Evidence Summary
A Survey of Music Faculty in the United States Reveals
Mixed Perspectives on YouTube and Library Resources
A Review of:
Dougan, K. (2016). Music, Youtube, and
academic libraries. Notes, 72(3), 491-508. https://doi.org/10.1353/not.2016.0009
Reviewed by:
Brittany Richardson
Web Services Librarian, Assistant Professor
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Library
Chattanooga, Tennessee, United States
Email: brittany-richardson01@utc.edu
Received: 2 Sept. 2020 Accepted: 30 Oct. 2020
2020 Richardson.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip29835
Abstract
Objective – To
evaluate how music faculty members perceive and use video sharing sites like
YouTube in teaching and research.
Design – Survey
Questionnaire.
Setting – 197 music departments,
colleges, schools, and conservatories in the United States.
Subjects – 9,744 music faculty members.
Methods – Schools
were primarily selected based on National Association of Schools of Music
(NASM) membership and the employment of a music librarian with a Music Library
Association (MLA) membership. Out of faculty members contacted, 2,156 (22.5%)
responded to the email survey. Participants were asked their rank and
subspecialties. Closed-ended questions, ranked on scales of 1 to 5, evaluated
perceptions of video sharing website use in classroom instruction and as
assigned listening; permissibility as a cited source; quality, copyright, and
metadata; use when items are commercially unavailable; use over library
collections; comparative ease of use; and convenience. An open-ended question
asked for additional thoughts or concerns on video sharing sites and music
scholarship. The author partnered with the University of Illinois’ Applied
Technology for Learning in the Arts and Sciences (ATLAS) survey office on the
construction, distribution, and analysis of the survey data through SPSS. The open-ended
question was coded for themes.
Main Results – Key
findings from closed-ended questions indicated faculty: used YouTube in the
classroom (2.30 mean) more often than as assigned listening (2.08 mean);
sometimes allowed YouTube as a cited source (2.35 mean); were concerned with
the quality of YouTube recordings (3.58 mean) and accuracy of metadata (3.29
mean); and were more likely to use YouTube than library resources (2.62 mean),
finding it easier to use (2.38 mean) and more convenient (1.83 mean). The
author conducted further analysis of results for the nine most reported
subdisciplines. Ethnomusicology and jazz faculty indicated a greater likelihood
of using YouTube, while musicology and theory/composition faculty were more
likely to use library resources than others. There was little significant
difference among faculty responses based on performance subspecialities (e.g.
voice, strings, etc.). Overall, open-ended faculty comments on streaming video
sites were negative (19.3%), positive (19.3%), or a mixture of both (34.1%).
Themes included: less use in faculty scholarship; a need to teach students how
to effectively use YouTube for both finding and creating content; the value of
YouTube as an audio vs. video source; concerns about quality, copyright, data,
and reliability; and benefits like easy access and large amounts of content.
Conclusion – Some
faculty expressed concern that students did not use more library music
resources or know how to locate quality resources. The study suggested
librarians and faculty could collaborate on solutions to educate students.
Librarians might offer instructional content on effective searching and
evaluation of YouTube. Open-ended responses showed further exploration is
needed to determine faculty expectations of library “discovery and delivery”
(p. 505) and role as the purchaser of recordings. Conversations between
librarians and faculty members may help clarify expectations and uncover ways
to improve library resources and services to better meet evolving needs.
Finally, the author recommended additional exploration is needed to evaluate
YouTube’s impact on library collection development.
Commentary
Studies related to library
music collections and streaming media sites are primarily institutional in
scope. Hooper’s (2017) literature review highlighted studies focusing on
library music collection usage, collection trends, and student user
preferences. Clark, Sauceda, and Stormes
(2019) used surveys and interviews to evaluate the use of resources by
performing arts faculty at three institutions. This study focused on various
types of library resources, including audio/visual materials, with some
questions related to non-library resources. The author’s study contributed
significantly to the literature by providing a national look at music faculty
perceptions of streaming media. The author also previously used the survey data
collected by this study to compare music librarian and faculty perspectives on
YouTube (Dougan, 2014).
When evaluated using Glynn’s (2006) critical appraisal
tool, the study demonstrates several strengths. A sizable number of relevant
participants were recruited using effective, bias-free criteria. The design was
appropriate for the stated research outcomes. The study methodology was clearly
reported, although more detail on data analysis methods would have been
valuable for practitioners interested in conducting similar studies. Results
were well-presented. Specifically, a thorough job was done connecting
closed-ended and open-ended responses to draw overarching themes in the data.
The author used findings to provide valuable insights and recommendations for
practitioners.
Although it seems likely all survey content was
evaluated in the article, inclusion of the instrument would have provided the
opportunity to evaluate survey construction and clarity. It is also unclear
whether the instrument was validated prior to use. Information on potential
study limitations would have also been valuable for interpreting results.
The results of this study are of interest to academic
music librarians and other practitioners involved in library support for music
faculty and students. Librarians may find this study useful for its glimpse
into the perceptions and practices of faculty stakeholders in relationship to
streaming video sites. As recommended by the author, practitioners should also
engage in conversations with music faculty to help guide the evolution of
services and resources for music disciplines. Areas for further study may
include instructional methods for library music resources and streaming media
sites, the marketing of library music resources to faculty, and the evolution
of music library collections to support changing needs.
References
Clark, J. C., Sauceda, J., & Stormes, S. (2019). Faculty format preferences in the
performing arts: A multi-institutional study. College & Research
Libraries, 80(4), 450-469. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.4.450
Dougan, K. (2014). “YouTube has changed everything”? Music faculty,
librarians, and their use and perceptions of YouTube. College & Research
Libraries 75(4), 575-589. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.75.4.575
Glynn, L. (2006). A critical appraisal tool for library and information
research. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 387-399.
Hooper, L. (2018). Becoming a warehouse of things: The audio world is
changing, and collection development methods must change, too. Music
Reference Services Quarterly, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/10588167.2018.1493889