View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Assessing Accessibility: An Instrumental Case Study of a Community Music Group

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Assessing Accessibility: An Instrumental Case Study of a Community Music Group
Language: English
Authors: bell, adam patrick (ORCID 0000-0002-8500-9754), Datoo, Atiya, Matterson, Brent, Bahhadi, Joseph, Ko, Chantelle
Source: Music Education Research. 2022 24(3):350-363.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Descriptors: Music Activities, Inclusion, Accessibility (for Disabled), Diversity, Attitudes, Music Education, Motion, Information Technology, Musicians, Individual Characteristics, Adults, Video Technology, Marketing
Geographic Terms: New York (New York)
DOI: 10.1080/14613808.2022.2038111
ISSN: 1461-3808
1469-9893
Abstract: Creating accessible events is a pressing issue for many music organisations. In the United States, the term accessibility has strong ties to disability, and it is an important concept because what is deemed accessible directly impacts who is included and excluded from music experiences. Music Community Lab (MCL) runs a series of events in New York City called "Monthly Music Hackathon NYC." They aim to promote 'diversity across backgrounds, perspectives, and abilities'. This instrumental case study sought to examine how MCL participants conceptualise accessibility as well as analyze participants' suggestions for improving the accessibility of MCL events. Sixty-two people who attended one of three MCL events completed a demographic survey and 57 of those respondents participated in an interview. Findings reveal that 63% (n = 36) of participants associated accessibility with inclusivity and 35% (n = 20) of participants associated accessibility with ease of access to resources, places, and experiences. Participants' suggestions for improving accessibility included social media marketing (n = 23; 40%) and ease of access approaches (n = 11; 19%) including CART, ASL, and live streaming events. Accessibility is challenging for community music groups like MCL to navigate because it is a complex construct with varied interpretations.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1356913
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGjeOLpqFtsrsJoaIvVFJCvAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDECzizcTHEcWUxR0QAIBEICBm5KdBNJunOdz1PXyVBHd4Kk74rV0meWf-QHWdwG049gbjy_nAyCkxLNNYsSi8L9LkTeNqv-ZsUDL9vtF5ywGt1N3OMdpQGHTgXIFgrDzJP2RXY7Hdnjc92Ovz-Kk8iqf8JTXskQDLuFbVcMnnAM2qh_oJbW12eo5bew48ODqy6SaY3JsOx0n_KWPQh_R5iC6s9-scBTulnpqh7qO
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0157959450;54y01jul.22;2022Jul15.07:36;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0157959450-1">Assessing accessibility: an instrumental case study of a community music group </title> <p>Creating accessible events is a pressing issue for many music organisations. In the United States, the term accessibility has strong ties to disability, and it is an important concept because what is deemed accessible directly impacts who is included and excluded from music experiences. Music Community Lab (MCL) runs a series of events in New York City called Monthly Music Hackathon NYC. They aim to promote 'diversity across backgrounds, perspectives, and abilities'. This instrumental case study sought to examine how MCL participants conceptualise accessibility as well as analyze participants' suggestions for improving the accessibility of MCL events. Sixty-two people who attended one of three MCL events completed a demographic survey and 57 of those respondents participated in an interview. Findings reveal that 63% (n = 36) of participants associated accessibility with inclusivity and 35% (n = 20) of participants associated accessibility with ease of access to resources, places, and experiences. Participants' suggestions for improving accessibility included social media marketing (n = 23; 40%) and ease of access approaches (n = 11; 19%) including CART, ASL, and live streaming events. Accessibility is challenging for community music groups like MCL to navigate because it is a complex construct with varied interpretations.</p> <p>Keywords: accessibility; disability; community music; music technology; hackathon</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-2">Introduction: a community music group at a crossroads</hd> <p>Music Community Lab (MCL), the volunteer-based not-for-profit organisation that runs a series of events in New York City called <emph>Montly Music Hackathon NYC</emph>, is at a crossroads. Over the past seven years, MCL has organised over fifty non-competitive day-long music hackathon events where attendees of varying levels of experience and expertise with music technologies work together to come up with 'hacks' for problems posed by members of their community. Examples of music hacks range from a phone app that vibrates to the beat of a song to enhance the experience of music listening for people with hearing impairments to newly conceived music notation systems aimed at making visual music literacy more accessible. MCL's website explains:</p> <p>We adopt the concept of 'hacking' music from the tech world as an effective way to approach experimenting with nearly any aspect of art ... we encourage hacking of music in the broadest possible sense, for example through remixing, instrument-building, data visualization, collaboration, improvisation, or any other way you can imagine. (Music Community Lab [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref1">25</reflink>])</p> <p>Despite consistently large turnouts with attendance ranging between 20 and 200 for a given themed event – past event themes have included accessibility, gender, and artificial intelligence – the core group of six organisers who constitute the MCL board recognise that their aim to promote 'diversity across backgrounds, perspectives, and abilities', is a work in progress. To an extent, the group has been successful in diversifying its community, especially with regard to increased participation of women and people of colour, but can their events be more accessible and how might this aim be realized? The applicability of the findings of this study are not constrained to the MCL community, thus making it an instrumental case (Stake [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref2">39</reflink>]). Creating and supporting accessible events is a relevant and pressing issue to many music organisations and groups. The stakes are high because what is deemed 'accessible' directly impacts who is included and excluded from music experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-3">Accessibility and disability</hd> <p>In the United States, the term accessibility has strong ties to disability. This was evident at an MCL event labelled 'accessibility' but themed around disability. The guest speakers were all disabled people and attendees were encouraged to engage in projects that confronted the accessibility of music experiences for people with disabilities. This understanding is entrenched in the legacy of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), a civil rights law enacted in 1990 that prohibits discrimination based on the grounds of disability and requiring accommodations in the public sphere. Perhaps the most obvious examples of accessibility compliance in public infrastructure are ramps and curb cuts, both of which make urban environments more accessible for wheelchair users. Williamson ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref3">49</reflink>]) details that the United States was the first country to enact laws to mandate architectural access, which was influential on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref4">45</reflink>]). Accessibility as outlined in Article 9 of the aforementioned Convention focuses on the responsibilities of nation states to ensure independent living and full participation in society, including eliminating barriers to infrastructure (e.g. schools) and services (e.g. communications). Williamson ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref5">49</reflink>]) defines access 'in terms of physical usability of architecture, infrastructure, and products by disabled people', conceding that this definition excludes other types of disabilities (sensory, cognitive, intellectual) (<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref6">11</reflink>). Whereas Williamson's conceptualisation of accessibility is rooted in usability, Titchkosky ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref7">43</reflink>]) frames accessibility as the manifold possible interactions between people, physical infrastructure, and social infrastructure. For Titchkosky, accessibility can be as complex as the context, which is altogether physical and social at once. Taken together, accessibility in American law is objective, but in everyday American life it is subjective. While the construct of accessibility may be complex, even contested, how accessibility is perceived and enacted has real-life ramifications for disabled people. For example, in a recent Canadian study, Soetemans and Jackson ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref8">37</reflink>]) found that nondisabled people perceive disabled people more positively in contexts construed as accessible.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-4">Accessibility and music</hd> <p>In addition to accessibility, it is important to recognise that there are related terms that hold similar definitions, including habitability (Preiser [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref9">30</reflink>]), inclusivity (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref10">46</reflink>]), and usability (Steinfeld & Danford [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref11">40</reflink>]). In educational contexts such as schools and universities, Universal Design (UD) and its descendant, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), are often suggested as ways to make learning more accessible. UDL is premised on an instructional approach that anticipates barriers to learning and circumvents them by representing knowledge in multiple mediums, providing learners with multiple means to evidence their understanding, and engaging learners in multiple ways (Capp [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref12">5</reflink>]). UDL emphasises flexibility and individuality while also planning for variability and diversity from the beginning of the planning process (Meyer et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref13">23</reflink>]). Examples of pedagogical approaches employing UDL principles in music disciplines include education (Darrow [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref14">6</reflink>]; McCord et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref15">22</reflink>]) and theory (Quaglia [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref16">31</reflink>]). In practice, not all barriers can be anticipated, and therefore a reactionary approach may be required to facilitate accessibility for some individuals, such as providing assistive technology (Glass et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref17">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given that UDL is founded on UD, it is worthwhile taking stock of some of the critiques of UD and how they might extend to UDL. Hamraie ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref18">14</reflink>]) argues that over time, UD became disconnected from disability, resulting in an understanding of accessibility that problematically associates it with no one in particular. Now, UD and accessibility are conflated and touted as good for 'everyone', which as Hamraie ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref19">14</reflink>]) points out, indicates that the core message of accessibility has been lost in translation in the process of being adopted by other disciplines (e.g. education, music). This is true of some American studies that assess access to music education yet omit or diminish the importance of disability. For example, Elpus and Abril ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref20">9</reflink>]) aimed 'to construct a complete demographic profile of high school music ensemble students using nationally representative data' (<reflink idref="bib326" id="ref21">326</reflink>), yet disability is neither analyzed nor discussed and no rationale for doing so is provided, duplicating the erasure of disability from similar previous studies (Elpus & Abril [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref22">8</reflink>]; Parsad & Spiegelman [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref23">28</reflink>]). Important demographic data such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status are included when addressing the issue of accessibility to music education, but disability is conspicuously absent. In a different study, Elpus ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]) does not name disability, but documents that American students who received 'special education services under an IEP [Individual Education Plan] were underrepresented among music students in all cohorts for which the data were observable' (<reflink idref="bib225" id="ref25">225</reflink>).</p> <p>Like the aforementioned national studies, regional studies of accessibility to music education such as those by Salvador and Allegood ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref26">33</reflink>]) on Washington D.C. and Detroit, and Shaw and Auletto ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref27">36</reflink>]) on Michigan also foreground race. A smaller scale instrumental case study on 'traditionally marginalized populations' by Fitzpatrick et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref28">10</reflink>]) includes race, sexuality, and gender, but excludes disability. Notably, Shaw and Auletto ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]) detail that students with disabilities in Michigan are less likely to attend schools with music teachers, but on the whole, when the question of who has access to music in America is posed, disabled people are not foregrounded by researchers. Given the relationship between race and disability in America (Goodman et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref30">13</reflink>]), and the overlap between racism and ableism (Annamma et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref31">2</reflink>]), the lack of intersectional analyses in these studies is a missed opportunity. The scarcity of research on disability in music education research is not a new phenomenon and historically the perspectives of students with disabilities have been excluded (Jellison & Taylor [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref32">18</reflink>]). In sum, there is a long precedent in research on American music education that dissociates disability from accessibility.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-5">Hackathons and accessibility</hd> <p>Hackathons tend to be relatively fast-paced design events where volunteers congregate to work on a product or services of some kind (Lodato & DiSalvo [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref33">21</reflink>]). Typically lasting one or two days (Nandi & Mandernach [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>]), most hackathons focus on technology and involve coding as a primary activity (Trainer et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref35">44</reflink>]; Irani [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref36">16</reflink>]). Hackathons have a history of being competitive with prizes promised to the designers of the best outcomes, but some groups, MCL included, opt for a non-competitive approach (Richterich [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>]). Who attends hackathons varies widely, with events often bringing together both experts and beginners (Lodato & DiSalvo [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]). Attendees have diverse motivations for participating, ranging from building and fostering professional relationships (Briscoe & Mulligan [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref39">4</reflink>]), to socialising over a mutual interest such as music (bell et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>]). What happens at a hackathon depends on its aims, but as a generalisation, hackathons involve working intensely in small groups toward a shared goal in a limited amount of time (Lara & Lockwood [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref41">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Most MCL events adhere to a similar structure, beginning with a series of short (5–10 min) theme-related guest talks at noon and then followed by (free) lunch, brainstorming, forming groups, hacking, workshops, and final presentations of works-in-progress. These events take place at various venues, including local universities and businesses with open-concept spaces conducive to collaborative work. MCL strives to host accessible events by using wheelchair-accessible buildings and some events have included ASL and/or CART services. While there is no research specifically on the accessibility of hackathon events, let alone music hackathons, the study of Milligan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref42">24</reflink>]) on the accessibility of arts and culture events in an American 'midwestern college town' serves as a suitable frame of reference. With 39 participants organised into four focus groups (managers of arts and culture organisations; people with disabilities; caregivers/service providers; city leaders, other stakeholders), Milligan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref43">24</reflink>]) found that the term accessibility proved difficult to define, resulting in challenges that both organisers and attendees face when assessing an event's accessibility. An Australian survey-based study of autistic people aged 18–25 (<emph>N</emph> = 30) regarding music workshops by Thompson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref44">42</reflink>]) reports that participants suggested both physical (e.g. break-out spaces, venues with natural light and air, providing instructions in multiple formats) and social (i.e. facilitators with 'a deep understanding of autism' who can foster 'friendly and respectful interactions') considerations to improve accessibility (<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref45">137</reflink>). Building on these related studies, we sought to examine how MCL event attendees define and discuss accessibility and explore how this community music group's self-assessment of their accessibility might inform other music organisations.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-6">Purpose and method</hd> <p>To investigate the accessibility of MCL, we used a case study approach (Stake [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref46">38</reflink>]), which included two data collection components: a survey and interviews. Both the survey and the interview questions were co-created in partnership with MCL organisers to ensure mutual beneficence between MCL and the research team. Data was collected at three different MCL events: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>) Live Code Lab, which focused on programming music in real time as a performance practice; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref48">2</reflink>) Music & Movement, which explored the relationship between movement and technology, specifically facial recognition, as well as dancing and drumming; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>) Songwriter Lab, which focused on facilitating collaborations between songwriters.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-7">Data collection</hd> <p>Event attendees were invited to complete the survey on a tablet and participate in an audio-recorded interview. At all events, attendees came and went at their leisure, which made tallying the total attendance challenging. Both the event organisers and the research team conducted headcounts throughout the duration of each event and arrived at the following attendance estimations: 120 people attended the Live Code Lab event, 40 of whom participated in the study; 20 people attended the Music & Movement event, 9 of whom participated in the study; 30 people attended the Songwriter Lab event, 13 of whom participated in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-8">Survey</hd> <p>A demographic survey (Appendix A) with questions about age, education, employment, gender, sexuality, race/ethnicity, and disability was administered using a non-probability method to a pool of attendees at each event. All attendees who stayed for the duration of an event were invited to participate through a face-to-face interaction with a member of the research team. We cannot claim that the demographic information collected represents all the people who attended, only those who chose to stay for an event's duration. Furthermore, the demographic information may not accurately represent those who attended events but were unwilling to participate in the study. Like all surveys, the data collected in this study is susceptible to participants misrepresenting themselves and the accuracy of the responses are assumed to be true. In total, 62 surveys were initiated at the three events. For each question on the survey, participants had the option to select, 'I choose not to answer'. These answers are not included in the findings, resulting in a smaller sample size for each reported survey item. Taking this into account, the largest sample size for any question is 61.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-9">Interviews</hd> <p>In addition to the survey, each participating attendee was invited to answer five questions in an interview (Appendix B). In total, 57 people participated in an interview as follows: Live Code Lab, 36; Music & Movement, 8; Songwriter Lab, 13. The number of responses recorded may be more or less than the total number of interviewees because some participants had multiple answers or did not answer each question.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-10">Data analysis</hd> <p>Following data collection, interview recordings were transcribed by the research team and then coded using a thematic analysis approach (Galletta [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref50">11</reflink>]). The codes were not predetermined; instead, they were identified by the research team through repeated readings of the transcripts. In this process, we proceeded by moving from the particularity of one interview to the particularities in other interviews. We noted patterns, commonalities, and contrasting aspects of the interview data (Galletta [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref51">11</reflink>]). The themes derived from the interview transcripts were used to address the question at the core of this study: How can MCL events be more accessible?</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-11">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0157959450-12">Demographic information</hd> <p>The function of the demographic survey was to establish who constitutes the community of MCL. This is important for the purpose of knowing whose perceptions are being taken into account in assessing accessibility.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-13">Age and race</hd> <p>Although the participants' ages range from under 18–65 and older, 39.34% (<emph>n</emph> = 24) of the sample (<emph>n = </emph>61) is between 25 and 29. Participants between 18 and 24 are the second most numerous (21.31%; <emph>n </emph>= 13). Overall, 93.75% (<emph>n = </emph>45) are under the age of 40. The racial makeup of this sample (<emph>n =</emph> 58) is primarily populated by those who identify as white (51.74%; <emph>n =</emph> 30). The second most common race represented are those who identify as Asian (27.59%; <emph>n =</emph> 16). Additionally, 12.07% (<emph>n =</emph> 7) identify as Black or African American. For comparison, in 2018, 42.7% of the population of New York City was white alone, 29.1% was Hispanic or Latino, 24.3% was Black or African American alone, and 13.9% was Asian alone (United States Census Bureau [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref52">47</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-14">Gender, sexuality, and disability</hd> <p>The sample (<emph>n = </emph>60) is populated primarily by those who identify as men (68.33%; <emph>n = </emph>41). Participants who identify as women comprise the rest of the sample (31.67%). No participant identified as transgender or another gender identity. Participants who identify as heterosexual (80%; <emph>n =</emph> 44) were the most numerous in the sample (<emph>n =</emph> 55). The remainder of respondents identified as gay (1.82%; <emph>n =</emph> 1), bisexual (7.27%), queer (5.45%), or opted for another term (<emph>n</emph> = 3) including 'ace', 'Gay, Bisexual, Queer', and 'Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual'. The sample (<emph>n =</emph> 59) was dominated by nondisabled participants (89.83%; <emph>n =</emph> 53), while the remainder of the sample if comprised of people who identify as having disabilities (10.17%; <emph>n </emph>= 6).</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-15">Education and employment</hd> <p>Participants reported high levels of education. Almost half (47.54%; <emph>n </emph>= 29) of the sample (<emph>n = </emph>61) possesses a bachelor's degree as their highest level of education, and 85.25% (<emph>n </emph>= 52) have completed some form of post-secondary education. The majority (49.18%; <emph>n</emph> = 30) of the sample (<emph>n =</emph> 61) are employed full time (40 or more hours per week). Furthermore, 18.03% (<emph>n =</emph> 11) are students and 16.39% (<emph>n = </emph>10<emph>)</emph> are self-employed.</p> <p>In sum, MCL is composed predominantly of highly educated nondisabled white or Asian people, two-thirds of whom are men, most of whom are under the age of 40. Black and Latinx people are underrepresented as are women and people who identify as neither men nor women. In the following section, we report the responses to interview questions of MCL participants.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-16">Interview findings</hd> <p>The question at the heart of this study, 'How can MCL events be more accessible?' is best addressed by responses to the interview questions, 'What does accessibility mean to you?' and 'What would make the event more accessible?' Therefore, our results are organised based on these two questions. Most interview responses fell into four themes: ease of access, inclusiveness, marketing, and networking. Some respondents had an answer that fit into multiple categories, resulting in percentages that add to over 100%.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-17">Question 1: what does accessibility mean to you?</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0157959450-18">Inclusiveness</hd> <p>The most frequent answer to this question was that accessibility means being open and available to everyone. Specifically, 63.16% (<emph>n </emph>= 36) of respondents discussed inclusivity. These answers were also often abstract and did not include specific examples of who may potentially be excluded. For example, Dom viewed accessibility as something that is 'made available to all types of people and ... ease of use and making anything accessible to people regardless of what their background is or what their abilities are'. Similar sentiments were expressed by Sean and Jeanna whose responses resembled that of David's: 'accessibility would be all the things that are involved in making sure that everyone has the ability to enjoy something, even if it's not necessarily completely equal, but on some level'. Accessibility as 'a mentality of inclusiveness', was offered by Ashley, and related, Aiden and Melanie both touched on accessibility as hospitality. Aiden commented, 'accessibility would mean to me that everybody feels welcome and there are accommodations for anybody such that everybody could participate'.</p> <p>While the aforementioned responses focused on including everyone and thereby excluding no one, some responses were more pointed about whom they associated with accessibility. Representation of minoritized groups was how Sophia framed accessibility: ' ... I do think it means that you see yourself reflected in the people who are here. You don't walk into a space and feel like, "I don't see anyone else reflected of my background"'. John singled out class as a determinant of accessibility: 'That the things that you want access to are available to you and that you have access to those without feeling like access has a different class'. An anonymous respondent specifically pointed out one's race stating that accessibility ' ... could be reached by any demographic whether it's Asian, Black, white, you know?' While most responses grouped in this theme were nonspecific about whom accessibility is for, those who did specify mentioned race, ethnicity, and class, while no responses referenced gender, sexuality, or disability.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-19">Ease of access</hd> <p>Accessibility was described as an ability to physically access resources, places, and experiences by 35.09% (<emph>n </emph>= 20) of participants. Many of the responses in this category were succinct and occasionally touched on disability or finances. A participant who wished to remain anonymous responded, ' ... low price. Close to the city centre. Yeah, I think that's it'. Similarly, Amir said, 'Accessibility means access for everyone no matter if you're able-bodied or not, or wherever you come from. Accessibility makes space available for everyone to come in and share'. Other definitions included, 'Interpreters, if necessary, this building being accessible', from an anonymous respondent, and 'Making tools or whatever that are able to be used by a wide variety of people with a wide variety of needs', from Damon. Dan reflected, ' ... it means making websites accessible to everyone, but also things like elevators and ramps and stuff like that for people who have a mobility disability'. Lex had many ideas about accessibility but settled on infrastructure interactions:</p> <p>Accessibility, accessibility? Too many things, but if people are limited ... not fully 'able bodies' but have a space to come to. So, that's pretty cool that this space is at ground level. There's an elevator so people can move around.</p> <p>One of the few disabled people to participate, Andy, first claimed that 'the phrase is so veiled' but then related accessibility to his own experiences and how it can be relative based on capability: 'My disability is ... rather hidden because I can walk by myself and I only use one arm. My right side is somewhat paralysed, but I make do with what I have'. Of all the themes, responses related to 'ease of access' are most closely associated with disability.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-20">Networking and other responses</hd> <p>Only two respondents (3.5%) linked their ideas to networking when asked how they defined accessibility. Randy associated accessibility with his role as a music producer: 'Accessibility is like, "How easily can I connect with other musicians and other artists within my own community?"'. Similarly, an anonymous respondent noted, 'Even space like this where we could actually meet other collaborators and creators. So, I think that's a good definition [of accessibility]'.</p> <p>One anonymous respondent tied inclusiveness and ease of access together, defining accessibility as the notion 'that events and spaces are physically accessible for anybody with an open and welcoming culture, so that things feel accessible and that somebody feels not just that they can go to a place but also that they want to'. Similarly, Jessica straddled the line between inclusiveness and ease of access:</p> <p>Accessibility means being able to have ways to experience things that everybody can also experience the same way ... every time I think about accessibility, I think about like, 'Oh, yes, blind people do use the internet, and this is what this means to them' ... And that really just changed the way I write code and even the way I look at the world. So, I think it's really important to figure out how to make the things that you experience also be accessible to everybody else.</p> <p>While most participants provided answers of their own interpretation of what accessibility meant to them, there were a few respondents that struggled to produce a response. For example, Carlo responded that he did not use the word accessibility much, an anonymous participant responded, 'Accessibility? What do you mean?', and Harry asked the interviewing researcher for their definition.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-21">Question 2: what would make this event more accessible?</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0157959450-22">Ease of access</hd> <p>Eleven respondents (<emph>n</emph> = 19.3%) had ideas related to ease of access when asked how MCL events could be more accessible. Many of the Live Code Lab participants commented on the use of the live stenographer at the event. Damon observed that by having a live stenographer, MCL is 'already ahead of the game compared to most meetups I go to'. Several participants commented that they liked the stenographer because they had difficulties hearing in the venue. For the other events without a stenographer, two respondents, Ian and Carlo, suggested having a sign language interpreter for D/deaf and hard of hearing people. Carlo noted that the event 'relies on sound so it might be hard if you can't hear'.</p> <p>Another common suggestion for improving accessibility for event goers was to livestream the presentations or post videos of workshops online so that people who were unable to attend the events, or had difficulties accessing the information at the event, would still be able to participate. Vee's response best exemplifies this line of thinking:</p> <p>I guess to access the space, if one has a disability, and also, I noticed that there's a stenographer, that's great, but I'm wondering if it's possible to make it even easier to have the event livestreamed so that someone who isn't physically able to attend can at least watch some of the talks or attend some of the workshops remotely.</p> <p>Pitchen posited that the event could be made more accessible by 'asking people to not wear certain perfumes so that people who have a disability in terms of not being able to smell stuff that are chemicals. Like, having a notice in your event to not wear certain perfumes or something would be also more accessible in a way'. They also suggested beginning the event with an orientation about elevator access: 'I wasn't pointed to where an elevator was. For people who have mobility issues that's probably a problem'.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-23">Marketing</hd> <p>Twenty-three respondents (40.35%) made connections between accessibility and advertising. Specifically, respondents requested advertising be aimed at a more diverse population. Participant 'Anna' acknowledged that the majority of attendees were men and suggested that planners reach out to 'communities you won't expect to be interested in live coding and music programming'. Lex advised, 'Literally invest in some Instagram ads', and Jenna suggested, 'advertise it more on different common websites or posters around the city ... especially on social media since social media is such a big platform for people to use and advertise and speak out on'. Bazz affirmed, 'definitely social media'. Thinking beyond social media strategies, Carlo posited that using a form of advertising other than email, perhaps an app, would be a better way to market the events. Karen suggested emailing university and high school programmes to inform them about the events and draw different demographics, opining: 'I think it's really nice if you could market it towards everyone in a way through social media. I know a lot of times I see posts on Instagram, or Facebook advertising stuff and I'll go.'</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-24">Inclusivity, networking, and Other Responses</hd> <p>Five of those interviewed (8.77%) discussed inclusivity as a means to increase the accessibility of MCL events. Jamie stated that she would 'love to see a more varied diverse [group], like what the world looks like generally'. Similarly, 'John Doe' remarked: ' ... priority given to people in minority groups or underrepresented groups ... would be nice'. Two respondents (3.5%), Chowdry and Kyle, expressed a need for more networking opportunities, such as ice breaker activities. Other responses touched on a variety of issues. Participants Harry and Ward both commented on having transportation issues. Don stated that the event would have been more accessible if some music equipment like microphones were provided by the organisers. While many suggestions were given on how to improve the accessibility of the events, some participants (Harry, Ethan) were content with the level of accessibility, echoing Amir's sentiment: 'I feel it's pretty accessible in my opinion'. Still, other participants, including Ian and Aiden, were unsure of how they could make the event more accessible because they did not experience accessibility issues themselves.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-25">Cross-Category analysis</hd> <p> <bold> <emph>Gender.</emph> </bold> The distribution of women and men who were interviewed was not even, and no participant identified as another gender identity. At the Live Code Lab event, 23 men and 12 women were interviewed; at the Music & Movement event, 6 men and 2 women were interviewed; and, at the Songwriter Lab event, 9 men and 3 women were interviewed. In some instances, the number of responses exceeds the number of participants because participants provided responses that fit into multiple categories. Men (<emph>n </emph>= 15; 39.47%), more so than women (<emph>n</emph> = 4; 23.53%), conceived of accessibility in terms of ease of access, equating it with physical or financial notions. Conversely, 70.59% (<emph>n =</emph> 12) of women and 60.53% (<emph>n </emph>= 23) of men related accessibility to inclusivity, including social and ethnic inclusivity and general openness. Interestingly, 100% of the women who related accessibility to ease of access attended the Live Code Lab event. To lend greater credence to these findings, a chi-squared test of homogeneity without continuity correction was conducted using a significance level of 5% with the statistical software R Studio. Table 1 displays the 2-by-2 contingency data.</p> <p>Table 1. 'Ease of access' Vs. 'inclusiveness' responses according to gender.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Accessibility definition</td><td>Gender</td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>Women</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ease of Access</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td>Inclusiveness</td><td char=".">23</td><td char=".">12</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> Participants identified as either 'man' or 'woman'. No participants identified as transgender or another gender identity. Responses are organised based on gender according to their accessibility definition categorisation of 'ease of access' or 'inclusiveness'.</p> <p>The information for the test is as follows:</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi>x</mi><mn>2</mn></msup><mo>=</mo><mn>1.0343</mn><mo>,</mo><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mi>d</mi><mi>f</mi><mo>=</mo><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mn>1</mn><mo>,</mo><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mi>p</mi><mo>−</mo><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">v</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">a</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">l</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">u</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi></mrow><mo>=</mo><mn>0.3092</mn><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mo>⇒</mo><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mn>0.3092</mn><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mo>></mo><mn>0.05</mn><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mo>⇒</mo><mspace width="thickmathspace" /><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">H</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi></mrow><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> Because the <emph>P</emph>-value is larger than the significance level, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. The observed difference in perceptions of accessibility based on gender are not statistically significant. Nevertheless, it is important to draw attention to the gendered response themes in this context.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Disability.</emph> </bold> Participants whose responses stated that the events were reasonably accessible were similar for disabled people (33.33%; <emph>n </emph>= 2) and nondisabled people (30.61%; <emph>n </emph>= 15). Two of the disabled participants, who both attended the Music & Movement event, had suggestions relating to the marketing of the events. Another participant who identified as disabled and who attended the Songwriter Lab event suggested increasing ease of access, while the other participant who identified as disabled and attended the Live Code Lab event suggested increasing inclusivity through diversity.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Race.</emph> </bold> Participants whose responses stated that the events were reasonably accessible were either white (<emph>n = </emph>7) or Black or African American (<emph>n </emph>= 3). Notably, no Asian participants (<emph>n </emph>= 16) made this claim.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-26">Discussion</hd> <p>Across interviews from three MCL events a singular definition of accessibility proved to be elusive, partially explaining the challenge attendees faced when assessing an event's accessibility. These findings parallel that of other case studies of a similar type, whose conclusions suggest that the definition of accessibility seems to be perspective-dependent (Milligan et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref53">24</reflink>]). MCL participants' responses can be interpreted as following two distinct threads: inclusiveness and ease of access. Inclusiveness in the contexts of the participants' responses address events' social environments, with a focus on how the underrepresentation of minoritized people can be a barrier for those who would otherwise be interested. This perspective aligns with UNESCO's ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref54">46</reflink>]) description of 'inclusion': 'a process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all learners through increasing participation in learning, cultures and communities, and reducing exclusion within and from education'. Based on this 'inclusiveness' perspective, it could be extrapolated that the ideal event in terms of accessibility would be one in which no individual would have a feeling of apprehension to participate based on any aspect of their identity. The ease of access responses centred around the physical and financial barriers that might inhibit individuals from participating. Compared to inclusiveness, the concept of ease of access has a greater fixation on being physically present at the event as well as having the right tools to engage in the activities.</p> <p>The range of responses drawn from participants evidences that there is a considerable ambiguity surrounding 'accessibility'. The differing conceptions of accessibility that we documented in this study align with the description of 'habitability' outlined by Preiser ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref55">30</reflink>]), which is the degree of fit between people and their environments, both physical and social. Additionally, participants' responses centred on ease of access and inclusivity resemble the concept of 'usability' (Nielsen [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref56">27</reflink>]; Shackel [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref57">35</reflink>]). We observed that MCL participants related accessibility to usability concepts in human–computer interaction (HCI) such as intuitive and easy-to-access designs (Hertzum [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref58">15</reflink>]). Given the tech-centric focus of MCL, it is understandable that the following definition offered by Iwarsson and Stahl ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref59">17</reflink>]) most closely resembles the responses of the participants: 'accessibility is an umbrella term for all parameters that influence human functioning in the environment, thus defining accessibility as an environmental quantity' (<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref60">58</reflink>). In this way, participants' conceptualizations of accessibility are largely amorphous and detached from disability. This marks a key distinction from the explanations of accessibility offered by Williamson ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref61">49</reflink>]), Titchkosky ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref62">43</reflink>]), and Hamraie ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref63">14</reflink>]), which are anchored to the epistemologies of disabled people. In contrast, the word 'disability' was rarely mentioned by participants, which is elemental to many definitions of accessibility, including those of the ADA ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref64">1</reflink>]) and the CRPD ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref65">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>When asked how MCL could be more accessible, participants frequently mentioned increasing marketing, mostly with the stated aim of increasing the diversity of participants. Potentially, as Peters and Bradbard ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref66">29</reflink>]) observe, the tactic of increasing the accessibility of an organisation's website and online presence could double as a marketing strategy. MCL and alike not-for-profit music organisations have different aims than business enterprises, but perhaps the corporate strategy of promoting accessibility could in effect lead to the desired diversity in members that is sought after. For example, foregrounding disability in relation to an event theme (i.e. MCL's 'AccessAbility' hackathon) may be a way for music organisations to meaningfully engage with disability communities. Furthermore, considering the myriad ways in which musical identities and communities can be forged through various social media platforms (Kastner [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref67">19</reflink>]), MCL's members are correct to suggest that social media is a potentially fruitful means with which to increase their accessibility. As MCL predominantly uses Twitter and Facebook – social media platforms associated with older demographics – a frequently requested suggestion by participants when asked how to make events more accessible was to use Instagram. Instagram allows for content sharing and paid advertisements, which would give MCL more exposure online. Presumably, newer social media platforms will continue to emerge (e.g. TikTok), requiring organisations like MCL to pivot and expand their social media presence accordingly. In order for participants to connect and identify with social media content, a more inclusive and representative advertising approach needs to be taken. In turn, this will produce more positive attitudes amongst underrepresented groups within an organisation and be more effective at attracting them to attend events (Williams et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref68">48</reflink>]). To echo participant Sophia's sentiment, one needs to 'see yourself reflected' in a community to feel welcome. For community music groups that mirror MCL in that they also recognise the overrepresentation of some demographics in their communities (e.g. white men), plotting a new course is needed to increase accessibility for underrepresented demographics (e.g. disabled people). This can be done in advertising, but it also needs to be followed through in more long-term non-tokenistic ways such as ensuring disabled people are positioned as key stakeholders in the organisation and facilitation of events (Swenor & Meeks [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref69">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>By implementing the suggestions of their community members, MCL can make their organisation more accessible, but such suggestions need to be assessed with measure for two reasons. First, MCL is a not-for-profit volunteer-run organisation and therefore is reliant on donations to implement initiatives such as livestreaming events or buying social media advertisements in the name of accessibility. If community members are committed to accessibility, they need to invest in it financially. Second, who is assessing accessibility needs to be acknowledged. Deferring to nondisabled people to determine what is accessibility and how it can be achieved risks disassociating accessibility from disability and thereby doing a disservice to disabled people – the opposite of the intention. Foregrounding disability identities and experiences as well as promoting disability culture and pride at events are feasible and meaningful actions that can be taken by community music groups. This can be accomplished by hosting joint events with disability organisations.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-27">Conclusions</hd> <p>As demonstrated by the range of responses from the study's participants, accessibility is a complex construct. MCL's goal to increase accessibility is admirable and should be adopted by other community music groups, but accessibility is more than elevators or feeling welcome. To delimit accessibility to a finite series of boxes to be checked off on a list is to deny its dynamism. The inward inquiry in which MCL engaged ought to serve as an impetus, not an ending, and other community music groups committed to equity, diversity, and inclusion should follow their example. We commend MCL for not only inviting critiques but also committing to addressing them with urgency.</p> <p>Some of MCL's members lauded its accessibility, referencing wheelchair-accessible spaces and captioning services for people with hearing impairments; these initiatives have been informed by people with disabilities in their community and demonstrate how MCL's leadership is keen to solicit feedback and quick to respond appropriately. These actions, which we associate with ease access, may be costly but are nevertheless straightforward to implement. The same can be said for the lesser mentioned marketing and networking suggestions of participants. In contrast, inclusiveness as conceptualised by participants is more challenging to realise because of its subjectiveness, situating MCL's leadership in an impossible position of trying to be everything to everyone. But rather than being defeatist and accepting a destiny of inaccessibility, community music groups like MCL can tether their stance on accessibility to disability and steer the social climate within their organisations accordingly. Again, we emphasise the need for disability epistemology (Scully [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref70">34</reflink>]) to serve as the guiding principle in the continual pursuit of accessibility. In addition, we caution against perceiving disability as a compartmentalised identity and/or experience. Community music groups should be ever mindful of members' complex and intersecting identities and experiences (Annamma et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>]). Such an approach is contingent on context and therefore produces no universal designs for accessibility. Suitably for MCL – purveyors of music hackathon events – the answers to accessibility for them are bespoke, or as they would call them, hacks. Finally, MCL is not an anomaly; all music organisations must continually assess accessibility to ensure the long-term viability of their communities.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-28">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>We, the authors of this article, declare this work to be original and entirely ours.</p> <hd id="AN0157959450-29">Appendices</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0157959450-30">Appendix A. Survey</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Where do you live?</item> <p></p> <item> I choose not to answer</item> <p></p> <item> [city redacted]</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• Other:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? (If you're currently enrolled in school, please indicate the highest degree you have received.)</item> <p></p> <item> I choose not to answer</item> <p></p> <item> Less than a high school diploma</item> <p></p> <item> High school degree or equivalent (e.g. GED)</item> <p></p> <item> Some college, no degree</item> <p></p> <item> Associate degree (e.g. AA, AS)</item> <p></p> <item> Bachelor's degree (e.g. BA, BS)</item> <p></p> <item> Master's degree (e.g. MA, MS, MEd)</item> <p></p> <item> Professional degree (e.g. MD, DDS, DVM)</item> <p></p> <item> Doctorate (e.g. PhD, EdD)</item> <p></p> <item> What is your current employment status?</item> <p></p> <item> I choose not to answer</item> <p></p> <item> Employed full time (40 or more hours per week)</item> <p></p> <item> Employed part time (up to 39 h per week)</item> <p></p> <item> Unemployed and currently looking for work</item> <p></p> <item> Unemployed and not currently looking for work</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• Student</p> <p></p> <p>• Retired</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Homemaker</item> <p></p> <item> Self-employed</item> <p></p> <item> Unable to work</item> <p></p> <item> What is your age?</item> <p></p> <item> I choose not to answer</item> <p></p> <item> Under 18</item> <p></p> <item> 18–24</item> <p></p> <item> 25–29</item> <p></p> <item> 30–34</item> <p></p> <item> 35–39</item> <p></p> <item> 40–44</item> <p></p> <item> 45–49</item> <p></p> <item> 50–54</item> <p></p> <item> 55–59</item> <p></p> <item> 60–64</item> <p></p> <item> 65 or older</item> <p></p> <item> Do you self-identify as (choose all that apply):</item> <p></p> <item> I choose not to answer</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• Woman</p> <p></p> <p>• Man</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Transgender</item> <p></p> <item> Another gender identity</item> <p></p> <item> Do you self-identify as (choose all that apply):</item> <p></p> <item> I choose not to answer</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• Gay</p> <p></p> <p>• Lesbian</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Straight/Heterosexual</item> <p></p> <item> Bisexual</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• Queer</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Another identity / term</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0157959450-31">Appendix B. Interview</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> If you were to bring someone to this event, what would you tell them?</item> <p></p> <item> What are you working on at this event and are you planning on showing your work here? Why or why not?</item> <p></p> <item> Are you interested in finding new collaborators at these events and what could be done to facilitate this?</item> <p></p> <item> What does accessibility mean to you?</item> <p></p> <item> What would make this event more accessible?</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0157959450-32"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref47" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2022.2038111.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0157959450-33"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. 1990. https://<ulink href="http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm">www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref31" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Annamma, S. A., D. Connor, and B. Ferri. 2013. " Dis/Ability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the Intersections of Race and dis/Ability." Race Ethnicity and Education 16 (1): 1 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref40" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> bell, adam patrick, David Bonin, Helen Pethrick, Amanda Antwi-Nsiah, and Brent Matterson. 2020. " Hacking, disability, and music education." International Journal of Music Education 38 (4): 657 – 672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761420930428.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref39" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Briscoe, G., and C. Mulligan. 2014. "Digital Innovation: The Hackathon Phenomenon." https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cb8e/44ec1bcd6062e5fccafb6837030be334731d.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref12" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Capp, M. J. 2017. " The Effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning: A Meta-Analysis of Literature between 2013 and 2016." International Journal of Inclusive Education 21 (8): 791 – 807.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref14" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Darrow, A. A. 2016. " Applying the Principles of Universal Design for Learning in General Music." In Teaching General Music: Approaches, Issues, and Viewpoints, edited by C. R. Abril, and B. M. Gault, 308 – 326. New York: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Elpus, K. 2014. " Evaluating the Effect of No Child Left Behind on U.S. Music Course Enrollments." Journal of Research in Music Education 62 (3): 215 – 233.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref22" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Elpus, K., and C. R. Abril. 2011. " High School Music Ensemble Students in the United States: A Demographic Profile." Journal of Research in Music Education 59 (2): 128 – 145.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref20" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Elpus, K., and C. R. Abril. 2019. " Who Enrolls in High School Music? A National Profile of U.S. Students, 2009-2013." Journal of Research in Music Education 67 (3): 323 – 338.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fitzpatrick, K. R., J. C. Henninger, and D. M. Taylor. 2014. " Access and Retention of Marginalized Populations Within Undergraduate Music Education Degree Programs." Journal of Research in Music Education 62 (2): 105 – 127.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galletta, A. 2013. Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and Beyond. New York: New York University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glass, D., A. Meyer, and D. H. Rose. 2013. " Universal Design for Learning and the Arts." Harvard Educational Review 83 (1): 98 – 119.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, N., M. Morris, and K. Boston. 2017. Financial Inequality: Disability, Race, and Poverty in America. National Disability Institute. https://<ulink href="http://www.nationaldisabilityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/disability-race-poverty-in-america.pdf">www.nationaldisabilityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/disability-race-poverty-in-america.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamraie, A. 2017. Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hertzum, M. 2010. " Images of Usability." International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 26 (6): 567 – 600.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Irani, L. (2015). Hackathons and the Making of Entrepreneurial Citizenship, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40 (5), 799 – 824.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iwarsson, S., and A. Ståhl. 2003. " Accessibility, Usability and Universal Design—Positioning and Definition of Concepts Describing Person-Environment Relationships." Disability and Rehabilitation 25 (2): 57 – 66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jellison, J. A., and D. M. Taylor. 2007. " Attitudes Toward Inclusion and Students with Disabilities: A Review of Three Decades of Music Research." Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 172 : 9 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kastner, J. D. 2020. " A Content Analysis of Creating and Curating Musical Identity on Social Media." In The Oxford Handbook of Social Media and Music Learning, edited by J. Waldron, S. Horsely, and K. Veblen, 313 – 336. New York: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lara, M., and K. Lockwood. 2016. " Hackathons as Community-Based Learning: A Case Study." TechTrends 60 : 486 – 495.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lodato, T. J., and C. DiSalvo. 2016. " Issue-oriented Hackathons as Material Participation." New Media & Society 18 (4): 539 – 557.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCord, K., A. Gruben, and J. Rathgeber. 2014. Accessing Music: Enhancing Student Learning in the General Music Classroom Using UDL. Van Nuys, CA: Alfred.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, A., D. H. Rose, and D. Gordon. 2014. Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milligan, C., A. Littlejohn, and A. Margaryan. 2014. " Workplace Learning in Informal Networks." Journal of Interactive Media in Education 2014 (1): Art. 6. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.5334/2014-06">http://doi.org/10.5334/2014-06</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Music Community Lab. Forthcoming. https://musiccommunitylab.org/about/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nandi, A., and M. Mandernach. 2016. " Hackathons as an Informal Learning Platform." Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical symposium on Computing Science education (pp. 346–351).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nielsen, J. 1993. Usability Engineering. Mountain View, CA: Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parsad, B., and M. Spiegelman. 2012. Arts Education in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: 1999–2000 and 2009–10 (NCES 2012–014). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peters, C., and D. A. Bradbard. 2007. " Web Accessibility: An Introduction and Implications for a Corporate Social Responsibility Marketing Strategy." Journal of Internet Commerce 6 (4): 27 – 54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preiser, W. F. E. 1983. " The Habitability Framework: A Conceptual Approach Towards Linking Human Behaviour and Physical Environment." Design Studies 4 (2): 84 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quaglia, B. W. 2015. " Planning for Student Variability." Music Theory Online 21 (1). https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.15.21.1/mto.15.21.1.quaglia.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richterich, A. 2019. " Hacking Events: Project Development Practices and Technology use at Hackathons." Convergence: The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies 25 (5-6): 1000 – 1026.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salvador, K., and K. Allegood. 2014. " Access to Music Education with Regard to Race in Two Urban Areas." Arts Education Policy Review 115 (3): 82 – 92.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scully, J. L. 2020. " Epistemic Exclusion, Injustice, and Disability." In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Disability, edited by A. Cureton, and D. T. Wasserman, 297 – 309. New York: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shackle, B. 2009. " Usability – Context, Framework, Definition, Design and Evaluation." Interacting with Computers 21 (5-6): 339 – 346.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, R. D., and A. Auletto. 2021. " Is Music Education in Tune with the Pursuit of Equity? An Examination of Access to Music Education in Michigan's Schools." Journal of Research in Music Education 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429421989961.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soetemans, J. K., and L. M. Jackson. 2021. " The Influence of Accessibility on Perceptions of People with Disabilities." Canadian Journal of Disability Studies 10 : 185 – 206. https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v10i1.734.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stake, R. E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stake, R. E. 2005. " Qualitative Case Studies." In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., edited by N. Denzin, and Y. Lincoln, 443 – 466. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steinfeld, E., and G. S. Danford. 1999. " Theory as a Basis for Research on Enabling Environments." In Enabling Environments: Measuring the Impact of Environment on Disability and Rehabilitation, edited by E. Steinfeld, and G. S. Danford, 11 – 33. New York: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swenor, B., and L. M. Meeks. 2019. " Disability Inclusion — Moving Beyond Mission Statements." New England Journal of Medicine 380 (22): 2089 – 2091.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, G. A., M. Raine, S. M. Hayward, and H. Kilpatrick. 2020. " Gathering Community Perspectives to Inform the Design of Autism-Friendly Music-Making Workshops for Wellbeing." International Journal of Wellbeing 10 (5): 117 – 143. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v10i5.1497.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Titchkosky, T. 2011. The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trainer, E. H., A. Kalyanasundaram, C. Chaihirunkarn, and J. D. Herbsleb. 2016. " How-to Hackathon: Socio-Technical Trade-Offs in Brief, Intensive Collocation." Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1118–1130).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2006. https://<ulink href="http://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-9-accessibility.html">www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-9-accessibility.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2005. "Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring Access to Education for All." https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000140224.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Census Bureau. 2018. "2018: ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles - New York City." https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=New%20York%20city,%20New%20York&g=1600000US3651000&tid=ACSDP5Y2018.DP05&hidePreview=true.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, J. D., W.-N. Lee, and C. P. Haugtvedt, eds. 2004. Diversity in Advertising: Broadening the Scope of Research Directions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williamson, B. 2019. Accessible America: A History of Disability and Design. New York: New York University Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By adam patrick bell; Atiya Datoo; Brent Matterson; Joseph Bahhadi and Chantelle Ko</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>adam patrick bell is an associate professor of music education in the School of Creative and Performing Arts at the University of Calgary, Canada. He is the editor of the Music Technology Cookbook (Oxford 2020) and author of Dawn of the DAW (Oxford 2018).</p> <p>Atiya Datoo is a student in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary.</p> <p>Brent Matterson is an undergraduate student in the School of Creative and Performing Arts at the University of Calgary.</p> <p>Joseph Bahhadi is an undergraduate student in the School of Creative and Performing Arts at the University of Calgary.</p> <p>Chantelle Ko is a master's student in the School of Creative and Performing Arts at the University of Calgary.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib326" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib225" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref70"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1356913
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Assessing Accessibility: An Instrumental Case Study of a Community Music Group
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22bell%2C+adam+patrick%22">bell, adam patrick</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8500-9754">0000-0002-8500-9754</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Datoo%2C+Atiya%22">Datoo, Atiya</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Matterson%2C+Brent%22">Matterson, Brent</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bahhadi%2C+Joseph%22">Bahhadi, Joseph</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ko%2C+Chantelle%22">Ko, Chantelle</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Music+Education+Research%22"><i>Music Education Research</i></searchLink>. 2022 24(3):350-363.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Music+Activities%22">Music Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accessibility+%28for+Disabled%29%22">Accessibility (for Disabled)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Diversity%22">Diversity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes%22">Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Music+Education%22">Music Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Motion%22">Motion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Information+Technology%22">Information Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Musicians%22">Musicians</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Characteristics%22">Individual Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adults%22">Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Technology%22">Video Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Marketing%22">Marketing</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22New+York+%28New+York%29%22">New York (New York)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/14613808.2022.2038111
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1461-3808<br />1469-9893
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Creating accessible events is a pressing issue for many music organisations. In the United States, the term accessibility has strong ties to disability, and it is an important concept because what is deemed accessible directly impacts who is included and excluded from music experiences. Music Community Lab (MCL) runs a series of events in New York City called "Monthly Music Hackathon NYC." They aim to promote 'diversity across backgrounds, perspectives, and abilities'. This instrumental case study sought to examine how MCL participants conceptualise accessibility as well as analyze participants' suggestions for improving the accessibility of MCL events. Sixty-two people who attended one of three MCL events completed a demographic survey and 57 of those respondents participated in an interview. Findings reveal that 63% (n = 36) of participants associated accessibility with inclusivity and 35% (n = 20) of participants associated accessibility with ease of access to resources, places, and experiences. Participants' suggestions for improving accessibility included social media marketing (n = 23; 40%) and ease of access approaches (n = 11; 19%) including CART, ASL, and live streaming events. Accessibility is challenging for community music groups like MCL to navigate because it is a complex construct with varied interpretations.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1356913
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1356913
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/14613808.2022.2038111
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 350
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Music Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accessibility (for Disabled)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Diversity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Music Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Motion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Information Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Musicians
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individual Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Video Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Marketing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: New York (New York)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Assessing Accessibility: An Instrumental Case Study of a Community Music Group
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: bell, adam patrick
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Datoo, Atiya
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Matterson, Brent
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bahhadi, Joseph
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ko, Chantelle
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1461-3808
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-9893
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 24
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Music Education Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1