Straddling the humanities and social sciences: The research process of music scholars

Straddling the humanities and social sciences: The research

process of music scholars

Christine D. Brown

School of Library and Information Studies, The University of Alabama, Box 870252,

Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0252, USA. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.D. Brown).

Abstract

Few research projects have focused on the information needs of the music scholar. What is known

about the information needs of the music scholar has been gathered through large-scale studies of

various humanistic disciplines. This article describes a six-stage model of the music scholar’s research

process. The model was constructed contextually through interviews with 30 music scholars who were

asked to describe a recently completed research project. Research activities pertaining to specific

stages in the research process are identified and described. This study compares existing models of the

research process of other humanities scholars and explores the implications for library and information

science professionals. D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

To serve the humanist’s information needs, libraries have long relied on the strength of their

collections and services. To build their collections, librarians create collection development

policies in conjunction with the scholars they serve and then study usage patterns. Although

this approach has helped to build strong collections, it has not examined the context in which

the humanist’s information needs and uses arise. Examining the context in which these needs

and uses arise can help information professionals better understand the information behavior of

the humanists for whom they create information collections and services. A contextual

examination of the activities in the research process helps to answer questions such as how

information needs arise, how information is used, and, more important, if information needs

are completely satisfied. These questions are best answered through the creation of a

descriptive model of the research process.

0740-8188/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

PII: S0740 -8188 (01 )00105 -0

Library & Information Science Research

24 (2002) 73–94

Models of the research process of music scholarship have not previously been

developed. This research was undertaken to discover more about the information behavior

of the scholars who study music and to develop a model of the music research process. In

the study of information behavior, researchers examine how people need, seek, give, and

use information to solve particular problems. To model the research process of music

scholars holistically, their information behavior was examined in terms of the activities in

which they engaged in completing a recent research project. This approach was taken in

response to Dervin and Nilan’s (1986) call to conduct research that contextualizes

information behavior from the perspective of the user. It also follows the method used

by Chu (1992) to identify stages in the research process and information use. The

similarities to and differences with models of the research stages of other humanistic

disciplines also are discussed.

2. Music scholarship

Research into the information behavior of music scholars is incomplete and anecdotal.

Music scholars have not been studied individually but have been included in larger studies of

several humanistic disciplines (Bates, Wilde, & Siegfried, 1995; Case, 1986; Corkill, Mann,

& Stone, 1981; Lonnqvist, 1990; Morton & Price, 1989; Wiberley, 1991). Although this

research has described the basic information needs of humanists in general, very little is

known about music scholars specifically.

Citation studies (Baker, 1978; Longyear, 1977; McCreery & Pao, 1984; Pao, 1982)

have described some of the publication patterns and dispersion of the literature cited by

music scholars. McCreery & Pao (1984) described the literature of ethnomusicology by

examining 4,434 bibliographic citations in the Repertoire International de Litterature

Musicale (RILM) database for a 10-year period from 1966 to 1976. They found that a

small number of scholars in ethnomusicology were the most productive scholars,

consistent with Lotka’s inverse power relation (Lotka, 1926).1 Ethnomusicologists, like

many other humanists, were found to work alone. Coauthorship did not occur often, but

those who did coauthor were among the most productive scholars (Lotka, 1926, p. 214).

Also, a large number of articles were published in a small number of journals. These

findings, among those of other citation studies, describe the literature but provide little

information about the research process.

What is known about music scholarship is largely in the writings of librarians or music

scholars themselves (Clegg, 1985; Gould, 1988; Seaman, 1975). These writings either describe

or review source materials and/or library services. They also provide insight into some of the

difficulties encountered by music scholars, such as Gould’s (1988) finding that music scholars

had difficulties locating music scores and found it difficult to cope with the time lag in updates

to the RILM database/abstracting service. Music scholarship can be divided into five

1 The inverse power relation describes the relationship between authors and the number of papers they have

written. The number of authors making n contributions is about 1/n2 of those making one contribution.

C.D. Brown / Library & Information Science Research 24 (2002) 73–9474

subdisciplines, which Rebman (1993) has categorized as follows: (1) historical musicology; (2)

systematic musicology (study of acoustics, psychology of music, music theory and composi-

tion, aesthetics of music, and sociology of music); (3) music education; (4) ethnomusicology

(study of music and culture); and (5) electronic music (study of composition, electronic and

computer techniques, music cognition, acoustics, and instrument construction).

The lack of empirically based research into the information needs and uses of music

scholars illustrates the need for research in this area. Due to this lack of research, the research

findings on humanists in general must serve as a basis for beginning to understand the behavior

of music scholars. If one interprets the term ‘‘humanities’’ broadly, the study of music as a

‘‘physical, psychological, aesthetic and cultural phenomenon’’ (American Musicological

Society, 1955, p. 153) embraces the humanistic approach. New research is needed to explore

whether what we know about humanists in general also applies to music scholars.

3. Method

This study was conducted in two phases and adopted the methodological approach used by

Chu (1992) in her development of a descriptive model of the research phases in the work of

literary critics. In Phase 1 of the current study, interviews were conducted using a

combination of the structured personal account (Brown & Sime, 1981) and the ‘‘time line

interview’’ (Dervin & Clark, 1987). In a personal account, a participant describes, in his or

her own words, an event or occurrence (Brown & Sime, 1981). The strength of this method is

that the participant is able to set the scene or describe in detail specific events. The time-line

interview technique, developed by Dervin & Clark (1987), assists participants in reconstruct-

ing events chronologically. The interviewer asks participants to reconstruct events and

describe information gaps experienced at each step in an event and the help they may have

sought to bridge these gaps. This interview technique assists the researcher in gathering data

that examine the participants’ information behavior in context and from the perspective of the

user (Dervin & Nilan, 1986).

A random sample of 30 full-time music faculty members (not instrumental instructors),

appointed at the assistant, associate, or professor level, from three universities located in

Ontario and Quebec, were interviewed from a total pool of 75. These universities were

selected for three reasons: (1) each institution has a number of music scholars with active

research programs, (2) they all have programs that support both undergraduate and graduate

education, and (3) the investigator could travel to each institution in one day.

To ensure consistency, each interview was conducted using an interview schedule. In each

interview, music scholars were asked to answer some demographic questions, to recount a

recently completed research project, and to discuss scholarly activities. Each event that was

described in the account of the research process was recorded on an index card, including

barriers encountered and information needed or used during each event. At the end of the

interview, the interviewee reviewed the cards to ensure their completeness and that the

sequence of events described was recorded correctly. If activities or events were missing, they

were added at this point in the interview. Scholars were also asked about their use of e-mail

C.D. Brown / Library & Information Science Research 24 (2002) 73–94 75

and electronic discussion groups in the research process and their perceptions of the

advantages and compatibility of these forms of communication with their scholarly com-

munication.2 All interviews were tape-recorded and conducted in the participant’s office and

took, on average, one hour to complete. Procedures for anonymity and informed consent were

explained to each participant.

The data gathered in Phase 1 consisted of tape recordings, coded interview schedules, and

index cards. The data on the coded interview schedules were entered into SPSS (SPSS, 1999)

to provide descriptive summaries. The data from the event cards were entered into text files

using a word processor. The tape recordings were transcribed for analysis. Transcription

followed the guidelines for transcribing oral history tapes (Baum, 1977; Reimer, 1984).

Transcriptions were conducted by a research assistant and checked by the investigator to

make any necessary corrections.

The descriptions written on the index cards for all events after idea generation were analyzed

in terms of content and sequence to identify broad categories of activities in the research process.

The broad categories were identified by the presence of scholarly activities and events that were

related through the cognitive processes and the information behavior that were described in

relation to usage of specific resources. The text pertaining to each broad category was then

further analyzed to determine conceptual subcategories. The development of the subcategories

was completed using an established technique called open coding. Transcripts were read and

reread to develop categories that appeared to pertain to similar phenomena in each of the broad

categories. This analysis resulted in a preliminary model of the research process.

Phase 2 of the study involved testing this model though a survey of a large sample of

music scholars. The data collected in the survey questionnaire pertained to the scholars’

background, activities in the research process, information sources used, and perceptions and

uses of e-mail and electronic discussion groups.3 Using the Directory of Music Faculties in

Colleges and Universities in the United Sates and Canada (College Music Society, 1996), a

population of 7,194 scholars were identified as likely to be actively engaged in research.

These scholars came from four-year colleges or universities and were designated as special-

ists in at least one of the areas of specialization as outlined by Rebman (1993). A computer-

generated random sample of 700 music scholars was drawn from the identified population. To

achieve a sample that was representative of the geographic dispersion of the population (95%

in the United States and 5% in Canada), the sample was drawn proportionally. Of the 700

questionnaires sent, 175 usable responses were returned. Forty-four scholars responded that

either they did not conduct research (22), were no longer working (17), or were on leave from

their position (5). Twelve music scholars refused to complete the questionnaire because they

either did not have time (6) or did not want to participate (6). Thirteen completed

questionnaires were found to be unusable because respondents specified composition as

their only area of specialization. Although the questionnaire was not sent to scholars whose

3 See Brown (2001) for a complete description of the scholars’ use of e-mail and electronic discussion groups

and their perceptions of the relative advantages and compatibility of these modes of communication in the

research process.

2 For a full report on this part of the study see Brown (2001).


only area of specialization was composition, these 13 scholars did not report any other area of

specialization. This could be due to errors in the reports to the College Music Society. A

nonrespondent said that he could not participate because he did not conduct research, adding

that his department listed him in areas where he did not conduct research. It is also possible

that these respondents may teach in the other area(s) listed in the directory but do not conduct

research in these areas and thus did not specify these in the questionnaire. The revised sample

size was calculated by excluding the 44 music scholars who were unable to participate,

including the 13 composers who completed the questionnaire. The resulting final sample size

was 656. Effectively, the final overall response rate was 29% (188 of 656). Systematic efforts

were made to encourage a high response rate. The questionnaire was designed to be short and

easy to complete, return postage was provided, and two reminders were sent. However, the

time at which the questionnaire was administered was not optimal; it was sent at the end of a

semester and a postal strike occurred shortly after the questionnaires were mailed. Because of

the low response rate, the results of this study may not be representative of, or generalizable

to, all North American music scholars.

Three types of data were collected via the questionnaire: nominal and ordinal data (e.g.,

academic rank, rankings of sources used, and agreement or applicability of an activity based on a

five-point scale); continuous data (e.g., number of years spent conducting research); and textual

data (e.g., answers to open-ended questions). Textual data were coded using categories

developed from the data. Nominal data were coded using an assigned number for each type

of response (e.g., 1 for ‘‘yes,’’ 2 for ‘‘no’’). Ordinal data were assigned a number as given in the

five-point scales on the questionnaire. A summary score was calculated for each scaled question

regarding the research activities in the preliminary model. This score was calculated by

multiplying tabulated frequencies for all categories by the number they represented in the scale,

then summing these values and dividing by the number of responses. The resulting summary

scores were used to determine the relative importance of these activities in the research process.

An activity was considered a primary activity if the summary score exceeded 3.5, indicating

that, on average, respondents rated the activity as occurring ‘‘often’’ or ‘‘very often.’’ An activity

was considered secondary if the score was between 2.5 and 3.5, indicating that respondents

rated the activity as occurring in the ‘‘occasionally’’ range. Finally, an activity was considered

tertiary if the score was less than 2.5, indicating that, on average, respondents rated the

activity as occurring either ‘‘never’’ or ‘‘rarely.’’ Primary and secondary activities were used

to construct the final model of the research process. Tertiary activities, although important to

the research process of some scholars, were not a central component of the research process

for a majority of music scholars and, consequently, were not included in the final model.

4. Results

4.1. Music scholars’ backgrounds and specializations

The responses to the questionnaire were relatively unbiased in terms of the geographic

distribution of respondents. A total of 162 scholars were from the United States (92.6%) and


13 were from Canada (7.4%).4 Table 1 shows that scholars at the professorial level were

overrepresented and scholars from the assistant professor level were underrepresented when

compared with the entire population. However, chi-square tests were conducted, where

applicable, and it was discovered that this bias did not influence the results. Scholars had been

conducting research since their last degree for a mean number of 15.6 years. The number of

years scholars have been conducting research is normally distributed with a median of

15 years, indicating that the mean of 15.6 years is an adequate representation of central

tendency. The scholars had been conducting research for a minimum of one year and a

maximum of 46 years, with a standard deviation of 9.6.

Table 2 shows the areas in which the respondents conduct research. The questionnaire

listed eight areas from which the scholars could choose, including the opportunity to specify

an ‘‘other’’ area(s). The most frequently chosen area of specialization was music history

(30.3%). Multiple areas of specialization were the next most frequently chosen. The

combinations reported most frequently were as follows: music education and an ‘‘other’’

area (7 scholars); music history and ‘‘other’’ (5 scholars); theory and composition (5 scholars);

history and education (3 scholars); theory; composition and computer applications (3

scholars); and education and psychology of music or music cognition (2 scholars). The

remaining 21 scholars gave various combinations, all of which were unique. The high number

of multiple specializations is not surprising since many of the scholars in the Directory of

Music Faculties in Colleges and Universities in the United States and Canada 1996–97 were

listed as having multiple areas of specialization.

The specializations involving computer applications and psychology of music or music

cognition seem to be complementary areas of research. Scholars reporting that they conduct

research in these areas all indicated an additional area(s) of research.

4.2. The research process of music scholars

Our knowledge of the music research process has, until now, been gleaned from general

models of the research of humanists and through reports from practicing music librarians. The

present study has added to this knowledge by developing a preliminary model of the music

Table 1

Respondents’ academic rank compared with population (Phase 2)

Rank n % Population %

Professor 81 47 2,792 39

Associate professor 58 34 2,316 32

Assistant professor 32 19 2,086 29

Total 171a 100 7,194 100a 4 missing.

c2 = 9.45, P < .01.

4 A total of 95% of music scholars in North America are affiliated with colleges and universities in the United

States and 5% are affiliated with colleges and universities in Canada. These figures were received from the

Information Service of the College Music Society.


research process based on interviews with 30 music scholars and verifying this model using a

questionnaire sent to a larger sample of music scholars. All the respondents to the

questionnaire conducted research and answered the questions relating to activities in the

research process in a manner that facilitated the development of a final model of the research

process. This model consists of six stages: idea generation, background work, preparing and

organizing, analyzing, writing and revision, and dissemination. These stages and methods for

keeping current are outlined in the full descriptive model of the research process outlined in

Table 3. The final model was very similar to the preliminary model developed through

analysis of the interview data. There were only two activities that did not receive summary

scores high enough to be included in the final model. These were the use of e-mail

discussions with colleagues and reading messages posted to electronic discussion groups

as methods to generate ideas for research projects.

4.2.1. Idea-generation stage

Idea generation is the initial stage in the research process. The two primary ways music

scholars reported idea generation was through internally generated processes such as their

previous work or reading in their area of specialization. Of secondary importance were face-to-

face discussions with colleagues, invitations or commissions for papers, and learning of a call

for papers. The use of e-mail and electronic discussion groups were not reported as methods

used in idea generation. Most respondents indicated that e-mail discussions about research

ideas occurred either ‘‘never’’ (33.1%), ‘‘rarely’’ (31.3%), or ‘‘occasionally’’ (22.5%), and

thus this activity was not included in the final model of the research process. In addition, most

respondents (59.6%) said that their ideas never evolved from reading messages posted to

discussion groups. About one third (34.8%) of the music scholars said that their ideas evolved

‘‘rarely’’ or ‘‘occasionally’’ from reading messages posted to discussion groups. The other

activities described by respondents included teaching or work with students, thinking, and

music performance. However, the occurrence of these activities was not such that they were

included as primary or secondary activities in the final model. The next stage, background

work, entails a more in-depth examination of how the research idea develops.

4.2.2. Background-work stage

The label for the second stage in the research process was taken from the words used by

the interviewees in Phase 1 as they described the work that occurs after the generation of the

Table 2

Music scholars’ areas of specialization

Specialization n %

History 50 30.3

Education 37 22.4

Theory 8 4.8

Ethnomusicology 7 4.2

Multiple areas 46 28.0

Other 17 10.3


Table 3

Full descriptive model of activities in the research process of music scholars

Stage Primary activity Secondary activity Other sources

Idea Generation Previous work Invitation or commission

Reading literature Calls for papers

Face-to-face discussions with colleagues

Background work

Locating source materials Personal collections Travel to other libraries

Campus library Using specialized online resources

Electronic access to other libraries Using the World Wide Web

Consulting other scholars Engage in exchanges Discuss ideas

Ask questions

Obtain bibliographic references

Participate in collaborative research

Important source materials Primary materials

Journal articles

Recordings and monographs

Preparing and organizing

Focused use of sources Find leads to new sources

Look for support for arguments

Formulate theories or questions

Organizing information Create outlines Develop time lines, chronologies

Create tables, lists, categories

C.D.Brown/Library

&Inform

atio

nScien

ceResea

rch24(2002)73–94

80

Stage Primary activity Secondary activity Other sources

Data collection Interviews, surveys

Participant observation

Controlled experiments

Analyzing Music analysis

Data or textual analysis

Writing and revision

Writing occurs After consulting all sources

While reading

Verify citations or facts

Get further support for arguments

Revision Revision while writing Incorporate leads or input

Revision after writing Present at another conference

Later revision

Publish in another format

Dissemination Conferences Local colloquium

Journal articles Chapter in a book

Monograph

Current awareness activities can occur at any stage.

C.D.Brown/Library

&Inform

atio

nScien

ceResea

rch24(2002)73–94

81

idea for a research project. Scholars such as Dr. Ravel5 or Dr. White said that the first thing

they needed to do was find out about the ‘‘background’’ of the piece of music they were

studying. Others also summarized this as ‘‘background work’’ or ‘‘archival work.’’ At this

stage, the scholars conduct activities that help them to further establish the viability of the

research idea. These activities consist of identifying, locating, and consulting materials or

people that will be used to support or defend the idea. Music scholars were asked to indicate

how they identified and located source materials. All of the activities addressed in the

questionnaire that were related to background work were either primary or secondary

activities in the final model of the research process. Locating the source materials used

occurred through the use of personal collections, materials available from their campus library

systems, materials from other campus library systems, or through scanning the shelves of

their campus library. Activities of secondary importance included traveling to other libraries

or archives, using specialized online resources, and searching the World Wide Web. Fifteen of

the 171 respondents reported other activities involving informal personal communication

(e.g., correspondence or interviews) and structured encounters, such as workshops, presenta-

tions, the classroom, or listening to music.

To determine the important research sources for music scholars, respondents were asked to

rank their five most important sources from a list of seven sources. The list of sources was

derived from those mentioned most often by the 30 scholars interviewed in Phase 1. The

ratings were used to calculate a summary score for each source, excluding sources specified

in an ‘‘other’’ category. The importance of each source was determined by calculating a rank

average summary score. Although some ties occurred in ranking, the most important sources

in music research were found to include print, audio, and video sources (see Table 4). The

relatively high ranking of recordings shows the great importance of listening in the research

process. In the first phase, the interviewees often mentioned the importance of listening to

music during the background stage. Like other humanities scholars, music scholars find

monographs to be an important source. Of lesser importance, the other sources mentioned

most often were scores, concerts or performances, and teaching.

The sources that music scholars consult originate not only in the area of music. One

hundred and forty-seven music scholars (85.5%) said that they consult sources from other

disciplines such as criticism, literature, art history, philosophy, anthropology, or psychology.

Table 4

Source materials used by music scholars

Source Rank average

Primary materials 3.79

Journal articles 3.51

Recordings 2.92

Monographs 2.92

Interviews 2.82

Dissertations 2.59

Reference materials 2.35

5 The names of the scholars discussed in this article are pseudonyms.


As part of their background work, music scholars also consult with other scholars. Several

purposes for consulting other scholars were identified by the interviewees in Phase 1 and

were thus addressed in the questionnaire. Consulting other scholars to engage in exchanges

about issues or topics in an area of research was reported by most respondents to occur either

‘‘often’’ or ‘‘very often.’’ ‘‘Engaging in exchanges’’ may well be related to the activity of

‘‘keeping current.’’ The fact that most kinds of consultation were found to be of secondary

importance is not surprising, since one of the characteristics of humanist scholars, as

described in the literature, is that they tend to work alone.

This study presents evidence that these music scholars do not always work alone. Over half

of the respondents (51.7%) reported that they consult other scholars to engage in exchanges

about issues or topics in their area of research ‘‘often’’ or ‘‘very often,’’ which confirms some

of the more recent findings that humanities scholars have active informal communication

circuits (Pandit, 1992; Weedman, 1993). Respondents also confirmed that participation in

collaborative research occurs with enough frequency by enough scholars to be classified as

moderately important in the research process. In fact, more respondents to the questionnaire

reported participation in collaborative research than the results of Phase 1 indicated. Nine of

the 30 scholars (30%) interviewed in Phase 1 described participating in collaborative

research, whereas 87 of 169 scholars (51.5%) responding to this question said that they

participated in collaborative research either occasionally, often, or very often.

4.2.3. Preparing-and-organizing stage

Music scholars prepare for the next stages in their research by reading or otherwise using

source materials and organizing the information gathered from these sources. During this

stage, music scholars continue to use or read source materials. However, this work becomes

more focused. They are often trying to narrow their approach to a given topic and organize

the information collected. All of the activities related to the use or reading of source materials

were found to be of primary importance at this stage in the research process. Music scholars

indicated that they use or read source materials in order to find leads to new sources, look for

support for arguments, and formulate theories or questions.

When scholars organize the information read and gathered, they do so at two levels, the

macrolevel, or the large-scale organization of the research, and the microlevel, or the small-

scale organization of certain parts of the research. Organization at the macrolevel is done

through the development of an outline to use for writing and occurs with enough frequency to

be of primary importance in the research process. Organization at the microlevel, carried out

by creating tables, lists, or categories that summarize the important information, is also

classified as being of primary importance in the research process. Organization by developing

time lines or chronologies was reported to occur less frequently in the research process. The

descriptions given in Phase 1 by Dr. Lowe, a music theorist, and Dr. Boulanger, a music

historian, illustrate some of these activities:

Dr. Lowe: I had to systematize the method of analysis a little more so that it could be applied

across the board. I had to invent real specific names for things that you could find in this area.

Think of it as anatomy: this is a joint between bones and this is skin on top. I went though all


of the pieces, and said, ‘‘Here’s a joint; here’s a bone; here’s the skin.’’ Then, I made tables of

the results and lo and behold there were some consistent things I could say. If you use this

method of analysis you find out that Composer L used the techniques consistently.

Dr. Boulanger: What I do in the reading is I make massive notes in the computer on a lot of

books. . . . Then I print them out and they are like bibles. Then I go through them with a

highlighter and pick out the ideas that I think I want to work on. The stage that comes after—

this is pretty weird, I guess. I’ve never told someone this so it’s very weird to talk about it

[laughs]. I make a list of the topics. I know I have to talk about [Composer Y], and [Author

M] and [Composer Y]. I list them on a page and then I start to fill them in as I’m reading. I’m

still constantly reading a lot but I will fill under the right title because I know that is going to

be an interesting topic in my paper. I’m going to have to know that. I’m going to have to

know about [Author M].

The type of preparation and organization music scholars do at this stage may depend on

the type of research they conduct, or possibly even their area of specialization. In the Phase

1 interviews, three scholars (10%) described studies where they conducted controlled

experiments. Two of these scholars were in music education, one of whom had a

subspecialization in music psychology/music cognition. The third scholar conducted

research in computer applications for music composition. When asked whether their

research has involved preparing and conducting a controlled experiment, 41 (23.4%) mail

survey respondents said ‘‘yes.’’ The majority of these scholars conduct research in music

education (28); psychology of music/music cognition (2); music therapy (3); and a

combination of music theory, composition and computer applications (2).6 It is not

uncommon for this method to be used in these areas of music research. However, it is

not common for the typical humanist scholar to conduct controlled experiments. This

distinction allies these particular music scholars more with the sciences and social sciences

where this method of research is more common.

Research methods that involve preparing and conducting interviews and/or participant

observation were used by 87 (50%) of the 174 scholars responding to this question. Although

music scholarship can incorporate both quantitative and qualitative approaches, more scholars

indicated that they use qualitative methods. However, 50% of the scholars said that their

research does not involve conducting interviews or participant observation and 76.6% said

that their research does not involve preparing or conducting controlled experiments. Clearly,

other research methods are used. These methods are discussed in the context in which

scholars analyze the data or materials they study.

4.2.4. Analysis stage

Music scholars were asked if their research involved using methods of music analysis or

some other form of analysis. A total of 112 (65.9%) said that their research involved music

analysis. A number of respondents listed multiple methods of music analysis. Content

analysis was used to classify broadly the kinds of music analysis reported. The responses

were first divided into two categories based on whether the music analysis could be identified

6 Six respondents to this question did not specify a specialization.


as being either tonal or nontonal. The tonal category was further divided into a functional/

traditional category and a reductive category (e.g., Schenkerian analysis). Nontonal analysis

included techniques such as 12-tone analysis and pitch class set techniques. Thirty-three

(29.5%) scholars responded in a manner that did not allow for classification. The responses

given by these scholars included statements such as ‘‘whatever fits the piece,’’ ‘‘perceptive

observation and imagination,’’ or ‘‘analytical.’’ Table 5 gives the results of the classification

of the usable responses given by 79 scholars (70.5%).

Techniques related to functional/traditional tonal analysis were mentioned by 46 scholars

(58.2%), and another 25 (31.6%) said they used reductive techniques for tonal analysis.

Fewer scholars (9, or 11.4%) said that they conducted music analysis using nontonal

techniques. The responses classified under ‘‘other’’ include seven scholars who reported that

they analyzed the relationship of text and music and six scholars who described other types of

analysis, such as ethnomusicological methods (e.g., transcription and analysis), developing

new methods based on cognitive processes, or plainchant incipits patterning comparisons.

Fifty-eight (34.1%) respondents said that they use a different kind of analysis in their

research. Seventeen scholars gave responses that were not amenable to classification because

of the following: (1) they said it was hard to describe their method of analysis; (2) they gave

answers such as ‘‘finding the most useful approach to understanding’’ or ‘‘analyzing

children’s responses’’; or (3) they specified a topic of research such as ‘‘dance’’ or ‘‘effects

of teaching methods and conducting approaches on singers in choirs.’’ Thus, the responses of

the 41 remaining scholars were classified as either qualitative or quantitative. Twenty-three

(56.1%) of these responses were from music scholars who reported that they used quantitative

methods (i.e., statistical measurement). One scholar reported using both quantitative and

qualitative methods. The remaining 17 scholars (41.5%) specified a variety of qualitative

methods or approaches and some specified more than one kind of method or approach. These

responses are grouped into four categories: cultural, which included historical, geographic,

political, sociological, and philosophical approaches (9 respondents); ethnographic

(5 respondents); textual, which included literary approach and plot analysis (5 respondents);

and translation/transcription, which included paleography and orthography (2 respondents).

4.2.5. Writing, revision, and dissemination stages

When enough background work, preparing and organizing, and analysis has been

completed, music scholars move on to the writing stage. This stage occurs in conjunction

Table 5

Classification of music analysis techniques used by music scholars

Categorya n %

Tonal, functional/traditional 46 58

Tonal, reductive 25 32

Nontonal 9 11

Other 13 16a Multiple responses were classified under each applicable category.


with activities such as revising, consulting sources, and choosing and constructing musical

examples. Music scholars make the decision to begin writing based on two distinct

approaches: A majority of music scholars indicated that they have ‘‘often’’ or ‘‘very often’’

done enough research to start writing but will continue to read, analyze, or consult sources

throughout the writing-and-revision stage. A smaller number said that they have read,

analyzed, or looked at all the relevant sources before beginning to write. Both activities

were reported to occur often enough by a significantly large number of scholars to be

classified as primary activities at this stage in the research process.

Even though a music scholar may be writing, he or she tends to reconsult sources, notes,

and other materials. This reconsultation occurs primarily for verification of citations or facts

and interpretation. Consulting sources again, to obtain further support for arguments (e.g.,

quotes or examples), was also a primary activity in the research process.

In the Phase 1 interviews, music scholars whose area of specialization was primarily music

theory described the importance of using musical examples in their writing. Musical

examples were used to help structure writing, and scholars tried to choose examples that

illustrated more than one point. In a Phase 1 interview, Dr. Lowe, a music theorist, described

the role of choosing a musical example in the writing process:

I need the best example of each thing. . . . I knew they were going to cut examples because

it’s expensive to print them, so I needed an example to show maybe two things in the same

example or just the most splendid example of such a thing. One of the things that is so basic

to this kind of work is that you are constantly working back and forth from the example to the

text, back to the example, back to the text. What happens is, you have an example, then go to

the word processor and you write it up, and the example sort of fades into the background and

you get involved in the prose. Then you read it and look at the example and say, ‘‘Wait a

minute, this isn’t exactly what happened.’’ You go back to the example and look at it and

realize you have to rewrite the passage, so you rewrite the passage as a result. . . . Thisconstant going back and forth is a real feature of writing about music.

According to the questionnaire responses, choosing examples was found to be an

important activity for a larger number of scholars; they ‘‘occasionally’’ (20% of

respondents), ‘‘often,’’ or ‘‘very often’’ (60% of respondents) use musical examples to

illustrate more than one point and to help structure their writing. Questionnaire respond-

ents who rated these reasons as having primary importance in the research process

specialized in music theory, music history, music education, ethnomusicology, and

multiple areas of research.

The music scholars responding to the questionnaire confirmed that there are at least three

different stages at which they revise their work. Most music scholars said that revision

occurs while they write, after they have completed an entire draft, and after they have put

their work aside for a period of time. Revision can also occur after research has been

presented at a conference. In the interviews, all but three of the scholars who presented

their work first at a conference also revised the work and published or presented it

elsewhere. The questionnaire was designed to ask about the three most common purposes

for revision after dissemination at a conference. These purposes include the following: to


publish in another format (e.g., journal article or book), to incorporate leads or input

obtained from colleagues, and to present at another conference. Once revision was

complete, dissemination occurred in a variety of formats. The most frequent modes of

dissemination were at a conference and in a journal article (see Table 6).

4.2.6. Current awareness

Keeping current is an activity that can occur at any time in the research process. Music

scholars were asked to rank the five most important ways they find out about new research in

their area(s) of interest. Table 7 lists these ways, in rank order based on their summary scores.

As explained previously, the ratings were used to calculate a summary score for each of the

ways listed, excluding ways specified as ‘‘other.’’ Eleven scholars specified and ranked an

‘‘other’’ way in which they found out about new research, such as buying new books, reading

online reviews, or sight-reading new compositions.

The sources scholars find most important in their efforts to find out about new research are

print-based (e.g., scanning new journals, scanning the new-books shelf or new-books list in

the library, or scanning new bibliographies) or based on face-to-face contact with colleagues

(e.g., going to conferences or talking with colleagues). In comparison with the other methods

of finding out about new research that were given in the questionnaire, very few scholars

rated using e-mail or reading messages posted to discussion groups as important ways to find

out about new research in a given area of interest.

Table 7

How music scholars keep current

Source Rank average

Scanning new journals 4.00

Going to conferences 3.41

Talking with colleagues face to face 2.90

Scanning the new-books shelf or new-books list in the library 2.71

Scanning new bibliographies 2.61

Talking with colleagues via e-mail 2.45

Reading messages posted to discussion groups 2.21

Table 6

Dissemination formats

Format Meana

Conference 3.8

Journal article 3.5

Local colloquium 3.2

Chapter in a book 2.6

Monograph 2.5a Based on a five-point scale.


4.3. Summary of the music scholar’s research process

As in other disciplines, the research process of music scholars is a complex sequence of

events, which culminate in a product that is disseminated within the scholarly communication

circuit. Movement through the research process can occur in a variety of patterns. The

respondents to the mail questionnaire concurred with the interviewees of Phase 1 that

activities and stages can occur in different orders and can overlap.

The data presented have helped to answer one of the research questions of this study:

‘‘What are the stages in the research process of music scholars?’’ In Phase 1, interviews with

music scholars were used to develop a preliminary model of the research process. The model

included six stages: idea generation, background work, preparing and organizing, analysis,

writing and revision, and dissemination. During the development of this preliminary model,

various activities were identified as occurring at each stage of the research process. According

to the 175 music scholars who participated in Phase 2, most of these activities were found to

occur with sufficient frequency that they could remain in the revised model of the research

process. Only two activities did not have a summary score high enough to be included in the

final model. These were the use of e-mail discussions with colleagues and reading messages

posted to electronic discussion groups as methods to generate ideas for research projects.

Both the interviews and the mail questionnaire were used to develop a final model of the

research process. Figure 1 shows the dynamic nature of the process; the linear form of the

model (Table 3) provides more detail.

The music scholar gets ideas for his or her research projects from four main sources:

previous work, commissions or calls for papers from scholarly associations, discussions with

colleagues, and reading literature or sources in his or her area. Once the idea has taken form,

the scholar conducts background work that involves consulting literature or sources and

consulting colleagues. As background work progresses, three groups of activities are

initiated: preparing and organizing (e.g., information and methods of data collection), analysis

(i.e., of music or of data), and writing and revision. The activities that take place during

analysis, preparing and organizing, or writing and revision can lead the scholar to conduct

further background work. Dissemination of research at conferences can lead to further writing

and revision and subsequent dissemination in another format.

Fig. 1. The research process of music scholars.


5. Conclusion

One of the outcomes of this research was the development of a model of the scholarly

research process in music. Identification and description of the stages of this research process

are important in order to provide a holistic view of the music scholar’s research activities and

the resulting information needs and uses. The final model arising from this study (see Table 3)

indicates that the research process begins with the generation of ideas for research projects

and progresses through five stages: background work, preparing and organizing, analysis,

writing and revision, and dissemination. The model shares many similarities to other models

of the research processes of other humanities scholars.

This model, like those developed by Case (1991), Chu (1992), Smith (1988), and Stone

(1982), begins with an initial stage that involves idea generation and ends with a final stage

that entails dissemination of a research product. For all the models, the intervening stages

involve activities described as ‘‘gathering,’’ ‘‘organizing,’’ ‘‘sifting,’’ ‘‘analyzing,’’ ‘‘writ-

ing,’’ and ‘‘revising.’’

The model developed in this study most closely resembles that of Chu (1992), with some

distinct differences. There are two notable similarities in the early stages of the research

processes of music scholars and literary critics. The activities that occur in Chu’s preparation

stage, such as information gathering, locating, and consulting other scholars, correspond with

what music scholars described as ‘‘background work.’’ The music scholars’ descriptions of

organizing activities correspond to the activities of Chu’s literary critics’ activities at the

elaboration stage.

The differences may have more to do with the differences between literary scholars and

music scholars than with the particular activities occurring at each stage. A separate stage

labeled ‘‘preparing and organizing’’ was created in the current model because data indicated

that a significant number of music scholars prepare and organize research projects that

involve conducting interviews or participant observation (50% of respondents) or controlled

experiments (24% of respondents). With the exception of conducting interviews, these

methods are not as common in literary scholarship, and humanities research in general, but

are more common in the sciences and social sciences. The current study indicates that music

scholars, depending on their area of specialization, may engage in some of the activities listed

in models of scientists’ research processes. For example, Garvey and Compton (1979)

described five activities7 that are characteristic of the experimental approach: (1) preliminary

experimentation/field trials or mockups; (2) calibration, pretesting, and so forth; (3) design

and development of equipment or apparatus; (4) formulation of experimentation or study

design; and (5) collection of data. There is some evidence from this study that these activities

occur in the research process of a music scholar conducting a controlled experiment. This

method is more likely to be undertaken by scholars in areas such as music education, music

therapy, psychology of music or music cognition, or by scholars who conduct research in

either music theory or composition and computer applications.

7 The Garvey and Compton (1979) model has 11 stages.


Line (1975) described a model of the research process of social scientists with six stages:

(1) initiation, (2) hypothesis formulation, (3) planning method of investigation, (4) data

collection, (5) data analysis, and (6) writing up. In certain cases, music scholars’ research

follows the stages as outlined by Line. This is more likely to happen when the music scholar’s

research methods closely follow those commonly used in social science (e.g., survey research

or participant observation). Thus, the new model for music scholars includes a stage called

preparing and organizing. The label for this stage is broad enough to incorporate activities

such as preparing and organizing a controlled experiment, or designing a study using

participant observation. However, it can also incorporate preparation of a system for

transcription of a Franconian manuscript, the organization of notes taken while consulting

source materials, or the categorization of information gathered from primary sources.

The analysis stage was linked with the writing stage in Chu’s (1992) model of literary

critics’ research process, but analysis is a relatively distinct stage in the research of most

music scholars. In the case of the research of music theorists, the approach used to analyze a

given piece or pieces of music is a distinct method (e.g., a Shenkerian analysis). Analysis of

data gathered through other qualitative and quantitative methods also occurs as a distinct step

in the research process.

The writing and revision of music research occur in conjunction with one another. Like

Chu’s (1992) literary critics, music scholars often revise work that has been disseminated—

for example, at a conference—and disseminate it in another format. To write, rewrite, and

disseminate research to a different audience, music scholars may need to go back to earlier

stages, such as conducting more background work, further analysis, or reorganizing their

results. The process of music scholarship is iterative, not sequential or linear in nature, a

pattern also found in the behavior of Chu’s literary critics.

Another outcome of this study revealed that some of the characteristics of music scholars

are similar to those of other humanities scholars while other characteristics are unique. Most

of the research conducted by humanities scholars is a solitary venture (Cobbledick, 1996;

Reynolds, 1995; Stamm, 1984; Stone, 1982; Wiberley & Jones, 1989, 1994), and this seems

to be generally true of music scholarship as well, that is, most music scholars conduct their

research individually. However, this study found that approximately 20% of music scholars

participate either ‘‘often’’ or ‘‘very often,’’ in collaborative research.

When pursuing new research projects, music scholars consult their personal collections,

the collections available at university libraries, and colleagues as sources for information.

This type of consultation, as well as the importance of browsing, was consistent with the

findings of the following studies: Stamm’s (1984) study of art historians, Cobbledick’s (1996)

investigation of the information-seeking behavior of artists, Chu’s (1992) examination of

literary critics, Stieg’s (1981) study of historians, Sievert and Sievert’s (1988) and Basker’s

(1984) investigation of philosophers, as well as studies of humanists from several disciplines

(Broadbent, 1986; Guest, 1987).

Library and information science research reports that research in the humanities is

conducted using both primary and secondary sources (Guest, 1987; Heinskill, 1980; Stone,

1982; Weintraub, 1980; Wiberley & Jones, 1989, 1994). In Phase 2 of this study, music

scholars ranked primary sources (e.g., letters, files, and manuscripts) and secondary sources


(e.g., journal articles) as being of first and second importance in their research. Listening to

music is an important component of music research and evident in the music scholars’ equal

ranking of recordings and monographs as the third most important resources in music

research. This use of resources in special formats is common to the research of other

humanities scholars such as artists (e.g., visual images [Cobbledick, 1996]) and art historians

(e.g., slides [Stamm, 1984]).

Music scholars do not seem to use specialized online resources as often as other methods

of locating source materials such as using their personal library collection or tools available

on the campus library system (e.g., the library catalog), or browsing. This is consistent with

the findings of studies of other humanities scholars. Gould (1988) found that humanists

preferred to use familiar and unsystematic methods of searching because the online tools were

expensive and difficult to use at that time. Wiberley and Jones (1994) found that the groups of

humanities scholars they studied preferred searching the library catalog. The studies reviewed

by Fulton (1991) also indicated that humanists show a reluctance to use online databases. In a

summary of the Getty End-User Online Searching Project, Bates (1996) stated that ‘‘the

distribution of amount of end-user online searching by the scholars falls out into a familiar

pattern of a few using it a lot, and most using it little’’ (p. 516). The relatively infrequent use

of specialized online resources in music may be due to some of the long-standing inherent

problems with the major abstracting and indexing tools, RILM and The Music Index. RILM,

recently available online and on CD-ROM, is a selective abstracting service that currently

covers 1967 to 1996 with cumulative print indexes every five years. The CD-ROM and

online versions are updated more frequently (quarterly and monthly) but do not cover more

recent publications. The Music Index is an indexing service that covers most music journals

from 1949 to 2001 with annual cumulative print indexes. This service is now available via

CD-ROM, covering 1979 to 2000, and online, covering 1979 to 2001. RILM is out of date,

and The Music Index lacks useful cumulative indexes. Informal surveys of music librarians

revealed that the lack of efficient bibliographic control was seen to be the greatest problem

facing the music discipline (Basart, 1993). Gould (1988) found that the music scholars she

interviewed described the RILM time lag and the lack of specialized indexing tools as being

considerable barriers in satisfying their information needs. This situation does not seem to

have improved substantially.

For almost all disciplines, both formal and informal channels of information are important

not only for information seeking while conducting research but also for keeping current,

which turned out to be an important activity for music scholars. Music scholars scanned

journals or a new-books shelf or list, participated in conferences, and talked face-to-face with

colleagues in order to keep current. This finding supports research emphasizing the relative

importance of informal communication channels in humanities research (Chu, 1992; Cobble-

dick, 1996; Lonnqvist, 1990; Pandit, 1992; Weedman, 1993). However, informal commu-

nication via e-mail and discussion groups was ranked as less important for keeping current

than face-to-face discussions or the interactions that occur through conferences.

By understanding the activities that occur at various stages in the research process,

librarians will have a deeper understanding of the information needs, uses, and challenges

music scholars encounter. For example, in the reference interview between a music scholar


and a librarian, the librarian will be able to ask certain questions that would help identify

where the scholar is in the research process, thus permitting the librarian to intervene more

effectively. For example, during the background-work stage, the librarian may be able to help

by facilitating access to the location and consultation of information sources. The scholar who

is at the writing-and-revision stage may have more specific needs, such as sources that

provide support for particular arguments or points he or she is trying to make. It is also useful

for librarians to know when the scholar prefers to work alone (e.g., during idea generation).

The findings reported in this research may also be informative for collection development

purposes. As many academic libraries face cuts to their collection budgets, collection

decisions must be based on evidence of the academic needs of patrons. For example, music

scholars reported that one of the main sources for research materials comes from their own

collection and the materials that they require are often interdisciplinary in content. This

information can be used to make sound collection management decisions. Expanding

collections to include relevant materials from other disciplines that may not be collected

by other libraries on campus would be helpful for the many music scholars whose research

involves the use of interdisciplinary sources. Careful decisions must always be made about

what materials to keep in a collection and what to put in storage or weed from the collection.

Studies of music scholars’ information needs and uses can be used to inform these decisions.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the reviewers of this manuscript for their helpful comments.

References

American Musicological Society. (1955). Report of the committee on graduate studies. Journal of the American

Musicological Society, 8, 153–154.

Baker, D. (1978). Characteristics of the literature used by English musicologists. Journal of Librarianship, 10,

183–200.

Basart, A. (1993). Reference lacunae: Results of an informal survey of what librarians want. Music Reference

Services Quarterly, 2(3/4), 365–384.

Basker, J. (1984). Philosophers’ information habits. Library and Information Research News, 7, 2–10.

Bates, M. J. (1996). The Getty End-User Online Searching Project in the Humanities: Report no. 6: Overview and

conclusions. College & Research Libraries, 57(6), 514–523.

Bates, M. J., Wilde, D. N., & Siegfried, S. (1995). Research practices of humanities scholars in an online

environment: The Getty Online Searching Project Report no. 3. Library & Information Science Research,

17, 5–40.

Baum, M. J. (1977). Transcribing and editing oral history. Nashville, TN: American Association for State and

Local History.

Broadbent, E. (1986). A study of humanities faculty library seeking behavior. Cataloging and Classification

Quarterly, 6, 23–37.

Brown, C. (2001). The role of computer-mediated communication in the research process of music scholars: An

exploratory investigation. Information Research, 6(2). Retrieved July 11, 2001, from http://InformationR.net/ir/.


Brown, J., & Sime, J. (1981). A methodology for accounts. In: M. Brenner (Ed.), Social method and social life

(pp. 159–188). London, UK: Academic Press.

Case, D. O. (1986). Collection and organization of written information by social scientists and humanists: A

review and exploratory study. Journal of Information Science, 12, 97–104.

Case, D. O. (1991). The collection and use of information by some American historians: A study of motives and

methods. Library Quarterly, 61(1), 61–82.

Chu, C. M. (1992). The scholarly process and the nature of the information needs of the literary critic: A

descriptive model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.

Clegg, S. M. (1985). User surveys and statistics—the opportunities for music libraries. Fontes Artis Musicae,

32(1), 69–75.

Cobbledick, S. (1996). The information-seeking behaviour of artists: Exploratory interviews. Library Quarterly,

66(4), 343–372.

College Music Society. (1996). Directory of music faculties in colleges and universities in the United States and

Canada. Missoula, MT: CMS Publications.

Corkill, C., Mann, M., & Stone, S. (1981). Doctoral students in humanities: A small-scale panel study of

information needs and uses 1976–1979 (BLRD&DD Report No. 5637). Sheffield, UK: Centre for Research

on User Studies, University of Sheffield.

Dervin, B., & Clark, K. (1987). ASQ: Alternative tools for information need and accountability assessments by

libraries. Sacramento, CA: The Peninsula Library System.

Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology,

21, 3–33.

Fulton, C. (1991). Humanists as information users: A review of the literature. Australian Academic and Research

Libraries, 22(3), 188–197.

Garvey, W. D., Compton J., (Eds.) (1979). Communication: The essence of science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Gould, C. (1988). Information needs in the humanities: An assessment. Stanford, CA: Research Libraries Group.

Guest, S. S. (1987). The use of bibliographic tools by humanities faculty at State University of New York Albany.

Reference Librarian, 18, 157–172.

Line, M. B. (1975). Concluding observations. In S. Stone (Ed.), Humanities information research: Proceedings of

a seminar; Sheffield 1980 (BLRD&DD Report No. 5588, pp. 15–26). Sheffield, UK: Centre for Research on

User Studies, University of Sheffield.

Longyear, R. M. (1977). Article citations and obsolescence in musicological journals. Notes, 33(3), 563–571.

Lonnqvist, H. (1990). Scholars seek information: Information-seeking behaviour and information needs of human-

ities scholars. International Journal of Information and Library Research, 2(3), 195–203.

Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of

Sciences, 16(1), 317–323.

McCreery, L. S., & Pao, M. L. (1984). Bibliometric analysis of ethnomusicology. In B. Flood, J. Witiak, &

T. H. Hogan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information

Science (pp. 212–216). White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications.

Morton, H. C., & Price, A. J. (1989). ACLS survey of scholars: A final report of views on publications, computers,

and libraries. Washington, DC: American Council of Learned Societies.

Pandit, I. (1992). Informal communication in the humanities: A qualitative inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dis-

sertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign.

Pao, M. L. (1982). Collaboration in computational musicology. Journal of the American Society for Information

Science, 33(1), 38–43.

Rebman, E. (1993). Music. In N. Couch, & N. Allen (Eds.), The humanities and the library (2nd ed., pp. 132–

172). Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

Reimer, D., (Ed.) (1984). Voices: A guide to oral history. Victoria, BC, Canada: Provincial Archives of

British Columbia.

Reynolds, J. (1995). A brave new world: User studies in the humanities enter the electronic age. Reference

Librarian, 49(50), 61–81.


Seaman, G. (1975). Experiences of a professional musicologist with the New Zealand library system. New

Zealand Libraries, 38(3), 148–157.

Sievert, D., & Sievert, M. E. (1988). Humanists and technologies: The case of philosophers. In C. L. Borgman, &

E. Y. H. Pai (Eds.), Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science

(pp. 94–99).

Smith, K. (1988). An investigation of the information seeking behaviour of academics active in the field of

English literature. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

SPSS for Windows (Rel. 10.0.0), [computer software]. (1999). Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.

Stamm, D. C. (1984). How art historians look for information. Art Documentation, 3, 117–119.

Stieg, M. (1981). The information needs of historians. College & Research Libraries, 42, 549–560.

Stone, S. (1982). Humanities scholars: Information needs and uses. Journal of Documentation, 38(4), 292–313.

Weedman, J. (1993). On the ‘‘isolation’’ of humanists. Communication Research, 20(6), 749–776.

Weintraub, K. J. (1980). The humanistic scholar and the library. Library Quarterly, 53, 22–39.

Wiberley, S. E. (1991). Habits of humanists: Scholarly behavior and new information technologies. Library Hi

Tech, 9(1), 17–21.

Wiberley, S. E., & Jones, W. G. (1989). Patterns of information seeking in the humanities. College & Research

Libraries, 50, 638–645.

Wiberley, S. E., & Jones, W. G. (1994). Humanists revisited: A longitudinal look at the adoption of information

technology. College & Research Libraries, 55, 499–509.


Documents

Straddling the humanities and social sciences: The research process of music scholars