Arts and Cultural Education in Iceland : Professor Anne Bamford

and the teaching. It is just not possible for them to do research as well. Many schools do
activities but they do not consciously know the impact of their work. This seemed to be
particularly the case in heritage education, where many schools and children were initiating
interesting inquiries in this field, but were not explicitly aware of the nature of their work.
Allied to the lack of research, was the general lack of sharing of good practice action models
from one place to the next. This seemed to be the result both of geographical separation and of
a lack of resources (time and money) to encourage sharing. The lack of research was particularly
evident in relation to a number of highly successful ‘ground-up’ initiatives.
For example, a festival within a local community may have been highly successful, innovative
and ground-breaking, but there would be no evidence gathered, research undertaken, or
reflections made to ensure that learning from such successful experiences could be transferred
to future events, or similar events in other locations. For example, the research team
approached a cultural officer in the town where they host one of Iceland's main cultural festivals
and asked him if the economic impact of culture or the cultural festival had been studied. He
said that there had been talk of doing this but nothing had yet been done. There is a lack of
impact research conducted around these local initiatives. No one knows how much additional
income is generated, what the value is to the community. It is very difficult to get national media
coverage. Publicity is done online, but there is a lack of joined up thinking. Concurrently,
practitioners working in the tertiary sector were more likely to take their expertise abroad, that
to other parts of Iceland.
Teachers were also keen to undertake further research study into their work, in the form of
action research, but with the exception of a relatively small sabbatical programme, there were
limited opportunities for research-based study in the arts (especially part-time offers that could
be undertaken concurrently with their jobs as teachers and cultural workers). Those working
with further and higher education are aware of the need to build a more vibrant research milieu
in the arts, design and cultural fields in Iceland and plans are underway to enhance the offerings
in these fields.
Quality arts programmes encourage people to take risks and allow them to make mistakes.
'Letting go' of control and being confident to make mistakes is an important part of the creative
process. Uncertainty surrounds quality arts practice and this is to be encouraged.
Within Iceland there were good practice examples of projects that encouraged exploration
and challenged pupils, teachers and artists to go beyond their perceived scope and ability. These
were particularly evident in more remote communities where innovation and community
inventiveness had led to particularly interesting practices in the arts.
Ironically, many of the more established cultural institutions – including some music schools
– tended to favour highly traditional approaches to arts education. In these instances, the
programmes promoted ongoing practices and traditions rather then innovation and risk taking.
In some cases, the reinforcement of tradition was enshrined in their institutional culture. For
example, in one music school there was a clear mandate to work in a traditional manner in
private lessons and to follow time-honoured practices. This had led to a number of teenagers
establishing alternative pathways in music, and as the schools openly stated, “If they don’t like
the way we do things here, there are other (private) music schools where pupils can do more
experimental work.” Primarily, the more traditional sectors receive the majority of funding and
the discussion should be begun in Iceland as to the relative methods of more traditional
approaches or more innovative practices. In particular, it could be argued that the after school
72