Building Identity in Collegiate Midlevel Choral Ensembles

Abstract

This study was designed to explore the director’s perspective on the role organizational images play in social identity development in midlevel choral ensembles. Using a phenomenological methodology, I interviewed 10 current or former directors of midlevel choral ensembles from eight midwestern U.S. colleges and universities. Directors cited different choral configurations, high performance standards, unique group identity, strong personal connections, and good faculty relationships as the primary tools used to build identity. Directors also revealed their perceived challenges with regard to midlevel choirs: director continuity, discrepancy in student musical ability and dedication, negative perceptions, and the need for director flexibility. No director mentioned preparing students to sing in the top ensemble as a purpose or priority of the midlevel ensemble; however, many stated that a good midlevel choir achieved this result and also raised the quality of the entire choral program. Implications of these findings reveal the importance of recognizing and addressing a midlevel identity phenomenon and the impact identity building efforts can make to facilitate stronger midlevel ensembles.

Keywords

ensemble identity midlevel choir hierarchy

Research about the concept of identity in music education enables researchers to study interactions between individuals and music and discern how individuals make meaning of their musical experiences (Hargreaves, Miell, & MacDonald, 2002). This provides important insight into how people think, act, judge, and make decisions (Thompson & Campbell, 2010). When examining identity in relationship to musical ensembles, researchers typically investigate individual identities of ensemble participants and how music becomes the medium for self-identity development through the acquisition of musical skills, empowerment, pride, self-confidence, discipline, and commitment (Adderly, Kennedy, & Berz, 2003; Hargreaves et al., 2002; Hylton, 1981; Kennedy, 2002; Lamont, 2002). In addition to developing individual identities as members of an ensemble, ensemble participants also form social or group identities.

Social Identity

Social theory proposes that all individuals belong to groups and hold shared identification with the other members of their group (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Common attributes to social identity include earned membership, shared awareness of pride, and development of self-esteem. Furthermore, by belonging to a group, members find a sense of belonging in the world (Tajfel, 1981). Without a social identity, one can feel misplaced and lost, which can cause the self-identity to suffer (Hornsey, 2008).

In music, social identities form in the ensemble, extending the definition of social identity to specifically include ensemble identity. A recent topic in choral music education research, Hairston (2011) found that musical interpretation, attitude, and group efficacy helped choir members build ensemble identity. Parker (2014) theorized that singers develop a social identity through ensemble participation in an eight-stage process, centering on the phenomenon team where shared love of music, unified purpose, and “contextual conditions, such as time spent together, the size of the group, and the intensity of rehearsal, also appeared to play a role in the strength of the team” (Parker, 2014, p. 26). The phenomenon of team resulted in singers feeling acknowledgment and accomplishment, pride, “who I am,” and a desire to give back. Parker found that the consequences of team could be achieved through successful performances or satisfaction in daily work but also realized it came through praise from parents, administrators, and choral teachers from other schools. Praise and acknowledgment then in turn play an important role for singers to develop social identity with their ensemble.

Organizational Images

When people feel proud of their organization and believe that outsiders see it in a positive light, they may “bask in the reflected glory” of their group (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). However, the opposite also remains true, as negative external impressions could “lead to undesirable organizational outcomes, such as increased competition among members or reduced effort on long-term tasks” (Dutton et al., 1994, p. 240). Both positive and negative perceptions result in a synergy that over time develops into a reputation of a group. This reputation “can lead to a distorted impression of what others believe” (Dutton et al., 1994, p. 249). This distortion directly affects social identity development and changes how members behave, even if the group’s reputation is built on impressions and not realities (Dutton et al., 1994).

Choral Hierarchy on Image Development

Among choral programs, from beginning-level elementary school through the collegiate level, directors divide students into ensembles by age, voicing, performance ability, and years of membership (Crabb, 2002; Gauthier, 2005; Haworth, 1992). These divisions can potentially create hierarchies between whole ensembles (Wilson, 2012). Hierarchy can positively divide students into ensembles that provide more students with performance success (Davis, 1998) and offer motivation for continued hard work (Bartolome, 2013). However, this same division has the potential to define a choral paradigm in which students feel that they can only identify with a music ensemble if they participate in the self-perceived best group and that the purpose of all other ensembles consists only of preparing students to move up to the next level (Bartel, 2004; Thompson & Campbell, 2010).

While some ensembles arguably have a preparatory purpose, midlevel choirs also exist in the choral hierarchical design. For the purposes of this article, I define a midlevel choir as a choral ensemble of students who exhibit singing skill but were not selected to be in the top-level ensemble. While the term midlevel does not appear in the literature, anecdotal stories and advice for building identity with ensembles that do not have “the top” label pepper the available literature (O’Toole, 1998; Snow, 2012; Spurgeon, 2012; Swan, 2012). This literature primarily focuses on singers’ negative perceptions in treble choral ensembles, where “women’s choirs generally fall to the bottom of the choral hierarchy” (O’Toole, 1998, p. 23). Women in these ensembles sing beyond a beginning level, but because women often outnumber men, they are placed in their own choir (Snow, 2012; Spurgeon, 2012; Wilson, 2012). These choirs by my definition are midlevel.

Women’s midlevel choir participants at the collegiate level face these identity issues. During the 1920s, national trends in colleges and universities resulted in the combination of men’s and women’s glee clubs into mixed ensembles, starting the a cappella choir movement (Fenton, 1996). Perhaps this legacy led to a perception among singers that mixed ensembles hold greater prestige. Gauthier (2005) found that even though collegiate women were placed in a women’s choir for reasons extending beyond talent, their perception was that they were in a lesser ensemble. Survey results of singers from three different colleges showed that participants preferred mixed choirs and felt they had a more prestigious reputation and drew bigger audiences (Gauthier, 2005).

Across the nation, top-level collegiate mixed ensembles set the precedent for performing quality music, commissioning new works, and touring for recognition and recruitment. These choirs have strongly defined reputations as they maintain professional-level rehearsal and performance schedules, often tour both nationally and internationally, and exemplify excellence in collegiate music-making (Fenton, 1996; Shaw, 1997; Spurgeon, 2012). But these premier collegiate choirs are usually not the only choral offering at the collegiate level.

Beyond single-gender choral ensembles, college choral offerings also might include a midlevel mixed ensemble. At the collegiate level, similar to what occurs in secondary schools, students are still divided through a hierarchical structure, often through rigorous auditions and by achievement (Crabb, 2002). After auditions, midlevel collegiate choirs are often composed of non–music majors, younger singers, and students not selected for the top-level choir. Furthermore, unlike in the school grades K through 12, where through hard work and years of dedication students can hope to become a member of the top ensemble (Wilson, 2012), at the collegiate level, many students never move into a top collegiate ensemble, either by their own choice or as a result of auditions.

Director Perception

Even though ensemble identity develops within the individual singers, directors play an important role in setting the choral atmosphere and facilitating activities that lend themselves to identity building (Parker, 2014). Directors directly affect ensembles through things such as repertoire they chose, the rehearsal pacing, or the performance schedule. Although directors may try to treat ensembles of all levels equally (Garrett, 2013) and conductors now pay greater attention to the needs of midlevel women’s choirs (Spurgeon, 2012), attitudes of students regarding midlevel ensembles remain negative (Gauthier, 2005; Wilson, 2012). Whether due to negative participant perceptions of midlevel women’s choral ensembles or the inherent structural problems with a hierarchical design, directors reported that differing levels of choristers’ engagement and work ethic, poor literature availability, and negative attitudes were frustrating obstacles when trying to build a strong ensemble identity (Spurgeon, 2012; Wilson, 2012).

Written Epoche

After working as assistant professor of choral activities for 2 years at a large midwestern university, I began to question some of the difficulties I faced with my first collegiate mixed voicing, midlevel choral ensemble—mainly the members’ seemingly complex impression that the choir was “not the best” ensemble, which I felt prevented members from building a strong group identity. While I had prior experience conducting many different levels of secondary high and middle school choirs, I had never experienced such negative attitudes toward an ensemble.

At my institution, the director of choral activities and I held auditions and then placed some students directly in my ensemble while adding others a few days later after they were cut from a second round of auditions for the premier university choir. I was shocked at how openly resentful many of the students, especially those who added after the second round, were toward my ensemble before they had even experienced a single rehearsal. This unofficial ranking of “not the best choir” resulted in substantial turnover and frustration from members who, no matter what experiences I tried to provide, could not identify with the group.

To make matters worse, the goals of members seemed to differ greatly. Some students attempted to audition into the top ensemble, while others did not, resulting in students having different levels of dedication to and expectations from the ensemble. Some students simply believed that because this ensemble was not the top, it could not possibly ever be good. These varying perceptions, work ethics, and goals caused my ensemble to suffer what I considered to be an identity crisis. As time progressed, I worked hard to build the identity of the ensemble through techniques such as quality rehearsal time, unique performances opportunities, and bonding activities. Although the tension eased and I started seeing my member retention grow from year to year, certain problems and perceptions never seemed to disappear completely.

Purpose

Without a strong ensemble identity, students might not stay with their musical ensemble and miss the potential to benefit musically, creatively, and socially from the experience (Bartel, 2004; Gauthier, 2005; Thompson & Campbell, 2010; Wilson, 2012). In order to build strong and constructive social identities in choral ensembles, all ensembles need individual identities nourished through a source of pride and positive identity that does not conflict with identities of other subgroups (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). A review of the available literature coupled with a reflection of my own experiences exposes a disconnect between how choir members build ensemble identities within their ensembles and the role organizational image plays in ensemble identity development. Understanding the importance the director has in facilitating ensemble identity development, I chose to investigate how choral directors help members of collegiate midlevel ensembles overcome negative reputations and develop ensemble identity. To understand the creation of image and the facilitation of ensemble identity, two questions guide this research: (1) What challenges do directors face in midlevel collegiate choral ensembles in building identity? and (2) What experiences do directors have with encouraging their singers to develop a positive ensemble identity?

Methodology

Based on my belief that there was an essence to the experience of building ensemble identity of midlevel collegiate choirs that other directors might share, I decided to conduct a qualitative phenomenological study (Moustakas, 1994). This approach aims “to determine what an experience means for the persons who have had the experience and are able to provide a comprehensive description of it” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 13). This type of interpretive research often derives from first-person narratives of life experiences, and researchers attempt to understand the truth of the experience from the perspective of the individual having that experience (Moustakas, 1994). While a researcher can never fully bracket their presuppositions and experiences on a topic, after writing my epoche, a Greek word meaning “to avoid,” I tried to set aside biases, prejudgments, and suppositions so that my attitudes were excluded and I could view the new data through fresh eyes (Moustakas, 1994).

Participants

After obtaining institutional review board approval, I used purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002) to select one midlevel choir director from a nearby university to participate in an interview. To obtain more participants, I used snowball sampling (Patton, 2002). In this approach, each person interviewed provided a recommendation for the next participant within a midwestern U.S. parameter. When I believed I could anticipate participant answers to interview questions, I considered the data redundant and stopped collecting (Sandelowski, 2008). Using this method resulted in data collected from 10 current or previous directors of midlevel choral ensembles at eight different colleges/universities across the Midwest. To protect directors’ identities, I used pseudonyms throughout the research.

Directors serving as participants included different ages, genders, academic positions, and years of experience and taught in a variety of school settings (public/private, size, and location). Academic positions/titles included director of choral activities (DCA), assistant director of choral activities (ADCA), and music education faculty (ME) with midlevel ensemble directing experience (see Appendix A for a full chart, available in the online version of the journal). Some directors conducted more than one ensemble, while others did not. The variety of participant selection offered a rich and varied perspective, helped avoid bias, and increased the possibility of transferability of findings by representing a range of different manifestations of the phenomenon. The only commonality among schools was a hierarchical system of multiple choirs.

Procedure

In-depth interviews lasted between 1 and 2 hours per director and were audio recorded on a Zoom Q3HD digital recorder. I designed the interviews to include descriptive questions structured to provide information about current program configurations and open-ended questions derived from problems discussed in current research. These questions were meant to allow freedom in directors’ responses but specifically aimed to uncover each director’s challenges and goals toward building identity in their ensembles (Appendix B, available in the online version of the journal). To guarantee that I did not influence interviewees’ answers regarding midlevel choirs, I never offered a definition of midlevel, nor did I ask the directors to supply their own definition.

To establish trustworthiness, after each interview and before moving on to interview a new ensemble director, I transcribed the data and submitted a copy to the participant for a member check. Although this did not help to establish truth in the findings, it did confirm data authenticity (Patton, 2002). Of all the participants, only one director asked to clarify two statements in the transcription, which I added in brackets.

Data Analysis Method

In this framework of research, data analysis occurs through phenomenological reduction or “horizontalizing,” a process that requires transcribing and giving each statement equal value. I next developed a list of nonrepetitive and nonoverlapping statements called “horizons” (Moustakas, 1994). From the horizons, I grouped the data into themes, which formed from working back and forth with the data in my mind until the essential layers emerged (Moustakas, 1994). To establish trustworthiness, a peer debriefer, familiar with the study and extant literature, evaluated the themes, and then we met to discuss final themes for thoroughness and accuracy. From this process, I derived the essence of the unique phenomenon on how directors build ensemble identity in midlevel collegiate choirs.

Findings

I organized the results around the two research questions and the themes that emerged from data analysis. “Challenges directors face” had four themes: director continuity, discrepancy in singers’ musical abilities, negative perceptions, and director flexibility. “Fostering ensemble identity” contained five themes: types of midlevel ensembles, equal and high standards, unique group image, good relationships among faculty, and building personal connections.

Challenges Directors Face

No matter what configuration, all except one of the directors reported that they faced many identity challenges with their ensembles. While these topics might present difficulties to choirs of all levels, the interviewed directors of midlevel choirs reported that director continuity, discrepancy in singers’ musical abilities and dedication levels, negative student perceptions, and director flexibility were specifically challenging when directing midlevel choirs.

Director continuity

When asked about the most important aspects for building ensemble identity in midlevel collegiate choirs, director continuity emerged as the most prevalent theme. Director Lilly commented, “When directors change too often it gives [students] the sense that they’re not important—that they’re not as important as some of the other ensembles.” Six of the interviewees specifically addressed issues they faced with director continuity.

Turnover, however, can be inevitable. Commonly across programs, graduate students in choral conducting need experiences directing choirs. Often these graduate students take on the primary conductor role of midlevel ensembles. Benjamin firmly believed this was why membership fluctuates, because when “there’s nobody who’s really building a consistent track record, students don’t always know who’s going to lead, and that makes it hard to have momentum.”

The problem moves beyond graduate student conductors. Javas, director of choral activities at a small private college, said that his program had seen a “revolving door” of directors before him. Sam, who held a similar position at a comparable type of institution, said that he “followed a succession of 3 or 4 directors who each were here for about 2 years each.” This turnover led to disrespect from other students regarding Sam’s ensembles and against Sam as a director. To overcome the continuity problem, Sam knew he had to “stick it out” and said that after “about four years, I finally felt like the ensembles began to make music that was something I could present in public and not apologize for in many ways.”

Discrepancy in singers’ musical abilities and dedication

Five directors also noted the discrepancy in musical abilities among the singers in midlevel ensembles. Some of this derived from an imbalance of men and women. Sam explained that in a configuration where the only placement option for men after the top-level choir is a midlevel SATB choir and the women have a third option of a women’s choir, the “men are a little behind musicianship skill-wise,” and this causes “one of the big challenges.”

But even among single-gender choirs, directors thought the ability discrepancy created many challenges for the ensemble. Because of these inconsistencies, directors felt that repertoire selection became the hardest task. Lilly explained:

When you have 13 women, and many of them are non-majors, and you have a vast difference in ability and reading ability as well as singing ability, that literature selection can be a challenge, because you want to have literature that will be worthy of the fact it is a university ensemble, but yet at the same time encourage growth.

Alice, an assistant director of choral activities at a large public university, also noted this difficulty, stating, “choosing repertoire that both engages and challenges everybody is pretty impossible.”

Beyond diverse abilities, directors reported an incredibly broad range of characteristics with respect to sophistication, work ethic, and willingness to be in the ensemble. Alice thought that this challenge stemmed from “the mixture of music majors and then a higher population of non-music majors.” Lilly also noted that

one of the reasons some of those non-majors are not in the “top tier group” is because they don’t have the time. They can’t dedicate themselves to going on different tours during the year, but yet they love to sing.

This dedication discrepancy also causes tension between music and non–music majors, causing the identity of midlevel ensembles to suffer.

Negative perceptions

Eight directors addressed the negative perceptions of participants of midlevel ensembles, generally regarding women’s choirs. Lilly conducted a women’s choir and said, “The women seemed to have this complex of ‘well, Women’s Chorale is where you go if you don’t make the mixed group.’” Amos, choral music educator at a large public university, also conversed about negative perceptions from the singers, thinking that the opinion “stems from high school programs.” While the directors all discussed ways they tried to avoid this negative perception, usually at least a part of their women’s ensembles included women who did not audition successfully into more select ensembles.

Directors also reported negative perceptions stemming beyond the choir itself and into the personal identity of the singers. Freeman stated that many students felt offended that they were not selected for the top choir and did not want to be part of the choir they were assigned. Amos thought this “victim attitude” occurred in the student’s first year. Freeman said that these negative perceptions often went beyond attitude and turned into practical problems such as “attendance issues, being prompt, remembering to wear black shoes to the concert,” and many other difficulties.

Director flexibility

Directors expressed “myself” as the final theme that emerged from the data regarding challenges directors face. Many conductors of midlevel collegiate ensembles are not only new to the choir but also to the profession. Alice expressed, “I am a new conductor, discovering who I am.” She was not alone in this sentiment. Four other directors also addressed that it takes time to learn flexibility and knowledge for building an ensemble from the bottom up. Furthermore, six directors reiterated the amount of time it took, at least several years, before they felt like they knew the ensemble, refined their syllabi, found appropriate repertoire, and learned from their mistakes. Veteran Betty said that even after many years, she was still growing and searching for her best self. Benjamin specifically commented on the frustration involved in this process, saying, “I don’t know what else to say except that the first time you do anything, you make plenty of mistakes.”

Fostering Ensemble Identity

During the interviews, I asked directors to describe how they used strategies to overcome challenges and encourage the building of ensemble identity. Nine of the 10 directors stated that they used a variety of methods and that each could be effective at different times depending on the group dynamic. The 10th director believed he only needed one strategy, regarding types of midlevel ensembles, to alleviate all ensemble identity issues.

Types of midlevel ensembles

I specifically asked interviewees to describe the structure of their current choral program, followed by questions about the effect of the configuration to make the ensemble distinct. While the number and configuration of choirs in each school’s program varied slightly, responses indicated that these directors arranged university choral programs in a tiered system organized through audition.

Some schools had as many as six curricular choirs, but the models all followed a pattern, which included one of the SATB ensembles as the best. Words such as top, premier, flagship, and most selective were used as descriptors. While directors did not use pejorative terms to describe the other choral ensembles, not one director asked for a definition when I questioned them about their midlevel or second-tier choral ensembles. Instead, directors easily described choirs consisting of younger singers, non–music majors, and students with less skill and training. All but one school had a midlevel curricular ensemble for just women. Sometimes the men had an option of a men’s chorus, but sometimes the men only had an option between the top ensemble and a midlevel SATB choir.

While I did not ask interviewees to define what made the ensembles midlevel, I did ask if the different configurations had an impact on the identity of the ensembles. All directors shared a common perspective that having a unique voicing and size positively contributed to each group’s identity. DCA John, from a large public university, even stated that because of the unique voicing and size of all the choirs, the choirs in his program “face very few identity issues.”

John was the only director who expressed that all identity issues could be fixed through choral configurations. Even Lilly, his music educator colleague who directed the midlevel women’s choir at the same institution, did not agree. Lilly shared that the students viewed women’s choir as the place “where you go if you don’t make the mixed group.”

Freeman, another music educator from a smaller public institution, thought the choral program configuration played a large role in defining an ensemble’s identity. He had been with his current program long enough to see a “constantly evolving” setup and discussed the pros and cons of each configuration. In the “first version,” Freeman described “a top group” and then “everybody else.” According to Freeman, the latter choir faced many identity challenges due to wide discrepancies in ability among the singers. So, Freeman and his choral colleague moved into their second choral configuration—a three-choir model with a top mixed group and separate men’s and women’s choirs. Although the men and women occasionally combined into a larger choir, the separation of men and women did not solve all of the identity issues. The women’s choir flourished, and eventually Freeman created a tier among the women—adding a select women’s ensemble. The men’s choir struggled and never found the same success.

In 2010, Freeman and his colleagues entered into a third choral configuration. The premiere ensemble was “a 24-voice, near professional chamber choir-type approach with graduate students and junior and senior undergrads who are really fine vocal performance majors.” To ensure underclassmen solidify their musical understanding in theory, history, and ear training and mature socially, this ensemble was not open to freshmen, no matter how talented. To complement this top ensemble, Freeman conducted a freshman- and sophomore-only concert choir. He described this as “the brightest and best 40-voices of freshmen and sophomores.” All the other singers join together in a large mixed choir. Freeman described this choir in more detail:

This group includes freshmen who are not ready to be in the top group, guitarists, pianists, or just some other major. . . . There are also juniors and seniors who are not ready for the top group, but are very competent and strong and provide a core of leadership. There are graduate students who are either in choral conducting or vocal performance even, who have a big voice and really would prefer not to be boxed in a chamber choir-ish approach.

While only in its first year at the time of the interview, Freeman seemed optimistic about the newest program configuration and its ability to solve identity issues among the ensembles. He believed that by having unique voicings, repertoire, and missions, these choirs would suffer the least out of any choral configuration possible. Out of all the interviewees, Freeman’s university had the most unique approach to ensemble type.

Equal and high standards

Even though all directors answered questions about their midlevel choirs, not one director thought of himself or herself as merely a director of a midlevel ensemble. Freeman expressed the following:

I’ve always aspired to have every group think it was a top group—believe it—and not just with a moniker or a logo, but we can be the best that we can be. We are us and special and only we are us.

Other directors also expressed the importance of being the best possible group and reaching high standards. Benjamin said, “My only goal for them is to give them the best experience I can give them with the best repertoire and high level performance. If I were conducting the top tier group, my goal would be the same.”

Directors explained that this attitude helps students take pride and ownership in their choir and fosters a positive learning environment that spirals upward. The practical advice given for creating the desired high standards was to hold auditions, allow members to contribute and give input to the ensemble, and balance the demands of the group with enjoyment.

To help set the standards, directors support having some kind of audition, even if it was just for placement: “If you’re an English major, and you’re just out of high school, and you come and make an auditioned choir, you feel pretty good about that,” said Benjamin. Lilly also reported, “I think in some cases that [auditions] made the group stronger because the women felt that even though there was not an audition per se, the people that were there had to be serious about what they were doing.” Freeman articulated that when everybody auditions, “there’s a minimum competency expectation.”

Beyond auditions, Alice thought that members should “give input” and “contribute to the vision, purpose, and identity of the choir.” She worked toward this goal by leading her choir through self-evaluation processes. Benjamin did similar exercises and tried to give his students opportunities to provide “open-air feedback.” By being involved with the vision of the choir, these directors felt the students took more ownership and worked harder to achieve goals.

Finally, directors pleaded that others remember to balance the work with the fun. Directors gave practical advice like “do not tackle every problem everyday” and “remember to celebrate the progress and achievements of the group along the way” as ways to help achieve good work/fun balance. Because midlevel choirs are prone to vast ability discrepancies, Freeman suggested “coaching and peer coaching” could help circumvent problems on a larger scale and alleviate some of the stressful moments during rehearsal.

Unique group image

When it came to stating ideas for building the ensemble’s identity, seven interviewees stated that the group needs a unique image that can be defined by things such as uniform attire or a name appropriate to the group. Beyond these branding ideals, directors also believed midlevel choirs should have individual concerts and special activities to help solidify image.

At her university, Lilly created a Women’s Invitational that worked both as a recruitment tool and as a an image builder for girls starting at the high school level who may have felt negative about a women’s choir placement. Additionally, Lilly said, “Other [concerts] helped set their identity, for example, the Victorian Christmas [dinner concert] that we did.” These unique concert events became traditions, and the women looked forward to participation every year.

Benjamin used collaborative concerts and activities to build image and stressed that these collaborations could come from working with local high school choirs. In this way, students learn before their college placement that collegiate choirs beyond the premier ensemble have something to offer. These collaborations also gave his choir an opportunity to travel locally since there was very little money to do other extended traveling.

Alice thought that it was important “for the ensemble to know that they are, in this case, my only ensemble. So obviously they’re my number one priority.” Hopkin, the director of choral activities at the same university as Alice, echoed this sentiment when he expressed that not only does the identity of the group have to evolve but also “the identity of the person who conducts.” These two directors believed that providing a great choral experience for everybody involved, including the director, would result in stronger identity and morale.

Good relationships among faculty

Six of the interviewed directors explained how functioning choral faculty relationships were key to building identity and that the identity of their midlevel choral ensemble could not grow and flourish without good, clear direction for the overall choral program. For these directors, this started with fostering a good relationship with their choral colleagues. Hopkin felt very strongly about this and said the formula for building a strong program derived from a good relationship between the DCA and the ADCA in addition to each conductor developing a strong personal identity. Many of the interviewed midlevel directors felt that ensemble identity issues stemmed directly from disconnect between the DCA and the ADCA. Freeman believed that “even titles of DCA mean something in a hierarchy. Like that’s the ‘real conductor’ and you’re the ‘assistant conductor.’” He believed this negative perception carried into how the students perceived the ensemble’s identity.

Hopkin, currently taking on the DCA role in his institution, understood how these negative attitudes can affect an ADCA and has set a mission to have a different relationship with his new ADCA:

I spent about 22 years conducting the singers somebody else didn’t want. I get it . . . but if they are going to accept their role, then they need things that challenge them and if you constantly take away things that challenge them then there’s not consistency because they’re going to leave. They’ll get burnt out if you don’t give them a chance to do anything any better and then they’ll start resenting the kids they conduct, and then you’re in a circle you can’t get off.

Alice, new to her position, felt that her strong relationship with her DCA empowered her to be creative, saying, “It’s wonderful to work in a place where I have the authority allowed to me.” Not all directors felt they received this support from their DCA, although two alluded to conversations that were headed in a more communicative direction.

Building personal connections

Directors varied greatly in their responses about building personal connection. Three directors directly incorporated social aspects into their choirs. When asked, “Did you incorporate social aspects into the choir?,” some interviewees, like Lilly, responded, saying, “Yes, actually, we were very social.” Others, like Freeman, were not convinced that outside social activities helped but rather viewed the choral experience itself as the social event. The four directors who did not engage students in any outside social activities felt that the ration of time input to group-identity-building output was not balanced and activities would often have poor attendance.

Even those who held outside social activities expressed a similar perspective to Freeman that building personal connections moved beyond nonmusical social activities and into the realm of relationships that were built in a very supportive choral environment. Lilly felt that with choir travel:

Even on short trips like going to the local middle schools or going an hour away to a local high school to perform, builds the social aspect of the group. It lets them know that you care about them, and then they get to know each other better.

Discussion and Implementation

Directors perceive that midlevel collegiate choirs do indeed suffer from many issues that potentially negatively affect the building of ensemble identity. However, the solution is not simple, and as Benjamin stated, “that second choir can be a real puzzle.” Director interview responses for this study correspond with the literature that states students in midlevel choirs suffer from negative perceptions and ability and dedication discrepancies (Gauthier, 2005; Snow, 2012; Spurgeon, 2012; Wilson, 2012). Additionally, interviewees identified director continuity and flexibility as challenges in the development of a strong ensemble identity in collegiate midlevel choral ensembles—all of which potentially negatively affect ensemble identity. While I presented the data to each of these themes separately throughout the article, the categories overlap, which potentially creates a negative synergy that can be difficult to break with small changes and adjustments. This means that simply giving the choir an appropriate name might not fix the bigger problems that stem from negative perceptions caused by high director turnover. Instead, directors might take these data and perform a close examination of the negative perceptions in choristers and then determine which of the suggested strategies would be most effective in their particular situation.

The essence of directors’ perceptions on encouraging a strong ensemble identity lays in trying a myriad of strategies and overcoming challenges, including having a unique voicing to the ensemble, being consistent with leadership, setting high standards through auditions and student-centered learning, offering the group a unique image through branding and performances, building positive and meaningful relationships with singers and colleagues, and being flexible as a director to meet the needs of singers. These approaches closely align with Parker (2014), who theorized that singers build ensemble identity through actions such as being chosen, singing with others (including teacher role accountability), building a team, acknowledged and accomplished, pride, and desire to give back through performance. This suggests that these directors’ perceptions about ensemble identity may be representative and that their strategies might work in other midlevel choral situations.

The most common strategy to help singers build ensemble identity was to change the size and voicing of the midlevel choirs to be different from the other ensembles at their schools. This directly aligns with Hornsey and Hogg’s (2000) recommendation for all subgroups to have diverse identities. While no single configuration eliminated all ensemble identity issues, participants believed variety among choral ensembles’ voicings helped. Varying ensemble composition helps provide students with important characteristics for ensemble identity such as communication through repertoire and performance at the best level possible (Hairston, 2011; Parker, 2014). Choral programs had choirs organized by type such as gender or music genres performed. However, these directors still felt the tension among students within collegiate choirs where the students had a perception of being the second choice. Deeply seated in traditions such as mixed voicing and competition (Allsup & Benedict, 2008; Fenton, 1996; Mark & Gary, 2007), a hierarchal cycle can be hard to break. This leads to students in single-gender choirs feeling second best, even if the directors do not believe they are (Davis, 1998; Gauthier, 2005). And though participants stated that ensemble configuration helped with ensemble identity problems, they still easily labeled choirs midlevel without any prompting.

In spite of controllable changes, some of the struggles directors identified, such as director continuity, seemed inherent to the nature of midlevel ensembles. Both Hopkin and Benjamin pointed out that master and doctoral degree programs often offer graduate students valuable conducting experiences by directing midlevel choirs. Benjamin specifically discussed how this arrangement might lead to high chorister turnover when student conductors graduate. While there are always ways to compromise and improve the system, being completely in charge of an ensemble creates a much different experience for a graduate student versus acting as an assistant for a tenured faculty member. How can programs offer these experiences without taking away a sense of importance and value from the choir members?

Hopkin mentioned that oftentimes ADCAs left positions where they only directed midlevel choirs to become DCAs and directors of better ensembles. Directors are replaceable, and I hypothesize that many new directors step into positions and experience success. However, knowing that internal and external reputation plays such a critical role in the development of members’ identification (Dutton et al., 1994), this type of director turnover can create a negative synergy. The participants of this study perceived that too much turnover resulted in choristers feeling like they or the ensemble were not important, thus affecting ensemble identity development. Then, new directors are not able to build a strong ensemble or achieve artistic satisfaction, so they leave. This finding supports Parker (2014), who found that choir teachers play a large role in facilitating ensemble identity through high expectations and honest feedback and that leaders “created a unified team and helped keep the group together” (p. 25). The field needs more research to determine the exact role of the director on ensemble identity development.

Hopkin was the only director interviewed who seemed to be working on a solution to director turnover resulting from two sources: graduate students leaving and ADCAs leaving to conduct better ensembles. He believed that all conductors at his institution should have time in front of all ensembles. From this philosophy, he was working to establish a norm, where even though there was an instructor of record for each ensemble, the students worked with multiple conductors, including graduate students. This method allowed director consistency, even if one director left. It also developed the important social identity process team (Parker, 2014), where students could see team characteristics not only between members of a single choir but also among faculty members of an entire choral program. Hopkin thought that this method would not only help with the students’ perceptions of which ensembles were the best but also felt it would help lead to a stronger continuity with assistant director faculty members who he believed often left positions because they lost their personal identity.

Since group identity and personal identities are so closely linked (Stets & Burke, 2000), the development of collegiate directors’ personal identities might help shape the direction and image of the ensemble. I suggest developing a working relationship between the DCA and the ACDA and then creating a strong and clear vision for the midlevel choirs. Spurgeon (2012) provides outlines and suggestions for the implementation of this vision, especially with women’s choirs who are often at the bottom of the choral hierarchy (Gauther, 2005; O’Toole, 1998; Wilson, 2012).

I also believe that directors of midlevel choirs should not be viewed as second rate, and their ensembles might benefit from having goals beyond that of preparing singers to move into the premier ensemble. Reputation often derives from external impressions (Dutton et al., 1994), and directors felt members understood an identity built on something unique and highly visible. Still, they suggested developing individual performance activities that move beyond the scope of semester-end concerts, such as recruitment tours or a choir invitational. These types of experiences can offer high visibility, which are not only good for recruitment but also can help members achieve their desire to give back as part of the ensemble identity building process (Parker, 2014).

While a strong relationship among choral faculty members might help with some choir identity issues, some schools only have one choral director. The field needs more research to show if there is a distinction between midlevel ensembles conducted by a second university faculty member versus smaller programs that only have one choral director for all ensembles. Might midlevel choral ensembles develop different identities depending on the amount of time and focus a director has to offer? For example, research on birth order suggests that even with the same parents, children have different experiences with the parents revolving around time spent, support, and peer interactions (Lam, McHale, & Crouter, 2012). This area of study could easily be extended into high school programs where directors more often lead all the choral ensembles in the school.

According to the participants, difficulties associated with the other categories, such as negative perceptions and discrepancy in dedication, lessened over time. The directors reported that by using identity building techniques such as setting equal and high standards and building personal connections, they could empower students to take pride and responsibility (Parker, 2014) in their choir. In her book, Spurgeon (2012) and her chapter authors wrote in great detail about identity issues facing midlevel women’s choirs. One author suggested that the choral environment must create a sense of community that pushes members to achieve and foster a supportive, healthy, and nurturing environment that leads to a teamwork (Swan, 2014).

Findings revealed that the directors interviewed had no real consensus about methods for achieving a sense of community. Some felt choristers needed outside “bonding” activities. These directors went to great lengths to organize social events. Others did not consider that the time spent on socializing was worth the reward and complained that they often had trouble with attendance at the events they did organize. Instead, these directors spent class time in open conversations, working daily to build a sense of community or team. No matter how one achieves team-building goals, the message remains clear: Building a sense of community is essential (Hairston, 2011; Parker, 2014). Alice summed up this philosophy, stating,

I would like them to be proud of who they are and what they create together. I’d like them to look to one another to have an experience that they can’t have by themselves, so that they would start to see one another as a vehicle to create, not to consider it a requirement to fill.

At the end of this research I was unclear if directors of midlevel collegiate choirs wanted to eliminate the idea of midlevel or embrace midlevel choirs through a distinct identity. Interestingly, some of the directors who fought so hard to diminish a midlevel stigma ended up dividing their own ensemble into hierarchical rankings. For example, Lilly started a smaller, select ensemble that came from the members of her women’s choir. Also, many of the directors chose section leaders who were assigned more responsibility and given more authority. These strategies may empower student leadership but can also lead to feelings and actions of superiority and hierarchy within the ensemble (Abril, 2013). Others insisted that they were working to provide each ensemble with a unique image and remove all perceptions of a “ranking.” Perhaps it remains natural for students and directors to establish a hierarchy among choral ensembles, but this does not mean that lower level ensembles should lose individual purpose and identity.

Suggestions for Future Research

To better understand this phenomenon, we need more research that examines a broader population. A national replication and extension study of more midlevel directors would most easily provide these data. This extension might include both a definition of midlevel and more specific questions designed to understand the impact of different choral program designs on midlevel ensemble identity. Also, we need to examine this director perspective from different angles to gain a greater scope of understanding. For example, a survey of midlevel choristers might inform choral directors about the effectiveness of their ensemble identity building strategies. Or, researchers could investigate how these chorister opinions come to exist in the first place and research perceptions where they potentially originate in K–12 choral settings. An investigation from an opposite view point—those of top-level choir members—might prove useful to solidify the true differences between students in different choir levels and illuminate areas directors need to focus on to specifically help build midlevel ensemble identity. Finally, researchers might apply the concept of midlevel identity building to the different aspects of ensemble music education and investigate the impact hierarchy has in the instrumental ensemble.

Conclusion

Directors searching for an immediate path to help choristers build identity will find that they need to work suggested strategies into the perimeters of their already existing programs. However, the larger issue suggested in this study is the need to philosophically and realistically look at the impact hierarchy—real, imagined, or inferred—has on identity building, a problem the midlevel directors in this study took seriously. Ensemble-based education requires that directors provide a meaningful musical experience for all students in all ensembles. This study showed that director-recognized negative perceptions held by midlevel ensemble constituents often hinder that goal. While there are some strategies to combat negative perceptions, such as focusing on creative expression and improved musicianship from all ensemble members or including nonmusical opportunities for building community that keep the musicians and their conductors interested and engaged, this study only scratches the surface. As we strive for goals of providing the most meaningful musical experiences possible to the most number of students, we need to continue gathering information, implementing strategies, and philosophizing to truly understand how the midlevel construct affects identity building.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

The online supplemental materials are available at .

Author Biography

Marci L. Major is an assistant professor of music education at West Chester University. Her research interests encompass the economics of music education in today’s public schools, social identity theory, and hierarchal structures of musical ensembles.

References

Abril

(2013). A view of school band from the perspective of hardcore band kids. In Campbell

P. S.

Wiggins

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of children’s musical cultures (pp. 434–448). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Adderly

Kennedy

Berz

(2003). “A home away from home”: The world of the high school music classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 190–205. doi:10.2307/3345373

Allsup

Benedict

(2008). The problems of band: An inquiry into the future of instrumental music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 16, 156–173.

Bartel

(2004). What is the music education paradigm? In Bartel

(Ed.), Questioning the music education paradigm (Vol. II of Research to Practice: A Biennial Series). Toronto: Canadian Music Educators Association. Retrieved from http://www.bartelcameronassoc.com/music-education-paradigm.htm

Bartolome

(2013). “It’s like a whole bunch of me!”: The perceived values and benefits of the Seattle Girls’ Choir experience. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60, 395–418. doi:10.1177/0022429412464054

Crabb

(2002). Choral audition procedures of six well known conductors: Webb, Noble, Bruffy, Carrington, Ehly, and Warland. Choral Journal, 42(9), 35–51.

Davis

(1998). Performance achievement and analysis of teaching during choral rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 496–509. doi:10.2307/3345346

Dutton

Dukerich

Harquail

(1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263. doi:0001-8392/94/3902-0239

Fenton

(1996). The history of the Singing Quakers of Friends University: 1898–1959. The Bulletin of Historical Research in Music Education, 17, 165–180.

10.

Garrett

(2013). An examination of critical thinking skills in high school choral rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 303–317. doi:10.1177/0022429413497219

11.

Gauthier

(2005). I’m only in women’s chorus: A need for positive image building. Choral Journal, 46(2), 42–47

12.

Hairston

(2011). High school choral students’ perceptions of choral music experience (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Maryland, College Park.

13.

Hargreaves

Miell

MacDonald

(2002). What are musical identities and why are they important. In Macdonald

Hargreaves

Miell

(Eds.), Musical identities (pp. 1–20). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

14.

Haworth

(1992). Elementary school choirs and auditions. Music Educators Journal, 79(4), 44–46.

15.

Hylton

J. B.

(1981). Dimensionality in high school student participants’ perceptions of the meaning of choral singing experience. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29, 287–303. doi:10.2307/3345005

16.

Hogg

M. A.

Abrams

(1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London, England: Routledge.

17.

Hornsey

(2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 204–222. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00066.x

18.

Hornsey

Hogg

(2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143–156. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_03

19.

Kennedy

M. A.

(2002). “It’s cool because we like to sing”: Junior high school boys’ experience of choral music as an elective. Research Studies in Music Education, 18, 26–36.

20.

Lam

McHale

Crouter

(2012). Parent-child shared time from middle childhood to late adolescence: Development course and adjustment correlates. Child Development, 83, 2089–2103. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01826.x

21.

Lamont

(2002). Musical identities and the school environment. In Macdonald

Hargreaves

Miell

(Eds.), Musical identities (pp. 41–59). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

22.

Mark

Gary

(2007). A history of american music education (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: MENC: The National Association for Music Education

23.

Moustakas

(1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

O’Toole

(1998). A missing chapter from choral methods texts: How choirs neglect girls. Choral Journal, 39(5), 9–31.

25.

Parker

E. C.

(2014). The process of social identity development in adolescent high school choral singers: A grounded theory. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62, 18–32. doi:10.1177/0022429414520009

26.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Sandelowski

(2008). Theoretical saturation. In Given

(Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 875–876). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

Shaw

(1997). The St. Olaf choir: A narrative. Northfield, MN: Northfield Printing.

29.

Snow

(2012). We sing ourselves: An essay about teaching and learning with women. In Spurgeon

(Ed.), Conducting women’s choirs: Strategies for success (pp. 103–116). Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.

30.

Spurgeon

(2012). The status of women’s choirs. In Spurgeon

(Ed.), Conducting women’s choirs: Strategies for success (pp. 1–9). Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.

31.

Stets

Burke

(2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 224–237.

32.

Swan

(2012). The Y factor in an X chromosome world. In Spurgeon

(Ed.), Conducting women’s choirs: Strategies for success (pp. 133–143). Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.

33.

Tajfel

(1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Thompson

Campbell

(2010). Foreword. In Thompson

Campbell

(Eds.) Issues of identity in music education: Narratives and practices (pp. vii–xiv). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

35.

Wilson

(2012). Preferences of and attitudes toward treble choral ensembles. Research & Issues in Music Education, 10(1). Retrieved from http://www.stthomas.edu/rimeonline/vol10/wilson.htm

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB