Volume 64, No. 2

Abstract

Using data from university websites and other online sources, this study gathers the gender identity, rank, and terminal degree status of teachers of selected courses for first-year undergraduate music majors – specifically, group piano, music theory, and mixed choirs (n=1942). A higher proportion of teachers of these classes identify as women than current music faculty overall. Additionally, despite holding terminal degrees at levels similar to or higher than those of all music faculty, the instructors in this study are more likely to hold contingent positions, rather than tenured or tenure-track jobs. Results of this study also identify differences in gender, rank, and terminal degree percentages between group piano, music theory, and choir faculty.

More than 50% of those who teach theory and choir identify as men, while more than 50% of those who teach group piano identify as women. Choir has the most tenured and tenure-track faculty, followed by music theory, and then group piano. The study compares its results with similar reports from group piano, music theory, and choir, as well as for academia in the U.S. overall. Further examination of these findings offers information for faculty, administrators, and others interested in observing the changes in gender identity, rank, and terminal degree status of teachers of first-year undergraduate music majors.

Navigating the transition from high school through the first year of undergraduate study is difficult for many students, regardless of their major. One reason for this is that many students are not ready for the academic demands of college-level classes (Xu and Solanki 2020, 68). Some of the challenges involve grasping new information, developing time management skills, and learning effective study habits (Parsh et al. 2021, 21). The first year is critical for students and their families, both as a return on financial investments and as a harbinger of achievement in the subsequent college years (Mennen and van der Klink 2017, 340; Jaeger and Eagan 2011, 509). Nationally, roughly 20% of undergraduates either leave college or transfer to another school after their first year (Min Xiao, Bradley, and Jungmin Lee 2020, 1). Retention of first-year students is important not only for students themselves but also for institutions, as they seek to gain return on their financial investments and improve their rankings (Jaeger and Eagan 2011, 508; Robertson 2022).

Relationship between Teachers of First-Year Students and Retention

One way to investigate efforts to improve retention is to study the teaching of first-year students. Introductory classes offer an excellent locus for research in part because students generally do not or cannot select them based on prior knowledge of the course or instructor (Ran and Sanders 2020; Figlio, Schapiro, and Soter 2015; Carrell and West 2008). Studies measuring the outcomes of these courses analyze students’ final grades, persistence to subsequent courses, and course evaluations (Keng 2018; Ran and Xu 2019; Gourley and Madonia 2021).

Studies of the influence of teachers on the success and retention of first-year students also focus on the role of the instructor’s rank. This is due in part to changes in faculty hiring over the past generation, from primarily tenure-track to primarily contingent faculty (Dawson et al. 2019, 115; Jaeger and Eagan 2011, 508; Cho, Otani, and Kim 2014, 6).

Some research suggests a negative relationship between rank and teaching ability. One study found that tenure had a negative effect on various metrics of student learning in introductory courses, though it examined only one urban, highly-ranked research university (Figlio, Schapiro, and Soter 2015). Another report found that student evaluations were more positive for adjunct faculty than full-time faculty in a public policy department at a four-year university (Cho, Otani, and Kim 2014). Using eleven years of data from a single four-year university, a third study found a modest decrease in student evaluation scores between tenure-track and tenured professors (Gourley and Madonia 2021).

Other research indicates that an increase in tenured faculty is associated with higher graduation rates, and the use of more part-time faculty has a negative effect on student retention (Ehrenberg and Liang Zhang 2005; Jaeger and Eagan 2011). These results arise in part from impressions that adjunct faculty may use less effective teaching techniques, though some of these results come from instructors’ own perceptions (Guthrie, Wyrick, and Navarrete 2019, 19; Hanson et al. 2018, 426). They may also spend less time planning their teaching, meeting with students, and providing feedback than those who are employed full-time (Eagan Jr., Jaeger, and Grantham 2015, 453; Alshehri 2020, 158). While no studies have measured teacher quality by rank in music specifically, one study found some evidence that lower-ranked arts faculty use “subject-centered” practices, such as multiple choice tests, more frequently and “learner-centered strategies,” such as student evaluations of each other’s work, less often than their tenured colleagues (Baldwin, Roger, and Wawrzynski, Matthew R. 2011, 1494-1496).

Researchers have also studied the role of expertise, measured by highest degree earned, for its potential role in the educational success of first-year students. Two studies found a positive influence between the educational level of the teacher and student performance. The first, using data from calculus courses at the United States Air Force Academy, found that high student evaluations came from teachers with fewer credentials and led to lower performance in subsequent courses. Students who achieved greater long-term gains came from classes with lower initial course evaluations but higher teacher educational qualifications, among other factors (Carrell and West 2008). The second study used five years of data from throughout an anonymous state college system and found similar improved student performance over time from teachers with higher educational credentials (Ran and Xu 2019).

Teachers’ interactions with students outside the classroom and personal traits also aid the retention and educational success of first-year students. Students from marginalized racial and economic backgrounds benefit from working with teachers with similar characteristics (Draves and Vargas 2022, 5; Fitzpatrick, Henninger, and Taylor 2014, 116). Similarly, students tend to perform better with same-gender teachers, with students identifying as men receiving substantially higher grades as more people in the classroom identify as men (Artz and Welsch 2014; Hoffmann and Oreopoulos 2009). Mentoring and other non-academic support is also valuable for student retention (Crisp et al. 2017; Chelberg and Bosman 2019). When students interact with teachers in both academic and informal settings, they grow more committed to their institution (Min Xiao, Bradley, and Jungmin Lee 2020). 

First-Year Undergraduate Music Study

Among the courses first-year undergraduate music majors take are those in group piano, music theory, and large ensembles. Courses offerings in group piano and music theory date back more than ninety years (Young 2016, 13; Girard 2007, 1). Ensembles have an even longer history, as the first American collegiate orchestra dates from 1808 (Dixon 2002, 1).

The National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) lists “keyboard competency” under the “common body of knowledge and skills” required for undergraduate music majors (“NASM Handbook” 2021-2, 102-3). A survey of professional performers and teachers shows they regularly use these skills to sightread, transpose melodies, and accompany soloists in their work (Young 2013). Instructors tasked with developing these abilities face several challenges. First, they often interact with students who have little to no experience at the keyboard (Pike 2014, 80; Jones and Bergee 2008, 97-98). Next, developing comfort at the keyboard requires consistent work for success (Iwaguchi 2012, 172). Additionally, while budgetary considerations and faculty teaching loads typically necessitate developing these skills in groups, some teachers have not received training specifically in group piano pedagogy (Fisher 2010, 4, 29; Young 2016, 16).

Music theory classes help students acquire analytical skills required by NASM, which include knowledge of music fundamentals and application in written, spoken, and aural contexts (“NASM Handbook” 2021-2, 103). These courses frequently cover topics such as analysis, part writing, key signatures, scales, intervals, and triads (Murphy and McConville 2017, 196). Like keyboard skills, many undergraduate students come to college without prior formal music theory coursework (Jones and Bergee 2008, 97; Marvin 2012, 261).

Large ensemble courses such as band, orchestra, and choir are also part of the undergraduate music major curriculum. They are a common way that high school musicians in the U.S. learn music, and the choice to pursue music at the undergraduate level often begins with inspiration from pre-college ensemble directors (Kelly and Juchniewicz 2017, 3). At the collegiate level, ensembles provide students with opportunities for exchanges with fellow musicians and help them grow in their “artistry, technical skills, collaborative competence and knowledge of the repertory” (“NASM Handbook” 2021-2, 62, 103). Ensembles begin in the first year of study, since they are normally pursued throughout the entire undergraduate degree program (“NASM Handbook” 2021-2, 62). 

Demographic Studies

Demographic studies in academia help practitioners learn more about recognized standards of a profession as a whole and create information to share with students interested in entering a field (Brewer and Rickels 2012, 70-1). More specifically, some studies compile data to address improvements to student outcomes (Ran and Xu 2019; Robertson 2020). Others use their results to investigate equity issues with populations marginalized in academic hiring, such as women (Bergonzi et al. 2015; Robertson 2022). A third group gathers statistics to learn more about the people, the profession, and their working conditions (Bland et al. 2006; Lee and McNaughtan 2019). Some demographic studies examine faculty by rank or at particular institutions (Ran and Xu 2019; Robertson 2022). Other research looks at information about teachers of specific subjects, such as physical education or music education (Graber et al. 2020; Brewer and Rickels 2012; Hewitt and Thompson 2006). Recent demographic studies obtain their information using one of three methods: online searches, surveys sent directly to relevant parties, or large external datasets, such as the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System from the National Center for Education Statistics. In music, the Higher Education Arts Data Services data survey (HEADS) provides a wide range of information about students, faculty, and institutions.

In addition to faculty data, demographic statistics are also available for graduate and undergraduate students. As graduate students progress through their studies and develop stronger connections to those connected with the field, there is evidence that they consider the possibility of a career in academia (Vetter and Carter 2016, 157). As a result, reporting graduate student information helps determine whether faculty demographics for a given field result from variations in subject selection or from other factors. The most recent available HEADS report showed that 66.4%, 37.9%, and 30.8% of current doctoral students in piano, theory, and conducting (all types), respectively, identified as women (National Association of Schools of Music 2019, 105). While small fluctuations have occurred in the intervening years, these numbers are similar to the 67.6%, 29.2%, and 36.3% conveyed in the 2003-2004 HEADS report (National Association of Schools of Music 2004, 90). Similarly, reporting undergraduate student information helps determine whether faculty demographics for a given field result from academia’s possible preference to match teacher and student demographics. While the HEADS data do not report gender statistics specifically for first-year students, it does show that between 47.8 and 49.7% of all undergraduate music students in professional degrees, such as performance and education, have identified as women since at least 2004 (National Association of Schools of Music 2019, 116; National Association of Schools of Music 2004, 101). In addition to this student data, the HEADS report includes faculty demographic data, including the highest degree, rank, and gender. There is not, however, any known current study of those who specifically teach first-year music courses.

Purpose of the Study

The present study creates a dataset with the gender, rank, and highest degree attained of teachers of first-year group piano, music theory, and choir courses at NASM-accredited institutions in the 50 U.S. states, plus the District of Columbia. The purpose of this study is to answer the following questions: What are the distributions of gender identity, rank, and highest degree attained of teachers of group piano, music theory, and mixed choirs, what percentage of said faculty identify as women at each academic rank, and what percentage of said faculty hold a terminal degree at each academic rank?

Research Methods

Using the NASM member database and online university course catalogs, I created a list of institutions that offer the Bachelor of Music degree. The subsequent list does not include every music school, since not all institutions are members of NASM (Brewer and Rickels 2012). This study focused on NASM schools, since accreditation requires that they meet similar standards.

After creating a list of schools, I next selected a limited cross-section of courses to reflect the diverse curriculum of first-year music majors. Because of my familiarity with the subject matter, I chose to include group piano teachers in this study, focusing on each institution’s first and second semester courses and excluding courses for non-music majors. It was also essential to include a music course typically conducted in a classroom. Music theory courses (hereafter shortened to theory) fit this description. Like group piano, I collected data for the first and second semester music theory classes and did not include teachers of any preparatory or remedial courses. While there is no single large ensemble in which all first-year undergraduate music majors participate, choir, like group piano and music theory, has been the focus of previous demographic studies (Young 2016; Hisama 2021; VanWeelden 2003; Norton and Hetzel 1993). Similar to the other subjects, I gathered faculty information about the choral ensemble at each institution where first-year music majors of all gender identities and voice parts were most likely to sing.

Each institution’s online course schedule revealed titles and teachers of courses. Different schools allowed the viewing of different semesters depending on the timing of the search. I collected the data during the 2022 calendar year, using information from both the Spring 2022 and Fall 2022 terms.

After locating the appropriate course in each subject matter and the instructor listed to teach the course for that term, I recorded the highest degree, gender, and title for that person. In cases where the only instructor was a graduate assistant, I did not attempt to obtain additional information. Any type of doctoral degree counted as a terminal degree, including Doctor of Arts (DA), Doctor of Education (EdD), Doctor of Music (DM), Doctor of Musical Arts (DMA), and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD).

Based on pronouns found in biographies and information from other public websites, I collected the gender identity for each teacher. As they are the most likely place students and other interested parties would look for accurate information, I began with university websites, using non-university websites only when initial searches were incomplete. If no information was publicly available, I did not record a gender identity. He/Him, She/Her, and They/Them pronouns came up while compiling the data.

When coding the data, I used four different titles – Adjunct, Instructor, Assistant Professor, and Associate/Full Professor. Adjunct indicated any part-time teacher. Instructor referred to any full-time non-tenured or non-tenure-track position, including visiting positions. The sum of these two comprised the group Contingent Faculty. There were two categories of tenure-track faculty – Assistant Professor and Associate/Full Professor – the former term copied directly from faculty biography pages and the latter utilized for all those with tenure.

Three independent research assistants, each with degrees in their respective subject area, reviewed approximately 13% of their field’s entries to verify and refine the data. Their datasets featured four possible notes for each entry: Yes to confirm the information, No to disagree with its inclusion, New for an entry not already on the list, and Change to indicate any changes to the information. Part of the information checked did not yield data I felt useful for this study. Additionally, the lag between collecting and checking the data created differences that reflected personnel changes from spring to fall semesters, rather than error on my part. After accounting for these factors, the assistants and I agreed on 94.4% of group piano entries, 91.2% of theory entries, and 98.1% of choir entries. 

Results

Overall

The study found a total of 591 institutions. 484 schools (81.9% of total institutions) had data available for group piano teachers, 500 for theory (84.6%), and 514 for choir (87.0%). There were 729 group piano entries, 672 theory, and 541 choir, for a total of 1942 entries. Grad students were the only teachers listed at 15 schools for group piano (2.5% of total institutions), six schools for theory (1.0%), and one school for choir (0.2%). Table 1 lists the number and percentage of faculty members with the specified gender, rank, and terminal degree status for each subject. 

Table 1. Gender, Rank, and Terminal Degree of Group Piano, Theory, and Choir Faculty

Intersections

Tables 2 and 3 present selected associations between gender, rank, and terminal degree status of group piano, theory, and choir faculty. Table 2 documents the number of faculty members identifying as women at each rank for each subject, as well as in the entire dataset. For example, there are 193 adjunct group piano teachers who identify as women, and Table 1 shows that there are 286 adjunct group piano teachers overall. This means that 67.5% of the total number of adjunct group piano teachers in this study identify as women. Table 3 uses the same methodology to report the number of faculty members with terminal degrees at each rank.

Table 2. Women Group Piano, Theory, and Choir Faculty by Rank

Table 3. Group Piano, Theory, and Choir Faculty with Terminal Degrees by Rank

Overall Comparisons

Gender

The study found a smaller proportion of teachers identifying as men for group piano, theory, and choir than music faculty overall (55.7% versus 66.2%) (National Association of Schools of Music 2019, 43-44). It also found a higher percentage of theory teachers identifying as men than that reported by Society of Music Theory members in a 2021 study (67.3% versus 64.0%) (Hisama 2021, 349). Results also show a higher percentage of choral directors identifying as men than twenty years ago (69.9% versus 65.0%) (VanWeelden 2003, 22). The group piano numbers are close to those of a 2016 survey of group piano teachers (34.6% versus 35.0%) (Young 2016, 16).

Rank

The percentage of tenured or tenure-track instructors of group piano, theory, and choir (58.8%) is lower than that of music faculty overall (81.0%) (National Association of Schools of Music 2019, 48). It is also lower than the 69% of all American faculty in similar positions, though the latter results are from data that are more than twenty years old (Bland et al. 2006, 106). The 38.7% of group piano faculty on tenure-track lines in this study is lower than the 51% in a 2016 study (Young 2016, 16). Young also reported 32% and 13% of group piano teachers as adjuncts and instructors, respectively, lower than the 39.2% and 22.1% found in this paper (Young 2016, 16). The 81.7% of choir faculty in tenure-track positions reported in this study is similar to the 82.8% of music education faculty in a 2006 survey (Hewitt and Thompson 2006, 54).

Terminal Degree

The 73.1% of faculty in this study with terminal degrees is similar to the 70.8% found in the NASM data (National Association of Schools of Music 2019, 48). It is also comparable to the 71.1% of music education faculty with terminal degrees in a 2006 study (Hewitt and Thompson 2006, 57). The 58.0% of group piano faculty members with terminal degrees is close to the results of Young’s study, which found 60% with doctorates (Young 2016, 16). However, the 84.8% of choir faculty members with terminal degrees is higher than results from thirty years ago, when 43.5% had doctorates (Norton and Hetzel 1993, 30). 

Gender and Rank

This study found that 54.5% of contingent faculty teaching group piano, theory, and choir identify as women, higher than the 21% of all women contingent faculty reported in NASM data (National Association of Schools of Music 2019, 43). It is also 11.2% higher than the percentage of music faculty of courses taught by women in this study overall (54.5% vs. 43.2%). Additionally, in each subject, the percentage of contingent faculty who are women is higher than the percentage of women faculty overall by 5.6%, 2.2%, and 12.3% for group piano, theory, and choir, respectively. Though Young and Hisama do not report specific data on women faculty by rank for group piano and theory, respectively, the 27.4% of tenured or tenure-track and 42.4% of contingent choral faculty reported in the present study who identify as women are lower than the 33.4% and 14%, respectively, reported thirty years ago (Norton and Hetzel 1993, 23). Outside of music, a 2006 study found that 37.6% of tenure-track faculty in all fields identify as women, higher than the 30.4% found in theory and the 27.4% in choir but lower than the 53.5% found for group piano teachers in this study (Bland et al. 2006, 105). 

Rank and Degree

At all ranks, this study found a higher percentage of faculty with terminal degrees than numbers reported elsewhere. Nearly 63% of instructors and approximately 90% of tenure-track faculty in this study hold terminal degrees, compared to 44.2% and 77.0% in music overall (National Association of Schools of Music 2019, 47). The 90.4% of tenure-track faculty with terminal degrees in this study is higher than a survey of tenure-track music faculty, which found 81.8% had doctorates (Lee and McNaughtan 2021, 59). The 35.8% of adjunct faculty with terminal degrees in this study is also higher than rates reported outside of music, where 15–17% of adjunct faculty hold terminal degrees (Dolan et al. 2013, 41; Ran and Xu 2019, 1090).

Within this study, the percentages of faculty with terminal degrees varies by subject. Contingent group piano faculty were less likely to have terminal degrees than theory and choral instructors (37.4%, versus 61.2% and 65.3%), and adjunct theory teachers were more likely to have terminal degrees than their colleagues in the other two subjects (51.3%, versus 30.8% and 24.1%).

Discussion

Future Research

Other demographic studies similar to this one, especially at the precollege level, have reported data by geographic regions (Elpus and Abril 2011; Prendergast 2021). Future collegiate studies similar to this one may benefit from examining regional variations in faculty demographics, especially considering that universities near larger populations face different hiring challenges than those in more rural areas (Zhang and Liu 2010, 543).

Similar research using other first-year courses and ensembles, such as aural skills, band, and orchestra, would flesh out the profession’s knowledge of the rank, gender, terminal degree status, and related variables of a larger cohort of teachers of first-year music students. Likewise, comparing data across public, private, and Carnegie classifications of institutions would show differences in personnel decisions resulting from varied funding sources, student bodies, and relative focus on teaching compared to research.

Overall, these results inform future studies on the increasing shift away from tenure-track employment in academia. Similar studies 5–10 years from now would document the location of any lost full-time positions and analyze how these changes affect each subject area’s ability to place graduates and teach current students.

Limitations of the Study

One limitation of this study is the reliance on university webpages and online biographies to obtain data. It is possible that I misinterpreted text, or that the content was not current at the time of collection, especially with adjunct faculty, who may not work for an institution more than one semester.

The use of publicly available information also prohibits the acquisition of other important data. Information such as age, race, years of service, length of appointment at current institution, other employment held simultaneously, and institutional culture and practices are more easily gathered in surveys or interviews (Jaeger and Eagan 2011, 532; Dawson et al. 2019, 124). Reporting only demographic information also omits the subject area of teachers’ terminal degree. This information could help track potential trends in the backgrounds of teachers of specific courses. For example, there is some evidence that a transition from generalists to specialists is occurring in those teaching music theory (Marvin 2012, 256).

One final limitation of this study is the lack of demographic data on graduate student teachers, both for the information itself and because they are likely more involved with the instruction of first-year music students than course schedules indicate.

Conclusion

The results of this study show that more teachers of first-year group piano, theory, and choir courses are women than music faculty overall. While there is no way to document whether these numbers show progress toward gender equity or not in group piano and theory, the results in choir show a trend away from that goal. Additionally, despite holding terminal degrees at levels similar to or higher than those of all music faculty, more teachers of first-year music students hold contingent faculty ranks than music faculty as a whole. This study also identifies differences in the gender, rank, and terminal degree percentages among group piano, theory, and choir teachers. More than 50% of those who teach theory and choir identify as men, while more than 50% of those who teach group piano identify as women. The 63.5%, 31.5%, and 30.1% of group piano, theory, and choir teachers, respectively, who identify as women is lower than the 66.4%, 37.9%, and 30.8% of doctoral students in roughly equivalent fields. In other words, there is a higher percentage of those who identify as men teaching all three subjects than their current percentages of doctoral students. Choir has the most tenured and tenure-track faculty in the current study, followed by theory and then group piano. Choir also has the highest percentage of faculty with terminal degrees, followed again by theory and group piano, though the gaps are smaller. Further examination of these findings has the potential to transform how administrators, faculty, and others allocate current and future faculty positions to maximize the first-year undergraduate music major experience.

References

Alshehri, Yahya M. 2020. “Instructional Practices of Part-Time Faculty at Two-Year Institutions: Observations and Implications.” International Journal of Higher Education 9 (2): 156–66.

Artz, Benjamin, and David M. Welsch. 2014. “The Effect of Peer and Professor Gender on College Student Performance.” Southern Economic Journal 80 (3): 816–38. https://doi.org/10.4284/0038-4038-2012.158

Baldwin, Roger, and Wawrzynski, Matthew R. 2011. “Contingent Faculty as Teachers: What We Know, What We Need to Know.” American Behavioral Scientist 55 (11): 1485–1509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211409194

Bergonzi, Louis, Deanna Yerichuk, Kiera Galway, and Elizabeth S. Gould. 2015. “Demographics of Tenure-Stream Music Faculty in Canadian Post-Secondary Institutions.” Intersections 35 (1): 79–104.

Bland, Carole J., Bruce A. Center, Deborah A. Finstad, Kelly R. Risbey, and Justin Staples. 2006. “The Impact of Appointment Type on the Productivity and Commitment of Full-Time Faculty in Research and Doctoral Institutions.” Journal of Higher Education 77 (1): 89–123. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0002

Brewer, Wesley D., and David A. Rickels. 2012. “Demographics and Faculty Time Allocation of Music Education Professors in the United States.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 22 (1): 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083711424504

Carrell, Scott E., and James E. West. 2008. “Does Professor Quality Matter? Evidence from Random Assignment of Students to Professors.” Working Paper. Working Paper Series. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w14081

Chelberg, Kelli L., and Lisa B. Bosman. 2019. “The Role of Faculty Mentoring in Improving Retention and Completion Rates for Historically Underrepresented STEM Students.” International Journal of Higher Education 8 (2): 39–48.

Cho, Jeong-Il, Koichiro Otani, and B. Joon Kim. 2014. “Differences in Student Evaluations of Limited-Term Lecturers and Full-Time Faculty.” Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 25 (2): 5–24.

Cox, Thomas D., and Mark A. Lemon. 2016. “A Curricular Intervention for Teaching and Learning: Measurement of Gains of First-Year College Student Learning.” Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning 16 (3): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.19268

Crisp, Gloria, Vicki L. Baker, Kimberly A. Griffin, Laura Gail Lunsford, and Meghan J. Pifer. 2017. “Mentoring Undergraduate Students.” ASHE Higher Education Report 43 (1): 7–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20117

Dawson, Debra L., Ken N. Meadows, Erika Kustra, and Kathryn D. Hansen. 2019. “Perceptions of Institutional Teaching Culture by Tenured, Tenure-Track, and Sessional Faculty.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 49 (3): 115–28.

Dixon, Timothy D. 2002. “A Status Study of Orchestras at Selected Colleges and Universities.” D.M.A., United States -- Iowa: The University of Iowa. https://www.proquest.com/docview/287889020/abstract/DF801C5C67BB4CE1PQ/37

Dolan, Dallas M., Marilyn S. Hall, Carl Richard Karlsson, and M. Linda Martinak. 2013. “Five Years Later: Maryland Adjuncts Tell Us (Again) Who They Are and What They Want.” Journal of Continuing Higher Education 61 (1): 35–45.

Draves, Tami J., and Jonathan E. Vargas. 2022. “‘I Made Myself Fit In’: Johny’s Story.” Journal of Research in Music Education 70 (1): 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224294211001876

Eagan Jr., M. Kevin, Audrey J. Jaeger, and Ashley Grantham. 2015. “Supporting the Academic Majority: Policies and Practices Related to Part-Time Faculty’s Job Satisfaction.” Journal of Higher Education 86 (3): 448–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2015.11777371

Ehrenberg, Ronald G. and Liang Zhang. 2005. “Do Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Matter?” Journal of Human Resources 40 (3): 647–59. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XL.3.647

Elpus, Kenneth, and Carlos R. Abril. 2011. “High School Music Ensemble Students in the United States: A Demographic Profile.” Journal of Research in Music Education 59 (2): 128–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429411405207

Figlio, David N., Morton O. Schapiro, and Kevin B. Soter. 2015. “Are Tenure Track Professors Better Teachers?” Review of Economics and Statistics 97 (4): 715–24.

Fitzpatrick, Kate R., Jacqueline C. Henninger, and Don M. Taylor. 2014. “Access and Retention of Marginalized Populations Within Undergraduate Music Education Degree Programs.” Journal of Research in Music Education 62 (2): 105–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429414530760

Girard, Aaron Robert. 2007. “Music Theory in the American Academy.” Ph.D., United States -- Massachusetts: Harvard University. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304847428/abstract/6067D2BCE5314658PQ/1

Gourley, Patrick, and Greg Madonia. 2021. “The Impact of Tenure on Faculty Course Evaluations.” Education Economics 29 (1): 73–104.

Graber, Kim C., Amelia Mays Woods, Chad M. Killian, K. Andrew R. Richards, and Jesse L. Rhoades. 2020. “My, How You Have Changed, PETE: An Updated Demographic Profile of U.S. Teacher Education Faculty.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 39 (3): 384–95.

Guthrie, Ruth, Cheryl Wyrick, and Carlos J. Navarrete. 2019. “Adjunct Faculty Can Increase Student Success: Create Opportunities for Them to Lift Graduation and Retention Rates.” Planning for Higher Education 48 (1): 18–24.

Hanson, Paul, Fred Savitz, Ryan Savitz, and Marisa Rauscher. 2018. “Adjunct Professors’ Perception of Their Teaching Effectiveness.” International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education 30 (3): 423–32.

Hewitt, Michael P., and Linda K. Thompson. 2006. “A Survey of Music Teacher Educators’ Professional Backgrounds, Responsibilities and Demographics.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, no. 170: 47–61.

Hisama, Ellie M. 2021. “Getting to Count.” Music Theory Spectrum 43 (2): 349–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/mts/mtaa033

Hoffmann, Florian, and Philip Oreopoulos. 2009. “A Professor Like Me: The Influence of Instructor Gender on College Achievement.” Journal of Human Resources 44 (2): 479–94.

Iwaguchi, Setsuko. 2012. “From Student Evaluations to Teacher Performance: A Study of Piano Class Instruction.” Music Education Research 14 (2): 171–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2012.685562

Jaeger, Audrey J., and M. Kevin Eagan. 2011. “Examining Retention and Contingent Faculty Use in a State System of Public Higher Education.” Educational Policy 25 (3): 507–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904810361723

Jones, M. Rusty, and Martin Bergee. 2008. “Elements Associated with Success in the First-Year Music Theory and Aural-Skills Curriculum.” Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy 22.

Kelly, Steven N., and Jay Juchniewicz. 2017. “An Investigation of Solo and/or Small-Ensemble Experiences on Musical Development and Career Choice of Undergraduate College Music Majors.” Research Perspectives in Music Education 19 (1): 2–13.

Keng, Shao-Hsun. 2018. “Tenure System and Its Impact on Grading Leniency, Teaching Effectiveness and Student Effort.” Empirical Economics 55 (3): 1207–27.

Lee, Sang-Hie, and Jonathan McNaughtan. 2019. “Music Faculty Role and Organizational Commitment.” College Music Symposium 59 (2): 1–30.

———. 2021. “Understanding the Work and Perspectives of Music Faculty through Positive Leadership: Celebrating 60 Years of the Symposium (1961–2021): Learning from Our Past.” In College Music Symposium. Vol. 61. https://doi.org/10.18177/sym.2020.61.1.sr.11519

Louth, Paul. 2022. “Student-Centered Teaching and the Large Ensemble: Educators’ Perceptions and Concerns.” Contributions to Music Education 47 (January): 61–80.

Marvin, Elizabeth West. 2012. “The Core Curricula in Music Theory: Developments and Pedagogical Trends.” Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy 26.

Mennen, Josien, and Marcel van der Klink. 2017. “Is the First-Year Predictive for Study Success in Subsequent Years? Findings from an Academy of Music.” Music Education Research 19 (3): 339–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2016.1189524

Min Xiao, Kelly D. Bradley, and Jungmin Lee. 2020. “Exploring the Relationship between Student Involvement and First-to-Second Year Retention at Four-Year Postsecondary Institutions.” Mid-Western Educational Researcher 32 (3): 191–205.

Murphy, Barbara, and Brendan McConville. 2017. “Music Theory Undergraduate Core Curriculum Survey: A 2017 Update.” Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy 31.

“NASM Handbook.” n.d. National Association of Schools of Music (blog). Accessed January 14, 2023. https://nasm.arts-accredit.org/accreditation/standards-guidelines/handbook/

National Association of Schools of Music. 2004. “Higher Education Arts Data Services Data Summaries.” National Associations of Schools of Music.

———. 2018. “Higher Education Arts Data Services Data Summaries.” National Associations of Schools of Music.

———. 2019. “Higher Education Arts Data Services Data Summaries.” National Associations of Schools of Music.

Norton, Kay, and Lori R. Hetzel. 1993. “Women Choral Conductors at the Collegiate Level: Status and Perspectives.” College Music Symposium 33–34: 23–40.

Parsh, Bridget, Emily Merrifield, Todd Migliaccio, and Rheena Munoz. 2021. “Evaluating First Year Seminar Student Success by Developing a Signature Assignment: A Case Study.” College Teaching 69 (1): 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2020.1794779

Pike, Pamela D. 2014. “An Exploration of the Effect of Cognitive and Collaborative Strategies on Keyboard Skills of Music Education Students.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 23 (2): 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083713487214

Prendergast, Jocelyn Stevens. 2021. “Music Education and Educators in Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois.” Journal of Research in Music Education 69 (2): 228–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429420961501

Ran, Florence Xiaotao, and Jasmine Sanders. 2020. “Instruction Quality or Working Condition? The Effects of Part-Time Faculty on Student Academic Outcomes in Community College Introductory Courses.” AERA Open 6 (1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1248493

Ran, Florence Xiaotao, and Di Xu. 2019. “Does Contractual Form Matter? The Impact of Different Types of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty on College Students’ Academic Outcomes.” Journal of Human Resources 54 (4): 1081–1120.

Robertson, Douglas L. 2020. “Student Success, Research Preeminence, and Unintended Consequences at Public Metropolitan Research Universities.” Innovative Higher Education 45 (1): 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-09481-x

———. 2022. “Equifinality, Equity, and Intersectionality: Faculty Issues in Pursuit of Performance Metrics.” Innovative Higher Education 47 (4): 683–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-022-09594-w

VanWeelden, Kimberly. 2003. “Demographic Study of Choral Programs and Conductors in Four-Year Institutions in the United States.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, no. 156: 20–30.

Vetter, Monica H., and Mary Carter. 2016. “Differences between First and Fourth Year Medical Students’ Interest in Pursuing Careers in Academic Medicine.” International Journal of Medical Education 7 (January): 154–57. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.571b.af3d

Xu, Di, and Sabrina Solanki. 2020. “Tenure-Track Appointment for Teaching-Oriented Faculty? The Impact of Teaching and Research Facul...” 2020. https://journals-ohiolink-edu.ezproxy.bgsu.edu/apexprod/rws_ejcsearch/r/1507/200?p200_articleid=370661904&p200_last_page=240&p200_lp_itemid=&clear=200

Young, Margaret. 2013. “University-Level Group Piano Instruction and Professional Musicians.” Music Education Research 15 (1): 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2012.737773

———. 2016. “A National Survey of University-Level Group Piano Programs.” MTNA E-Journal 7 (3): 13–35.

Zhang, Liang, and Xiangmin Liu. 2010. “Faculty Employment at 4-Year Colleges and Universities.” Economics of Education Review 29 (4): 543–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.10.007