This document describes a case study examining the accessibility of Music Community Lab (MCL) events. MCL runs hackathon events in New York City aimed at promoting diversity. The study sought to understand how MCL participants conceptualize accessibility and identify suggestions to improve accessibility. Sixty-two attendees completed surveys about demographics and concepts of accessibility. Fifty-seven also participated in interviews. Findings showed that most participants associated accessibility with inclusivity and ease of access to resources. Suggestions to improve accessibility included better social media marketing and providing services like ASL interpretation and live streaming. The study provides insights into how community music groups can work to create more accessible events.

1. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cmue20
Music Education Research
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmue20
Assessing accessibility: an instrumental case study
of a community music group
adam patrick bell, Atiya Datoo, Brent Matterson, Joseph Bahhadi &
Chantelle Ko
To cite this article: adam patrick bell, Atiya Datoo, Brent Matterson, Joseph Bahhadi & Chantelle
Ko (2022) Assessing accessibility: an instrumental case study of a community music group, Music
Education Research, 24:3, 350-363, DOI: 10.1080/14613808.2022.2038111
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2022.2038111
View supplementary material
Published online: 14 Feb 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 221
View related articles
View Crossmark data

2. Assessing accessibility: an instrumental case study of a
community music group
adam patrick bell a
, Atiya Datoob
, Brent Mattersona
, Joseph Bahhadia
and Chantelle Koa
a
School of Creative and Performing Arts, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; b
Werklund School of Education,
University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
ABSTRACT
Creating accessible events is a pressing issue for many music
organisations. In the United States, the term accessibility has strong ties
to disability, and it is an important concept because what is deemed
accessible directly impacts who is included and excluded from music
experiences. Music Community Lab (MCL) runs a series of events in New
York City called Monthly Music Hackathon NYC. They aim to promote
‘diversity across backgrounds, perspectives, and abilities’. This
instrumental case study sought to examine how MCL participants
conceptualise accessibility as well as analyze participants’ suggestions
for improving the accessibility of MCL events. Sixty-two people who
attended one of three MCL events completed a demographic survey
and 57 of those respondents participated in an interview. Findings
reveal that 63% (n = 36) of participants associated accessibility with
inclusivity and 35% (n = 20) of participants associated accessibility with
ease of access to resources, places, and experiences. Participants’
suggestions for improving accessibility included social media marketing
(n = 23; 40%) and ease of access approaches (n = 11; 19%) including
CART, ASL, and live streaming events. Accessibility is challenging for
community music groups like MCL to navigate because it is a complex
construct with varied interpretations.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 12 April 2021
Accepted 24 January 2022
KEYWORDS
accessibility; disability;
community music; music
technology; hackathon
Introduction: a community music group at a crossroads
Music Community Lab (MCL), the volunteer-based not-for-profit organisation that runs a series of
events in New York City called Montly Music Hackathon NYC, is at a crossroads. Over the past
seven years, MCL has organised over fifty non-competitive day-long music hackathon events
where attendees of varying levels of experience and expertise with music technologies work together
to come up with ‘hacks’ for problems posed by members of their community. Examples of music
hacks range from a phone app that vibrates to the beat of a song to enhance the experience of music
listening for people with hearing impairments to newly conceived music notation systems aimed at
making visual music literacy more accessible. MCL’s website explains:
We adopt the concept of ‘hacking’ music from the tech world as an effective way to approach experimenting
with nearly any aspect of art … we encourage hacking of music in the broadest possible sense, for example
through remixing, instrument-building, data visualization, collaboration, improvisation, or any other way
you can imagine. (Music Community Lab Forthcoming)
Despite consistently large turnouts with attendance ranging between 20 and 200 for a given themed
event – past event themes have included accessibility, gender, and artificial intelligence – the core
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT adam patrick bell adam.bell@ucalgary; adampatrickbell@gmail.com
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2022.2038111.
MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH
2022, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 350–363
https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2022.2038111

3. group of six organisers who constitute the MCL board recognise that their aim to promote ‘diversity
across backgrounds, perspectives, and abilities’, is a work in progress. To an extent, the group has
been successful in diversifying its community, especially with regard to increased participation of
women and people of colour, but can their events be more accessible and how might this aim be
realized? The applicability of the findings of this study are not constrained to the MCL community,
thus making it an instrumental case (Stake 2005). Creating and supporting accessible events is a
relevant and pressing issue to many music organisations and groups. The stakes are high because
what is deemed ‘accessible’ directly impacts who is included and excluded from music experiences.
Accessibility and disability
In the United States, the term accessibility has strong ties to disability. This was evident at an MCL
event labelled ‘accessibility’ but themed around disability. The guest speakers were all disabled
people and attendees were encouraged to engage in projects that confronted the accessibility of
music experiences for people with disabilities. This understanding is entrenched in the legacy of
the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), a civil rights law enacted in 1990 that prohibits dis-
crimination based on the grounds of disability and requiring accommodations in the public sphere.
Perhaps the most obvious examples of accessibility compliance in public infrastructure are ramps
and curb cuts, both of which make urban environments more accessible for wheelchair users. Wil-
liamson (2019) details that the United States was the first country to enact laws to mandate archi-
tectural access, which was influential on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (CRPD 2006). Accessibility as outlined in Article 9 of the aforementioned Conven-
tion focuses on the responsibilities of nation states to ensure independent living and full partici-
pation in society, including eliminating barriers to infrastructure (e.g. schools) and services (e.g.
communications). Williamson (2019) defines access ‘in terms of physical usability of architecture,
infrastructure, and products by disabled people’, conceding that this definition excludes other types
of disabilities (sensory, cognitive, intellectual) (11). Whereas Williamson’s conceptualisation of
accessibility is rooted in usability, Titchkosky (2011) frames accessibility as the manifold possible
interactions between people, physical infrastructure, and social infrastructure. For Titchkosky,
accessibility can be as complex as the context, which is altogether physical and social at once.
Taken together, accessibility in American law is objective, but in everyday American life it is sub-
jective. While the construct of accessibility may be complex, even contested, how accessibility is per-
ceived and enacted has real-life ramifications for disabled people. For example, in a recent Canadian
study, Soetemans and Jackson (2021) found that nondisabled people perceive disabled people more
positively in contexts construed as accessible.
Accessibility and music
In addition to accessibility, it is important to recognise that there are related terms that hold similar
definitions, including habitability (Preiser 1983), inclusivity (United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization 2005), and usability (Steinfeld & Danford 1999). In educational contexts
such as schools and universities, Universal Design (UD) and its descendant, Universal Design for
Learning (UDL), are often suggested as ways to make learning more accessible. UDL is premised on
an instructional approach that anticipates barriers to learning and circumvents them by represent-
ing knowledge in multiple mediums, providing learners with multiple means to evidence their
understanding, and engaging learners in multiple ways (Capp 2017). UDL emphasises flexibility
and individuality while also planning for variability and diversity from the beginning of the plan-
ning process (Meyer et al. 2014). Examples of pedagogical approaches employing UDL principles in
music disciplines include education (Darrow 2016; McCord et al. 2014) and theory (Quaglia 2015).
In practice, not all barriers can be anticipated, and therefore a reactionary approach may be
MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 351

4. required to facilitate accessibility for some individuals, such as providing assistive technology (Glass
et al. 2013).
Given that UDL is founded on UD, it is worthwhile taking stock of some of the critiques of UD
and how they might extend to UDL. Hamraie (2017) argues that over time, UD became discon-
nected from disability, resulting in an understanding of accessibility that problematically associates
it with no one in particular. Now, UD and accessibility are conflated and touted as good for ‘every-
one’, which as Hamraie (2017) points out, indicates that the core message of accessibility has been
lost in translation in the process of being adopted by other disciplines (e.g. education, music). This
is true of some American studies that assess access to music education yet omit or diminish the
importance of disability. For example, Elpus and Abril (2019) aimed ‘to construct a complete demo-
graphic profile of high school music ensemble students using nationally representative data’ (326),
yet disability is neither analyzed nor discussed and no rationale for doing so is provided, duplicating
the erasure of disability from similar previous studies (Elpus & Abril 2011; Parsad & Spiegelman
2012). Important demographic data such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status are included
when addressing the issue of accessibility to music education, but disability is conspicuously absent.
In a different study, Elpus (2014) does not name disability, but documents that American students
who received ‘special education services under an IEP [Individual Education Plan] were underre-
presented among music students in all cohorts for which the data were observable’ (225).
Like the aforementioned national studies, regional studies of accessibility to music education
such as those by Salvador and Allegood (2014) on Washington D.C. and Detroit, and Shaw and
Auletto (2021) on Michigan also foreground race. A smaller scale instrumental case study on ‘tra-
ditionally marginalized populations’ by Fitzpatrick et al. (2014) includes race, sexuality, and gender,
but excludes disability. Notably, Shaw and Auletto (2021) detail that students with disabilities in
Michigan are less likely to attend schools with music teachers, but on the whole, when the question
of who has access to music in America is posed, disabled people are not foregrounded by research-
ers. Given the relationship between race and disability in America (Goodman et al. 2017), and the
overlap between racism and ableism (Annamma et al. 2013), the lack of intersectional analyses in
these studies is a missed opportunity. The scarcity of research on disability in music education
research is not a new phenomenon and historically the perspectives of students with disabilities
have been excluded (Jellison & Taylor 2007). In sum, there is a long precedent in research on Amer-
ican music education that dissociates disability from accessibility.
Hackathons and accessibility
Hackathons tend to be relatively fast-paced design events where volunteers congregate to work on a
product or services of some kind (Lodato & DiSalvo 2016). Typically lasting one or two days (Nandi
& Mandernach 2016), most hackathons focus on technology and involve coding as a primary
activity (Trainer et al. 2016; Irani 2015). Hackathons have a history of being competitive with prizes
promised to the designers of the best outcomes, but some groups, MCL included, opt for a non-
competitive approach (Richterich 2019). Who attends hackathons varies widely, with events
often bringing together both experts and beginners (Lodato & DiSalvo 2016). Attendees have
diverse motivations for participating, ranging from building and fostering professional relation-
ships (Briscoe & Mulligan 2014), to socialising over a mutual interest such as music (bell et al.
2020). What happens at a hackathon depends on its aims, but as a generalisation, hackathons
involve working intensely in small groups toward a shared goal in a limited amount of time
(Lara & Lockwood 2016).
Most MCL events adhere to a similar structure, beginning with a series of short (5–10 min)
theme-related guest talks at noon and then followed by (free) lunch, brainstorming, forming
groups, hacking, workshops, and final presentations of works-in-progress. These events take
place at various venues, including local universities and businesses with open-concept spaces con-
ducive to collaborative work. MCL strives to host accessible events by using wheelchair-accessible
buildings and some events have included ASL and/or CART services. While there is no research
352 A. P. BELL ET AL.

5. specifically on the accessibility of hackathon events, let alone music hackathons, the study of Milli-
gan et al. (2014) on the accessibility of arts and culture events in an American ‘midwestern college
town’ serves as a suitable frame of reference. With 39 participants organised into four focus groups
(managers of arts and culture organisations; people with disabilities; caregivers/service providers;
city leaders, other stakeholders), Milligan et al. (2014) found that the term accessibility proved
difficult to define, resulting in challenges that both organisers and attendees face when assessing
an event’s accessibility. An Australian survey-based study of autistic people aged 18–25 (N = 30)
regarding music workshops by Thompson et al. (2020) reports that participants suggested both
physical (e.g. break-out spaces, venues with natural light and air, providing instructions in multiple
formats) and social (i.e. facilitators with ‘a deep understanding of autism’ who can foster ‘friendly
and respectful interactions’) considerations to improve accessibility (137). Building on these related
studies, we sought to examine how MCL event attendees define and discuss accessibility and explore
how this community music group’s self-assessment of their accessibility might inform other music
organisations.
Purpose and method
To investigate the accessibility of MCL, we used a case study approach (Stake 1995), which included
two data collection components: a survey and interviews. Both the survey and the interview ques-
tions were co-created in partnership with MCL organisers to ensure mutual beneficence between
MCL and the research team. Data was collected at three different MCL events: (1) Live
Code Lab, which focused on programming music in real time as a performance practice; (2)
Music & Movement, which explored the relationship between movement and technology, specifi-
cally facial recognition, as well as dancing and drumming; and (3) Songwriter Lab, which focused
on facilitating collaborations between songwriters.
Data collection
Event attendees were invited to complete the survey on a tablet and participate in an audio-recorded
interview. At all events, attendees came and went at their leisure, which made tallying the total
attendance challenging. Both the event organisers and the research team conducted headcounts
throughout the duration of each event and arrived at the following attendance estimations: 120
people attended the Live Code Lab event, 40 of whom participated in the study; 20 people attended
the Music & Movement event, 9 of whom participated in the study; 30 people attended the
Songwriter Lab event, 13 of whom participated in the study.
Survey
A demographic survey (Appendix A) with questions about age, education, employment, gender,
sexuality, race/ethnicity, and disability was administered using a non-probability method to a
pool of attendees at each event. All attendees who stayed for the duration of an event were invited
to participate through a face-to-face interaction with a member of the research team. We cannot
claim that the demographic information collected represents all the people who attended, only
those who chose to stay for an event’s duration. Furthermore, the demographic information may
not accurately represent those who attended events but were unwilling to participate in the
study. Like all surveys, the data collected in this study is susceptible to participants misrepresenting
themselves and the accuracy of the responses are assumed to be true. In total, 62 surveys were
initiated at the three events. For each question on the survey, participants had the option to select,
‘I choose not to answer’. These answers are not included in the findings, resulting in a smaller
sample size for each reported survey item. Taking this into account, the largest sample size for
any question is 61.
MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 353

6. Interviews
In addition to the survey, each participating attendee was invited to answer five questions in an
interview (Appendix B). In total, 57 people participated in an interview as follows: Live
Code Lab, 36; Music & Movement, 8; Songwriter Lab, 13. The number of responses recorded
may be more or less than the total number of interviewees because some participants had multiple
answers or did not answer each question.
Data analysis
Following data collection, interview recordings were transcribed by the research team and then
coded using a thematic analysis approach (Galletta 2013). The codes were not predetermined;
instead, they were identified by the research team through repeated readings of the transcripts.
In this process, we proceeded by moving from the particularity of one interview to the particula-
rities in other interviews. We noted patterns, commonalities, and contrasting aspects of the inter-
view data (Galletta 2013). The themes derived from the interview transcripts were used to address
the question at the core of this study: How can MCL events be more accessible?
Results
Demographic information
The function of the demographic survey was to establish who constitutes the community of MCL.
This is important for the purpose of knowing whose perceptions are being taken into account in
assessing accessibility.
Age and race
Although the participants’ ages range from under 18–65 and older, 39.34% (n = 24) of the sample
(n = 61) is between 25 and 29. Participants between 18 and 24 are the second most numerous
(21.31%; n = 13). Overall, 93.75% (n = 45) are under the age of 40. The racial makeup of this sample
(n = 58) is primarily populated by those who identify as white (51.74%; n = 30). The second most
common race represented are those who identify as Asian (27.59%; n = 16). Additionally, 12.07%
(n = 7) identify as Black or African American. For comparison, in 2018, 42.7% of the population
of New York City was white alone, 29.1% was Hispanic or Latino, 24.3% was Black or African
American alone, and 13.9% was Asian alone (United States Census Bureau 2018).
Gender, sexuality, and disability
The sample (n = 60) is populated primarily by those who identify as men (68.33%; n = 41). Partici-
pants who identify as women comprise the rest of the sample (31.67%). No participant identified as
transgender or another gender identity. Participants who identify as heterosexual (80%; n = 44)
were the most numerous in the sample (n = 55). The remainder of respondents identified as gay
(1.82%; n = 1), bisexual (7.27%), queer (5.45%), or opted for another term (n = 3) including ‘ace’,
‘Gay, Bisexual, Queer’, and ‘Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual’. The sample (n = 59) was dominated by nondis-
abled participants (89.83%; n = 53), while the remainder of the sample if comprised of people who
identify as having disabilities (10.17%; n = 6).
Education and employment
Participants reported high levels of education. Almost half (47.54%; n = 29) of the sample (n = 61)
possesses a bachelor’s degree as their highest level of education, and 85.25% (n = 52) have com-
pleted some form of post-secondary education. The majority (49.18%; n = 30) of the sample (n =
61) are employed full time (40 or more hours per week). Furthermore, 18.03% (n = 11) are students
and 16.39% (n = 10) are self-employed.
354 A. P. BELL ET AL.

7. In sum, MCL is composed predominantly of highly educated nondisabled white or Asian people,
two-thirds of whom are men, most of whom are under the age of 40. Black and Latinx people are
underrepresented as are women and people who identify as neither men nor women. In the follow-
ing section, we report the responses to interview questions of MCL participants.
Interview findings
The question at the heart of this study, ‘How can MCL events be more accessible?’ is best addressed
by responses to the interview questions, ‘What does accessibility mean to you?’ and ‘What would
make the event more accessible?’ Therefore, our results are organised based on these two questions.
Most interview responses fell into four themes: ease of access, inclusiveness, marketing, and net-
working. Some respondents had an answer that fit into multiple categories, resulting in percentages
that add to over 100%.
Question 1: what does accessibility mean to you?
Inclusiveness. The most frequent answer to this question was that accessibility means being open
and available to everyone. Specifically, 63.16% (n = 36) of respondents discussed inclusivity.
These answers were also often abstract and did not include specific examples of who may potentially
be excluded. For example, Dom viewed accessibility as something that is ‘made available to all types
of people and … ease of use and making anything accessible to people regardless of what their back-
ground is or what their abilities are’. Similar sentiments were expressed by Sean and Jeanna whose
responses resembled that of David’s: ‘accessibility would be all the things that are involved in mak-
ing sure that everyone has the ability to enjoy something, even if it’s not necessarily completely
equal, but on some level’. Accessibility as ‘a mentality of inclusiveness’, was offered by Ashley,
and related, Aiden and Melanie both touched on accessibility as hospitality. Aiden commented,
‘accessibility would mean to me that everybody feels welcome and there are accommodations for
anybody such that everybody could participate’.
While the aforementioned responses focused on including everyone and thereby excluding no
one, some responses were more pointed about whom they associated with accessibility. Represen-
tation of minoritized groups was how Sophia framed accessibility: ‘ … I do think it means that you
see yourself reflected in the people who are here. You don’t walk into a space and feel like, “I don’t
see anyone else reflected of my background”’. John singled out class as a determinant of accessibil-
ity: ‘That the things that you want access to are available to you and that you have access to those
without feeling like access has a different class’. An anonymous respondent specifically pointed out
one’s race stating that accessibility ‘ … could be reached by any demographic whether it’s Asian,
Black, white, you know?’ While most responses grouped in this theme were nonspecific about
whom accessibility is for, those who did specify mentioned race, ethnicity, and class, while no
responses referenced gender, sexuality, or disability.
Ease of access. Accessibility was described as an ability to physically access resources, places, and
experiences by 35.09% (n = 20) of participants. Many of the responses in this category were succinct
and occasionally touched on disability or finances. A participant who wished to remain anonymous
responded, ‘ … low price. Close to the city centre. Yeah, I think that’s it’. Similarly, Amir said,
‘Accessibility means access for everyone no matter if you’re able-bodied or not, or wherever you
come from. Accessibility makes space available for everyone to come in and share’. Other
definitions included, ‘Interpreters, if necessary, this building being accessible’, from an anonymous
respondent, and ‘Making tools or whatever that are able to be used by a wide variety of people with a
wide variety of needs’, from Damon. Dan reflected, ‘ … it means making websites accessible to
everyone, but also things like elevators and ramps and stuff like that for people who have a mobility
disability’. Lex had many ideas about accessibility but settled on infrastructure interactions:
MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 355

8. Accessibility, accessibility? Too many things, but if people are limited … not fully ‘able bodies’ but have a
space to come to. So, that’s pretty cool that this space is at ground level. There’s an elevator so people can
move around.
One of the few disabled people to participate, Andy, first claimed that ‘the phrase is so veiled’ but
then related accessibility to his own experiences and how it can be relative based on capability: ‘My
disability is … rather hidden because I can walk by myself and I only use one arm. My right side is
somewhat paralysed, but I make do with what I have’. Of all the themes, responses related to ‘ease of
access’ are most closely associated with disability.
Networking and other responses. Only two respondents (3.5%) linked their ideas to networking
when asked how they defined accessibility. Randy associated accessibility with his role as a music
producer: ‘Accessibility is like, “How easily can I connect with other musicians and other artists
within my own community?”’. Similarly, an anonymous respondent noted, ‘Even space like this
where we could actually meet other collaborators and creators. So, I think that’s a good definition
[of accessibility]’.
One anonymous respondent tied inclusiveness and ease of access together, defining accessibility
as the notion ‘that events and spaces are physically accessible for anybody with an open and wel-
coming culture, so that things feel accessible and that somebody feels not just that they can go
to a place but also that they want to’. Similarly, Jessica straddled the line between inclusiveness
and ease of access:
Accessibility means being able to have ways to experience things that everybody can also experience the same
way … every time I think about accessibility, I think about like, ‘Oh, yes, blind people do use the internet, and
this is what this means to them’ … And that really just changed the way I write code and even the way I look at
the world. So, I think it’s really important to figure out how to make the things that you experience also be
accessible to everybody else.
While most participants provided answers of their own interpretation of what accessibility
meant to them, there were a few respondents that struggled to produce a response. For example,
Carlo responded that he did not use the word accessibility much, an anonymous participant
responded, ‘Accessibility? What do you mean?’, and Harry asked the interviewing researcher for
their definition.
Question 2: what would make this event more accessible?
Ease of access. Eleven respondents (n = 19.3%) had ideas related to ease of access when asked how
MCL events could be more accessible. Many of the Live Code Lab participants commented on the
use of the live stenographer at the event. Damon observed that by having a live stenographer, MCL
is ‘already ahead of the game compared to most meetups I go to’. Several participants commented
that they liked the stenographer because they had difficulties hearing in the venue. For the other
events without a stenographer, two respondents, Ian and Carlo, suggested having a sign language
interpreter for D/deaf and hard of hearing people. Carlo noted that the event ‘relies on sound so it
might be hard if you can’t hear’.
Another common suggestion for improving accessibility for event goers was to livestream the
presentations or post videos of workshops online so that people who were unable to attend the
events, or had difficulties accessing the information at the event, would still be able to participate.
Vee’s response best exemplifies this line of thinking:
I guess to access the space, if one has a disability, and also, I noticed that there’s a stenographer, that’s great,
but I’m wondering if it’s possible to make it even easier to have the event livestreamed so that someone who
isn’t physically able to attend can at least watch some of the talks or attend some of the workshops remotely.
Pitchen posited that the event could be made more accessible by ‘asking people to not wear certain
perfumes so that people who have a disability in terms of not being able to smell stuff that are
356 A. P. BELL ET AL.

9. chemicals. Like, having a notice in your event to not wear certain perfumes or something would be
also more accessible in a way’. They also suggested beginning the event with an orientation about
elevator access: ‘I wasn’t pointed to where an elevator was. For people who have mobility issues
that’s probably a problem’.
Marketing. Twenty-three respondents (40.35%) made connections between accessibility and adver-
tising. Specifically, respondents requested advertising be aimed at a more diverse population. Par-
ticipant ‘Anna’ acknowledged that the majority of attendees were men and suggested that planners
reach out to ‘communities you won’t expect to be interested in live coding and music program-
ming’. Lex advised, ‘Literally invest in some Instagram ads’, and Jenna suggested, ‘advertise it
more on different common websites or posters around the city … especially on social media
since social media is such a big platform for people to use and advertise and speak out on’. Bazz
affirmed, ‘definitely social media’. Thinking beyond social media strategies, Carlo posited that
using a form of advertising other than email, perhaps an app, would be a better way to market
the events. Karen suggested emailing university and high school programmes to inform them
about the events and draw different demographics, opining: ‘I think it’s really nice if you could mar-
ket it towards everyone in a way through social media. I know a lot of times I see posts on Insta-
gram, or Facebook advertising stuff and I’ll go.’
Inclusivity, networking, and Other Responses. Five of those interviewed (8.77%) discussed inclusiv-
ity as a means to increase the accessibility of MCL events. Jamie stated that she would ‘love to see a
more varied diverse [group], like what the world looks like generally’. Similarly, ‘John Doe’
remarked: ‘ … priority given to people in minority groups or underrepresented groups … would
be nice’. Two respondents (3.5%), Chowdry and Kyle, expressed a need for more networking
opportunities, such as ice breaker activities. Other responses touched on a variety of issues. Partici-
pants Harry and Ward both commented on having transportation issues. Don stated that the event
would have been more accessible if some music equipment like microphones were provided by the
organisers. While many suggestions were given on how to improve the accessibility of the events,
some participants (Harry, Ethan) were content with the level of accessibility, echoing Amir’s senti-
ment: ‘I feel it’s pretty accessible in my opinion’. Still, other participants, including Ian and Aiden,
were unsure of how they could make the event more accessible because they did not experience
accessibility issues themselves.
Cross-Category analysis. Gender. The distribution of women and men who were interviewed was
not even, and no participant identified as another gender identity. At the Live Code Lab event, 23
men and 12 women were interviewed; at the Music & Movement event, 6 men and 2 women were
interviewed; and, at the Songwriter Lab event, 9 men and 3 women were interviewed. In some
instances, the number of responses exceeds the number of participants because participants pro-
vided responses that fit into multiple categories. Men (n = 15; 39.47%), more so than women (n
= 4; 23.53%), conceived of accessibility in terms of ease of access, equating it with physical or finan-
cial notions. Conversely, 70.59% (n = 12) of women and 60.53% (n = 23) of men related accessibility
to inclusivity, including social and ethnic inclusivity and general openness. Interestingly, 100% of
the women who related accessibility to ease of access attended the Live Code Lab event. To lend
greater credence to these findings, a chi-squared test of homogeneity without continuity correction
was conducted using a significance level of 5% with the statistical software R Studio. Table 1 displays
the 2-by-2 contingency data.
The information for the test is as follows: x2
= 1.0343, df = 1, p − value = 0.3092 ⇒
0.3092 . 0.05 ⇒ Ho. Because the P-value is larger than the significance level, we fail to reject
the null hypothesis. The observed difference in perceptions of accessibility based on gender are
not statistically significant. Nevertheless, it is important to draw attention to the gendered response
themes in this context.
MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 357

10. Disability. Participants whose responses stated that the events were reasonably accessible were
similar for disabled people (33.33%; n = 2) and nondisabled people (30.61%; n = 15). Two of the dis-
abled participants, who both attended the Music & Movement event, had suggestions relating to the
marketing of the events. Another participant who identified as disabled and who attended the Song-
writer Lab event suggested increasing ease of access, while the other participant who identified as
disabled and attended the Live Code Lab event suggested increasing inclusivity through diversity.
Race. Participants whose responses stated that the events were reasonably accessible were either
white (n = 7) or Black or African American (n = 3). Notably, no Asian participants (n = 16) made
this claim.
Discussion
Across interviews from three MCL events a singular definition of accessibility proved to be elusive,
partially explaining the challenge attendees faced when assessing an event’s accessibility. These
findings parallel that of other case studies of a similar type, whose conclusions suggest that the
definition of accessibility seems to be perspective-dependent (Milligan et al. 2014). MCL partici-
pants’ responses can be interpreted as following two distinct threads: inclusiveness and ease of
access. Inclusiveness in the contexts of the participants’ responses address events’ social environ-
ments, with a focus on how the underrepresentation of minoritized people can be a barrier for
those who would otherwise be interested. This perspective aligns with UNESCO’s (2005) descrip-
tion of ‘inclusion’: ‘a process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all learners
through increasing participation in learning, cultures and communities, and reducing exclusion
within and from education’. Based on this ‘inclusiveness’ perspective, it could be extrapolated
that the ideal event in terms of accessibility would be one in which no individual would have a feel-
ing of apprehension to participate based on any aspect of their identity. The ease of access responses
centred around the physical and financial barriers that might inhibit individuals from participating.
Compared to inclusiveness, the concept of ease of access has a greater fixation on being physically
present at the event as well as having the right tools to engage in the activities.
The range of responses drawn from participants evidences that there is a considerable ambiguity
surrounding ‘accessibility’. The differing conceptions of accessibility that we documented in this
study align with the description of ‘habitability’ outlined by Preiser (1983), which is the degree
of fit between people and their environments, both physical and social. Additionally, participants’
responses centred on ease of access and inclusivity resemble the concept of ‘usability’ (Nielsen 1993;
Shackel 2009). We observed that MCL participants related accessibility to usability concepts in
human–computer interaction (HCI) such as intuitive and easy-to-access designs (Hertzum
2010). Given the tech-centric focus of MCL, it is understandable that the following definition
offered by Iwarsson and Stahl (2003) most closely resembles the responses of the participants:
‘accessibility is an umbrella term for all parameters that influence human functioning in the
environment, thus defining accessibility as an environmental quantity’ (58). In this way, partici-
pants’ conceptualizations of accessibility are largely amorphous and detached from disability.
This marks a key distinction from the explanations of accessibility offered by Williamson (2019),
Titchkosky (2011), and Hamraie (2017), which are anchored to the epistemologies of disabled
Table 1. ‘Ease of access’ Vs. ‘inclusiveness’ responses according to gender.
Accessibility definition
Gender
Men Women
Ease of Access 15 4
Inclusiveness 23 12
Note. Participants identified as either ‘man’ or ‘woman’. No participants identified as transgender or another gender identity.
Responses are organised based on gender according to their accessibility definition categorisation of ‘ease of access’ or
‘inclusiveness’.
358 A. P. BELL ET AL.

11. people. In contrast, the word ‘disability’ was rarely mentioned by participants, which is elemental to
many definitions of accessibility, including those of the ADA (1990) and the CRPD (2006).
When asked how MCL could be more accessible, participants frequently mentioned increasing
marketing, mostly with the stated aim of increasing the diversity of participants. Potentially, as
Peters and Bradbard (2007) observe, the tactic of increasing the accessibility of an organisation’s
website and online presence could double as a marketing strategy. MCL and alike not-for-profit
music organisations have different aims than business enterprises, but perhaps the corporate strat-
egy of promoting accessibility could in effect lead to the desired diversity in members that is sought
after. For example, foregrounding disability in relation to an event theme (i.e. MCL’s ‘AccessAbility’
hackathon) may be a way for music organisations to meaningfully engage with disability commu-
nities. Furthermore, considering the myriad ways in which musical identities and communities can
be forged through various social media platforms (Kastner 2020), MCL’s members are correct to
suggest that social media is a potentially fruitful means with which to increase their accessibility.
As MCL predominantly uses Twitter and Facebook – social media platforms associated with
older demographics – a frequently requested suggestion by participants when asked how to
make events more accessible was to use Instagram. Instagram allows for content sharing and
paid advertisements, which would give MCL more exposure online. Presumably, newer social
media platforms will continue to emerge (e.g. TikTok), requiring organisations like MCL to
pivot and expand their social media presence accordingly. In order for participants to connect
and identify with social media content, a more inclusive and representative advertising approach
needs to be taken. In turn, this will produce more positive attitudes amongst underrepresented
groups within an organisation and be more effective at attracting them to attend events (Williams
et al. 2004). To echo participant Sophia’s sentiment, one needs to ‘see yourself reflected’ in a com-
munity to feel welcome. For community music groups that mirror MCL in that they also recognise
the overrepresentation of some demographics in their communities (e.g. white men), plotting a new
course is needed to increase accessibility for underrepresented demographics (e.g. disabled people).
This can be done in advertising, but it also needs to be followed through in more long-term non-
tokenistic ways such as ensuring disabled people are positioned as key stakeholders in the organ-
isation and facilitation of events (Swenor & Meeks 2019).
By implementing the suggestions of their community members, MCL can make their organis-
ation more accessible, but such suggestions need to be assessed with measure for two reasons.
First, MCL is a not-for-profit volunteer-run organisation and therefore is reliant on donations to
implement initiatives such as livestreaming events or buying social media advertisements in the
name of accessibility. If community members are committed to accessibility, they need to invest
in it financially. Second, who is assessing accessibility needs to be acknowledged. Deferring to non-
disabled people to determine what is accessibility and how it can be achieved risks disassociating
accessibility from disability and thereby doing a disservice to disabled people – the opposite of
the intention. Foregrounding disability identities and experiences as well as promoting disability
culture and pride at events are feasible and meaningful actions that can be taken by community
music groups. This can be accomplished by hosting joint events with disability organisations.
Conclusions
As demonstrated by the range of responses from the study’s participants, accessibility is a complex
construct. MCL’s goal to increase accessibility is admirable and should be adopted by other com-
munity music groups, but accessibility is more than elevators or feeling welcome. To delimit acces-
sibility to a finite series of boxes to be checked off on a list is to deny its dynamism. The inward
inquiry in which MCL engaged ought to serve as an impetus, not an ending, and other community
music groups committed to equity, diversity, and inclusion should follow their example. We com-
mend MCL for not only inviting critiques but also committing to addressing them with urgency.
MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 359

12. Some of MCL’s members lauded its accessibility, referencing wheelchair-accessible spaces and
captioning services for people with hearing impairments; these initiatives have been informed by
people with disabilities in their community and demonstrate how MCL’s leadership is keen to soli-
cit feedback and quick to respond appropriately. These actions, which we associate with ease access,
may be costly but are nevertheless straightforward to implement. The same can be said for the lesser
mentioned marketing and networking suggestions of participants. In contrast, inclusiveness as con-
ceptualised by participants is more challenging to realise because of its subjectiveness, situating
MCL’s leadership in an impossible position of trying to be everything to everyone. But rather
than being defeatist and accepting a destiny of inaccessibility, community music groups like
MCL can tether their stance on accessibility to disability and steer the social climate within their
organisations accordingly. Again, we emphasise the need for disability epistemology (Scully
2020) to serve as the guiding principle in the continual pursuit of accessibility. In addition, we cau-
tion against perceiving disability as a compartmentalised identity and/or experience. Community
music groups should be ever mindful of members’ complex and intersecting identities and experi-
ences (Annamma et al. 2013). Such an approach is contingent on context and therefore produces no
universal designs for accessibility. Suitably for MCL – purveyors of music hackathon events – the
answers to accessibility for them are bespoke, or as they would call them, hacks. Finally, MCL is not
an anomaly; all music organisations must continually assess accessibility to ensure the long-term
viability of their communities.
Disclosure statement
We, the authors of this article, declare this work to be original and entirely ours.
Funding
This research project was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).
Notes on contributors
adam patrick bell is an associate professor of music education in the School of Creative and Performing Arts at the
University of Calgary, Canada. He is the editor of the Music Technology Cookbook (Oxford 2020) and author of Dawn
of the DAW (Oxford 2018).
Atiya Datoo is a student in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary.
Brent Matterson is an undergraduate student in the School of Creative and Performing Arts at the University of
Calgary.
Joseph Bahhadi is an undergraduate student in the School of Creative and Performing Arts at the University of
Calgary.
Chantelle Ko is a master’s student in the School of Creative and Performing Arts at the University of Calgary.
ORCID
adam patrick bell http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8500-9754
References
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. 1990. https://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm.
Annamma, S. A., D. Connor, and B. Ferri. 2013. “Dis/Ability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the
Intersections of Race and dis/Ability.” Race Ethnicity and Education 16 (1): 1–31.
bell, adam patrick, David Bonin, Helen Pethrick, Amanda Antwi-Nsiah, and Brent Matterson. 2020. “Hacking, dis-
ability, and music education.” International Journal of Music Education 38 (4): 657–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0255761420930428.
360 A. P. BELL ET AL.

13. Briscoe, G., and C. Mulligan. 2014. “Digital Innovation: The Hackathon Phenomenon.” https://pdfs.semanticscholar.
org/cb8e/44ec1bcd6062e5fccafb6837030be334731d.pdf.
Capp, M. J. 2017. “The Effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning: A Meta-Analysis of Literature between 2013
and 2016.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 21 (8): 791–807.
Darrow, A. A. 2016. “Applying the Principles of Universal Design for Learning in General Music.” In Teaching
General Music: Approaches, Issues, and Viewpoints, edited by C. R. Abril, and B. M. Gault, 308–326. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Elpus, K. 2014. “Evaluating the Effect of No Child Left Behind on U.S. Music Course Enrollments.” Journal of
Research in Music Education 62 (3): 215–233.
Elpus, K., and C. R. Abril. 2011. “High School Music Ensemble Students in the United States: A Demographic
Profile.” Journal of Research in Music Education 59 (2): 128–145.
Elpus, K., and C. R. Abril. 2019. “Who Enrolls in High School Music? A National Profile of U.S. Students, 2009-2013.”
Journal of Research in Music Education 67 (3): 323–338.
Fitzpatrick, K. R., J. C. Henninger, and D. M. Taylor. 2014. “Access and Retention of Marginalized Populations
Within Undergraduate Music Education Degree Programs.” Journal of Research in Music Education 62 (2):
105–127.
Galletta, A. 2013. Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and Beyond. New York: New York University Press.
Glass, D., A. Meyer, and D. H. Rose. 2013. “Universal Design for Learning and the Arts.” Harvard Educational Review
83 (1): 98–119.
Goodman, N., M. Morris, and K. Boston. 2017. Financial Inequality: Disability, Race, and Poverty in America.
National Disability Institute. https://www.nationaldisabilityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/disability-
race-poverty-in-america.pdf.
Hamraie, A. 2017. Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Hertzum, M. 2010. “Images of Usability.” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 26 (6): 567–600.
Irani, L. (2015). Hackathons and the Making of Entrepreneurial Citizenship, Science, Technology, & Human Values,
40(5), 799–824.
Iwarsson, S., and A. Ståhl. 2003. “Accessibility, Usability and Universal Design—Positioning and Definition of
Concepts Describing Person-Environment Relationships.” Disability and Rehabilitation 25 (2): 57–66.
Jellison, J. A., and D. M. Taylor. 2007. “Attitudes Toward Inclusion and Students with Disabilities: A Review of Three
Decades of Music Research.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 172: 9–23.
Kastner, J. D. 2020. “A Content Analysis of Creating and Curating Musical Identity on Social Media.” In The Oxford
Handbook of Social Media and Music Learning, edited by J. Waldron, S. Horsely, and K. Veblen, 313–336. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Lara, M., and K. Lockwood. 2016. “Hackathons as Community-Based Learning: A Case Study.” TechTrends 60:
486–495.
Lodato, T. J., and C. DiSalvo. 2016. “Issue-oriented Hackathons as Material Participation.” New Media & Society 18
(4): 539–557.
McCord, K., A. Gruben, and J. Rathgeber. 2014. Accessing Music: Enhancing Student Learning in the General Music
Classroom Using UDL. Van Nuys, CA: Alfred.
Meyer, A., D. H. Rose, and D. Gordon. 2014. Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice. Wakefield, MA:
CAST.
Milligan, C., A. Littlejohn, and A. Margaryan. 2014. “Workplace Learning in Informal Networks.” Journal of
Interactive Media in Education 2014 (1): Art. 6. http://doi.org/10.5334/2014-06.
Music Community Lab. Forthcoming. https://musiccommunitylab.org/about/
Nandi, A., and M. Mandernach. 2016. “Hackathons as an Informal Learning Platform.” Proceedings of the 47th ACM
Technical symposium on Computing Science education (pp. 346–351).
Nielsen, J. 1993. Usability Engineering. Mountain View, CA: Academic Press.
Parsad, B., and M. Spiegelman. 2012. Arts Education in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: 1999–2000 and
2009–10 (NCES 2012–014). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Peters, C., and D. A. Bradbard. 2007. “Web Accessibility: An Introduction and Implications for a Corporate Social
Responsibility Marketing Strategy.” Journal of Internet Commerce 6 (4): 27–54.
Preiser, W. F. E. 1983. “The Habitability Framework: A Conceptual Approach Towards Linking Human Behaviour
and Physical Environment.” Design Studies 4 (2): 84–91.
Quaglia, B. W. 2015. “Planning for Student Variability.” Music Theory Online 21 (1). https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.
15.21.1/mto.15.21.1.quaglia.html
Richterich, A. 2019. “Hacking Events: Project Development Practices and Technology use at Hackathons.”
Convergence: The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies 25 (5-6): 1000–1026.
Salvador, K., and K. Allegood. 2014. “Access to Music Education with Regard to Race in Two Urban Areas.” Arts
Education Policy Review 115 (3): 82–92.
MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 361

14. Scully, J. L. 2020. “Epistemic Exclusion, Injustice, and Disability.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and
Disability, edited by A. Cureton, and D. T. Wasserman, 297–309. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shackle, B. 2009. “Usability – Context, Framework, Definition, Design and Evaluation.” Interacting with Computers
21 (5-6): 339–346.
Shaw, R. D., and A. Auletto. 2021. “Is Music Education in Tune with the Pursuit of Equity? An Examination of Access
to Music Education in Michigan’s Schools.” Journal of Research in Music Education 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022429421989961.
Soetemans, J. K., and L. M. Jackson. 2021. “The Influence of Accessibility on Perceptions of People with Disabilities.”
Canadian Journal of Disability Studies 10: 185–206. https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v10i1.734.
Stake, R. E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. 2005. “Qualitative Case Studies.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., edited by N.
Denzin, and Y. Lincoln, 443–466. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Steinfeld, E., and G. S. Danford. 1999. “Theory as a Basis for Research on Enabling Environments.” In Enabling
Environments: Measuring the Impact of Environment on Disability and Rehabilitation, edited by E. Steinfeld,
and G. S. Danford, 11–33. New York: Springer.
Swenor, B., and L. M. Meeks. 2019. “Disability Inclusion — Moving Beyond Mission Statements.” New England
Journal of Medicine 380 (22): 2089–2091.
Thompson, G. A., M. Raine, S. M. Hayward, and H. Kilpatrick. 2020. “Gathering Community Perspectives to Inform
the Design of Autism-Friendly Music-Making Workshops for Wellbeing.” International Journal of Wellbeing 10
(5): 117–143. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v10i5.1497.
Titchkosky, T. 2011. The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Trainer, E. H., A. Kalyanasundaram, C. Chaihirunkarn, and J. D. Herbsleb. 2016. “How-to Hackathon: Socio-
Technical Trade-Offs in Brief, Intensive Collocation.” Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-
Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1118–1130).
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2006. https://www.un.org/development/desa/
disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-9-accessibility.html.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2005. “Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring Access
to Education for All.” https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000140224.
United States Census Bureau. 2018. “2018: ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles - New York City.” https://data.census.
gov/cedsci/table?q=New%20York%20city,%20New%20York&g=1600000US3651000&tid=ACSDP5Y2018.
DP05&hidePreview=true.
Williams, J. D., W.-N. Lee, and C. P. Haugtvedt, eds. 2004. Diversity in Advertising: Broadening the Scope of Research
Directions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Williamson, B. 2019. Accessible America: A History of Disability and Design. New York: New York University Press.
Appendices
Appendix A. Survey
(1) Where do you live?
. I choose not to answer
. [city redacted]
. Other:
(2) What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? (If you’re currently enrolled in school, please
indicate the highest degree you have received.)
. I choose not to answer
. Less than a high school diploma
. High school degree or equivalent (e.g. GED)
. Some college, no degree
. Associate degree (e.g. AA, AS)
. Bachelor’s degree (e.g. BA, BS)
. Master’s degree (e.g. MA, MS, MEd)
. Professional degree (e.g. MD, DDS, DVM)
. Doctorate (e.g. PhD, EdD)
(3) What is your current employment status?
. I choose not to answer
. Employed full time (40 or more hours per week)
. Employed part time (up to 39 h per week)
. Unemployed and currently looking for work
362 A. P. BELL ET AL.

15. . Unemployed and not currently looking for work
. Student
. Retired
. Homemaker
. Self-employed
. Unable to work
(4) What is your age?
. I choose not to answer
. Under 18
. 18–24
. 25–29
. 30–34
. 35–39
. 40–44
. 45–49
. 50–54
. 55–59
. 60–64
. 65 or older
(5) Do you self-identify as (choose all that apply):
. I choose not to answer
. Woman
. Man
. Transgender
. Another gender identity
(6) Do you self-identify as (choose all that apply):
. I choose not to answer
. Gay
. Lesbian
. Straight/Heterosexual
. Bisexual
. Queer
. Another identity / term
Appendix B. Interview
(1) If you were to bring someone to this event, what would you tell them?
(2) What are you working on at this event and are you planning on showing your work here? Why or why not?
(3) Are you interested in finding new collaborators at these events and what could be done to facilitate this?
(4) What does accessibility mean to you?
(5) What would make this event more accessible?
MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 363