kicked off with a pointed keynote address by cultural scholar Martin Zierold, who proposed a deliberately provocative thought experiment: What would happen if instrumental and vocal pedagogy (commonly abbreviated by German-speakers as “IGP”) ceased to exist as a discipline? It quickly became clear that change is a prerequisite for a discipline’s or institution’s continued vibrancy. Building on this idea, Zierold then asked whether IGP is currently at a turning point. In this regard, he also emphasised that success and change are inextricably linked, asserting that one can speak of success only when actions and efforts have far-reaching consequences—even if these consequences entail new challenges. This idea was taken up in discussions pertaining to the field’s professionalisation as the symposium progressed.
Wolfgang Lessing, in his talk, challenged the widespread notion of professionalisation as a linear process. He placed a particular focus on the shift in what counts as professional knowledge in IGP. While one used to start from the music and the instrument, it is now the case that musical practices’ diversity and learners’ individuality have become more central—with “every person,” “every music,” and “every instrument” broadening how the profession is now viewed.
Bianka Wüstenhube emphasised the importance of a collaborative attitude. In her presentation, she urged those in attendance not to lose sight of the various music education disciplines’ shared roots even as professional specialisation grows. Wüstenhube also warned against cultivating a competitive mindset or hierarchical distinctions between the individual disciplines that make up the “greater music education family.”
In their joint lecture, Michael Göllner and Natalia Ardila-Mantilla took a step back and considered the discipline and its development from a clearly defined “educational edifice” into a continually expanding, increasingly unstable “cloud-house.” Drawing on the work of sociologist Andreas Reckwitz, they interpreted this development as the manifestation of a modern progress narrative, one that is currently losing its presumed self-evidence while itself entailing inevitable losses. They contrasted the metaphor of a closed building with a look at various areas of tension where ambiguity becomes apparent. Moreover, they argued that facilitating music education should be viewed as the shared responsibility of general schooling, music schools, universities of music, and education and cultural policy—with the associated discursive arenas kept firmly in view.
Between Research and Everyday Professional Life
Another important focus of the symposium was on current research projects situated in fields where instrumental and vocal teachers work:
Carmen Heß and Kerstin Weuthen provided an impression of the everyday professional lives of music school teachers in Germany, as part of which they presented findings from the research project “MiKADO-Musik”1. Citing qualitative interviews, they showed the extent to which these teachers’ work consists in a balancing act between artistic aspirations, pedagogical responsibility, students’ needs, and society’ expectations. This brought out a central ambivalence—that of how the very commitment that makes this profession so fulfilling for many teachers can also become a burden when conditions turn precarious.
Michael Göllner turned the attendees’ attention to an Austrian sub-study of the MiKADO project. Referring to interviews with music school faculty members in Lower Austria, he described how teachers oscillate between the roles of “door-opener” and “gatekeeper” when advising their students on higher education and career choices. He interpreted the transition from music school to music degree programme as a rite of passage, arguing for greater recognition of and targeted support for work at this interface—work that involves enabling, aspects of gatekeeping, and social inclusion. This, he said, could help enhance educational equality and contribute to the socially inclusive promotion of young musical talents.
Natalia Ardila-Mantilla likewise addressed the frequently invisible mediatory work done by instrumental and vocal teachers, referring to findings from the qualitative study “AnmuT”2 . Building on the “jack-of-all-trades” metaphor introduced into the academic discourse by Peter Röbke, she questioned teachers image as perpetually overwhelmed and proposed reframing them as “pillars of the system”. Teachers, after all, perform systemically stabilising work as a core professional competency—despite how such work has received little structural support thus far.
In Dialogue
This symposium thrived on exchange: over the course of its two days, the issues raised in the various presentations were discussed and explored from a range of perspectives in numerous small groups, panel discussions, and roundtables. Experts from diverse music education-related contexts reflected together on developments in the curricular realm, the future of instrumental and vocal pedagogy, and the professional identity of instrumental and vocal teachers as well as their artistic aspirations. A further focus was on music schools as institutions. It became evident at several points that the social mission of music schools is constantly expanding, even though the extent to which existing legal and organisational structures are keeping up with this change is limited. The discussions consequently revolved around new organisational forms and cooperative arrangements, the representation of political interests, and music schools’ role as cross-generational meeting places. Key areas of tension emerged, here—tensions between educational mandates and flexibility, institutions’ stability and innovative capacity, artistic practice, and responsibilities in terms of educational and cultural policy.
Ambiguity as an Opportunity?
Embracing Ambiguity demonstrated quite clearly how instrumental and vocal pedagogy is currently going through a process of transformation. And in light of how our societies are changing, efforts to drive forward its development in terms of higher education, the teaching profession itself, and educational policy would indeed seem essential. On a personal level, the presentations, discussions, and productive disagreements left me feeling quite optimistic. The wide range of different approaches as well as the openness and reflectiveness that were in evidence here impressively demonstrated the great eagerness of the “greater music education family” to take on the diverse challenges of our present times. Here, too, one could speak of ambiguity, if one felt so moved—an ambiguity that one would indeed be more than happy to embrace.
Individual threads of the overall discussion opened by this symposium will be pursued further during the 2026/27 winter semester and returned to the spotlight on 13 November 2026 as part of the series IGP – Impulse, Gedanken, Perspektiven [IGP – Impulses, Thoughts, Perspectives] organised by the IGP team. We warmly invite all those who are interested to join us!
