skip to main content
10.1145/3625135.3625151acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdlfmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Attitudes of Music Scholars Towards Digital Musicology

Published: 10 November 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Music research appears to lag behind other fields in adopting methods coming from the digital humanities (DH). Researchers have hypothesized that this might be due to the gulf that exists between music scholars who use computational approaches and those who do not, which makes it more difficult for the former group to publish their research and gain recognition for their research from their peers. If we are to invest efforts and resources in the development of tools for music analysis, it seems crucial to understand what could impede their adoption. In this paper, we present the preliminary results of an ongoing qualitative study based on five in-depth interviews with music scholars from Canadian universities. We focus more specifically on 1) how music scholars perceive and value digital musicology, and 2) how they think doing digital musicology could affect the career progression of a scholar. We found that the participants who did not do DH research expressed skepticism towards the validity and relevance of DH research in music, valued traditional approaches, and, to some extent, feared that DH methods could displace traditional methods. Participants from both sides of the gulf noted that doing DH research in music could sometimes constitute an advantage in the career progression of music scholars (e.g., for getting funding), but that it could also be detrimental in other circumstances (e.g., for getting published in renowned journals).

References

[1]
Christine L. Borgman. 2007. Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the Internet. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7434.001.0001
[2]
Pierre Bourdieu. 1975. The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information 14, 6 (Dec. 1975), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847501400602
[3]
Raymond Erickson. 1968. Music analysis and the computer. Journal of Music Theory 12, 2 (1968), 240–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/843312
[4]
Hsiu-Fang Hsieh and Sarah E. Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15, 9 (2005), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
[5]
Charles Inskip and Frans Wiering. 2015. In their own words: Using text analysis to identify musicologists’ attitudes towards technology. In Proceedings of the 16th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference, Malaga, Spain.Malaga, Spain. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1416422
[6]
Alan Liu. 2013. The meaning of the digital humanities. PMLA 128, 2 (2013), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2013.128.2.409
[7]
Alan Marsden. 2009. ‘What was the question?’: Music analysis and the computer. In Modern Methods for Musicology. Routledge.
[8]
Collectif Multitudes. 2015. Digital humanities manifesto 2.0. Multitudes 59, 2 (2015), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.3917/mult.059.0181
[9]
Maria Panteli, Emmanouil Benetos, and Simon Dixon. 2018. A review of manual and computational approaches for the study of world music corpora. Journal of New Music Research 47, 2 (2018), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/09298215.2017.1418896
[10]
Michael Quinn Patton. 2015. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE, Los Angeles.
[11]
Susan Schreibman, Raymond George Siemens, and John Unsworth. 2004. A companion to digital humanities. Blackwell Pub., Malden, MA. https://companions.digitalhumanities.org/DH/
[12]
Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis, and Fred D. Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27, 3 (2003), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
[13]
Anja Volk and Aline Honingh. 2012. Mathematical and computational approaches to music: Challenges in an interdisciplinary enterprise. Journal of Mathematics and Music 6, 2 (2012), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17459737.2012.704154
[14]
Volk, Anja, Wiering, Frans, and van Kranenburg, Peter. 2011. Unfolding the potential of computational musicology. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations: Problems and Possibilities of Computational Humanities. Fryske Akademy, 137–144.
[15]
Claire Warwick. 2012. Studying users in digital humanities. In Digital Humanities in Practice, Claire Warwick, Julianne Nyhan, and Melissa Terras (Eds.). Facet, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781856049054.002
[16]
Zorich, Diane M.2012. Transitioning to a digital world: Art history, its research centers, and digital scholarship. Technical Report. https://www.kressfoundation.org/Resources/Sponsored-Research/Research-Items/Transitioning-to-a-Digital-World

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
DLfM '23: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Digital Libraries for Musicology
November 2023
139 pages
ISBN:9798400708336
DOI:10.1145/3625135
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 10 November 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. digital musicology
  2. user studies

Qualifiers

  • Short-paper
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Conference

DLfM 2023

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 27 of 48 submissions, 56%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)36
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media