The value of participation in a music community

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter 2: Literature review

This chapter provides a thorough understanding of the existing literature pertaining to the value of participation within a music ensemble, with specific focus on choral communities. Evidence is presented that sufficient research is lacking within the South African context and motivation is provided for further inquiry. The concept of social capital is explained and the five proximal indicators associated with it – as suggested by Putnam (1995) – are described. This forms the basis of the theory framing this study whereby a multicultural university choir will be investigated to ascertain the possible values of participation to its members.

The value of participation in a music community

Anthropological evidence suggests that communal music making is an inherent part of humanity (Blacking 1973; Mithen 2006). The value of music involvement is not a new topic of discussion. Wade (2004: 1) comments on how people “all over the world, […] make music meaningful and useful in their lives”. Small describes the importance of being part of a music activity, remarking that to participate “in a music act is of central importance to our very humanness” (1998: 9). In this respect, Lindemann discusses the value of music participation, mentioning how “young people need to come face-to-face with a variety of musical experiences that will help them develop the musical understandings and knowledge necessary to extend the depth with which they think and feel” (1998: 6). Additionally the value of singing as a communal activity leads to increased musical knowledge and proficiency (Durrant & Himonides 1998: 67-68). “Choral singing is a multifactorial activity, and activities that involve a combination of social, affective, cognitive and physical aspects may confer additional health benefits over activities that involve primarily one element or are done alone” (Johnson et al. 2013: 1062). Musicologists across the globe have studied the significance of participation in music ensembles in a variety of contexts (Adderley, Kennedy & Berz 2003; Asmus & Harrison 1990; Corenblum & Marshall 1998; Gates 1991; Hughes 1978; Klinedinst 1991; Schmidt 2005), and specifically with regard to choirs (Bartolome 2010; Brown 2012; Demorest 2000; Durrant 2005; Hylton 1981; Jacob, Guptill & Sumsion 2009; Joseph & Southcott 2015; Kennedy 2002
Mizener 1993; Phillips 2004; Pitts 2005;Smith & Sataloff 2013; Sweet 2010).
A substantial number of studies have been conducted to ascertain the various reasons for singers of all ages participating in numerous types of choirs, including the following examples. Kennedy (2002) investigated the experiences of boys in a junior high school choir, finding that a love for singing as well as influences by teachers and peers were motivating factors for participation. Sweet (2010) researched the perceptions of boys
participation in a choir of eighth grade learners, in which four primary themes emerged namely singing, relationships with other people, aspirations to become a member of the school’s auditioned choir – the Choralier Men–, and “silliness” by the conductor as a way to retain the learners’ attention and enthusiasm in order to break the focused discipline required for this activity. The motivation to join a music ensemble, such as a choir, was investigated by Adderley, Kennedy and Berz in a high school environment. They found that “students are intellectually, psychologically, emotionally, socially and musically nurtured by membership in performing ensembles” (2003: 204). Parker (2011) focuses on the philosophical beliefs of adolescent choral singers, reflecting that social growth, expression of emotion, increased self-confidence, and the development of personal character are perceived as benefits of participation. Two further studies investigated the motivations and benefits of elderly people participating in music activities. In the United Kingdom, the Music for Life Project (Varvarigou, Creech, Hallam & McQueen 2012) was started in 2009 with the specific aim to explore the way in which music making enriches the lives of older people.
The benefits identified by singers over the age of 50 include improved health, social interactions, emotional support and continued learning. In Australia, Joseph and Southcott (2014) found that elderly singers were motivated by a positive attitude towards singing as well as a desire to be socially connected to others to become members of a choir.
There has, however, been limited research that specifically focuses on the motivations of singers to join university choirs, irrespective of their study field (Brown 2012: 81). In the study conducted by Jacob, Guptill and Sumsion (2009: 189), 105 singers from a university choir noted that “previous musical experience” was a determining factor for their continued involvement in a choir, along with social bonding, a sense of community, group and personal achievements and their overall well-being. A comparative study between non-music university students and those majoring in music found that participation in collective music making –including choirs– had a positive social, musical and personal outcome across both groups (Kokotsaki & Hallam 2011). A limited number of studies investigated the motivations for university students participating in a choral ensemble (Brown 2012; Poulter 1997; Sichvitsa 2003).
Even fewer researchers have focused on the value that these choral communities have on the lives of the participants (Bartolome 2010; Clift & Hancox 2001; Pitts 2005, Sichvitsa 2003). Based on this gap in the research, Bartolome conducted an extensive study about the perceived benefits of participation in a choir by its choristers using ethnographic techniques. She explored the perceived values of choristers in the Seattle Girls’ Choir (SGC) and in doing so, provides the music education community with evidence of the “rich and varied values and benefits associated with participation in a community-based girls
’ choir” (2010: 414-15). Through her observations, interviews and direct participation with the choristers, she identified common themes about the value of participation within this community. Many of her findings support the already existing literature, although two of the perceived values of participation found in several other studies did not materialise during her inquiry of the SGC. According to Bartolome (2013: 413), research by both Pitts (2005) and Hylton (1981) found that individuals participating in a music activity – such as singing in a choir – have linked their music involvement to a source of spiritual meaning, but such benefits could not be verified from the findings of Bartolome’s research. Additionally, the notion that being actively involved in performing music is essential to the enjoyment experienced by participants (Adderley, Kennedy & Berz 2003; Hylton 1981; Kennedy 2002; Pitts 2005) is not a central finding in Bartolome’s study. The SCG choristers experienced “social, personal and educational benefits” (Bartolome 2013: 412) as determining factors for enjoyment in the choir rather than the actual performances. Since Bartolome’s study was conducted with an all-girls children’s choir, a recommendation of her study was that further investigation with different types of choirs is needed to extend the knowledge of this phenomenon.
The perceived benefits of singing as experienced by university choristers are reported by Clift and Hancox, but these authors admit that the study had “limitations” and that their main aim was to “provide a foundation for future larger scale surveys” (2001: 248). Their study primarily focuses on health benefits associated with choir membership, which includes spiritual, social, emotional and general well-being. Pitts (2005: 1) conducted four separate ethnographic case studies in England to investigate the contribution of music participation regarding social and personal fulfilment amongst university students and adults. Her findings indicate that the participants across the four case studies enjoy music making as it helps them to escape from their daily lives, contributes to building self-esteem, has great social benefits, and is a platform for enjoyment and spiritual gratification (Pitts 2005: 1). Concurring with this finding, Sichivitsa (2003: 339) found that social aspects play a substantial role in contributing to the value of music participation as perceived by choir members and advises that the “social components of choirs” needs further investigation and study. In Australia, a study with children found that the desire to participate in music making activities is motivated by a love of performance, individual growth and well-being, the desire for challenge and professionalism, and the quality of relationships, while spiritual or social benefits are of less importance (Barrett & Smigiel 2007: 39). A cross cultural study between Finland and South Africa established that singers from these two countries regarded social aspects within choirs very important and that participation in music was beneficial for both the individual and the community (Louhivuori, Salminen & Lebaka 2005: 62).
In the South African context, literature with regard to the value of music participation is limited, especially in connection to choirs. Louw (2014) has contributed to the literature by exploring the significance of choral singing at primary and high school level, within the context of the South African Schools Choral Eisteddfod. Her study highlights eight emergent themes, namely choir singing as a way of living, experiences related to music-making, learning, growth, bridging, bonding and belonging, wellbeing and finally spiritual experiences. Additionally, there is extensive research on the value of multicultural music (Dzorkpey 2000; Fredericks 2008; Grant & Portera 2010; Joseph 2012; Schoeman 1993; Smit 1996; Woodward 2007); choir as a tool for transformation (Akrofi, Smit & Thorsén 2007; Van As 2009 & 2012; Van Aswegen & Potgieter 2010); and the formation of identity through music (Hammond 2004; Muir 2014; Swart 2012). However, a study on the perceived benefits from choristers in a multicultural university choir in South Africa has not yet been conducted. Choral conductors and music educators may benefit from this research as it might assist in finding avenues to strengthen educational methodologies in a multicultural environment:
The more music educators understand the values and benefits related to music participation and the function of such music activities in the lives of participants, the better they can tailor relevant and meaningful experiences for their students (Bartolome 2013: 415).
It is evident that the perceived values of participation within a music community vary from group to group. Culture, age, music ability, social environment, and the type of music ensemble – amongst several other factors – all contribute to the values which an individual attribute to being part of any given music community (Barrett, J.R. 2007; Creech, Hallam, McQueen & Varvarigou 2013; Major 2013). Investigating the values of participation as experienced by members of a university choir requires further investigation. This prompts the notion that in a culturally diverse and unique country such as South Africa, a multicultural choir such as the Camerata could provide a new perspective regarding the values of music participation as perceived by its members.

What is social capital?

Just as a screwdriver (physical capital) or a college education (human capital) can increase productivity (both individual and collective), so too social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups.

Social capital as a theoretical framework

Unlike other forms of capital – economic, physical, human, and cultural – social capital cannot be quantified, calculated and compared (Procter 2011: 244). As a result, “there is a gulf between theoretical understandings of social capital and the ways social capital has been measured in much empirical work” (Stone 2001: 1). This sentiment is echoed by Paxton (1999: 89-90) noting the “large gap between the concept of social capital and its measurement”. Fukuyama states that the “greatest weaknesses of the social capital concept is the absence of consensus on how to measure it” (2001: 12), which resulted in an extensive debate on whether social capital is actually present in a community (Jones 2010; Langston & Barrett 2008; Narayan & Cassidy 2001; Procter 2011; Stolle & Rochon 1998; Stone 2001; Woolcock & Narayan 2000). There is much deliberation on whether social capital can be valid as a single conceptual entity because of the numerous ways in which it has been utilised in research (Schuller, Baron, Field 2000: 2; Rothon, Goodwin & Stansfeld 2011: 698). There are many indicators that might constitute the presence of social capital, although the central aspects thereof seem to be trust, social norms and values, reciprocity (Langston & Barrett 2008: 123), community participation, as well as networks and connections (Putnam 1993, 2000).
The theory of social capital has been extensively developed – especially by Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam – and their research provides a firm theoretical framework for further such investigation (Gauntlett 2012; Langston & Barrett 2008; Narayan & Cassidy 2001; Procter 2011; Stolle & Rochon 1998; Woolcock & Narayan 2000). Bourdieu, one of the most influential sociologists of the 20^th century (Gauntlett 2012: 131; Rostom 2012: 7; Vorhaus 2014: 29) describes social capital as the sum of resources that are acquired by individuals or a group within a specific network allowing such entities to maintain influence within society while restricting others to such privilege (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992: 119). Gauntlett explains that Bourdieu’s views on social capital are “limited and deterministic” (2012: 132) as social networks are not only restricted to the wealthy. In contrast to most researchers and social scientists, Bourdieu does not see social capital as a positive concept, but rather a means to describe the social inequalities that plague every nation. In divergence to Bourdieu’s beliefs, Coleman sees social capital being generated unintentionally and to the benefit of all within a group or community and not by elitists with an agenda to maintain positions of privilege (Procter 2011: 244). In contrast to Coleman’s view that social capital is produced between institutions that are formalised, such as families and churches, Putnam states that there is more value in social capital emanating from voluntary associations, such as choirs and bowling teams. These voluntary associations have a better opportunity at fostering trust and participation (Procter 2011: 245). Putnam is of the opinion that the “core idea of social theory is that social networks have value” (2000: 19).
Researchers have made distinctions between three types of social capital namely ‘bridging’ social capital (Coleman 1988; NCVER 2004; Putnam 2000; Stolle, Soroka & Johnston 2008; Woolcock 2001; Woolcock & Narayan 2000); ‘bonding’ social capital (Coleman 1988; Giorgas 2000; Lesser & Storck 2001; NCVER 2004; Putnam 2000; Woolcock 2001; Woolcock & Narayan 2000); and ‘linking’ social capital (Stone 2003; Woolcock 2001). ‘Bridging’ social capital refers to the connections between people who are different along some important dimension,such as race, gender, or socioeconomic class. Relationships that fall into this category are “likely to be more fragile, but more likely also to foster social inclusion” (Schuller, Baron & Field 2000: 5). On the other hand, ‘bonding’ social capital refers to the alliances created between people who are more alike than they are different (Putnam 2000: 22), such as members in a family or even ethnic groups (Van As 2014: 225). ‘Linking’ social capital is the degree to which individuals build relationships with organisations and individuals who have authority or influence over them (Stone 2003; Wollcock 2001). Bridging and bonding social capital have been linked to improved health, better education, and greater personal wellbeing (OECD 2001: 4), Putnam (2000: 23) believes that ‘bridging’ social capital requires greater attention as populations across the world become more diverse. By joining an organisation such as the Camerata, individuals are potentially exposed to a wealth of social capital, including ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’ social capital. Although Putnam’s concepts of social capital have been extensively critiqued (McLean, Schultz & Steger 2002; Stolle & Hooghe 2005), his work has been, and remains, politically influential.
In more recent years, the value of social capital within the arts has been given increased interest. During the late 1990’s, “The Arts and Social Capital” was a key topic at a series of seminars on Civic Engagement hosted by the Harvard University in the USA (Saguaro Seminar on Civic Engagement 2000). Over 30 diverse scholars and practitioners from across the United States – including at the time the civil rights lawyer Barak Obama – participated in developing strategies to increase civic engagement and emerging social capital. The “Better Together” report (Saguaro Seminar on Civic Engagement 2000) was a result of this seminar and its findings support the need of investing in arts within communities across a nation as a way of strengthening social capital.

Acknowledgements
Abstract
Keywords
Notes to the reader
List of figures and tables
Table of contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1Background to the study
1.2Rationale and problem statement
1.3Aim of the study
1.4Research methodology
1.5Trustworthiness of the research
1.6Ethical considerations
1.7Value of the study
1.8Chapter headings
Chapter 2: Literature review
2.1The value of participation in a music community
2.2What is social capital?
2.3Social capital as a theoretical framework
2.3.1Voluntary community participation
2.3.2Networks and connections
2.3.3Reciprocity
2.3.4Trust
2.3.5Social norms and values
2.4Summary
Chapter 3: Research methodology
3.1Research approach
3.2Research design
3.3Sampling strategy
3.4Data collection methods
3.4.1Semi-structured face-to-face interviews
3.4.1.1Training the independent interviewer and conducting a pilot study
3.4.1.2Selecting an appropriate venue for the interviews
3.4.1.3Conducting the semi-structured interviews
3.4.1.4Transcription and member-checking of the interviews
3.4.2Focus group interviews
3.4.3Observations
3.4.3.1Observations during rehearsals
3.4.3.2Observations during performances 
3.4.3.3Procedure for observations of rehearsals and performances
3.4.3.4Using a video recorder to document
3.5Analysis of data
3.6Trustworthiness of the research
3.7Summary
Chapter 4: Findings
4.1Values attributed to participation in the University  of  Pretoria Camerata
4.1.1.1Personal value
4.1.1.2Passion and enjoyment
4.1.1.3Achievement and excellence
4.1.1.4Self-confidence and leadership
4.1.1.5Accountability and ownership
4.1.1.6Discipline and time management
4.1.1.7Commitment and sacrifice
4.1.1.8Health and well-being
4.1.1.9Spiritual experiences
4.1.1.10Friendship and a sense of belonging
4.1.2Social value of participating in the choir
4.1.2.1The ‘family’ metaphor and camaraderie
4.1.2.2Integrating people
4.1.2.3Extrinsic value
4.1.2.4A safe and reliable environment
4.1.2.5More than ‘just’ music
4.1.2.6Socialising
4.1.3Musical value
4.1.3.1‘Message bearers’: Communication through
4.1.3.2Intrinsic value
4.2 Social capital as a by-product of participation within the University of Pretoria Camerata
4.2.1Voluntary participation
4.2.2Networks and connections
4.2.3Reciprocity
4.2.4Trust
4.2.3Social norms and values
4.3Summary
Chapter 5: Discussion
5.1Perceived benefits as experienced by the choristers
5.1.1.Major themes attributed to personal value</a
5.1.1.1Passion and enjoyment
5.1.1.2Achievement and excellence 
5.1.1.3Accountability and ownership 
5.1.1.4Discipline and time management
5.1.1.5Academic achievement 
5.1.1.6Commitment and sacrifice 
5.1.1.7Health and well-being 
5.1.1.8Friendships and a sense of belonging
5.1.2Minor themes attributed to personal value
5.1.2.1Self-confidence and leadership
5.1.2.2Spiritual experiences 
5.1.2.3Holistic experiences
5.1.3Major themes attributed to social value
5.1.3.1The ‘family’ metaphor and camaraderie
5.1.3.2Integrating people
5.1.3.2.1Choir as a diverse environment 
5.1.3.2.2Choir as a tool for cross-cultural communication
5.1.3.2.3Choir as a platform for social integration
5.1.3.2.4Cultural barriers within the choir
5.1.3.3A safe and reliable environment
5.1.3.4Socialising
5.1.4Minor themes attributed to social value
5.1.4.1Extrinsic value
5.1.4.2Choir is more than ‘just’ music
5.1.5Major themes attributed to musical value
5.1.5.1Message bearers: Communication through music
5.1.5.2Intrinsic value
5.2Social capital as a by-product of participation
5.2.1Voluntary participation
5.2.2Networks and connections
5.2.3Reciprocit
5.2.4Trust
5.2.4.1Personal trust
5.2.4.2Musical trust
5.2.5Social norms and values
5.2.6Bridging and bonding social capital
5.3Summary
Chapter 6: Recommendations and conclusion
6.1Answering the research question
6.2Limitations to the study
6.3Recommendations emanating from the research findings
6.4Recommendations for future research
6.5Conclusion

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT