Report on Society for Music Theory 2024 Student Social Climate Survey

1. Background

[1.1] The motivation for this survey arose from constructive conversations Gerardo (Gerry) Lopez had with participants of the American Council of Learned Societies’s (ACLS) Intention Foundry during the summer of 2023.1 While a goal of the workshop was to craft proposals for programming and policy changes within our own respective academic societies, particularly as it concerns student well-being, there was a realization that these changes could fall short. Even with limited formal student representation within the SMT,2 an accounting of overall student needs remains incomplete. Creating initiatives while lacking this important data can result in proposals that, once enacted, have no robust engagement. A poignant analogy that was shared in conversation over this problem went something like this: “You planned a party, sent out the invitations, and then nobody showed up!”

[1.2] Aside from a few notable exceptions,3 there has not been consistent or comprehensive surveying of the attitudes and needs of the SMT’s student members. The potential value of this information is that it can help with resource allocation (such as volunteer labor, budgeting, merit recognition, etc.), maximizing the impact of programming and policy changes by addressing actual rather than assumed needs.

[1.3] The goals of this survey then were to: 1) collect demographic information to get a snapshot of who makes up the student membership; 2) collect information about students’ general and specific sense of belonging; and 3) collect information about potential programming and policy changes that could help boost students’ sense of belonging within SMT. This work and the following discussion should not be considered the last word on this matter; rather, it should be thought of as a modest first step in beginning to address some larger and more systemic issues.

[1.4] In addition to the motivation gained from participating in the Intention Foundry and the previous work of SMT members, other sources of inspiration were found in similar work that Natalie Miller had begun early in 2023 as part of the Society for Music Perception and Cognition (SMPC) and the ongoing work of Project Spectrum members. Gerry assembled the team responsible for this survey. He reached out to Natalie Miller and Samantha (Sam) Carlock, who both graciously accepted the request to join. All members of the team have a music psychology background and were responsible for the creation, analysis, and distribution of this survey. All of the labor expended, both by members of the team and outside consultations, was on a volunteer basis.

2. Methodology

[2.1] First and foremost, because of the sensitive information that could be shared in response to this survey, all participation remained anonymous. No information was collected that could assist in easily identifying individuals, such as a participant’s email address, name, specific institutional affiliations, etc. While information about individual demographics (personal, academic, and professional) were collected, results from this survey are shared in an aggregated format and any open-ended responses that were provided have been decoupled from the contributing individual’s demographic information, all as safeguards to prevent the retroactive identification of specific individuals. Additionally, there were cases in which participants specifically named other individuals they had interacted with in their responses to open-ended questions; these names have also been removed from the reporting. In terms of access, only the named individuals of the team had and will continue to have direct access to the unedited and unredacted individual responses.

[2.2] In terms of survey construction, there were a mix of novel and borrowed questions used. Questions asking about personal demographics were borrowed from Jennifer L. Hughes, et al. (2022). Questions related to personal sense of belonging were borrowed and adapted from Richard M. Lee and Steven B. Robbins (1995). Questions related to institutional and professional sense of belonging were borrowed and adapted from Amir H. Maghsoodi, Nidia Ruedas-Gracia, and Ge Jiang (2023). In addition to consulting these sources, we also received and incorporated feedback from outside consultants Laura Murray and Kelly Godfrey, as well as members of the SMT Executive Board.

[2.3] The survey itself was distributed online starting in early April and closed in late May. Announcements about this survey were sent through email (both to individual members and various graduate program chairs/faculty members), the SMT announcement email channel, and the SMT Graduate Student Facebook page. To help incentivize participation, the SMT Executive Board approved a raffle in which a participant had an opportunity of winning a single prize of $100; personal information for this raffle was collected through a completely separate online form. In total, there were 66 individuals that completed the survey.

[2.4] In addition to the already discussed redaction of identifiable information, in the reporting of results we also use response binning and a semi-structured tagging of open-ended responses. For response binning, there were five questions, specifically Questions 14–17, 24, and 40, that were free-response questions that asked participants to provide a quantitative value, such as “The advertised average length of time required for completing my program is…” (Question 16) and “About how many people outside of your degree program, but still within the field of music theory, have you interacted with over the last year, either in-person or virtually (excluding annual and regional conferences)?” (Question 24). Rather than a specific number, some participants provided ranges (e.g., “5–6 years”), and so in such cases these responses were averaged (e.g., “5.5 years”) and were additionally rounded up if they fell between pre-determined reporting bins (e.g., “5.5 years” was counted as “6–7 years” rather than “4–5 years”). For Question 24 in particular, some participants responded with “innumerable” or “too many to count,” and so these responses were counted under the “10+” reporting bin.

[2.5] As an additional precaution, we decided to not release all of the open-ended responses in case a participant’s unique writing style and/or experiences might be identifiable by others; this was a particularly important consideration for responses that shared personal negative experiences with other individuals. While we will share a few direct responses as they are pertinent, our discussion of overall responses will be facilitated through various tags. Before beginning the process of tagging responses, all three members of the team met to discuss a priori labels that would be used, along with the possibility of new labels needing to be created as the tagging process was being undertaken. After each member completed their tagging, Gerry compiled responses and resolved points of disagreement; in particular for tags that related to valence, most mismatches were resolved by a majority count (i.e., if two of the three raters tagged a response the same way then that tag was adopted) or an additional review, after which a comprise tag was selected (e.g., a rater tagged a response as “Positive”, another as “Negative”, and another as “Ambiguous”, so the “Mixed” tag was adopted). There were a total of six open-ended responses, and though not all 66 participants provided a response to all of these questions, there were a total of 143 responses across all six questions, which is 36.1% of the 396 potential number of responses we could have received.

3. Reporting

[3.1] Before this published report, results from this survey were shared across two sessions during the 2024 SMT Annual Meeting in Jacksonville, Florida. On Thursday, November 7, there was an hour-long meeting in which the team detailed findings and then led an open-forum to solicit additional comments and feedback from those in attendance. On Friday, November 8, Gerry gave an abbreviated presentation of survey results during the Committee on Race and Ethnicity’s special session, “Has Music Theory Become More Diverse Since 2019?” We thank everyone who was in attendance and who provided feedback. Gerry would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge feedback provided by two specific individuals during the special session Q&A. In being transparent and sharing the following, it is our hope that similar work undertaken in the future can be improved upon.

[3.2] In discussing student demographic trends with regards to ethnicity, Philip Ewell pointed out that there was an incorrect conflation of ethnicity and race: as part of the presentation “Ethnic Identity” was split into two slides, one for “White” and another for “Person of Color”; Ewell pointed out that “White” is not an ethnic identity but a racial one. This unfortunately was not just a mistake in the presentation, since the listed selection options for this question also conflated ethnicity and race. Listed as Question 3, the specific wording of the prompt was as follows: “Ethnicity reflects the cultural traditions, values, and practices that are shared by people across generations. When you consider your personal and familial cultural values, traditions, and practices, what labels best describe your ethnicity? (select all that apply).” Listed selections for this question included the following: “Arab, Middle Eastern, or North African”, “Asian or Asian American”, “Black or African American”, “Hispanic or Latino”, “Native American or Alaska Native”, “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander” and “White or European American”. In reviewing recommendations made by Jennifer L. Hughes, et al. (2022) with regards to survey questions related to ethnicity and race, they also suggest asking about ethnicity and race separately (236–238). As the lead for this project I, Gerry, take responsibility for not having adopted this best-practice in demographic survey construction and consequent presentation of results, apologize for perpetuating this misunderstanding.

[3.3] In discussing student demographic trends related to sexual orientation and gender diversity, Frederick Cruz Nowell raised concerns that slides in the presentation may reinforce the misconception that transgender identity is a sexual orientation. In one section of the presentation, the category “Sexual Orientation” was used as a heading under which two slides were shown–one labeled “Straight” and the other labeled “LGBTQIA+.” This structure presents “LGBTQIA+” as if it were solely a category of sexual orientations positioned in contrast to “Straight,” even though it includes TGI+ (transgender, gender diverse, and intersex) individuals. Nowell pointed out that framing errors of this kind can blur public understanding and overlook the intersectional experiences of many transgender people. This mistake was only limited to the presentation itself; in the survey, Gender Identity (Question 1), Transgender Identity (Question 2), and Sexual Orientation (Question 4) were all distinct questions. For example, Gender Identity included “Gender Queer” and “Nonbinary” as selection options to the question, “In research, we often must present demographic information in categories. We understand these labels are limiting. If you had to select one of the options below, which one best describes your gender identity?” Sexual Orientation included “Queer” and “Sexually Fluid” as selection options to the question, “What is your sexual orientation and/or sexual identity? (select all that apply).” And Transgender Identity (“Do you identify as transgender?”) was a yes/no response question. Nonetheless, as the lead for this project I, Gerry, take responsibility and apologize for perpetuating this misunderstanding as part of the presentation.

4. Discussion

[4.1] The following contains commentary from Gerry, Natalie, and Sam on findings from the survey. Where appropriate, data tables will be provided; however, for ease of navigation, all of the results are not included in this report. If you are interested, you may view the full data report without commentary.

4.1 Demographic Representation

Expand and view Example 1
Example 1. Table with the selection options and results to Question 6, “We are interested in understanding your experience with conditions that substantially impact major life activities, regardless of whether you seek formal accommodations or have a documented diagnosis. How would you describe your disability/ability status? Please select all that apply.”
Response Count Percent
None of the Above 34 51.5%
Long-Term Mental Health Condition 10 15.2%
Long-Term Medical Illness | Long-Term Mental Health Condition 3 4.5%
Cognitive Disability | Long-Term Medical Illness | Long-Term Mental Health Condition 2 3.0%
Long-Term Mental Health Condition | Sensory Impairment 2 3.0%
Sensory Impairment 2 3.0%
Cognitive Disability | Learning Disability 1 1.5%
Cognitive Disability | Learning Disability | Long-Term Medical Illness | Sensory Impairment | Sensory Processing or Integration Disorder 1 1.5%
Learning Disability | Long-Term Medical Illness | Sensory Processing or Integration Disorder 1 1.5%
Long-Term Medical Illness 1 1.5%
Long-Term Medical Illness | Mobility Impairment or Physical Disability 1 1.5%
Long-Term Medical Illness | Sensory Processing or Integration Disorder 1 1.5%
Long-Term Mental Health Condition | Sensory Processing or Integration Disorder 1 1.5%
Sensory Processing or Integration Disorder 1 1.5%
Temporary Impairment Resulting from Illness or Injury | None of the Above 1 1.5%
Cognitive Disability 0 0%
Learning Disability 0 0%
Mobility Impairment or Physical Disability 0 0%
Temporary Impairment Resulting from Illness or Injury 0 0%
No Response Provided 2 3.0%
Other (with option to write-in) blank blank
Autism 1 1.5%
Autism | ADHD 1 1.5%

Expand and view Example 2
Example 2. Table with the selection options and results to Question 2, “Do you identify as transgender?”
Response Count Percent
No 64 97.0%
Yes 2 3.0%

Expand and view Example 3
Example 3. Table with the selection options and results to Question 4, “What is your sexual orientation and/or sexual identity? (select all that apply).”
Response Count Percent
Straight or Heterosexual 39 59.1%
Bisexual 7 10.6%
Bisexual | Pansexual | Queer 3 4.5%
Demisexual 3 4.5%
Gay 3 4.5%
Lesbian 2 3.0%
Lesbian | Queer 2 3.0%
Questioning 2 3.0%
Gay | Sexually Fluid 1 1.5%
Pansexual 1 1.5%
Queer 1 1.5%
Sexually Fluid | Straight or Heterosexual 1 1.5%
Asexual or Aromantic 0 0%
Sexually Fluid 0 0%
Other (with option to write-in) blank blank
Biromantic | Asexual or Aromantic 1 1.5%

Expand and view Example 4
Example 4. Table with the selection options and results to Question 3, “Ethnicity reflects the cultural traditions, values, and practices that are shared by people across generations. When you consider your personal and familial cultural values, traditions, and practices, what labels best describe your ethnicity? (select all that apply).”
Response Count Percent
White or European American 42 63.6%
Asian or Asian American 5 7.6%
Hispanic or Latino | White or European American 4 6.1%
Asian or Asian American | White or European American 2 3.0%
Arab, Middle Eastern, or North African | White or European American 1 1.5%
Asian or Asian American | Native American or Alaska Native | White or European American 1 1.5%
Black or African American 1 1.5%
Hispanic or Latino 1 1.5%
Arab, Middle Eastern, or North African 0 0%
Native American or Alaska Native 0 0%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0%
Other (with option to write-in) blank blank
Ashkenazi Jewish 2 3.0%
Jewish 2 3.0%
Brazilian 1 1.5%
Ashkenazi Jewish | White or European American 1 1.5%
Jewish | White or European American 1 1.5%
Greek | White or European American 1 1.5%
Southern Catholic 1 1.5%

Expand and view Example 5
Example 5. Table with the selection options and results to Question 1, “In research, we often must present demographic information in categories. We understand these labels are limiting. If you had to select one of the options below, which one best describes your gender identity?”
Response Count Percent
Man 36 54.5%
Woman 24 36.4%
Nonbinary 3 4.5%
Gender Queer 2 3.0%
Agender 1 1.5%
Gender Fluid 0 0%
Gender Questioning 0 0%
Māhū, or Muxe, or Two Spirit 0 0%
Other (with option to write-in) 0 0%

Expand and view Example 6
Example 6. Table with the selection options and results to Question 5, “Thinking about your childhood or upbringing, with which social class did you most closely identify with?”
Response Count Percent
Upper Middle Class 32 48.5%
Lower Middle Class 18 27.3%
Working Class 13 19.7%
Upper Class 2 3.0%
Other (with option to write-in) blank blank
Mixed (Lower/Upper Middle Class) 1 1.5%

[4.1.1] One of the initial concerns the team expressed was that since we only had 66 participants complete the survey, it could potentially be an unrepresentative sample of the larger SMT student membership. However, these concerns were addressed with the release of the 2024 Annual Report on Membership Demographics. According to this membership report, there were 263 student members (de Clercq 2024, 4, see Table 2), which means that we were able to survey a little over 25% of SMT student members.

[4.1.2] We were particularly worried because the demographic information of these 66 participants featured traditional majority identities: Able Bodied (Example 1), Cisgender (Example 2), Heterosexual (Example 3), White or European American (Example 4), Men (Example 5), from the Upper Middle Class (Example 6). Though the Annual Report (de Clercq 2024) only captures demographic information related to Gender, Orientation, and Race/Ethnicity, when looking at the breakout for student members (for those that had responded) the majorities are still Men (8, see Table 5), Heterosexual (11, see Table 8), and White (15, see Table 12). While we were aware of this traditional hegemony within the ranks of the faculty members, we were optimistic that some of these would have disappeared among the student members. Despite this hegemony, trends are suggesting a shift: when comparing the percentages between these demographic categories among the faculty and students, it is possible to note that the smallest differences are among the student membership. These data suggest that while there are still traditional majorities, the strength of these majorities is decreasing with incoming members. This shift also seems to be a trend across the entire society, as suggested by some of the historical patterns discussed in the Annual Report (2–3 and 14, see Figures 2–4 and 7–8).

[4.1.3] These data then suggest that it is among the student members where we will first expect to see a flip towards historically minoritized identities becoming the majority. This trend will be an important distribution to watch, particularly concerning how it is shaped as generations of student members move into faculty roles. In a best case scenario, we will see the expanding demographic makeup continue to progress as generations of student members move through various ranks; in the worst case, the makeup begins to return to traditional distributions, further underscoring the need to address systemic issues at the level of academic institutions.4 For example, in the next few decades we might see a more demographically diverse population of assistant professors but a persistent decline when looking at the makeup of associate professors. One challenge is ensuring that more people can get in; it is a different challenge altogether to ensure that once they are let in they are allowed to flourish.

[4.1.4] In response to the question, “What specific factors most directly influence how you feel in relation to the SMT and the wider music theory community (select all that apply)?” (Example 7), excluding the two most frequently selected responses (which we will discuss under Mentoring and Research Support), “Gender” accounted for 13.2% of selections, “Social Class” accounted for 12.5% of selections, “Ethnicity” accounted for 6.9% of selections, “Sexuality” accounted for 4.9% of selections, and “Disability/Ability Status” accounted for 3.5% of selections. This should not be understood as a measure of impact, since we did not then ask participants to rank their choices. For example, participants that selected “Gender” may have also selected “Disability/Ability Status” but with the latter having a greater influence compared to the former. Instead, the selection rate indicates how many participants found that option as impactful to some degree; in other words, though a particular category may have not been selected the most frequently, it was still identified as an important factor that influences how student members feel in relation to the SMT and wider music theory community.

Expand and view Example 7
Example 7. Table with the selection options and results to Question 39, “What specific factors most directly influence how you feel in relation to the SMT and the wider music theory community (select all that apply)?”
Response Count Percent
Primary Research Interests 51 35.4%
Prior Educational Experience(s) 25 17.6%
Gender 19 13.2%
Social Class 18 12.5%
Ethnicity 10 6.9%
Sexuality 7 4.9%
Disability/Ability Status 5 3.5%
No Response 2 1.4%
Other (with option to write-in) blank blank
Age 2 1.4%
Lack of Teaching Experience 1 0.7%
Nationality (not American) 1 0.7%
Focus on Research vs Teaching 1 0.7%
What Counts as Success 1 0.7%
Political Views 1 0.7%

4.2 Mentoring

[4.2.1] A major theme we want to emphasize as emerging from the survey responses is the importance of positive mentorship experiences. In response to “Can you describe an experience you had at your institution that influenced how you feel in relation to the field of music theory?” (Question 32), 52.4% (22 of 42) of responses were tagged as being “Positive” and of these 50% (11 of 22) were tagged as involving “Student-to-Faculty” interaction. Many of the responses that were tagged as having positive student-to-faculty interactions stated that faculty members in their respective programs greatly influenced their perception of the field of music theory, primarily through validating, supporting, and/or encouraging research in a student’s particular topic of interest. Conversely, in reading through the responses that were negatively tagged (28.6%, 12 of 42) and involved student-to-faculty interactions (8.3%, 1 of 12), there was a noticeable lack of support manifesting itself as either feelings of being neglected (i.e., no guidance on academic or professional matters) and/or the invalidation of interested areas of research.

[4.2.2] In response to the question, “What specific factors most directly influence how you feel in relation to the SMT and the wider music theory community (select all that apply)?” (Example 7), “Prior Educational Experience(s)” was the second most selected response accounting for 17.6% of selections. This suggests that faculty across various types of programs should continue to work towards creating enriching experiences for up-and-coming student members, and not just limited in scope to those already within graduate programs but within undergraduate and K–12 settings as well.

4.3 Research Support

[4.3.1] Building on the previous point of the importance of mentors supporting students’ research interests, in response to “What specific factors most directly influence how you feel in relation to the SMT and the wider music theory community (select all that apply)?” (Example 7), the option that had been selected the most frequently was “Primary Research Interest,” accounting for 35.4% of selections. Adding further emphasis to this: in response to the open-ended question, “Can you describe an experience you had at your institution that influenced how you feel in relation to the field of music theory?” (Example 8), of tags applied to provided responses, “Area of Study” accounted for 45.2%; in response to the open-ended question, “If you have attended, can you describe an experience you had at an SMT annual conference (or other SMT sponsored events) that influenced how you feel in relation to the field of music theory?” (Example 9), of tags applied to provided responses, “Area of Study” accounted for 45.5%. On a scale of 1 to 6, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 6 being “Strongly Agree”, in response to “My specific research interests are supported and valued by my home institution (area/department/school)” (Example 10), 81.8% of responses were rated at 4 or higher, with an average rating of 4.7. In contrast, on a similar rating scale, in response to “My specific research interests are supported and valued by the SMT” (Example 11), 59.1% of responses were rated at 4 or higher, with an average rating of 3.8.

Expand and view Example 8
Example 8. Table with identity-related tagging results to open response Question 32, “Can you describe an experience you had at your institution that influenced how you feel in relation to the field of music theory?”
Related to Identity Count Percent of Responses Percent of Total
Area of Study 19 45.2% 28.8%
Degree Program | Area of Study 11 26.2% 16.7%
Degree Program 4 9.5% 6.1%
Ethnicity | Area of Study 2 4.8% 3.0%
Class | Non/Domestic 1 2.4% 1.5%
Dis/Ability 1 2.4% 1.5%
Dis/Ability | Degree Program 1 2.4% 1.5%
Gender | Area of Study 1 2.4% 1.5%
Class 0 0% 0%
Ethnicity 0 0% 0%
First-Generation 0 0% 0%
Gender 0 0% 0%
Non/Domestic 0 0% 0%
Sexual Orientation 0 0% 0%
Transgender 0 0% 0%
Not Tagged 2 4.8% 3.0%
No Response 24 – 36.4%

Expand and view Example 9
Example 9. Table with identity-related tagging results to open response Question 41, “Can you describe an experience you had at your institution that influenced how you feel in relation to the field of music theory?”
Related to Identity Count Percent of Responses Percent of Total
Area of Study 15 45.5% 22.7%
Gender | Ethnicity | Area of Study 3 9.1% 4.5%
Degree Program | Area of Study 1 3.0% 1.5%
Ethnicity | Area of Study 1 3.0% 1.5%
Ethnicity | Class 1 3.0% 1.5%
Gender | Class | Degree Program | Area of Study 1 3.0% 1.5%
Gender | Ethnicity | Sexuality | Non/Domestic | Area of Study 1 3.0% 1.5%
Class 0 0% 0%
Degree Program 0 0% 0%
Dis/Ability 0 0% 0%
Ethnicity 0 0% 0%
First-Generation 0 0% 0%
Non/Domestic 0 0% 0%
Sexual Orientation 0 0% 0%
Transgender 0 0% 0%
Not Tagged 10 30.3% 15.2%
No Response 33 – 50.0%

Expand and view Example 10
Example 10. Table with results to Question 30, “My specific research interests are supported and valued by my home institution (area/department/school).”
Response Count Percent
1 2 3.0%
2 4 6.1%
3 6 9.1%
4 10 15.2%
5 22 33.3%
6 22 33.3%

Expand and view Example 11
Example 11. Table with results to Question 38, “My specific research interests are supported and valued by the SMT.”
Response Count Percent
1 2 3.0%
2 10 15.2%
3 14 21.2%
4 20 30.3%
5 9 13.6%
6 10 15.2%
No Response 1 1.5%

[4.3.2] The takeaway then is that if students want to feel like they belong to the SMT it is important that their research interests be supported and validated at both an institutional and societal level. This is especially true in cases where students are working in relatively new or novel areas. A few direct sample responses demonstrate the two sides of this:

My most recent seminar presentation was quite well received, and my professor told me it was conference-quality. I was worried since it was a little atypical.

It was extremely disappointing when the professor expressed […doubt about] whether or not a feminist music analysis could really exist, while many (male) members of the class nodded along with him. I felt deeply shaken, and I doubted whether or not the field of music theory was really for me.

My peers and I recently had a conversation, joking that we are all really musicologists because we value and produce work that tends to be more socially engaged and less formalist. Our interests are somewhat at odds with the specializations of our department's faculty.

My advisor has always been very supportive of interdisciplinary work and focusing on the topics that interest me the most, even when it did not align with their own expertise. I've been equipped with the tools to seek out knowledge myself, while my advisor assists me in applying this new knowledge meaningfully.

[When] I presented [at SMT] for the first time […] someone reached out to me with a publication opportunity because they listened to and enjoyed my research!

When I was considering applying to graduate school […I attended an SMT conference and approached a senior scholar expressing interest in their graduate program…]. After explaining what I was interested in studying, this scholar […] looked at me and said, ‘Do you even know what music theory is?’ and walked away.

Professors from other universities have explicitly stated support for me, both personal and research-related.

While certain spaces within SMT—such as the queer resource group and other research-related interest groups—have fostered inclusive and congenial spaces, other spaces at conferences have felt less safe. On a few occasions, I have witnessed exchanges that were outright hostile towards a marginalized scholar in the field […and] the fact that [….] these incidents featured a scholar in a position of power due to their seniority and prominence in the field [and used] that power to reinforce a student's precarity—even if unintentionally—bespeaks a lack of awareness on the part of the senior scholars of that power.

[4.3.3] Through an anonymous online response provided during the open forum discussion, someone shared the following that both aptly captures the overall student sentiment we observed in the responses and also extends this as something junior faculty might resonate with as well:

[…] research inclusivity […] is something that might be a prevalent feeling in young faculty as well […] many feel excluded because, just as students are noting, they’re interest-group material and not ‘center stage’ in presentations and awards.

4.4 Engagement/Participation with the SMT

[4.4.1] During the ACLS Intention Foundry another helpful insight that was shared related to programming and policy changes was that there will be an instinct to add or create new things, but sometimes it is more effective to take away or change what is already there. One of the things this survey identified was the need to improve students’ awareness of already ongoing programs. When participants were asked to rate their familiarity of various programs (Example 12) on a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being “Unfamiliar” and 5 being “Very Familiar”, the highest rated program was the student workshops, with an average rating of 3.71, and the lowest rated program was the mentoring network, with an average rating of 2.26. Poignantly, in some of the open-ended responses participants expressed a sense of anxiety when they first attended an SMT conference (feeling awkward, overwhelmed, uncertain about what to do, etc.) and yet the conference guide program was rated the second lowest in terms of familiarity, with an average rating of 2.69. It would seem that the conference guide program would be effective in making the experience for first-time attendees less stressful, but awareness of its existence seems to present a hurdle towards accomplishing this. It could also be that because students generally attend conferences with other members of their cohort they do not utilize this resource (and even then, getting to meet with others outside their own program would be of some benefit), but this is something that is of great value for students that are coming from smaller programs (in which they might be the only one) or students that are unaffiliated.

Expand and view Example 12
Example 12. Table with results to Questions 42–48 in which respondents were asked about their familiarity with ongoing programs. Ratings were on a 5-point scale, with “Unfamiliar” corresponding with 1 and “Very Familiar” corresponding with 5.
SMT Programs Average Rating
Student Workshops 3.71
Student Breakfast 3.7
Student School Fair 3.35
Conference Travel Grants 2.94
SMT Dissertation Fellowships 2.89
First-Time Conference Guide 2.69
SMT Mentoring Network 2.26

[4.4.2] Something else that was also identified in the survey, and which was further reinforced with informal conversations after the survey presentations at the SMT 2024 conference, was a great enthusiasm from student members to get involved and feel like they are contributing to the development of the society. Participants were asked to rate on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Strongly Against” and 5 being “Strongly Favor”, how they felt in regards to “Would you be in favor or against the formation of a student group/committee within the SMT that is made up of current students and focused on advocating for student-specific issues and/or concerns?” (Example 13), with an average rating of 4.52. This signals to us, at the very least, a strong desire to have more representation of student members at the society level.

Expand and view Example 13
Example 13. Table with results to Questions 58, “Would you be in favor or against the formation of a student group/committee within the SMT that is made up of current students and focused on advocating for student-specific issues and/or concerns? (with 1 being “Strongly Against” and 5 being “Strongly Favor”).”
Response Count Percent
1 0 0%
2 1 1.5%
3 4 6.1%
4 20 30.3%
5 39 59.1%
No Response 2 3.0%

[4.4.3] Open-ended responses also mentioned issues related to conference accessibility. There were two broad categories. One was about conference specific logistics, such as not being able to comfortably navigate poster sessions or the school fair because of noise levels and such events sometimes being scheduled in relatively small rooms/spaces. The other was about removing barriers to accessing conference spaces themselves. Some suggested potentially reducing or entirely removing related fees for student members, while others expressed how beneficial they found the virtual participation opportunities to be and hope that they continue. The following response captures this sentiment clearly:

My experiences with graduate study in music theory began in 2020 and so virtual events have been a very important way for me to connect with other theorists and establish a sense of community from the outset. I think that continuing virtual and/or hybrid access to SMT events whenever possible is important, from the standpoint of including immunocompromised members of the community and from a financial access standpoint (since travel/lodging can be expensive, particularly for grad students and other SMT members without tenured jobs). Virtual conferences are also a way that I have pointed my own students (undergrads) to get connected to the larger theory community if they’re interested in doing so, since they aren’t attending as part of a theory program cohort and therefore travel/lodging is a particularly high access barrier for them.

5. Recommendations

[5.1] While there have been some recommendations already implied in the previous discussion, we now want to take time to make these definitive. Examples 14 and 15 are tables that provide a summary of many of the recommendations we received from two of the open response questions.

[5.2] First, there is support among students to have formal representation at the executive level; this might look like first establishing through appointment or elections a student working group/committee from which then a representative for the SMT Board is elected. The responsibilities of such a group would have to be very specific and limited, in recognition of the potential labor involved: for example, they might be able to act in an advisor role providing input on certain policy changes or assist as first-time conference guides for students.

[5.3] Second, needing more robust advertisement of ongoing SMT events, programming, and support specifically for students. This would probably necessitate a multi-pronged approach, with a mix of individual changes (such as faculty more actively sharing resources) and systemic/logistical changes (such as scheduling an orientation session at conferences or having a specific webpage for student resources).

[5.4] Third, with regards to research support, one potential solution would be to bolster interest group meetings by giving them more time and space during the conference, since they can also more often solicit short presentations from students.

[5.5] Lastly, though we are aware of the ongoing logistical challenges associated with virtual or hybrid conferences, we are also continuing to advocate for these options given accessibility issues students members face, both in terms of physical health and financial support. More than anything, over these next few years fostering a sense of community and camaraderie amongst student members will be important.

6. Limitations and Future Considerations

[6.1] In addition to some of the limitations of this current work that had been previously discussed towards the beginning, there are two additional points we would like to acknowledge.

[6.2] First, there are many more personal factors that we did not initially consider including in the survey, such as religious affiliations and number of dependencies (children, elders, etc.) that are worth considering for future inclusion.

[6.3] Second, if we are wanting to more directly address issues faced by historically marginalized student members, then a more targeted sampling/surveying may be needed, such as small focus-groups. This would also necessitate a discussion about how participation in this data collection process would be incentivized and/or compensated.

[6.4] Lastly, while we launched this as an initial attempt to assess student belonging, it would be worth considering setting up more regular surveying of SMT’s student population, either as part of the Annual Demographic report or something a future student working group/committee would be able to facilitate.

Works Cited

Additional tables

Expand and view Example 14
Example 14. Table with a summary of responses to Question 59, “Are there some ideas you would like to share that were not listed above that would make you feel more included in the SMT community?”
Summarized Responses
Broader inclusions/perspectives on what music theory can be
Discussions on inclusivity to also include gender-diverse and neurodivergent folks
Discussions on solving issues to include both students and faculty
More resources for first-gen/working-class students
More robust peer support for research interest groups
More transparency around work-life balance
Networking events just for students
Network opportunities with established scholars beyond conferences
Regional student representatives
Student newsletter/magazine
Support for alt-ac exploration

Expand and view Example 15
Example 15. Table with a summary of responses to Question 60, “More generally, what changes in the SMT (i.e. new initiatives, policies, and/or programs) would make you feel more included within the SMT and the surrounding music theory community?”
Summarized Responses
An SMT student-run open-access journal for student publications
Conference accessibility (QR codes to ask questions; access to presenter materials; control poster session noise level)
Less of a divide between theory and performance
Lower membership and conference fees
Conference “Lunch Buddies”
More funding opportunities
More support for international students
More transparency around conference acceptances/rejections and award criteria
More virtual/online events and integrations

View complete results

1. More information about ACLS’s Intention Foundry can be found at: https://www.acls.org/intention-foundry. ⏎

2. As far as the authors are currently aware, there are no student members on the SMT Executive Board and by an informal count there are at least five student members across various standing committees. ⏎

3. See for example VanHandel 2023. ⏎

4. See Manabe 2023 for additional discussion of potential policy changes regarding this issue. ⏎

Copyright © Society for Music Theory 2024
All Rights Reserved.

Society for Music Theory • Indiana University Jacobs School of Music • 200 S Eagleson Ave, Room C039 • Bloomington, IN 47405 • (812) 855‑8846 • Contact Us