Disrupting the Echo-Chamber
A Critical Ethnography on Music Theory Pedagogy
Higher education boasts inclusion of various backgrounds and skills yet ultimately excludes through a predetermined track of excellence. Many student scholars encounter these systems which quietly decide whose ideas are worth listening to. While much research exposes these inequalities, studies rarely show how to change them. Meaningful change is more than just a verbal promise, it must be reformation of our current higher academic structures and values.
Drawing from recent pedagogical scholarship, I ask how we might veer away from this historical echo-chamber to foster change in music theory pedagogy for first-year students. This synthesis brings together race, method-making, and becoming into a university-model that calls for self-assessment and the reconsideration of the production and evaluation of knowledge. I argue that contemporary universities convey a rhetorical act of inclusion, and explain why academic reform is vital to evolving the sustainability of higher education.
This collective research and synthesis shares an actionable proposal, exploring acts of becoming at the university-level and method-making through reimagined course-curriculums.
What is Music Theory Instruction?
Music theory is analysis from the hands of the beholder. It is purely a favorable way of cataloging and categorizing empirical data from certain periods of music to then be repeated or taught to an agreeable majority. And while Western music theory is widely regarded, it is not the only means of interpretation. When familiar concepts are broken down into a larger scope of application, they support the amateur and seasoned music-enjoyer. This is the true joy of teaching music theory.
Making music theory accessible to a wider array of audiences deconstructs the historical jargon which separates the theorist from the listener. Strengthening student-awareness, growing repertoire with clear choice boundaries, scaffolded learning, content-recall activities, and student summarizations allow students to engage material with a fresh perspective and internalize their application of learned concepts (such as sonata form or a figured bass progression).
While this varies based on the concept, it is important that we know why we are teaching music theory. Only then can we begin to construct how to relay that information to students. When commenting on the how behind teaching music theory and aural skills, Jennifer Snodgrass adds:
We help students develop a toolbox of skills through various assignments, analyses, creative processes, musical experiences, and assessments. It is up to students to know what tools to use from the toolbox based on what is needed in any chosen field, but we will continually provide real-life applications for how students may use the material presented.[1]
[1] Jennifer Snodgrass, "The Golden Circle," in Teaching Music Theory: New Voices and Approaches (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 2-3.This constant reformation of pedagogical innovation requires increasing learner engagement. Integrating active teaching strategies into the music theory curriculum benefits the teacher and the student, but achieving pedagogical goals which result in a flexible, primed state of learning can be easier said than done. This empowerment of the learner puts less power into the hands of the teacher and gives complete control into the hands of the student. This unique experience invites ambiguity while also uniting the class in a fluid discovery of knowledge.
Students yearn to have clear demonstrations on the relevance of what is being taught. Whether this is by making meaning through structure, discovering unique ways to utilize material, or fostering a wholistic passion for music, this curiosity of the learner decentralizes the objectiveness of the professor. Music theory teachers cannot assume that their students all define and relate to music in the same way[1]. I suggest a toolbox of skills that is less suppressed and more open-ended to the learner, inviting various contexts of application which then relates to real-world experiences.
Can this mode of pedagogy reform the music theory curriculum at large? Are university structures forever locked into a set path of circular academic reasoning to no end? Will there be new dialogues to challenge the why behind the academia of music, or will the needs of the student musician never be heard? These questions explore the research of experts in the field and conclude with an overall reflection on their positions with comments of realization and implementation.
[1] Snodgrass, "The Golden Circle," 4.Limits of Academic Categorization
Biocentric thought is extremely applicable to the pedagogical issues of today. Our current taxonomy of academia is sterilized by analytical habits that contribute mightily to the destructive standardization of discipline. Thought is “ranked and funded accordingly"[1], and the development of ideas are reinforced by self-referential repetition. McKittrick claims that when this cycle is disrupted, true liberation is made possible. I see this in higher academia as an extremely relevant concern.
As a graduate student and theory instructor of all ages, I found the division of discipline creates fictive distances between majors, concentrations, or even work settings. The act of relentless categorization as organizational tools makes discipline and knowledge about categories, limiting the accessibility and true scope of academia[1]. This application is especially true when regarding the analytical habits of identity, race, and racism. The focus on voices of the oppressed as key sources for studying injustice chooses a specific frame of interpretation that creates disparity, undermining the value of those chosen. By reducing people to data, their humanity is lost and thereby sustains existing academic structures of inequality. McKittrick emphasizes this, claiming that to break this cycle, one must immerse themselves into the intellectual art of the individual. Offering rebellious and disobedient and promising ways of undoing discipline, method-making may not necessarily take us where we want to go, but it will take us to an unknown that does not terrify[2]. I utilize this to seek out liberation within our current system of music theory pedagogy, generating ideas that undercuts the standardization of discipline.
Biehl and Locke provide meaningful anthropological discussion regarding this through the notion of becoming. Through the lens of biological and social contexts, their work serves to emphasize power of people and how to live despite plastic constraints[3], and to model applications which encourage open mindedness and hope amidst uncertainty.
This excerpt catalogs various human/nonhuman interactions by demonstrating how we as individuals are shaped through a multitude of systems or forces which might predate or originate within our existence. Specifically speaking through the backdrop of world-historical forces, Biehl and Locke’s purpose of expanding the study of anthropology to a transformation of one’s self is backed by the writings of French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. In his teachings, Deleuze advocates that the incompleteness of understanding is the driving force for all anthropological discussion. In this vein of thought, becoming is not to reach a final form but to populate a zone of proximity that supports a mutual transformation bound amongst people and societies.
[1] Katherine McKittrick, Dear Science, 35.[2] Édouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, trans. Betsy Wing (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997), 9.[3] João Biehl and Peter A. Locke, eds, "Foreword," in Unfinished: The Anthropology of Becoming, (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2017), x.[1] Katherine McKittrick, Dear Science and Other Stories (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2021), 38.In conversation with McKittrick, the common thread of cross-cultural comparisons and contextualization resound heavily with the gatherings of Biehl and Locke. While McKittrick advocates for the revitalization of ideas through method-making preexisting systems, Biehl and Locke proclaim the same ideas as backed by Deleuze that "human being" are porous and changeable[1]. They believe in the eventual decategorization of discipline and initiate the thoughts of reconfiguring structures of power and profit to open-ended, cross-disciplinary work. Biehl and Locke come to similar conclusions as McKittrick here, sharing that “ethnographic theory emerges from and in conversation with unfinished subjects and lifeworlds”[2] and that the story of the individual should be valued outside the analytical funnels of institutions as traditional practice.
Robinson touches on this liberation of student learning through three key aspects: appropriation, responsibility, and access. Appropriation acknowledges the persuasion by ethnographers to have community knowledge holders’ songs recorded. In this argument, Indigenous music and visual art have become pinned down in contemporary compositions without the permission of its originators. Within this construct, the uses of Indigenous song in contemporary compositions remain hidden in their scores, restricting public knowledge from the understanding of said art’s inclusion. This article qualifies this action as the subjection of Indigenous law and sovereignty, cataloging this form of musical infringement solely as a cultural foundation for the creation of nationalism.
Responsibility originates in this article as a historical call-to-action for composers to promote the value of Indigenous song by giving new life through their elevated’ aesthetic art form. While this produced desirable results at first, the advocacy and cultural preservation soon turned into a salvage paradigm. The concert hall soon became fixed as a representation of modern colonialist tradition, separating performer from audience in the same way as Indigenous song remained excluded from Indigenous family knowledge. Robinson advocates that by redressing the misuse of Indigenous songs and culture through Indigenous methodologies and protocols of gathering, the composer’s responsibility becomes a political alliance in dialogue, creation, and production.
Access represents the overarching commentary in this article, which is that composition is still created for the benefit of the human subject rather than for the greater good of eco-musicology. This stripping away of Indigenous knowledge by museums restricts the sharing or rights of access purely because of an assumed public benefit which self-justifies any invasion of any cultural history. Robinson questions this ethnographic collection as a lack thereof to address histories of misuse, sustaining a cycle of abuse and cultural intrusions.
[1] Biehl and Locke, "Introduction," 17.[2] Biehl and Locke, "Introduction," 31.The pre-organization of knowledge deeply morphs and impacts those who move through it. McKittrick claims this academic rigidity chokes the imagination of both instructor and student and urges for interdisciplinary approaches that liberate knowledge-creation. Biehl and Locke commentates on this act of becoming as unfinished, relating to the students' state of being in higher academia as an individual.
Robinson warns that the counteraction of institutional control over cultural memory dissemination is ultimately deconstructive and requires more insightful practices. Deconstructing the echo-chamber in first-year music theory pedagogy incites this reimagined pedagogy to honor experiences of the individual and celebrate uncertainty in a curriculum that is not only fair, but alive.
The Politics of Representation
Categorizations of discipline have become deeply rooted in diversity-related thought. Diversity should be foremost important over institutional success, but it is merely a stepping-stone to it. There is something inherently unnatural felt by others when diversity is utilized as a tool for achievement. Yes, it is being valued, but in an entirely uncorrelated context which elevates the user’s own platform of service. Ahmed points out through various mission statements that diversity is inherently used as a "technology for this pursuit"[1]. Here, Ahmed addresses one example of this observation:
‘‘The mission of the [xxx] is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.’’ The opening sentence of its equality statement is: ‘‘The [xxx] is committed in its pursuit of academic excellence to equality of opportunity and to a pro-active and inclusive approach to equality, which supports and encourages all under-represented groups, promotes an inclusive culture, and values diversity.’’ Here the relation between the university mission and the diversity mission is explicit: diversity becomes one means for pursuing its prior end of excellence; diversity becomes a technology for this pursuit. So ‘‘in its’’ pursuit of excellence, the university values diversity.[2]Ahmed’s idea of diversity as institutional speech refers to “words [having] the potential to do things”[3], as in the gathering of sense for which one would most benefit from the overall wellbeing of said institution, or that there are clear instructions to follow. This institutional knowledge seeks out
[1] Sara Ahmed, "The Language of Diversity," in On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life, (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012), 57.[2] Ahmed, "The Language of Diversity," 57.[3] Ahmed, "The Language of Diversity," 54.whichever words would be most popularly aligned with others, as if it were fashion, and uses diversity to maintain the aesthetic realm of appearance, rather than as an evolving form of conversation and understanding[1]. This can be applied to institutions having buzz-words which relate towards or refer to specific topics or even renaming departments so that they better support the overall guise of an institution's core values. The word “diversity” in mission statements through this context are included solely from the core-values of self-absorption. This is included in mission statements because it would be harmful to said institution if they were ever not to. Just as a comma goes before a conjunction, so too does diversity go before any type of institutionalized effort. Ahmed states,
Diversity provides a positive, shiny image of the organization that allows inequalities to be concealed and thus reproduced.[2]Changes in our community’s approaches to diversity since this article have seen success in the face of contradiction. While we have programs and departments which advocate similar points as Ahmed, they have become severely understaffed and underfunded. It is a topic of great resonance and concern across all people, yet there is an overarching bubble for which these conversations occur, not even to mention the current administration’s efforts. I have observed this to be consistent across various universities, but more specifically throughout the concert-descriptions and course objectives of featuring diverse musical repertoire.
The intent is positive, yet the aesthetic style evoked can harness a nature of exploitation around its commercial value. This is challenging, as we promote the verbiage of a diverse array of performance and musical opportunities across all disciplines, but maintain its derivative to the concert hall. Diversity has commercial value and can be used as a way not only of marketing the university but of making the university into a marketplace[3]. Enticing people to partake in the extortion of culture as if it were eye-candy or abnormal loses the value of genuine multiplicity. Instead of enticing audiences through the aesthetic commodities of diversification, the music theory curriculum must value all musical traditions as living practices for the student to explore and formulate opinions.
[1] Ahmed, "The Language of Diversity," 59.[2] Ahmed, "The Language of Diversity," 72.[3] Ahmed, "The Language of Diversity," 53.Marketing diversity serves tangibly to express the values of applicants while simultaneously preserving the internal construct of academia itself. Promising representation without actionable intent is a selfish self-preservation by music schools. The curriculum and classroom structure remain the same. What does this mean for the evolution of academia as it relates to the music theory curriculum?
In Loren Kajikawa’s The Possessive Investment in Classical Music, chronological retelling of the formation of the first music schools enlightens us that academia was originally to empower places of segregated discipline and focus. Although having public access to the examination, exploration, and definition of various cultural identities helped progress away from this initial intention for music schools, this exclusion from the outside world still prevails today. The historical gatekept accessibility of music performance and proficiency has permeated into the hierarchy of music academia.
Regarding music education, this rings true as for the ways higher education started first as an entirely separate ecosystem dedicated towards uplifting the upper-class. Music schools have “made attempts to diversify their curricula”[1], but ultimately embed audition requirements and repertoire into a preconceived Eurocentric notion of excellence. There have been amendments to the process of evaluation, but the standard canon is still at work as a basis of judgment for talent and skill on the collegiate level.
Colonialism exists in music studies within higher education by requiring indigenous people to fit within heteronormative archetypes of authentic indigeneity[2]. This demonstrates an expectation that subdues cultural influence for the sake of canonical literacy, and Chávez and Skelchy bring this topic to its historical roots, stating:
Coloniality survives colonialism because it resonates in academic books, criteria for academic performance, cultural patterns and in self-image and aspirations of colonized people.[3]Western music traditions dominate ear training and music analysis, pointing towards a preferred approach to the creation of knowledge that potentially excludes students’ interest. What does this mean for the next generation of music students whose composition and music history knowledge default to
[1] Loren Kajikawa, "The Possessive Investment in Classical Music," in Seeing Race Again: Countering Colorblindness across the Disciplines, (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2019), 168.[2] Luis Chávez, and Russell P. Skelchy, “Decolonization for Ethnomusicology and Music Studies in Higher Education,” in Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education (18, no. 3 2019), 122.[3] Chávez, and Skelchy, “Decolonization," 121.Western European music traditions? Under the holistic guise of standardization, this horrifically results in a hegemonic relationship with anything outside of these practices as "Other" or "extended techniques"[1]. For schools of music, this serves no favors other than colonialist values. The masses then conform into vessels that adhere only to a preselected hierarchy of artistic values.
The historically symbolic tool of diversity serves as a retainer for standards of the past rather than needs of the present. Diverse repertoire ultimately leads to cosmetic changes, maintains underlying Eurocentric structures, and provides shiny detractors that make Western values superior. By deconstructing hierarchies of canon-based curriculums, these observations biases confront the biases and showcase of diverse content and pave
[1] Chávez, and Skelchy, “Decolonization," 116.Student-Centered Knowledge and Transparent Teaching
Strategies most practical to implementing change in music theory classrooms include but are not limited to classroom jigsaws, acquiring feedback during the course from students, and think-pair-share activities. By implementing these tools, students can become empowered to gain unique ownership over their knowledge of the course material.
Concerning Riesbeck’s critique-driven approach, this can be adapted to the music theory teaching context by providing students with sight-singing exercises or impromptu analysis to be worked out and submitted for feedback. Critical strategies of learning melodic lines by internal audiation or matching patterns of typical harmonic structures can be workshopped and developed through each weekly period, with all students progressing at their own allotted rate. This would continue for all students to find solutions for their respective assignments by a cycle of repertoire and exposure to new techniques.
While this could be true, a limitation to this critique-driven approach is the monotony which can set in for any student, as the inspiration for a particular topic could be snuffed out by a continued cycle of feedback at any given stage of assessment. A focus on student development is encouraged then, in which the instructor is prompted to meet the student truly where they are at instead of just typing in a ‘catch-all’ letter grade. Chunking larger concepts into groups for students to specifically learn only a percentage of the topic being explored before sharing with the class could also support this feedback-driven method.
Transparent approaches to why a particular learning activity is being utilized in the classroom can make music theory assessments much more inclusive. Students then can see why learning in this manner would be beneficial to them. Additionally, espousing a growth mindset when facilitating learning opportunities can better prepare students in assessments that feature topics they feel inepter towards.
A few instructional approaches to consider for a topic that did not go over as well as it had planned, when thinking with a more student-centered intention, include utilizing broad frameworks that optimize student choice and autonomy and minimize threats and distractions and active learning approaches which task students with determining what they need to learn in order to solve it based on real-world examples. Blum's critiques on grading approaches are enlightening, showcasing how assessments can be counter intuitive to learning. It presents how these systems can be counter-intuitive to the desired result of actual learning.
A narrative-evaluation could prove difficult for the nature of certain music courses due to objectiveness of some assessments, but a pass/low pass/fail system such as with Harvard, Yale, and Stanford has been implemented in the grading of various aural skills classes, for example and it works better than others. An idea that is of particular interest in terms of revamping the context of the music theory classroom, taken from What Inclusive Instructors Do: Principles and Practices for Excellence in College Teaching, is the utilization of technology as an inclusive tool.[1] Online modules for music theory courses center around recorded responses to a certain prompt, or an analytical quiz, but nothing more. The suggestions of ideas regarding the inclusion of technology by Tracie Addy and others could lead to possible avenues of word clouds, group polls, and other applications that empower the voice of the student throughout the course of the semester.
My experience is representative of all demographics. My pedagogical approaches are uniquely rooted towards the learning style of one's own level of music appreciation and overall intrigue. I could share the definition of key signatures with the exact same verbiage to adults and children, but the overall effect would not be the same. There is a thrill in creating a specific desire with students to engage with a concept in new ways.
Just as art is universal and ever changing, so is the knowledge behind it. Paradigms of thought for reaching a certain analysis or definition are proving to become outdated, threatening the existence of academia with the current standardization of knowledge. This is on the verge of collapse, as public resources now are evolving to ensure this training is accessible to all. While ChatGPT, Gemini, and other artificial intelligence platforms are currently not the best at music theory, there are soon to be technological applications of analysis that make obsolete the university structures
[1] Tracie Marcella Addy, Derek Dube, Khadijah A. Mitchell, and Mallory E. SoRelle, "How Do They Conduct Class Inclusively," in What Inclusive Instructors Do: Principles and Practices for Excellence in College Teaching, (New York and London: Routledge, 2021), 124.of before. McKittrick advocates for the creation of new ways to gain knowledge by diverting focus from pre-existing academic methods to a deeper appreciation and immersion of one’s personal life and art. I have been tempted to create logical sense of these unique occurrences within the confines of knowledge and am guilty of what McKittrick argues against.
This viewpoint of method-making is extremely helpful in analyzing the ways I perceive new information, and the opinions or methodologies I once employed to associate meaning. By thinking differently about how and why we gather knowledge, analyzing art purely for the sake of art can disassociate these categorizations. When considering the action of thinking differently, Ryan Holiday says
Our perceptions determine, to an incredibly large degree, what we are and are not capable of. In many ways, they determine reality itself. When we believe in the obstacle more than in the goal, which will inevitable triumph?[1]Teaching beyond the classroom disrupts this obstacle of the echo-chamber. Engaging modern pedagogy with collaborative learning environments changes the university-model and is crucial towards revitalizing a sense of becoming in both the instructor and the student. In attending professional development opportunities of music theory pedagogy (such as the 2022 SMT Pedagogy into Practice Conference, 2022 AMS-SMT-SEM Conference, and the 2023 TSMT Conference), my teaching has strengthened in scope and merit. Modern perspectives saturated my ideologies of teaching music theory, and this only matured in recent years.
My colleagues and I presented at the 2022 SMT Pedagogy into Practice Conference results from our music theory outreach with San Antonio High Schools. Teaching advanced high school classes while enrolled in undergrad studies sparked an interest to challenge the traditional pedagogical setting, leading to my teaching contract with Mission Point Christian Church to do just that. Partnering with a worship team, original course-materials and PowerPoint lectures were hosted by me in a syllabus-style theory class which catered to the strengths of non-classically trained volunteer musicians and religious worship groups. Stemming from this, I taught retired veterans beginning trombone lessons as a part of UTSA On-Corps.
Challenging this role of teaching technical skills to mature audiences, I adapted my pedagogical traits to evolve since the members being taught possessed no previous music skills. Accompanying this role as a beginning band mentor with On-Corps was a contract with UTSA School of Music as their music theory teaching
[1] Ryan Holiday, "Think Differently," in The Obstacle Is the Way: The Timeless Art of Turning Trials into Triumph, (New York: Portfolio, 2014), 50.assistant and tutor for the latter half of my undergraduate degree. Tasks of the university-model were made clear: grade assessment papers, proctor various aural/dictation exams, and provide tutoring sessions for the undergraduate and graduate level. Direct exposure to critiques of formulating a better way out of our current curriculum was gleaned from many conversations with students who expressed opinions about their higher academia stressors.
My move to Austin provided these claims an outlet of the excellent opportunity to teach younger musicians (K-12) music theory at Clavier-Werke School of Music. Coupled with my current role teaching first-year Aural Skills at UT, this has made up the last two years of my recent theory pedagogy. I am happy to say I ran the gauntlet of teaching music theory to all. And as I grow more accustomed to the current structures of higher academia through first-year music theory pedagogy, I still feel inadequate.
The key to meeting the student's needs is by first acknowledging that you do not know the students' needs. As Kajikawa states, universities' supposed deficiencies are claimed to be anticipated without fully realizing their underlying issues, contributing to a cycle of critique devoid of institutional introspection:
Many departments already have made attempts to diversify their curricula, but they have allowed their core requirements to remain wedded to relatively narrow ideas of music proficiency... The work necessary to push academic institutions to do more to counter social inequality is invariably interdisciplinary, open to collaboration, and resistant toward traditional hierarchies of taste and authority.[1]This liquidation of current higher academia practices is nearer than ever before believed. To be open, collaborative, and resistant requires change and outward perspective. Teaching outside of the classroom provides proactive forms of method-making to shape lesson planning and dissemination of Eurocentric ideas. Intertwining music theory pedagogy with the untraditional setting forces instructors from their existing perspective into becoming outside of themselves.
In ongoing, open-ended discoveries, the instructor must engage with first-year music students in the question of how the next generation of music students will best utilize this knowledge of Western theory so they can better navigate and transform the worlds around them, in which they will soon inhabit. To challenge structures of music theory curriculums today means to ceaselessly find creative and opportunistic methods of breaking the mold. The perspective of the instructor largely dictates the learning outcomes of the course, and by focusing exclusively on that power this magnifies and enhances that power[1]. As aspects are called into question, it is important that preconceptions do not dominate the current objective.
When I began to see more of the obstacle through higher academic structures, I lost sight on what was immediately in front of me; the student. While the current theory curriculum cements pathways of thought-creation through rigid development, it does not constrict relaying said information by innovative means. As the instructor becomes subjugated to historical methods, the lull of tradition can be broken by exotic learning experiences.
Sensitivity towards academic exclusion bolsters tracks of inclusion, while method-making reimagined course curriculums sees the students' needs and adheres to them. While first-year music students might not yet be quite aware of these inequalities, the instructor can create environments of becoming for their learners to engage with and actively utilize material. By reconsidering the production and evaluation of knowledge, university-models can be sustainable to the current onslaught of technologically enabled decentralized learning.
Vital reform in the perspectives of structuring music theory curriculums require outside support, and those who pass through it are the active contributors. When this dialogue is not marketed but fostered, decategorization and inclusion can be made forever unfinished, adapting academic structures to meet generational climates within and beyond.
[1] Holiday, "Is It Up To You?," 44.[1] Loren Kajikawa, "The Possessive Investment," 189-91.Bibliography
Addy, Tracie Marcella, Derek Dube, Khadijah A. Mitchell, and Mallory E. SoRelle. What Inclusive Instructors Do: Principles and Practices for Excellence in College Teaching. New York and London: Routledge, 2021.
Ahmed, Sara. On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012.
Biehl, João, and Peter A. Locke, eds. Unfinished: The Anthropology of Becoming. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2017.
Blum, Susan D., ed. Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead). Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press, 2020.
Chávez, Luis, and Russell P. Skelchy. “Decolonization for Ethnomusicology and Music Studies in Higher Education.” In Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 18, no. 3 2019. https://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/ChavezSkelchy18_3.pdf
Crenshaw, Kimberlé, Luke Charles Harris, Daniel Martinez HoSang, and George Lipsitz, eds. Seeing Race Again: Countering Colorblindness across the Disciplines. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2019.
Dolmage, Jay Timothy. Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2017.
Glissant, Édouard. Poetics of Relation. Translated by Betsy Wing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997.
Grant, Aaron, and Joan Huguet. “Either/Neither/Both: Teaching Formal Ambiguity in the Undergraduate Theory Core.” Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy 36, no. 1 2022. https://doi.org/10.71156/2994-7073.1405
Herrnstein, Richard, and Charles Murray. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press, 1994.
Holiday, Ryan. The Obstacle Is the Way: The Timeless Art of Turning Trials into Triumph. New York: Portfolio, 2014.
McKittrick, Katherine. Dear Science and Other Stories. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2021.
Reid, Molly. “Nonwestern Music and Decolonial Pedagogy in the Music Theory Classroom.” Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy 36, no. 1 2022. https://doi.org/10.71156/2994-7073.1408
Robinson, Dylan. Hungry Listening: Resonant Theory for Indigenous Sound Studies. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2020.
Snodgrass, Jennifer. Teaching Music Theory: New Voices and Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
