Music Traditions, Cultures, and Contexts

14 A Festschrift for the Twenty-First Century: Student Voices

I n the fall of 2006, a group of Beverley Diamond’s former students came together to contribute to this Festschrift. As an educator, mentor , supervisor, researcher, fieldworker, collaborator, and friend, Bev’s impact has been widely felt, evidenced by the enthusiastic response from students hoping to contribute. Her ideas have guided us as researchers and teachers, and, most importantly, they have shaped us as people. For these reasons, among others, we embraced this opportunity to reflect on what we have learned from her about the collaborative and ethical dimensions of the process of producing knowledge, about sharing space, and about how to pose a thoughtful question and how to really listen to an answer. In our correspondences we explored many topics that are close to our hearts as well as Bev’s, including gender, mentoring, pedagogy, technology , multiculturalism, and the future of Canadian ethnomusicology, to name a few. Some who participated in these discussions took classes together at York or at Memorial. Others never met. Yet we all cultivated professional and personal relationships through the communities at both institutions that Bev played a pivotal role in fostering over two decades. Most of us have had the opportunity to work with Bev on ideas in her offices in Winters College and at MMaP , at the Absinthe Pub and Bitters, or at one of many dinner parties that she generously hosted at her home. Our time with Bev is the singular link that brings us all together in this place. 295 A Festschrift for the Twenty-First Century Student Voices kip pegley virginia caputo FOURTEEN The purpose in coming together initially seemed quite clear to all of us. What was not so clear was the most appropriate way to go about accomplishing our goal given that we are all situated in various locations across several countries. This is when the idea of transforming the Festschrift into an online exchange first emerged. The editors realized at the outset of the project that using electronic mediation as a primary mode of communication to run ideas across continents and time zones meant that the group could face steep challenges and intellectually and emotionally costly decisions. Nevertheless, our previous experiences with one form of online exchange—blogs—suggested that this medium might be highly useful. Blogs can be efficient, allow for easy reference to previous discussions, and enable participants to leapfrog over one another in discussions to follow up on ideas that interested them. We decided to use this format and launched our effort with a set of key questions around themes intended to spark discussion. In practice, however, the blog format posed challenges. Many contributors experienced this forum as too impersonal and unfriendly, especially given that we were not only communicating ideas, but also sharing private emotions about someone for whom we care deeply. Many reported privately that the blog felt as though it was cavernous, impersonal, and “out there.” We decided that what was needed was an electronic place where sharing could be conducted in ways that might foster this feeling of closeness and intimate proximity. Out of these discussions, questions of process, identity, and community began to emerge. To bridge the distance articulated by blog participants, we moved into an email discussion format, and we sensed immediately a change in the group’s energy. Postings began to circulate, followed by an exchange of ideas and emotional tributes. To help facilitate our feeling of connectedness, contributors’ names and addresses were left in the recipient list. Even if a contributor had not posted to the list for some time, his or her presence on the list was noted. In a sense, the list created a portal through which we were all visible to one another, at least in name. As one contributor stated, it was good to have one another “in each other’s inboxes.” We felt closer and back on track. The online discussions then unfolded in multi-faceted ways. Some contributors clearly were more comfortable with this medium than others; some preferred to initiate ideas while others would sooner wait until ideas were generated before they would engage publicly. In some discussions, contributors chose to work with excerpts from Bev’s publications on a variety of topics while others chose to discuss her pedagogical strategies and 296 Kip Pegley and Virginia Caputo how these shaped their own approaches to teaching. While the project initially was designed as an online discussion...