Music listening in UK offices: Balancing internal needs and external considerations more

Music listening in UK offices: Balancing internal needs and external considerations Anneli B. Haake Submitted for the degree of PhD Department of Music, University of Sheffield Submitted September 2010 Abstract This thesis investigates the role of music in office-based workplace settings. While many studies in the past have examined the effects of researcher-selected music on work performance, fewer studies have taken into account the effects of self-selected music and situational aspects. No studies to date have explored office workers’ music listening patterns. Music at work is a multidisciplinary topic of research, yet the topic is rarely conceptualised as such and there is a lack of integrated literature that takes into account the various disciplines involved. Adopting a multi-disciplinary approach and utilising mixed methods, three empirical studies were carried out, with a sample of over 300 employees. A survey investigated current listening practices, a field experiment examined the effects of a listening intervention on work appreciation, and semi-structured interviews were used to explore contextual aspects influencing the listening experience at work. Music listening in offices is characterised by employees balancing internal needs (motivations for listening) and external requirements (situation-specific considerations). When employees consider these two aspects, they practice “responsible listening”. Listening practices were coloured by desires to control the auditory environment and to influence subjective well-being, inspiration and concentration. Music selections were varied, often made at random and derived from home. No main effect of music on work performance and well-being was found; music had positive as well as negative effects for different individuals in different situations. Employees avoided imposing music onto others or listening in an unsuitable way by modifying their listening behaviour (through listening technology, music styles and volume). No specific policies on music listening were found, and music was often conceptualised as a “grey area”. Music in offices can be considered as blurring the boundaries between private and public, and as a way to bring private habits into work for the purpose of regulating personal wellbeing in public spaces. II Publications The material reported in chapter 3 (Current listening practices) is in press in the journal Musicae Scientiae: Haake, A.B. (in press) Individual music listening in workplace settings: an exploratory survey of offices in the UK. Parts of the material in chapters 5 and 6 (Experiences of music listening in offices and their contextual influences) are forthcoming in the book Music, sound, and space: MP3, recordings and tuning in to the contemporary world: Dibben, N. & Haake, A.B. (forthcoming) The experiences of music in office-based workplace settings. In G. Born (Ed), Music, sound, and space: MP3, recordings and tuning in to the contemporary world, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press The material reported in chapter 4 (The effects of a music listening intervention), and the literature review presented in chapter 1 (Beneficial and detrimental: understanding music at work as a multidisciplinary research topic), are in the process of being prepared for submission to academic journals. III Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Nicola Dibben, and at the later stages Dr. Renee Timmers, for your support and supervision of this project. I feel privileged to have received such valuable support and advice. I would also like to thank: - Dr. Dave Moore for help with developing the online surveys, Dr. Richard Rowe for statistical input - staff at the Institute of Work Psychology at Sheffield University, who have provided me with ideas for the field study and allowed me to pick their brains - The Uppsala group: Prof. Alf Gabrielsson (for being my inspiration and my way into the world of music psychology), Dr. Erik Lindström, Prof. Patrik Juslin and Simon Liljeström - Prof. Teresa Lesiuk, for allowing me to visit and providing invaluable support, feedback and advice - Prof. Börje Stålhammar for discussing the depths of Grounded Theory - Prof. Stig-Magnus Thorsén for sending me all your work via post - Dr. Noola Brown, Dr. Victoria Williamson, Dr. Lucy Patston, Naomi Wing, Nick Carter, Frances Quinn, for academic support and advice at key stages during the project - the music therapist in a small town in central Sweden who in 1995 inspired me to study the effects of music on well-being Special thanks to family and friends in the UK and in Sweden, for encouragement and endless support through the years. Thanks to Cassius, my dog, for being such a good listener and reminding me to take frequent daily walks. Special thanks to Paul, my beloved husband, for always being by my side, patiently encouraging, supporting, and believing. Sincere thanks to several hundreds of participants for sharing your experiences and allowing me to explore your sometimes personal listening experiences. Thanks to managers for allowing me to carry out the research in their organisations. Lastly, thanks to some of the artists and composers who have ackompanied me occasionally while I have been working: Fleet Foxes, Stina Nordenstam, Lisa Ekdal, Scarlatti, Sufjan Stevens, José Gonzalez, Mozart, Jace Everett, Gillian Welch, Ryan Adams, The Temper Trap, Delorean, The Dead Weather, Miike Snow, The Black Keys, Seasick Steve, Royksopp, MGMT, Kings of Leon, Sundays, Soundgarden, Foo Fighters, Portishead, Arcide Fire, Peter Bjorn and John, The Knife, The Beta Band, Carole King, John Martyn, Ellie Goulding, Beastie Boys, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Beck, Jeff Buckley, Nicolai Dunger, Damien Rice, Scott Matthews, Koop, Ed Harcourt... IV 1 BENEFICIAL AND DETRIMENTAL: UNDERSTANDING MUSIC AT WORK AS A MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH TOPIC ...............................................1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Experimental psychological approaches ...................................................................................... 4 1.2.1 Studies of music’s effects in factories in 1930s and 1940s ......................................................... 4 1.2.2 Laboratory based studies of music’s impact on task performance .............................................. 9 1.2.3 Field studies of self-selected music’s effect in offices .............................................................. 15 1.3 Exploratory approaches influenced by sociology and musicology........................................... 18 1.3.1 The debate about functional music............................................................................................ 18 1.3.2 The “Background music at work and leisure project”............................................................... 20 1.3.3 Music as leisure at work............................................................................................................ 21 1.3.4 Uses of MP3 players in offices.................................................................................................. 23 1.3.5 Music listening in everyday life ................................................................................................ 24 1.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 28 1.5 Research aims ............................................................................................................................... 30 1.5.1 Current listening practices......................................................................................................... 31 1.5.2 The effects of a music listening intervention............................................................................. 32 1.5.3 Experiences of music and their contextual influences............................................................... 33 2 THEORETICAL APPROACH, METHODS, DATA ANALYSIS: PRAGMATISM, MIXED METHODS AND GROUNDED THEORY.....................36 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 36 2.2 Methodological approach ............................................................................................................ 36 2.2.1 Previous methods used in the study of music listening at work ................................................ 37 2.2.2 Pragmatism as theoretical orientation........................................................................................ 41 2.2.3 Grounded Theory and Mixed Methods Research ...................................................................... 42 2.2.4 Self-reports ................................................................................................................................ 46 2.3 Overview of methods.................................................................................................................... 46 2.3.1 Research process ....................................................................................................................... 47 2.3.2 Method specifics........................................................................................................................ 49 2.3.3 Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 52 2.3.4 Reflexivity and sensitivity......................................................................................................... 52 2.3.5 Notation..................................................................................................................................... 53 2.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 54 3 3.1 3.2 CURRENT LISTENING PRACTICES: AN EXPLORATORY SURVEY ......56 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 56 Method .......................................................................................................................................... 58 V 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 Survey........................................................................................................................................ 58 Respondents .............................................................................................................................. 59 Procedure................................................................................................................................... 60 Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 62 3.3 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 62 3.3.1 Listening practices..................................................................................................................... 63 3.3.2 Functions ................................................................................................................................... 70 3.3.3 Reasons for not listening to music at work................................................................................ 84 3.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 88 4 4.1 THE EFFECTS OF A MUSIC LISTENING INTERVENTION.......................92 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 92 4.2 Field study method....................................................................................................................... 94 4.2.1 Research design......................................................................................................................... 94 4.2.2 Organisation .............................................................................................................................. 95 4.2.3 Recruitment and participants..................................................................................................... 96 4.2.4 Measures and procedure............................................................................................................ 97 4.2.5 Analysis................................................................................................................................... 101 4.3 Field study results ...................................................................................................................... 101 4.3.1 Main effects of music listening on work performance and mood ........................................... 101 4.3.2 Analysis of individual differences........................................................................................... 103 4.3.3 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 107 4.4 Follow-up interviews.................................................................................................................. 108 4.4.1 Design and procedure .............................................................................................................. 108 4.4.2 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 110 4.4.3 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 121 4.5 Discussion and conclusion of the study: qualitative and quantitative data combined ......... 122 5 EXPERIENCES OF MUSIC LISTENING IN OFFICES AND THEIR CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES I: INTERNAL NEEDS ......................................126 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 126 5.2 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 126 5.2.1 Organisations........................................................................................................................... 126 5.2.2 Interview schedules ................................................................................................................. 127 5.2.3 Participants and interview procedure ...................................................................................... 129 5.2.4 Analysis................................................................................................................................... 131 5.3 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 131 5.3.1 Theme 1: Managing internal and external environment .......................................................... 133 5.3.2 Theme 2: Experiences of enjoyment ....................................................................................... 142 5.3.3 Theme 3: Spontaneous selections............................................................................................ 145 5.4 A note on music preferences...................................................................................................... 152 VI 5.5 Conclusions of internal needs.................................................................................................... 156 6 EXPERIENCES OF MUSIC LISTENING IN OFFICES AND THEIR CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES II: EXTERNAL CONSIDERATIONS................159 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 159 6.2 Results related to external considerations................................................................................ 159 6.2.1 Theme 4: Welfare of organisation ........................................................................................... 159 6.2.2 Theme 5: Welfare of others..................................................................................................... 171 6.2.3 Theme 6: Auditory awareness ................................................................................................. 174 6.2.4 Theme 7: Music as leisure....................................................................................................... 179 6.3 6.4 Conclusions of external considerations .................................................................................... 183 Overall conclusions .................................................................................................................... 184 7 7.1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS......................................................................187 Summary..................................................................................................................................... 187 7.2 Findings in relation to previous research................................................................................. 188 7.2.1 Engagement with work............................................................................................................ 189 7.2.2 Managing well-being............................................................................................................... 191 7.2.3 The dynamics of individualisation and public responsibility .................................................. 193 7.2.4 Blurring the boundaries between work and leisure ................................................................. 195 7.2.5 Music selection and preference ............................................................................................... 197 7.2.6 Theoretical perspectives on music, boundaries and territories ................................................ 198 7.3 7.4 A framework for music listening in offices .............................................................................. 201 Research deficits......................................................................................................................... 203 7.5 Practical implications and opportunities for future work ...................................................... 205 7.5.1 The benefits of own music control .......................................................................................... 205 7.5.2 Music access and storage......................................................................................................... 206 7.5.3 Education and development of policies................................................................................... 207 7.5.4 Other cultures, technologies and work environments.............................................................. 207 REFERENCES .................................................................................................210 Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 218 Appendix 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 221 Appendix 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 222 Appendix 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 224 Appendix 5 ................................................................................................................................................ 225 VII Appendix 6 ................................................................................................................................................ 229 Appendix 7 ................................................................................................................................................ 230 Appendix 8 ................................................................................................................................................ 231 Appendix 9 ................................................................................................................................................ 233 Appendix 10 .............................................................................................................................................. 239 Appendix 11 .............................................................................................................................................. 241 Appendix 12 .............................................................................................................................................. 242 Appendix 13 .............................................................................................................................................. 243 VIII List of figures Figure 1.1: Visualisation of Yerkes & Dodson’s (1908) suggested relationship between arousal and performance 9 Figure 1.4: Model of disciplines surrounding the study of music at work 29 Figure 2.1: Visualisation of the research process 47 Figure 4.1:Photo, private office at the research institute 95 Figure 4.2: Photo, one of the few open plan office spaces at the research institute 95 Figure 4.4: Field study, data collection schedule for each condition 98 Figure 4.7: Visual representation of correlations among variables while listening to music in the office 105 Figure 4.9: Interview-schedule for follow-up interviews 109 Figure 5.1: Photo, corridor at the research institute 127 Figure 5.2: Photo, smaller shared workspace at the research institute 127 Figure 5.3: Photo, ground floor space at the architectural practice 127 Figure 5.6: Responsible listening through balancing internal needs (I) and external considerations (E) 132 134 Figure 5.7: Managing internal and external environment Figure 6.1: Responsible listening 185 202 Figure 7.1: Two-axis model of self-directed listening in offices IX List of tables Table 1.2: Functions of involuntary and voluntary listening 26 according to hours of the day, adapted from North et al., (2004) 26 Table 1.3: Functions of involuntary and voluntary listening 27 according to days of the week, adapted from North et al., (2004) 27 Table 3.1: Occupation and gender distribution 60 Table 3.2: 10 most frequently reported music styles while listening in offices 64 Table 3.3: 10 most frequently reported artists listened to in the office 65 Table 3.4: 10 most frequently reported radio stations listened to in the office 65 Table 3.5: Activities while listening to music at work 67 Table 3.6: What listening technology respondents used 68 Table 3.7: Themes of self-reported functions of music listening in offices 71 Table 3.8: Functions of music listening at work 76 Table 3.9: T-test, respondents with high and low engagement with music 78 Table 3.10: Variable means, standard deviations and analysis of variance according to whether respondents reported listening to classical music or not 80 Table 3.11: Structure matrix and item loadings for functions of music and concurrent activities 83 Table 3.12: Themes emerging from an analysis of the reasons not to listening to music in offices 85 Table 4.3: Pseudonyms, ages and occupational titles of participants in field study 96 Table 4.5: Variable means, standard deviations and analysis of variance for baseline and experimental conditions 102 Table 4.6: Correlations between all the variables in the two experimental conditions, compared to control condition 104 Table 4.8: Pseudonyms, ages and occupational titles of participants in follow-up interviews 108 Table 4.10: Factors influencing perceived compatibility between music and work 117 Table 4.11: Personality trait scorings, comparison between Lucy and Craig 118 Table 5.4: Overview of interview topics according to interviewees 128 Table 5.5: Participants in the interview study 130 X 1 Beneficial and detrimental: understanding music at work as a multidisciplinary research topic 1.1 Introduction This thesis investigates experiences and uses of music in UK office settings. Engagement in musical activities while working is by no means a recent development. Historically, Western work songs have helped rhythmic synchronisation in physical work tasks and relieved boredom in monotonous jobs (Gregory, 1997; Korczynski, 2003). What is new in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries is the increased access to selfselected recorded music, due to technological developments of music listening devices (electronic and digital) and the subsequent emergence of miniaturisation and mobility of personal listening devices (Bull, 2000; North et al., 2004; Théberge, 2001). Employees can today access their chosen music at work through a range of listening technologies: CD-players (whether stand-alone or within their desktop computer), radios, mobile phones, MP3 players, and the internet. This means that employees now have more opportunity to listen to self-selected music in offices than ever before. In other words, there has been a shift from singing to listening to recorded music, and there is a wider variety in music technological possibilities. Music often accompanies certain occupational groups (e.g. builders, painters, drivers, surgeons while operating, sales assistants in the retail sector), whereas other groups rarely listen (call-centre assistants, stock brokers, general medical practitioners). There is recent evidence that music is perceived as beneficial by office workers. For example, Spherion (a large North American recruitment firm) found that 55% felt that music listening via MP3 players improved their job satisfaction and productivity (Spherion, 2006). Some commercial music suppliers specifically target listeners in workplaces, partly as providers of entertainment, but also as providers of “solutions” to perceived “problems” in the workplace. For example, websites such as advancedbrain.com, Music2Work2.com, externaldesign.com and Muzak.com specifically 1 focus on wellbeing-related experiences of music while at work, and make claims for the beneficial effects of their music. Such websites promote music (commonly classical music) as an antidote to stress in the office. Furthermore, some British radio stations (e.g. Classic FM and Heart FM) regularly aim their advertising at employees at work. But music listening can also have a negative impact on task performance, in particular where complex tasks are concerned (Furnham & Strbac, 2002; Furnham et al., 1999). Furthermore, a survey by the design company Woods Bagot claimed that 49% perceived headphone use at work as unprofessional (AOL, online). Anecdotal evidence suggests that some organisations in contemporary industrialised societies allow their employees to listen to music, whereas others do not. Members of a number of internet forums (e.g. LinkedIn, Brandrepublic, Workplace Law, Network Security) have in recent years discussed benefits but also disadvantages of music listening in offices. In other words, listening to music at work can be viewed as beneficial, but also as inappropriate or even detrimental. The main aim of this research is to study the experiences of music listening in officebased workplace settings. This thesis consists of three interrelated empirical studies involving employees working in office environments in the United Kingdom. A survey was used to gather data on when and how employees listened, what they listened to, as well as why they did or did not listen. A field study was used to investigate short- and longer-term effects of listening interventions (listening all day, listening in breaks and no listening). Semi-structured interviews were used to explore individual experiences of music in relation to offices (e.g. how music was chosen in particular situations, how sonic qualities of music were perceived to interact with the environment, disadvantages with listening), as well as contextual aspects that affected the listening experience (e.g. business policies, IT issues, the social context, views on what music listening symbolised). 2 The studies are presented as separate studies in separate chapters (3-6). The only exception is the study of the contextual aspects, which due to its rich data has been spread out over two chapters (5 and 6). The main literature is introduced in this chapter, although some additional, more specific, literature is being introduced in some of the chapters. In the following section I review published research on music listening at work, or while working. This includes not only studies of music in offices, but also in other kinds of workplaces or settings. Researchers have conceptualised music listening at work as a subject area within broader theoretical approaches, and the disciplines in which it has been studied have been the deciding factor as to what aspects of music at work were studied, what theoretical assumptions were made, and what methods were used. In the literature review below, I evaluate studies of music at work broadly according to approaches and disciplines. I conclude what they provide in terms of understanding how music is experienced at work. I also illuminate methodological assumptions and their advantages and limitations, which have influenced this thesis. First, I review experimental psychological approaches. Following that, I consider exploratory approaches, before concluding the chapter. Following the conclusions, I present the research aims of this thesis. In order to avoid too much repetition, I use the words “employees” and “workers” synonymously. Similarly, I use the expressions “music at work”, “music while working”, and “(music) listening at work” synonymously. If a particular type of workplace (such as factories or offices) is of relevance for understanding the text, this workplace will be mentioned in connection to that argument. Given that the focus of this thesis is office environments, the term “workplace” always refers to offices in the empirical chapters (36). 3 1.2 Experimental psychological approaches Questions about whether employees may become more productive by listening to music regularly attract attention in media (Clarke, online; David, 2006; Heald, online; Marcus, 2008). Journalists as well as managers show an interest in understanding if there is a link between music listening and productivity. Three strands of research have investigated this by utilising experimental psychological approaches: studies of music’s effects in factories in 1930s and 1940s, laboratory based studies of music’s impact on task performance, and field studies of self-selected music’s effect in offices. 1.2.1 Studies of music’s effects in factories in 1930s and 1940s Much research into music listening at work took place in the 1930s and 1940s, and focused on investigating music’s impact on quantitative measures of fatigue, boredom and productivity in industrial settings (Antrim, 1943; Fox, 1971; Kaplan & Nettel, 1948; Uhrbrock, 1961; Wokun, 1969). This area of research was one of the first to investigate the effects of music listening interventions in Western industrialised workplaces (mainly factories). The interest within organisational psychology in particular followed a study by British psychologists Wyatt and Langdon, who investigated the effects of music on output by female employees who manufactured fireworks in a factory (1937). They compared different listening interventions with employees’ standard mode of working, i.e. not listening to music while they worked. The study spanned 24 weeks, divided into different time periods, during which music was played at different time periods during the day. The music was played through loudspeakers and was described as “miscellaneous dance music”. The study found that the average production increased by 4.5-6% when music was present, and researchers also noted that employees reported that the music relieved boredom through diversion. Wyatt and Langdon’s study was published at a time when two other significant developments were taking place. Firstly, a general interest was growing among managers in investigating safe methods of speeding up work performance. In Britain and the USA, 4 this was a part of a trend for “scientific management” in which managers aimed to control the labour process, which has come to be referred to as Taylorised workplaces during (Fordist) industrialisation (Korczynski & Jones, 2006). Secondly, music listening technology (namely the PA system) that could be brought into the workplace was developed. Taken together, this contributed to an increase in interest in music listening at work. The main interest was in using music to alleviate boredom in the industrial, Taylorised, workplace, rather than changing aspects of the work itself (ibid) The British government started to allow music in factories during World War II (Antrim, 1943), and researchers became interested in investigating its effects on productivity (Uhrbrock, 1961). Many studies followed patterns developed in Wyatt & Langdon’s study, in that the music was chosen by the researchers, the listeners/employees were treated as receivers of musical stimuli, and the experiments were carried out in actual workplaces (often factories). Results showed that task efficiency increased and alertness improved when music was played to workers in monotonous jobs (Fox & Embrey, 1972; Wokun, 1969). An earlier survey study (Gatewood, 1921) conceptualised listeners and music differently. Gatewood worked in a psychology department and her office was located close to an architect’s department. She noticed that architecture students would often ask to borrow her record player and some records to listen to while working late on their study projects, and that they seemed to enjoy listening to music while they worked. She set up an experiment where she selected which records to lend the students: the students themselves (all males) were unaware of the experimental setting at the time. After listening for two hours, they were debriefed and given a short questionnaire about their experiences of music while working. Gatewood found that 86% of the students did not find music distracting, and that music helped to speed up their work (either because they synchronised their movements with the rhythm, or because the music evoked arousal). Music also boosted their mood, which in turn improved task performance, and it created a rest break in between periods of work. Most of the students preferred to listen to music frequently, although whether they preferred to listen for shorter or longer periods varied. 5 However, Gatewood argued that playing music frequently for shorter periods appeared most beneficial. Gatewood’s study also explored music preferences among students while working and students were asked to rank preferred music genres. Most of the genres are time-specific (e.g. “jazzy dance”, “standard orchestral”, “rhythmic waltz”), and are therefore difficult to relate to current music genres. However, there was a definite general preference for instrumental music, whereas vocal music was considered to be irritating. Gatewood suggests this is because vocals demand more attention than instrumental music. Students also reported their preferred combinations of tempo and volume, with an equal number of students preferring either slow/soft music or fast/loud music. Familiar music was much preferred to unfamiliar; students stated that if music was new to them, they tended to want to listen more closely, which took more of their attention and meant that the music became distracting. Gatewood’s study is rarely cited in later studies of music listening at work. Her methodology of self-reports to explore subjective functions of music while working was not replicated. Instead, Wyatt & Langdon’s approach and methodology became the common method of studying music at work in organisational psychology. Although Wyatt & Langdon’s study (and later studies) investigated performance in uncomplicated jobs, a small number of studies have investigated more complex job situations. For example, McGhee & Gardner (1949) found no increase in production in a rug manufacturing company when music was played in the factory. The job roles studied were considered complex and required two to four years of experience to become a skilled worker. Smith (1961) studied key-punch operators, where complex mental activity was needed in order to complete the tasks, and found no significant differences in output, error rate or absenteeism when music was played in the background. Music listening did not increase work performance, but it did not disrupt it either. These results suggest that there are mediating factors other than job complexity when employees listen at work. Most mediating factors have been studied in laboratory settings, as I describe in section 1.2.2 below. 6 The researchers speculated that any effects of music may be due to motoric synchronisation (increasing or regulating speed), direct effects on biological variables (mainly blood pressure and heart rate), or increasing energy among fatigued workers (Antrim, 1943; Uhrbrock, 1961). In the majority of the studies, other positive effects have been reported. For example, in the study by Smith described above, employees also reported more positive attitudes towards their work and organisation. Other studies have reported that many of the employees responded positively to music interventions. Employees believed that music was helping them in their work because it relieved boredom and fatigue, and made them happier, less tired, more content and more cheerful (Antrim, 1943; Fox, 1971; Uhrbrock, 1961). The findings were often presented as additional effects alongside increases in work performance, although a general assumption was that the positive affect reported in the studies aided work performance. However, it has been reported that up to 10% of the workforce felt annoyed by music at work (Uhrbrock, 1961). More recent organisational psychology researchers have not continued the study of music in workplaces. They have instead focused on the effects of background noise and other aspects of the physical office space on task performance and job satisfaction (Belojevic et al., 2001; Davis, 1984; Leather et al., 2003). Background noise was defined as unwanted sounds from the office environment, including machine noises, people talking, phones ringing and so on, and results generally indicate that low noise is less stressful and more desirable than high levels of noise. These studies provide an insight into the possible effects of unwanted music, but provide limited understanding of music that is perceived as beneficial by employees. There are three issues with the studies reviewed above if the purpose is to understand the effects of music listening while working. Firstly, the studies mainly investigated influences of music chosen by others, often researchers or management. Apart from the study by Gatewood (1921), employees were conceptualised as music recipients and their own music preferences were not explored. This conceptualisation stands in contrast to the 7 current understanding of music’s effects by psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists: an interaction between the individual, the music and the situation, and listeners who are co-constructors of music’s power (Becker, 2001; DeNora, 2000; Gabrielsson, 2001; Greasley, 2008; Sloboda & O'Neill, 2001). Secondly, the musical selections used in the studies received little attention (with Gatewood’s study being an exception). The most detailed information about the musical selections was found in Smith’s (1961) study where it is reported that “the music program (sic) used was provided by Tape-athon Music Inc., and the specific selections were called “Rhythmic Selections” and “Listen and Dance”, a total of 4 hr. of continuous music“ (p.159). Similarly to the argument made in the previous paragraph, listeners were not viewed as individuals who might have reacted differently to the same piece of music. It also highlights that sonic qualities in the music were not analysed, even though they might have evoked certain cultural associations among a group of employees (DeNora, 2000; Sloboda & Juslin, 2001). Thirdly, even though it was reported that music at work could be perceived as annoying by up to 10% of the workforce, this idea was not investigated further. The suggestion that music at work might be annoying for some contradicts the idea of music as a simple stimulus that can influence all employees in the same way, and this was perhaps one reason why this aspect of musical experience was not examined further. Nor were any other possible mediating factors explored, such as situational, social, or individual factors. The general assumption has been that music is positive for organisations and their profits, and that happy workers equal productive workers. As a result, these studies have focused on evidence for the positive effects that music listening can have on employee productivity. But some workers reported being annoyed by music at work, and psychologists have studied more closely the distracting effects of music while working in studies of the impact of background music on task performance. 8 1.2.2 Laboratory based studies of music’s impact on task performance More recent applied psychology has investigated possible mechanisms that could explain the effects of music on task performance. According to this area of research, cognitive tasks generally benefit from moderate levels of arousal, but can be impaired by extreme levels (Daoussis & McKelvie, 1986; Furnham & Allass, 1999; Furnham & Bradley, 1997; Furnham et al., 1999; Kiger, 1989; Ransdell & Gilroy, 2001; Salamé & Baddeley, 1989; Thompson et al., 2001). In the main, these studies have adopted the psychobiological framework of Yerkes & Dodson (1908), who stipulated that there is a relationship between performance quality and arousal, which is shaped like an inverted U (figure 1.1). This idea has been expanded on in four areas that are relevant to music listening at work: attention, music preference, music preferences in social contexts, and individual differences. Performance low Arousal high Figure 1.1: Visualisation of Yerkes & Dodson’s (1908) suggested relationship between arousal and performance With respect to attention, Kahneman (1973) has suggested that high arousal through noise can result in a narrowing of attention, a focus on certain aspects of the work at the expense of others, difficulties in controlling attention when making fine discriminations, 9 and changes of strategy in tasks. He also argued that very low arousal levels could lead to failure to carry a task out and to evaluate one’s performance, leading to problems with adapting to task demands. Applying his conclusions to music at work, if music (on its own or in combination with other factors) produces very high arousal, task performance may be impaired and so music listening may not be beneficial while working. Equally, lack of arousal (for example, when working in complete silence) could be detrimental for task performance, according to Kahneman’s reasoning. This would suggest that music listening can be beneficial as long as it is not in a situation where a person experiences very high levels of arousal. This raises questions about what factors in a music listening situation at work might elicit high arousal, and to what extent the original level of arousal matters. However, in assessing this issue we have to consider how far music can be considered equivalent to general noise, which Kahneman’s theory is based on. Turning secondly to the issue of music preference, this has also been suggested to have an inverted U-shaped relationship with arousal, according to the experimental aesthetics approach developed by Berlyne (1971). According to Berlyne, a person’s liking for particular pieces of music depends on the music’s potential for evoking arousal, which is dictated by different properties of the music: psychophysical properties such as tempo, rhythm, and pitch; collative properties such as complexity and familiarity; and ecological properties such as associations with biological conditions. Berlyne (ibid) and subsequent research has mainly been interested in the arousal potential of collative properties and their subsequent effect on music preference, and have found that novelty and complexity have more arousal potential than familiarity and non-complexity (North & Hargreaves, 2008). This suggests that sonic elements of the music can contribute to higher or lower levels of arousal, which in turn influences liking. If moderate levels of arousal are preferred during task performance, music with moderate arousal potential should be most beneficial for task performance. However, Berlyne’s theory has been criticised for not taking into account the effects of previous experiences on music preference, or changes in preference over time, and for assuming that preference for an individual piece of music can accurately reflect wider genre preferences (Greasley, 2008). Indeed later research has 10 shown that individual differences can account for variations in the preference curve, as is discussed further below. The effects of certain sonic qualities (or collative variables, according to Berlyne, 1971) on task performance have been investigated in laboratory settings, but the results are varied. For example, Furnham & Allass (1999) found that whether workers listened to complex or simple music (measured by tempo, repetition, instrumental layering and melodic complexity) made no difference to task performance, whereas Kiger (1989) found that reading comprehension was better in the presence of music with low information load (measured by tonal range, rhythmic complexity and repetition). Kallinen (2002), on the other hand, found that reading rate and efficiency in a cafeteria was significantly lower when participants heard slow music, compared to fast music. These findings suggest that information load and tempo in music may affect task performance. Looking thirdly at social contexts, Konecni (1982) argued that both social and cognitive contexts have been neglected in studies of relationships between musical properties and music preference. In his well-known studies of music preference and mood (ibid), he found that angry people preferred simpler melodies to more complex ones. He also found that people who were engaged in complex tasks preferred to listen to simpler melodies, and he interpreted this in terms of reduced processing capacity as a result of higher arousal. This suggests that both mood and processing capacity play important roles in the process of music choice in different situations. A study by Sogin (1988) also highlighted the importance of the contextual situation. He found that the type of music listened to (classical or jazz) made no significant difference to performance of a coordination task. Further responses from the participants revealed that the most distracting element was either rhythm or loudness, but not melody or instrumentation. Sogin concluded that music seemed to be blocked out or ignored when there were other competing tasks in the environment and thus emphasised the importance of taking into account other events in the environment. There is also the possibility of an existing learning curve, where participants who are used to listening to background music while, for example, reading 11 and writing, will perform these activities better (Daoussis & McKelvie, 1986; Kiger, 1989). Applied to music listening at work, these studies illustrate the idea of more complex relationships between music listening, task performance and influencing variables. In other words, it may not be sufficient only to investigate participants listening to one type of music while doing one type of task, without acknowledging further influencing factors. Fourthly, individual differences have been investigated in the light of Yerkes-Dodson’s inverted U-model. Eysenck (1967) proposed a theory of personality which states that introverts require much less arousal before reaching their optimum level, whereas extroverts require substantially more arousal to function satisfactorily. This type of individual difference in arousal has generally been supported in laboratory studies into the effects of music on task performance, where extraverts have performed better than introverts in the following tasks: memory recall (Daoussis & McKelvie, 1986; Furnham & Allass, 1999; Furnham & Bradley, 1997) coding tasks (Furnham et al., 1999), and reading comprehension tasks (Furnham & Bradley, 1997). Cassidy & MacDonald (2007) studied the effects of music on the cognitive task performance of introverts and extraverts, and manipulated music’s arousal potential and affect, and also compared the effects of music conditions with effects of everyday noise. They found that music with high arousal and negative affect appeared most detrimental for performance of recall tasks and the Stroop test, and that introverts were generally more negatively affected than extraverts. They also found a main detrimental effect from music and noise, compared to silence, suggesting that music and noise were more distracting for task performance than silence. Individual differences other than personality traits have also been studied. For example, a study of the effects of background music on word processed writing by Ransdell & Gilroy (2001) showed that musically trained participants, or those with a high working memory span wrote better essays with longer sentences (compared to untrained participants, or those with a lower working memory span), but that background music 12 generally disrupts word fluency, as music listening influences the activity of the working memory. Given that some of the above studies claim there is a negative main effect of music on task performance, it is worth noting some findings on the disrupting effects of music and sound on visual and auditory recall. The results are varied, and there is on the one hand some support for the idea that speech and music are both equally disruptive (Hadlington et al., 2004; Jones & Macken, 1993). On the other hand, there is also evidence that music may not be as disrupting as speech – particularly not instrumental music (LeCompte et al., 1997; Salamé & Baddeley, 1989). Thus, it seems that there is no consistent main negative effect of music on task performance, but that music can be disrupting in certain circumstances. In studies of music listening and productivity in factories, music preferences were rarely studied and little information was provided about the music that was used in these studies. In contrast, there are details about the music pieces used in laboratory studies of music listening and task performance, and the music selections are very varied. For example, memory tasks have been carried out while listening to classical music, jazz/blues, pop and rock, including Mozart, Schubert, The Shadows, Mike Oldfield, Duke Ellington, Human League, Tears for Fears, INXS and Cream (Furnham & Bradley, 1997; Salamé & Baddeley, 1989). Reading and writing tasks have been tested whilst playing progressive rock, rock’n roll, pop and easy listening, including Vangelis, Emerson Lake and Palmer, Eric Clapton, Monaco, Was (Not Was), slow ballads from a sing-along tape with the Nelson Riddle Orchestra and the Rolling Stones (Daoussis & McKelvie, 1986; Furnham et al., 1999; Kiger, 1989; Ransdell & Gilroy, 2001). A study investigating a coding task and a logic problem was tested whilst participants listened to Eric Clapton, Monaco, Was (Not Was) (Furnham et al., 1999) and a further coding study used Vivaldi, Weather Report and Tina Turner as musical selections (Sogin, 1988). But the different music pieces have not been focus of analysis; researchers have not considered how, if at all, these pieces of music may influence different participants in different ways. 13 According to studies in music psychology, music experiences are highly influenced by characteristics within the listener and the situational context (DeNora, 2000; Jorgensen, 1989; Sloboda & O'Neill, 2001). Different participants can respond differently to the same piece of music, depending on familiarity with the piece and/or genre, memories, associations and emotional responses (for an overview of emotional production mechanisms in relation to music, see DeNora 2000; Scherer & Zentner 2001). Furthermore, researchers have not considered the variety of music when comparing their results to previous research. The majority of investigations played music chosen by the researchers. Could dislike of music lead to more distraction and thus poorer task performance? A study by Daoussis & McKelvie (1986) surveyed the musical preferences of their participants and then played them rock and roll, for which the participants had reported liking. The participants had also reported listening to music with low volume when studying at home, so the experiments were therefore carried out at similar volume levels. A reading comprehension test including a comparison between extraverts and introverts was carried out. The results showed that introverts scored much more poorly than extraverts when listening to music, even though they had initially reported a preference for that genre and volume level. Parente (1976) found that participants performed a Stroop test better in the presence of their most preferred music than in presence of their least preferred music. Equally, recent studies of music preferences and the effects of self-selected music have re-emphasised the importance of music preference (Greasley, 2008). Self-selected music has been reported to generate greater feelings of relaxation (Burns et al., 1999; MacDonald, 2006), result in more accurate and quicker task performance by surgeons (Allen & Blascovich, 1994, cited in Biley, 2000), increase tolerance of pain and enhance a sense of control while feeling pain (Mitchell et al., 2006), and, in a wider sense, allow individuals to reconnect with self, find motivation, carry out identity work and manage energy levels (Batt-Rawden & DeNora, 2005; DeNora, 2000). In addition, self-selected music listening is an increasingly common form of music listening today. Therefore, it 14 appears that it is particularly beneficial to study self-selected, rather than research or management-selected, music at work. It would be expected that the effect of music on cognitive tasks, and whether a person perceives it to be distracting or not, is mainly individual and interacts with individual responses to a specific piece of music as well as with situational contexts. As the type of music used or the situational context in which the listening takes place have not been examined, the results are varied and do not provide an understanding of effects of music for an individual in a certain situation – something which music psychologists have recently begun to address. The studies of task performance and music listening are mainly laboratory-based, and it is therefore questionable to what extent the findings apply to employees in offices. 1.2.3 Field studies of self-selected music’s effect in offices Two studies in particular have investigated the experiences of listening to self-selected music at work (Lesiuk, 2005; Oldham et al., 1995). Furthermore, these studies have been carried out in actual offices. They have conceptualised the listener as active and the music as a resource that interacts with the listener and their environment. Oldham and colleagues (1995) carried out a pre-post field study in an American retail organisation, after they were asked by the management to study the effects of headphone listening on various work responses. A group of 75 participants who expressed an interest in using headphones while working were studied, along with 181 other participants who constituted a control group that did not listen to music while working. Participants brought their own music, the music listening period was four weeks, and work response measures were gathered before and after the listening period. These measures included mood (relaxation/nervousness and enthusiasm/fatigue), environmental interferences, music control, work performance as rated by supervisors, turnover intentions (i.e. whether employees intended to leave their job), job complexity and satisfaction with job, organisation and co-workers. Employees reported what kind of music they had been 15 listening to most for each two-hour slot by selecting one option out of five on a listening log sheet (country, easy listening, oldies, rhythm and blues, and other). They also reported every second hour how many minutes in total they had listened during that period. The researchers hypothesised that headphone users would report more positive work responses than the control group, and that positive mood states would mediate this relation. They also predicted that headphone users would experience fewer interruptions and distractions than the control group, and that control would also mediate relationships between headphone use and work responses. Finally, they hypothesised that employees with simpler jobs would respond more positively to headphone use than those carrying out more complex jobs. The researchers found that employees who listened to music via headphones reported significantly more positive work responses and that those in simpler jobs performed better and were more satisfied with their organisation than those in more complex jobs. The mood state of relaxation best explained the relationship between music listening and work performance. Type of music and amount of time spent listening had no significant effect on work outcomes and moods. Reduced environmental interference contributed to lower turnover intentions and higher organisational satisfaction. In a field study of computer developers, Lesiuk (2005) studied 56 Canadian developers from three different companies for a total period of five weeks. She installed a music library in their office containing 65 albums of various genres, but employees were also allowed to bring their own music into work. Employees were allowed to listen to music in weeks two and three, after a first week of normal routines. She removed the music in week four and then re-installed it in week five. Measures of mood and work responses were taken several times every week. Measures of mood states were similar to the ones used by Oldham and colleagues (1995), as described above. Lesiuk developed two 16 measures of work performance in conjunction with the participants: quality of work and time spent on a task, as assessed by the employees themselves. Results showed that mood and quality of work were lowest and time spent on a task longest during the no-music week. Lesiuk interpreted these results as supporting evidence for mild positive affect and its influence on cognitive performance (Isen, 1999). According to this strand of research, mild positive affect can influence how cognitive material is organised, and can increase the ability to integrate divergent material, thus influencing creativity. Qualitative comments from employees revealed that some felt music helped them to relax and get around mental blocks. In contrast to Oldham and his colleagues (1995), Lesiuk found that the more time employees spent listening to music at work, the more positive mood they reported. Both studies emphasise the mediating role of mood states on music listening and work outcomes. Self-selected music seems to influence mood, which in turn influences work responses. For example, Oldham and colleagues (ibid) suggested that relaxation could best explain the relationship between music listening and work performance. Lesiuk’s (2005) interpretation of how mild positive affect influences cognition may be one explanation for the way in which music can affect work performance. Lesiuk (2005) also challenges the idea that music listening while working is mainly suitable for simpler jobs – her sample of computer programmers required creative skills and innovation to carry out their jobs successfully. This suggests that it is not only employees in monotonous jobs who could find music beneficial, but also those performing more complex jobs in offices.. An emerging research trend in these two studies is the focus on wellbeing-related aspects of music listening, such as relaxation and positive mood. These effects of music listening were mentioned in earlier “in situ” studies, but were rarely incorporated as research aims in research designs. Instead, research designs focused on the investigation of productivity and task performance and quantitative data were collected. Well-being related aspects 17 emerged in conversation with the participants, but were not reported in a structured fashion since the experiments did not collect qualitative data (see 1.2.1). These comments were instead reported anecdotally, and researchers believed that music’s effects may be due to motoric synchronisation, direct effects on biological variables, or increasing energy among fatigued workers (Antrim, 1943; Uhrbrock, 1961). Oldham and his colleagues (1995) argued that relaxation can best explain music’s effect on work performance, but do employees listen in order to relax? In other words, are they aware of any beneficial effects of music at work, and do they choose music accordingly? And are there other beneficial effects to listening to music at work? In the next section I review literature that has taken a more exploratory approach to music at work. But first, I illustrate a debate which influenced the interest for workers’ own listening patterns. 1.3 Exploratory approaches influenced by sociology and musicology 1.3.1 The debate about functional music Work music, referred to as “functional music”, was heavily criticised during the 1970s by European musicologists, according to Thorsén (1989). This debate, which involved musicologists mainly in Germany and Denmark (including Ole Straarup, Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht, Reinhard Fehling, Helga de la Motte-Haber, and Per Drud Nielsen), centred on critiquing the concept of “functional music”, often defined as (popular) music created for workers (even though there was considerable confusion about the definition of this term - see Thorsén 1989). The critique can be understood as both aesthetic, in that it positioned work music as inferior to “real (classical) music”, and ideological, in that workers were viewed as being manipulated for purposes of increasing work performance (ibid). Mostly severely criticised were the music productions from the American Muzak factory in the middle of the 20th century (Lanza, 1994; Thorsén, 1989; Uhrbrock, 1961). The debate about “canned music” is still alive in the public arena with discussion about and action groups against imposed music in public spaces (see pipedown.org). Auditory privacy is held up as a human right, and silence is sought more as it is becoming increasingly rare (Frith, 2002). Also, there appears to be a particular opposition to the 18 idea of being manipulated by music for commercial purposes. The debate in the 1960s and 1970s focused on music played at work to manipulate workers to improve productivity. Today, the debate focuses on the right to silence, privacy and on musical manipulation of consumers to improve sales1. Theoretical music sociologist Adorno (1976) distinguished between “ideal”, critical music listening (involving active, attentive listening to particular kinds of classical music) and passive mass listening (to any other mass produced music, often while carrying out concurrent tasks). Adorno believed that music should raise consciousness of music’s own meaning, but that most music did not have this effect. Instead, popular music (in particular) had the function of wallpaper, and merely provided entertainment. Following Adorno’s reasoning, listening to music at work as a source of entertainment and distraction was something negative, as it did not fulfil music’s potential to raise critical consciousness. Instead, providing employees with access to music was a way for capitalist management to control the mass of employees. Adorno drew on large scale sociological patterns in society and argued that they were reflected in the sounding music in society. However, DeNora (2003) has argued that Adorno failed to explain how these patterns were produced and/or experienced in the real lives of people. His claims were not substantiated through collection of empirical data, they were purely theoretical. It is therefore difficult to know whether people were actually manipulated by capitalist patterns in popular music, or if employers actually manipulated their workers in the way that Adorno suggested. Inherent in his ideas is a difficulty in confirming them empirically: if workers do not experience manipulation, this may just confirm their unawareness of the manipulation they are subjected to. The debate about “functional music” and whether workers were musically manipulated by managers became the departure point for a larger research project at Gothenburg University in the late 1980s, which I discuss in the next section. 1 www.pipedown.org 19 1.3.2 The “Background music at work and leisure project” Socio-musicologist Thorsén studied music listening at a factory in Sweden and drew on comparisons with the US, UK and Eastern Europe (1987; 1988; 1989). He studied manual workers and their listening experiences, and adopted a variety of methods, including field observations, interviews and statistical data from radio stations. He argued that workers’ aesthetics of music have often been defined purely in terms of a lack of bourgeois values – in other words in negative terms. Thorsén instead defined workers’ aesthetics of music in terms of “being fair, not taking any shortcuts but rather dutifully carrying out your job and pulling your own weight” (p.10). Thorsén found no evidence of a specific work music genre in his studies of factory workers and their music. The workers did not appear to be manipulated by specifically composed music “piped in” by the factory management. Instead, employees preferred to listen to the radio or cassette tapes that they brought from home. The music chosen for work was the kind that workers felt created a positive contrast to the auditory working environment of the factory, and that was energising (in this case, particularly, AfroAmerican music). Even though older workers listened more to Swedish folk music and younger workers enjoyed foreign pop and rock music, both groups maintained that “good rhythm and sound quality” (p.3) were essential elements. Furthermore, musical aspects such as dynamics and complexity were stated as deciding factors in music choice at work; great dynamic variations and long, complex musical pieces were reported to work less well in their workshop environment. However, complex music could still function in a noisy working environment, as long as the piece of music was familiar to the listener. Furthermore, he noted that musicians’ skills were more emphasised than the composers’ original idea, which differs from the traditional aesthetics of classical music found in Adorno’ works (1976). The interviewees indicated that their musical interests were not only formed through the consumption of mass media products, but also shaped through socialisation and interaction with peers and colleagues, both during leisure and work. This highlights the 20 workplace as a potential arena for developing and maintaining musical identities throughout life, which has seldom been discussed in published research (another rare example is Voida and colleagues’ (2006) study of online music sharing between colleagues in an office). The functions of music at work reported by the employees in Thorsén’s study were stimulation from boring and tiresome tasks (both mentally in terms of concentration and physically in terms of bodily energy), creation of a different atmosphere, reminding them of leisure activities and experiences, providing a topic of conversation and identity forming, continuous development of music and culture preferences, and nostalgia. Thorsén found evidence that listeners at work wanted to listen to music that helped them engage more in tasks (for example through synchronisation of movements) as well as music that provided escape from work. The fact that employees appeared to want different functions from the music at different times suggests that situational factors are likely to play an important role in the relationship between listener and music, in addition to stable mediating factors such as personality traits (Furnham & Bradley, 1997). Thorsén also pointed out that the boundaries between work and leisure become blurred with the presence of music at work, so music listening could be understood as an example of leisure time at work. But studies where music is conceptualised as leisure at work are rare, as I illustrate in the next section. 1.3.3 Music as leisure at work Music at work can be said to be a multidisciplinary topic, in that researchers from different disciplines have engaged with the topic. But within some disciplines music at work has sometimes been ignored. This was noted by Korczynski (2003) in his historical overview of music at work, where he argued that the lack of studies of music at work within the sociological discipline was ultimately a result of what he called “the Big Split” between work and leisure of industrialised capitalism, which has in turn provided both leisure and organisational sociologists with a “Big Alibi” for not studying music at work. Leisure sociologists did not explore anything taking place in work environments, and work sociologists did not approach anything that was perceived as a leisure-related activity. 21 Researchers in business studies and Information Technology (IT) have begun to focus attention on the concept of leisure at work. Within business studies and organisational psychology, leisure at work has been defined either as the use of play to stimulate innovation and development in companies (Brooks & Bowker, 2002) or as sport and health initiatives that take place in relation to work (either during work hours, at the workplace, or outside of work and subsidised by the employer) but always as something that is separate from the actual work tasks (Roberts, 1983). Thus leisure at work has been understood as something that could happen during work hours, but never concurrently with working itself – which is often how music is used. Within IT studies, the use of internet technology for private purposes has been conceptualised as leisure at work. Many studies focus on risks associated with internet use (D’Abate, 2005; Garreth & Danziger, 2008). For example, use of the internet for personal purposes has been deemed a risk to organisations (in terms of legality and IT security), which can threaten the level of employee productivity (Attaran, 2000; Siau et al., 2002; Withman, 2003). Researchers sometimes mention music to exemplify the products that employees might be downloading illegally. Oravec (2002) has pointed out that internet use at work can also be understood as constructive use which could enhance the workplace through stress relief and the provision of new perspectives. The conceptualisation of private internet use at work as stress relieving and creativity enhancing is consistent with findings of research into the effects of music listening in offices (Lesiuk, 2005; Oldham et al., 1995). Studies of newer IT companies (e.g. Microsoft and Google) have highlighted the role that office design can have on employee identity. For example, van Mel & Vos (2001) noted that employees in the IT sector feel more at home and also become more creative if companies incorporate “fun features” (e.g. music access, pool tables and other games) and merge work and leisure in what they termed “funky offices”. This trend has been consistent with developments in Britain of increasingly blurred boundaries between work and leisure (Lewis, 2003). 22 1.3.4 Uses of MP3 players in offices Since the launch of the first generation of MP3 players by Apple Inc. in 2001, these digital listening devices have become increasingly popular. For example, in September 2009, Apple Inc. (who enjoyed a market share of 74% at the time) announced a total sale of 220 million of their MP3 players. It is plausible to argue that the increasing sales have also meant that more employees are bringing their MP3 players into their offices. Spherion (a large North American recruitment firm) sampled 1,613 employed adults, and found that 55% felt that music listening via MP3 players improved their job satisfaction and productivity (Spherion, 2006). 21% felt music listening via MP3 players did not improve job satisfaction or productivity. Bull (2007) explored music listening at work in Western post-industrialised workplaces as part of an interview study of MP3 player use in everyday life. He suggested that music listening through MP3 players can be a strategy for people in offices to privatise their auditory environment, a “form of cognitive control” (p.112) as well as an “aural cocoon” (p.113). Furthermore, MP3 player use helped listeners to concentrate on their task, as it prevented their minds from “wandering off” (p.112). The listeners in his study displayed a desire to control their working environment and pace. This finding is consistent with studies of privacy in open plan offices, which suggest that employees highly value acoustic privacy in this particular work setting (Brennan et al., 2002; Ding, 2008; Jensen et al., 2005). Bull (2007) also found that MP3 player use in private offices can communicate a “do not disturb” message to other colleagues, and can therefore act as a boundary marker. This function, according to Bull, can be understood as a demonstration of authority – that the employee has the authority to transform their office space. Bull noted that music listening was not always viewed as appropriate in the office, but that rules on appropriateness appeared fluid and subjective. In shared office spaces, MP3 player users described using their devices to block out surrounding sounds from their working environment, such as colleagues’ conversations. On the contrary, Beer (2007) has argued that use of MP3 players in urban environments 23 allows listeners to prioritise the music overlay and “tune out” of the cityscape rather than “control it” through total exclusion. The activity of creating and managing a private space within a public or social space with the use of personal listening devices were also found among friends by Bull (2000) in his study of personal stereo use in everyday life. As mentioned earlier, researchers are noting that the boundaries between work and leisure are becoming increasingly blurred in the so-called “IT society”, compared to the industrialised society. Frith (2002) has argued radios were the first technological listening device that started blurring the boundaries between public and private space, and lead to people being able to switch their attention between background and foreground music. One way of understanding the changing attitudes to public and private spaces can therefore be to consider the interaction with technological developments. The functions involving marking boundary and creating auditory privacy found by Bull (2007) are different functions to those found by Thorsén (1985) in a factory. This could be because the MP3 player, or perhaps headphones more specifically, is more suited to mark boundaries and create privacy than listening to music via speakers. It could also be because employees in office environments have a greater need to manage boundaries and privacy, especially if they work in open plan offices. Given the fact that Thorsén studied a factory environment and Bull (2007) focused on a particular listening device, I also consider studies of music functions in daily life for other possible functions that music may have in offices. 1.3.5 Music listening in everyday life Research into music listening in contemporary life has suggested that people listen to music for a variety of purposes. These include affect and well-being management, relaxation, evoking of memories, identity work, creating an atmosphere, concentration, entertainment, distraction and passing time (Batt-Rawden & DeNora, 2005; DeNora, 2000; North et al., 2004; Saarikallio & Erkkilä, 2007; Sloboda et al., 2001). As 24 mentioned earlier, some employees described music at work as irritating and annoying, and studies of office noise suggest that exposure to unwanted sounds can be detrimental, both mentally and physically (see review in North & Hargreaves 2008). Thus, to make a distinction between voluntary and involuntary/imposed music seems useful, perhaps even crucial. Studies of music listening have started to focus on this particular issue as the studies become increasingly contextualised (e.g. Davis & Thaut 1989; DeNora 2000; Greasley 2008; Sloboda et al., 2001) and I review one of them below. North and colleagues (2004) carried out a survey of listening experiences and behaviours in daily life, where they did distinguish between whether participants had chosen to be able to hear the music or not. They did not specifically investigate offices, but they compared times of the day (8am – 4.59pm compared to 5pm – 11pm), and also weekdays and weekends. If we assume that a typical office working week is Monday-Friday, and the typical office working hours are between 8am and 4.59pm, then we can hypothesise about some of the functions music may have at work in the 21st century by looking at the results from this study. In order to do so, I extracted their findings according to the parameters discussed, and compared the effects of voluntary and involuntary music listening, at work and outside of work. I compiled two sets of tables by adding the top three and bottom three effects that music had, within two categories: i) “Hours of the day” (Weekday office hours versus Weekday leisure hours) (original tables 11 (p.64) and 13 (p.65)), and ii) “Days of the week” (Working week versus Weekend) (original tables 12 (p.64) and 14 (p.65)). Each set of tables illustrate the functions in these contexts for both voluntary and involuntary listening. The adapted presentation of this data can be found in tables 1.2 and 1.3. The findings from North and his colleagues reveal many similarities between the top three effects; enjoyment and creating an atmosphere were featured in almost every top three function, irrespective of whether the listening was voluntary or involuntary. 25 Top three effects Bottom three effects Involuntary listening Weekday office hours Weekday leisure hours (8am – 4.59 pm) (5pm – 11 pm) 1. Helped to create the right atmosphere 1. Helped to create the right atmosphere 2. I enjoyed it 2. I enjoyed it 3. None at all 3. None at all 1. Made me look good/stupid 1. Made me look good 2. Other 2. Made me look stupid 3. I wanted to get away from the music 3. Created wrong atmosphere Voluntary listening Weekday office hours Weekday leisure hours (8am – 4.59 pm) (5pm – 11 pm) 1. I enjoyed it 1. I enjoyed it 2. Helped to pass the time 2. Helped to pass the time 3. Helped to create the right atmosphere 3. Helped to create the right atmosphere 1. I wanted to learn more about the music 1. I wanted to learn more about the music 2. Helped to create an image for me 2. Helped to create an image for me 3. Other 3. Other Top three effects Bottom three effects Table 1.2: Functions of involuntary and voluntary listening according to hours of the day, adapted from North et al., (2004) Music as an aid to pass time was only reported in the top three effects when listening was voluntary, which is interesting given that much previous research has mentioned how “piped in” music can help to pass time in factories. Annoyance with the music (wanting to get away from it) was only reported in the top three effects when the listening was involuntary. This data suggests that music listening during working hours is perceived as enjoyable, that it helps to alter the perception of the workplace surroundings and also modifies time perception. The bottom three effects during work periods reveal that listening rarely appeared to evoke curiosity or inspire interest in the music heard. Furthermore, music listening appears to have little relationship with creating “images” for people. In other words, music listening at work does not appear to be particularly related to identity forming and the display of certain images to other people, which contradicts the qualitative findings by Thorsén (1989) (see 1.3.2). 26 Top three effects Bottom three effects Involuntary listening Working week Weekend (Mon-Fri) (Sat-Sun) 1. Helped to create the right atmosphere 1. Helped to create the right atmosphere 2. I enjoyed it 2. I enjoyed it 3. None at all 3. None at all 1. Made me look good/stupid 1. Made me look good/stupid 2. Other 2. Created wrong atmosphere 3. Created wrong atmosphere 3. Wanted to get away from the music Voluntary listening Working week (Mon-Fri) Weekend (Sat-Sun) 1. I enjoyed it 2. Helped to pass the time 3. Helped to create the right atmosphere 1. I wanted to learn more about the music 2. Other 3. Helped create an image for me Top three effects Bottom three effects 1. I enjoyed it 2. Helped to pass the time 3. Helped to create the right atmosphere 1. I wanted to learn more about the music 2. Helped create an image for me 3. Other Table 1.3: Functions of involuntary and voluntary listening according to days of the week, adapted from North et al., (2004) However, when it comes to involuntary listening, although the top three functions in each category were largely positive, it should be noted that “it annoyed me” was the fourth most common response. This suggests that many people may be annoyed by involuntary listening at work, even though it was not among the three most commonly reported effects of music. It is also worth noting that control over the music (when the listening event is voluntary rather than involuntary) seems to change perceptions of music and possibly alter its functions. This study may say something about what functions self-directed listening may have at work, which is little known at the moment. Previous research have mainly studied the effects of researcher-selected music on work performance, and the few studies that have explored employees’ own listening patterns have either studied factor environments (Thorsén, 1985) or a particular listening device (Bull, 2007). Mainly, the findings suggest so far that there is little difference between work and leisure periods, as far as where functions of music are concerned. This would suggest that the office context plays a minor role in the experiences of music in this setting. However, because the survey by North and colleagues (2004) was not designed to study music at work specifically, it is 27 difficult to know to what extent these results can be considered valid in an office context. For example, it is mainly hypothetical that office hours should be 8am - 4.59pm, and office days Monday - Friday. There may be participants in their samples who worked in office environments but instead worked evenings and weekends. Analysing their data reveals another important issue: the participants’ demographic information reveals an overwhelming majority of university students in the sample (44.8%,), as opposed to only 22.3% who described their occupation as “managerial/administrative”, and 15.1% as “professional”. Thus, it is likely that the sample has affected the results, and that many participants were not in an office-related workplace during working hours and working weeks. Instead, they may have been attending lectures, sitting in libraries, or studying from home – most of which are environments that are not comparable with offices. Therefore, this emphasises the need for empirical research into the experience and listening patterns of voluntary music listening in actual offices, by employees. 1.4 Conclusions Results suggest that music can both enhance and disrupt work performance, and can be both relaxing and irritating. Many researchers have agreed that moderate levels of arousal seem to benefit task performance, whereas extreme levels can be detrimental, and variables that appear to influence arousal levels in response to music are mood, personality traits, musical training, music complexity, task complexity, and social context. Music at work can have several functions for the employees; alleviating boredom, pacing work, creating privacy, and enhancing both well-being and concentration. Employees have different needs at different times in different situations, although little is known about these particular circumstances. Studies of the effects of music in contemporary workplaces have investigated effects of music on employee morale, work performance, but also customer purchase and queuing behaviour (North & Hargreaves, 2006). These approaches can be understood as coming from the tradition of scientific management, in that managers aimed to control their workforce or customers. This thesis takes a different direction by focusing on the worker experience. This is 28 similar to some of the more sociologically informed approaches by Korczynski and colleagues (2005), Bull (2007) and DeNora (2000), but like Thorsén (1985) this research draws on both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The current position of music at work as a topic of study can perhaps best be described as a field of research located between two (or even more) chairs in terms of discipline location and research efforts (figure 1.4). Few of the studies investigating music at work acknowledge the work of others. This is unfortunate, as it hinders the development of a consistent body of literature and knowledge about the role of music at work, or while working. The scarcity with which researchers refer to each others’ work is partly due to divides in academic paradigms. The studies by Lesiuk (2005) and Oldham and colleagues (1995) adopt a mainly experimental approach, and are thus cited in social psychology papers and books (e.g. North & Hargreaves 2008), but not in sociological work (e.g. Bull 2007; Korczynski 2003), and vice versa. (Anthropology) Sociology Sociology of work Social psychology Music psychology Psychology Sociomusicology /sociology of music Personality psycholog y Music at work Organisational psychology Musicology Music therapy Medicine Figure 1.4: Model of disciplines surrounding the study of music at work 29 There also appears to be a cultural/regional divide in which publications in the British and American journals – and perhaps more importantly in the English language - are the most visible (Bull, 2007; Korczynski, 2003; Lesiuk, 2005; North & Hargreaves, 2006; Oldham et al., 1995). The thorough sociomusicological research of the role of (voluntary and self-selected) music listening in Sweden (Thorsén, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989), which interestingly used a variety of methods despite the fact that it was carried out 20 years ago, has not been noted by many subsequent academics, perhaps because only one of his papers appears in an English translation. This raises the question of whether there are other studies in other cultures, written in other languages, which are highly relevant to the current research, but which have not come to my attention due to language constraints. Even though the current research cannot explore all studies in all languages, one of the key aims of this chapter has been to draw together what has been published so far in English – irrespective of academic paradigm – along with the studies by Thorsén mentioned above, in order to provide the first comprehensive assimilation of knowledge of studies of music at work. And it is from this body of knowledge that the research aims and methods for the current research have been developed. 1.5 Research aims This thesis focuses on office-based workplaces and has three main research aims: 1) to improve insight into current listening practices and the reasons why people listen to music in offices, 2) to investigate the effects of listening to music on work performance and experience through an intervention study, and 3) to get insight into experiences, functions and roles of music in offices and their dependencies on contextual factors such as colleagues, business practices, and physical office spaces. 30 1.5.1 Current listening practices What music do they listen to, and while doing what? How often do they listen, what listening technologies are common, and with whom do they listen? The first aim is to investigate music listening experiences and patterns, and how employees who listen to music make use of this facility. The reviewed literature revealed no data on what music styles employees listen to in offices. Literature on task performance and music listening have suggested that music is more beneficial when doing simpler tasks, but there is no insight into whether employees themselves listen in this fashion when listening to self-chosen music. Furthermore, there are no data on how much employees listen per week, what technologies they use and if they listen alone or with colleagues. Why do they listen? People often use music in their daily lives as a mood regulating strategy (DeNora, 2000; Greasley, 2008; North et al., 2004; Saarikallio & Erkkilä, 2007; Sloboda & O'Neill, 2001). But little is known about music in offices, outside of researcher-designed interventions and experiments. The studies that have focused on employees’ own listening patterns have found that employees can manage working environments, concentration levels and express experiences of labour (Bull, 2007; Korczynski, 2007; Thorsén, 1985). However, as pointed out earlier, Bull’s study focused on the uses of MP3 players in particular, and both Thorsén’s and Korczynski’s studies focus on factory-based workplaces. Therefore, it is still unclear why employees listen to music in offices. If they choose not to listen – what are the reasons why? It seems that some employees listen to music in offices, which logically suggests that some employees do not listen at all. It is also likely that employees who listen do not listen all the time, and some research has found that employees can sometimes find music 31 at work annoying (Uhrbrock, 1961). Still, the reasons why employees (sometimes) do not listen to music are unknown. In order to investigate current uses and functions of music in offices, it is essential to study a wide variety of office workers in a number of different offices. The current research focuses on listeners who choose to listen while working. The reason for this is that because these individuals find music useful at work, they provide a useful sample for studying why that might be, and what functions music fulfils for them. This topic can be explored and investigated further in future studies, and could function as a foundation for future research into music listening in offices in the UK, as well as comparative research in other countries and cultures. 1.5.2 The effects of a music listening intervention Are there any main effects of music on well-being measures, work performance, job satisfaction and other work responses? Another aim of the research is to study the effects of music listening on work performance and well-being in an office-based workplace. Two studies have illustrated that individual, self-selected music listening can improve mood and work performance (Lesiuk, 2005; Oldham et al., 1995), yet other studies suggest that there is often a main negative effect of music on work performance (Cassidy & MacDonald, 2007; Furnham & Strbac, 2002). Therefore, more field research is needed to confirm and validate results from these studies. Could music listening during breaks at work be better suited for some employees? In addition, there is still more to investigate about experiences and responses to music under different conditions. For example, previous studies have only compared music listening while working against working without listening to music. Yet studies have shown that people can get distracted by music while performing tasks (Daoussis & 32 McKelvie, 1986; Furnham & Bradley, 1997). Studies of rest breaks at work suggest that microbreaks (i.e. short breaks of no more than 10-15 minutes) can be beneficial for both physical and psychological well-being (Henning et al., 1997; McLean et al., 2001). Furthermore, earlier studies of music listening in factories as well as offices suggest that listening to music during short periods, rather than continuously, may be more beneficial for increasing productivity (Fox & Embrey, 1972). These findings suggest that music listening in breaks may be an alternative for employees who want to listen at work and find it beneficial, but easily get distracted. This research aims to investigate music listening in breaks in addition to comparing music while working to working without music, and thus expand on previous field study designs. 1.5.3 Experiences of music and their contextual influences The third main aim of this research is to explore contextual factors influences listening behaviour more in-depth. Through doing so, a more detailed understanding can be obtained of the ways in which employees use music as a resource in offices and why it works for some and in some cases, while not for others and not in other circumstances. In what ways do the physical and social surroundings influence listening practices and experiences? Research on music’s effects on task performance (see 1.2.2) has often been carried out in laboratories, and for the purpose of understanding music listening in offices these studies have not been contextualised enough. Exploratory approaches (see 1.3) have contextualised the listening event at work to a greater extent, but those studies are rare and have focused on either factories or particular listening devices (Bull, 2007; Thorsén, 1985). There is a wider move towards contextualising research in music psychology (DeNora, 2000; Juslin & Laukka, 2004; Sloboda & O'Neill, 2001), and the current research aims to explore contextual aspects that may influence listening experiences in offices. 33 During what circumstances is music distracting/concentration-enhancing? Distracting effects of music while working have mainly been studied in laboratories (see 1.2.2). However, as was argued earlier, any effects of music on cognitive tasks (and experiences of concentration or distraction) are likely to interact with individual responses to a specific piece of music, as well as with situational aspects. There is insufficient understanding about the experiences of distraction and concentration “in situ”, and what contextual factors may influence such experiences. Are there certain music styles that fit certain tasks? Even though Thorsén (1985) found no evidence of particular “work music” in his research, there are commercial companies who claim that classical music in particular is conducive for relaxing as well as concentrating (e.g. advancedbrain.com, Music2Work2.com, externaldesign.com and Muzak.com). This raises questions about whether certain music styles may be perceived as more suitable to accompany certain tasks, and whether this is the case in office environments. Are there any disadvantages to listening in offices? If so - how are the disadvantages and advantages balanced? Music has often been conceptualised as conducive for working. However, some studies have found that employees can find music at work annoying and distracting (Furnham & Strbac, 2002; Uhrbrock, 1961). Particular uses of music in office environments, for example listening via the internet, have been deemed potentially harmful for organisations (D’Abate, 2005; Garreth & Danziger, 2008). Nothing is known about other potential disadvantages of music in this context, and if/how any disadvantages are balanced against advantages of music. 34 How is music listening viewed by listeners, IT managers and HR managers? As mentioned, music at work has sometimes been conceptualised as a problem. It has sometimes been understood as a leisure display at work. This raises questions about how people in office environments view music in this context, and what they feel it represents. Views and perceptions about music are likely to contribute to the many aspects that can influence music experiences and therefore adds to the process of contextualisation. Overall, the research aims in this thesis seek to explore and uncover relationships between the listener, the music and the situation. Such relationships could contribute to models of music experiences and listening patterns in offices, which could be tested in future research. The next chapter (2) presents the theoretical approaches that have influenced this project. The chapter also outlines an overview of the research process as a whole, as well as brief details of the methods used in each study. 35 2 Theoretical approach, methods, data analysis: Pragmatism, Mixed Methods and Grounded Theory 2.1 Introduction If the topic of study is multidisciplinary, which I have argued that music at work is, a holistic approach to the research is desirable. A useful approach is one which allows the researcher to cross over discipline boundaries. In this chapter, I argue that taking a pragmatic approach allows freedom to utilise a variety of methods, some which may have otherwise been difficult to obtain. I also argue that Mixed Methods is a suitable research design approach which sits comfortably with pragmatism. This thesis is also influenced by Grounded Theory, in that I have aimed to build an overall picture of music experiences based on the data, rather than testing models and hypotheses. As I argued in chapter 1, there are no known studies to date which have researched music in office by utilising a variety of methods and perspectives, which means there are no holistic models or hypotheses yet to test. In this chapter I present and discuss theoretical approach and methods of data collection and analysis used in this project. 2.2 Methodological approach In chapter 1, I reviewed studies of music listening at work and other studies that are relevant to understanding why and how people may listen to music at work. Even though these studies have contributed to understanding the role music can play in workplaces, they have been narrow both in terms of academic disciplines and methodology. The current research aims to integrate knowledge about music listening at work from different disciplines, and extend current understanding through holistically exploring the uses and experiences of music listening in offices. The hypotheses in this thesis are: a) music experiences in offices are varied and music can be perceived both as beneficial and detrimental, and b) the experiences are shaped by relationships between the music, the listener, and the context in which the listening takes place. 36 This section outlines previous methods used in the study of music while working and highlights their advantages and disadvantages. The arguments developed in this section are consequently reflected in the approach and methods in this thesis. Firstly, I summarise the methods used in previous studies. Secondly, I discuss the theoretical approach of pragmatism and argue why it is suitable for this project. Thirdly, I discuss Grounded Theory and Mixed Methods and illustrate what aspects of these methodologies have been used in this thesis. Finally, I briefly consider the use of self-reports, which is the data collection technique that has been used throughout this thesis. 2.2.1 Previous methods used in the study of music listening at work As described in the previous chapter, many empirical studies of music listening at work have been conducted within the discipline of applied psychology. Listeners have been conceptualised as passive, and music understood as a stimulus which has particular effects on listeners. Researchers have often chosen the music and less attention have been paid to these choices. They have also conceptualised music as a stimulus, and the fact that different participants can respond differently to the same piece of music has seldom been discussed. These approaches reflect a positivist approach in which the researchers have viewed themselves as “objective” and not considered their own influence over the selection process, nor considered the interaction between music, listener and the situation. Previous studies of music listening in factories often measured the effect of music on quantitative output, either as observed by researchers, or as reported by management (Antrim, 1943; Fox, 1971; Wokun, 1969; Wyatt & Langdon, 1937). Workers’ own experiences were reported in this research, but researchers seldom used interviews or surveys to collect employee views and opinions. Instead, some researchers reported comments made by employees during the course of field experiments as miscellaneous reactions. Later studies of music listening and task performance used standardised psychological measures of task performance (e.g. the Stroop test, as observed by the 37 researcher) and personality traits (e.g. trait descriptions for participants to agree or disagree with) (Furnham & Bradley, 1997). The positivist, experimental approach has been valuable for two reasons. Firstly, researchers have been able to gather quantitative “proof” of music’s positive effects in a work situation, often measured in terms of productivity and understood as something that can ultimately benefit the organisation financially. Secondly, the approach has also been useful in laboratory studies in psychology, where researchers have tested and validated theories about sonic qualities and their distraction potential, and individual differences in arousal potential in music listening situations. Yet results from these two research strands provide little information about the situational and contextual influences that exist in listening situations at work, and which has recently been noted in other listening contexts (Bull, 2007; DeNora, 2000; Dibben & Williamson, 2006; Gabrielsson, 2001; Juslin & Laukka, 2004; North et al., 2004; Sloboda et al., 2001). Given that this research is experimental, the studies also provide limited information about how employees use music themselves. As mentioned in chapter 1, anecdotal evidence from news articles and internet forums suggest that music listening at work is frequently discussed among employees, including the appropriateness of music at work and the effects on concentration/distraction. Managers are also interested in the effects of music on their employees, something evident in newspaper articles on the topic2 as well as e-mails to me during the course of my PhD studies, asking me to evaluate the effects of music listening at work on productivity and morale. In other words, there is still an interest within organisations in understanding more about the effects of different listening interventions. But we do not know what the effects of a music intervention in a UK office today might be. Furthermore, the fact that many previous studies yielded varied results (Uhrbrock, 1961), suggests that there is still room for methodological improvements. 2 (David, 2006; Marcus, 2008) 38 Such improvements have taken place in more recent field studies by Oldham and colleagues (1995) and Lesiuk (2005). Participants were allowed to choose their own music and almost all data on mood, attitudes and other work responses were collected through self-reports. This represents a shift in conceptualisations of listeners and music. These conceptualisations can be understood as evolving alongside three more recent theoretical developments in music psychology and sociology of music: reconceptualisations of listeners, re-conceptualisation of music’s role, and acknowledgement of situational contexts. Firstly, conceptualisations of music listeners as passive recipients have been challenged. For example, Becker (2001) states that the idea of a passive and reflective listener is inadequate for exploring musical events and musical emotions. She argues that this kind of conceptualisation involves a number of unexamined assumptions; what exactly constitutes listening, and what are the appropriate musical experiences? Juslin & Laukka (2004) have pointed out that it is particularly unfortunate that listeners have rarely been consulted about their music experiences, as this has led to a lack of understanding of how listeners respond emotionally to music. Another criticism with regard to participants is that the majority of applied psychology studies involve psychology graduate students who participate in laboratory-like settings, which raise questions about how far the results can be generalised to the wider population (North & Hargreaves, 2008). Secondly, the role of music in everyday life is currently understood more as a resource and less as a stimulus. For example, according to DeNora (2000), listeners actively construct the semiotic force of music and contribute to the power of music themselves through memories, associations and local circumstances. The idea of music as a resource also relates to technological advancements. The growth of the internet as a means of obtaining music, the advent of portable digital music players, and a switch from analogue to digital formats have resulted in easy access to a wide range of music at any time and in almost any location (North & Hargreaves, 2008; Théberge, 2001). There is growing consensus among researchers that through accessing music on a day to day basis, people 39 can maintain aesthetic, cognitive, emotional and social control (Bull, 2007; DeNora, 2000; Juslin & Laukka, 2004). Thirdly, there have been many recent calls for the discipline of music psychology to move out of the laboratory and into the “real world”, in order to study music experience. For example, Sloboda & O’Neill (2001) have emphasised that the “impact of music on emotion is not direct but interdependent on the situations in which it is heard” (p.415). This move towards real world research has been spurred on by a general move within psychology and musicology toward improvements in ecological validity in the discipline of psychology, and influences of the qualitative research paradigm as an alternative to the positivist tradition3. Clarke (2006) has argued that researchers’ assumptions and ideas (and theory development) benefit from being “rubbed up” “against the hard and bumpy edges of empirical reality” (p.31). Given the increasing access to music in everyday life that people have, assumptions about music listening experiences should not just be compared against an empirical reality but an ecologically valid empirical reality. The relationship between these three aspects (music, listener, and situation) is useful for understanding music experiences in real life. Becker (2001) has pointed out that music listeners are “necessarily influenced by place, time, the shared context of culture, and the intricate and unreproduceable details of one’s biography” (p.138). Sloboda & Juslin (2001) have argued that the interaction between these three factors has been ignored, particularly the situational context. The small number of exploratory studies of music listening at work that are influenced by a qualitative paradigm have to some extent begun to explore how employees use music at work (Bull, 2007; Thorsén, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989). These studies have used mainly interviews to explore the role of music at work. Thorsén (1989) visited a factory and talked to the workers there. This had the benefit of him being able to relate to and “feel” 3 Although it should be noted that ethnomusicology for a long time has used context-driven approaches and carried out field-research (e.g. Huron, 2009; Stock, 2004) 40 the atmosphere in the workplace where participants worked. Bull (2007), on the other hand, carried out his interviews via e-mail, and thus relies heavily on the written words of his participants, but by way of compensation this allowed him to draw on a larger crosscultural sample. Both studies have placed the situational context in the forefront, and explored the relationship between this context and the listening behaviour. This research project uses a similar approach, but with an extended focus. For example, Bull found evidence that employees used music to create private space in open plan offices. Thorsén found that workers sometimes listened to music to soften the sounds from their factory. How do listeners use music for these purposes? What are the contextual factors that mediate listening behaviour and experiences? Are there other purposes to listening to music in offices than those already identified? What are the contextual conditions involved in listening experiences in offices? These questions suggest that further qualitative and quantitative data could be a useful way to discover more about the role of music in UK offices in the 21st century. In the next section I argue that pragmatism can be a useful approach that can aid the method decisions needed to investigate the research questions outlined above. 2.2.2 Pragmatism as theoretical orientation One issue with the reviewed studies of music listening at work is their traditional approach to method decisions, driven by traditional research paradigms (with the exception of Thorsén who utilised a mixed methods approach to his data collection, including both quantitative and qualitative data). When studying a cross-disciplinary subject such as music at work, it is useful if choices of methods are issue driven, rather than discipline driven, and research questions guide method choices (Clarke & Cook 2004, Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Johnson et al., 2007). One theoretical orientation that allows such approach is pragmatism. Taking a pragmatic position means taking a pluralist position and being interested in empirical and practical consequences (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). This approach is particularly useful when studying music listening at work because it can contribute to knowledge and understanding of the topic 41 through maintaining the focus on the research question and what methodologies would be most suitable for each question, rather than focusing on disciplinary alliances. Being discipline driven can involve narrowing down the line of enquiry unnecessarily and being unable to “grasp” the “whole” of the enquiry, as a result of academic traditions and consequently limited methodological knowledge. Academic disciplines can also limit the kinds of questions a researcher poses, thus leading to a self fulfilling prophecy (i.e. researchers only ask those questions required by methods commonly used in their particular disciplines). Basing method choices on academic traditions goes against the idea of pragmatism. Therefore, by maintaining a pragmatic approach, researchers ensure that they move away from the traditional debates about quantitative or qualitative methods, and into integrated approaches, which in turn can lead theoretical development of this subject area forward. A pragmatic approach sits comfortably with empirical musicology (Clarke & Cook, 2004). It also sits well with both Grounded Theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) and Mixed Methods Research (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), as I discuss below. 2.2.3 Grounded Theory and Mixed Methods Research This thesis include a variety of methods: both quantitative and qualitative research techniques have been used, mixed and blended. Grounded Theory has also strongly influenced the research process as a whole. This section outlines some characteristics of the two approaches that are important to this thesis. Both Grounded Theory and Mixed Methods Research endorse pluralism and place a strong emphasis on reality, human experience in action, and empiricism (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Grounded Theory was originally developed by Glaser & Strauss (1967), but has since been developed into many different strands and approaches (Charmaz, 2006; Clarke, 2005; Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Glaser, 1992). The method developed as a reaction to the idea that studies should be theoretically 42 framed prior to data collection, and has proven attractive particularly when studying novel topics where pre-existing theories may not exist (Robson, 2002). Mixed Methods Research (defined as a paradigm) is a more recent development. It has been described as providing a third alternative to the two traditional research paradigms (quantitative and qualitative) by integrating them, and thus rejecting the idea that the two traditional paradigms are impossible to combine (Denscombe, 2008; Greene, 2008; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Both Grounded Theory and Mixed Methods Research are influenced by qualitative approaches. Qualitative approaches reject the idea that there is an objective reality to be discovered by researchers. Instead, qualitative researchers argue that the real world is complex and that multiple accounts of reality exist (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). For example, Corbin (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) argues that if the mind is understood as active, rather than passive, there cannot be an objective truth to be discovered. It is therefore seen as important to capture as much complexity as possible in research, yet acknowledge that all complexity cannot be captured. Qualitative researchers often work with concepts to illustrate what they “see” in their data. Even though concepts are understood as constructions by the researcher, they can still correspond to something in the real world (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, see also Clarke & Cook, 2004). Even though concepts are constructed by researchers, out of constructions by participants who are trying to make sense of their experiences, concepts can still include useful information and new knowledge and other people can still share common constructions and understandings of these concepts (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In this thesis, an important influence from the qualitative paradigm has been ideas about and challenges to the role of the researcher. Many qualitative researchers today do not separate the person from the research and the analysis that they do (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Instead, by the researcher reflecting on their own role in their research (how their research affects them and how they affect the research), it is believed that they can become more aware of what their participants are telling them. Two important traits that 43 are required by the researcher are reflexivity and sensitivity, in order for the research to be credible. Being reflexive in the research process involves the researcher acknowledging their own influence on the research process, and “spotting themselves” in their analysis. The researcher needs to reflect on ways in which they influence the research, and how the research influences them. Researcher sensitivity increases when researchers immerse themselves into the data and begin to understand the views of the participants through being aware of their own subjectivity. This can be achieved by comparing data to own knowledge and experience and working closely with original data and impressions of raw data. Grounded Theory research can be designed and carried out in different ways. However, most often the researcher begins to collect data through interviews from one or a small number of informants. Data are then analysed after each interview and the results lead the progress and direction of the research. For example, Grounded Theory researchers often utilise theoretical sampling; results generate new questions and these questions guide the search for new participants. Data are collected and analysed until no new themes emerge, and the data are “saturated” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Advantages are that a researcher can collect data according to the needs of the project, as they arise, and that theory can be built qualitatively in areas where no theoretical frameworks exist. However, some Grounded Theory approaches have an ambivalent attitude to literature and previous theory. Sometimes the approach recommends not engaging in literature before data collection as this may bias researchers to look for evidence of previous theory to fit the new data (Robson, 2002). It is debatable whether a researcher can study a topic they know nothing about. In other words, most researchers are to some extent biased by what they have read previously, and it is difficult to start a project with a “clean slate”. Prior knowledge can also sometimes be useful in that it allows more observations as a result of the research knowing more. Furthermore, by knowing it is also possible to clarify any biases and thus be aware of preconceptions. This thesis has drawn upon literature continually throughout the whole project. 44 Mixed Methods Research can also be designed in a variety of ways. The research design may lean towards different paradigms at different stages of the research process. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie (2004) exemplified ways of classifying these different designs. For example, an interview survey followed by an experiment can be expressed as “qual>quan” (qualitative to quantitative). If the experiment had a higher priority in the overall project, it can be expressed as “qual->QUAN”. Sometimes Mixed Methods Research may not be carried out sequentially but concurrently, for example “quan+qual” (indicating that a quantitative and a qualitative study took place concurrently, with equal priority in the overall project). However, this is assuming that each study in a project is strictly quantitative or qualitative. Johnson and colleagues (2007) have distinguished individual study designs on a continuum between purely quantitative and purely qualitative, respectively. If a dominantly qualitative study includes some elements of quantitative methods, then it can be described as Qualitative mixed. If it leans more towards quantitative methods, then it is Quantitative mixed. According to Corbin & Strauss (2008), many researchers take a methodological approach that is a mixture of several different approaches. Creating simple classifications does not sit comfortably with the idea of a pluralist position, and the idea that the world is a complex place. Mixed Methods Research is thus helpful as this approach encourages integration of different research methods, and development of new ways of mixing and blending research techniques in order to obtain understanding of complex phenomena. Music at work is a topic with potential for new theory development through integration between different disciplines. As argued in chapter 1, the current state of the topic is multi-disciplinary, and future research needs to continue building on the various disciplines involved. An approach inspired by Grounded Theory and Mixed Methods Research, which in turn is inspired by applied psychology (organisational and music) as well as sociology and musicology, could enrich the theoretical development so that the role of music at work and its influences could be better understood. The next section 45 considers briefly the use of self-reports, before I move on to more details of the methods used in each study. 2.2.4 Self-reports The studies in this thesis have utilised self-reports. This means that participants were asked to report as accurately as possible on their music listening behaviours and experiences at work. The self-reports in this study are of different types and range from numerical rating scales to open ended questions in surveys and semi-structured interview schedules. The common aspect is that employees themselves indicate how they feel and what they think. No other measures (physiological indicators or observations, for example) have been used. There has been an extensive debate in the psychological discipline as to the reliability of self-reports in relation to preference (see PhD thesis by Greasley (2008) for a review of this debate in relation to music preference). Like Greasley’s thesis, this thesis rejects deterministic approaches and instead adopts a pluralistic and pragmatic approach, acknowledging different social and contextual influences on behaviour, and conceptualising listeners as active. Self-reports are therefore viewed as the most appropriate method to understand the subjective experiences of music listening in offices. 2.3 Overview of methods In this research project, I have used an approach influenced by Grounded Theory for the thesis as a whole. In other words, I have let results from one study inspire the design of the next. The thesis has also adopted mainly concurrent Mixed Methods Research, including different levels of mixing (both within and between study-mixing). This meant that my gradually deepened understanding of the topic informed the understanding of the other studies too. In this section, I first present information relating to the overall research process. I then introduce the methods used for each study: survey, field study and interviews, respectively. 46 2.3.1 Research process Figure 2.1 below illustrates how the whole research project started with the idea of a field experiment to investigate the effects of music listening in an office. Concurrently a survey was designed, as the need for an overview of employees’ own uses and habits were identified during initial readings on the topic. Year 1 Field Study (QUANT+qual) Survey (Quant+Qual) Year 2 Data collection Year 3 Data collection Analysis Year 4 Design Pilot Analysis Design and data ollection Analysis Analysis Analysis Interview Study (Qual) Design and data collection Analysis Figure 2.1: Visualisation of the research process From initial results of the survey, and from reflecting on the pilot study for the field experiment, the need for more in depth interviews was identified, which in turn influenced further data collection in the field experiment. For example, a variety of contextual influences (IT regulations, Personnel Managers’ perceptions of music listening at work, different demands on employee availability) were identified in qualitative comments in the survey, but also experienced first hand when I designed and carried out the field experiment. One problem encountered early on in the research process was that the organisation that was initially enrolled in the field study unexpectedly pulled out after the pilot study, apparently due to tightening budgets and the rumours of impending job losses. This delayed the data collection, as I needed to find a new organisation willing to take part in 47 the study. In the meantime, the survey data were analysed. After the field study pilot, it became clear that IT staff (especially managers) had a particularly important role in deciding about whether music listening was allowed or not. This subsequently affected me and my abilities to carry out the study and collect data. For example, I initially intended to collect real-time data on music selections through using a plug-in4 that can be installed for free if you register to the music website Last.fm. This plug-in tracks listening behaviour: it logs artists and music tracks, the time spent listening to each track, and also listening behaviour such as track skipping. This specific plug-in collects data and send the data on to Last.fm for statistical analysis. But the IT managers at the first organisation (which was a credit card company) categorically rejected this approach, as they felt it would cause weaknesses in their IT security systems. Therefore, my original ideas on data collection techniques had to be re-evaluated. The fact that the first organisation pulled out of the study also highlighted the constraints on me as a researcher in the real world. I had to rely on the voluntary participation of employees and organisations. Essentially, I had to ask them to participate and sacrifice time and money from their working routines without any financial rewards. This realisation sensitised me to the contextual surroundings in offices, and music’s subordinate position in this setting. These contextual influences were therefore explored in more depth in the interview study. Furthermore, the model above shows the constant, spiral-like interaction between the analysis phases of all three studies, and the way in which they all contributed to a deeper understanding of each study. As described in more detail below, the survey and the field experiment involved mixed designs and mixed analysis, whereas the interview study was a “pure qualitative” study. The spiral-like relationship between the studies means that the studies are neither strictly chronological, nor have they run completely parallel to each other. But in the presentation of them, I have opted for presenting the survey first, followed by the field study and then the interviews. This order does not strictly represent 4 A plug-in is a piece of software that customises the functionality of a computer application. 48 the order in which the studies were carried out. Notice for example that the follow-up interviews were carried out after all other data collection, yet are presented in chapter 4 in this thesis, before the interview study in chapters 5 and 6. I perceive that the order “survey - field study - interviews” is useful for presenting the results, in terms of explanatory clarity. 2.3.2 Method specifics This section outlines general details of the methods utilised in this thesis, including information on design, recruitment process, methods and data analysis. More detailed information about the specific participants in each study, as well as specific measures and analysis techniques, are discussed in each chapter. Survey One of the key aims of this research was to provide an insight into how people listen to music in offices through modern listening devices. The survey was designed to provide descriptive data on how, when, why and with whom people listened to music at work, and what music they listened to. This was so that the data could be compared with previous surveys of music listening (North et al., 2004). However, the survey was also designed in such a way as to provide exploratory data that could be examined further in future studies. The survey included both quantitative and qualitative items, and there were two reasons for this. Firstly, by mixing methods within the survey, both descriptive and exploratory data could be collected with the same technique. Secondly, by providing open questions as well as closed questions, additional functions of music at work could be identified instead of limiting the responses to previous research studies’ assumptions (see further descriptions in chapter 3 on how this was achieved). As discussed earlier, conceptualisations of listeners and music have been challenged by recent developments in music sociology, music anthropology and music psychology 49 (Becker, 2001; DeNora, 2001; Sloboda & Juslin, 2001). The approach taken in the design of the survey reflects these developments. For example, participants were asked to describe in their own words what music they listened to, rather than being asking to select from a list of music styles, reflecting a focus on participants’ own subjective choices and preferences (Greasley & Lamont, 2006). Furthermore, by asking participants what functions music had at work, music was conceptualised as something that the listeners used for different purposes, rather than a stimulus to which they merely reacted passively. It was viewed as important to achieve as much ecological validity as possible, as this aspect has been missing in much of the previous research reviewed (see 1.4). Ecological validity was achieved through making particular efforts to spread the survey to people working in offices outside of academia. Academic staff may work partly in private offices, but there are many other types of offices that do not resemble offices within university settings (for example open plan offices). Occupation categories included Administrative occupations, Business and public service, Culture, media, sports, Health and social welfare, Managers, Protective services (police and fire services), Science and technology, Secretarial, Teaching and research. Field study The main aims with the field experiment were two-fold. Firstly, the study sought to confirm and validate the small number of previous field experiments with contemporary conceptualisations of listeners and music (Lesiuk, 2005; Oldham et al., 1995). Secondly, the study aimed to expand on previous designs with only two sound conditions (music listening while working or no music) by adding a third condition: music listening in breaks. The study design used repeated measures within-group design with three conditions. During a total of six weeks, participants spent two weeks listening to music whilst working (condition 1), two weeks listening to music in breaks (condition 2) and two 50 weeks not listening to music at all (condition 3). The second condition, listening in breaks, expanded on previous designs through adding a condition where people could listen to music in the workplace, but not while working. For each of these six weeks the participants were asked to fill in response sheets, measuring a variety of mood and jobrelated responses (see chapter 4 for more details). The study initially used mainly quantitative measures, but after a first brief analysis of the data, follow-up interviews were carried out with half of the participants four months later to explore some contradictory results and subsequent questions that had emerged through the quantitative analysis (see chapter 4, section 4.4). Interview study The interview study was designed to explore issues that had emerged both in the survey study and during the design and pilot phase of the field study. The main aims were to explore experiences of music listening in offices and their contextual influences in more depth, to understand how the social and physical surroundings influenced listening patterns and experiences. In order to obtain rich exploratory data on the issues identified in previous studies, qualitative methods were chosen as the most suitable for the research aims. Qualitative methods have also been rarer in the study of music at work and this study aimed to redress the balance. As with the two previous studies, it was important that listeners were conceptualised as active and music was understood as a resource. This was achieved by trying as much as possible to treat participants as collaborators and knowing subjects who could inform me about their experiences in a meaningful way. Semi-structured interview schedules were designed, in order to maintain a balance between exploring specific questions and retaining sufficient flexibility to allow new themes to emerge (Robson, 2002). In order to explore complexities in employees’ uses of music in offices, participants were interviewed in their offices. It was hoped that being in the physical context of their listening would both stimulate their own memories and experiences, and provide me with 51 images and perceptions of their working environment, and thus increase my own sensitivity to the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). 2.3.3 Analysis As pointed out earlier, much of the analysis was carried out concurrently, and analysis of the three different studies influenced and inspired each other. The analysis process as a whole can be described as a spiral movement, where my understanding of the data gradually increased through analysis of all three studies. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using software programmes, and some qualitative data were also looked at by hand. Details of software programmes used and analytical approaches can be found in respective method sections (chapters 3-5). Qualitative data were sometimes “quantified” (Bazeley, 2009), and quantitative data were sometimes explored on an individual level to illustrate patterns described in interviews. Generally, a traditional approach to data analysis (e.g. statistical analysis of quantitative data, and thematic analysis of qualitative data) was taken to start with, but the approach was broadened in a pragmatic fashion when these analysis approaches did not generate sufficient results, or when there were contradictions between quantitative and qualitative data (for example, some qualitative data were quantified and further analysed). 2.3.4 Reflexivity and sensitivity Even though this thesis in general adopts a mixed methods approach (i.e. both quantitative and qualitative research techniques have been used and blended), the research process as a whole has been influenced by the qualitative research paradigm. I have attempted as much as possible to acknowledge my own influence in the research – to be reflexive. My own experiences of working in offices in Sweden in my early 20s, as well as extensive study of music psychology, have coloured my ideas about the role and the appropriateness of music listening at work in general and in offices in particular. 52 However, through immersion in the data throughout the course of this research project, my sensitivity has increased and that has also led me to re-evaluate my own perceptions of music at work. For example, through writing research diaries, supervision records and reflecting memos throughout the research project, I am able to see a shift in focus from the individual towards the social and contextual. I was initially mainly focused on the individual; their mood, their concentration and so on. The only social interaction I was aware of was if people had conflicts regarding music preferences or if they talked about music and through talking perhaps got to know each other better. As a result of the exploratory stages of the research process, many more interactions and complex relationships emerged which I began investigating (e.g. interactions between person, environment, tasks and colleagues, perceptions of music’s appropriateness in office settings). The deepened understanding of experiences of music listening at work came out of direct contact with people and offices, that is, out of the raw data. I have also continually reflected on my own uses of music while working, i.e. while writing this thesis. I have myself gone through periods of hardly no music listening at all, and periods which have involved a considerable amount of music listening. Increased sensitivity has been a result of immersing myself in the data, which in turn has helped me to acknowledge my own assumptions and influences. In other words, increasing sensitivity and reflexivity have been concurrent processes throughout this thesis. 2.3.5 Notation In all three studies, qualitative data were collected. In chapters 3-6, participants’ responses appear in “quotation” within brackets, i.e. (“I listen to music at work, because…”), or in smaller font between the body of text. The use of italics denotes emphasis on my part in my own writing, whereas non-verbal utterances like participants laughing are denoted in round brackets, i.e. (laughs). 53 2.3.6 Ethics All three studies were ethically approved through the University of Sheffield ethical approval procedures. All participants were given a Participant Information document, including information on purpose of the study, confidentiality policy, withdrawal and complaints policy. In addition, interviewees and field experiment participants were required to sign an ethics consent form, in which they confirmed their voluntary participation and their understanding of the information in the Participant Information document. All interviewees were assigned a pseudonym, and survey participants are referred to in terms of a number, gender, age group and occupation, in accordance with the University of Sheffield’s ethics guidelines. 2.4 Conclusions This chapter has described the theoretical and methodological approach taken in this thesis, and highlighted how this approach enhances understanding of the topic and expands on previous studies. Previous studies have mainly been carried out within applied psychology, and the studies have often adopted a positivist approach. Listeners have been conceptualised as passive recipients of auditory stimulation. This thesis instead seeks to conceptualise listeners as active co-constructors of music’s effects and view music as a resource. Whereas many previous researchers chose the music they played for their participants, I allow the employees to listen to their own music. Many previous studies have enrolled undergraduate students in laboratory tests. Instead I study employees in office environments. Regardless of the discipline in which researchers belonged, they mainly utilised the traditional methods within their disciplines, and rarely cited studies from other disciplines. I have adopted a pragmatic approach, influenced by both Mixed Methods Research and Grounded Theory. The three studies have all empirically investigated experiences of music listening in offices. The different studies have all influenced each other. They have examined 54 different aspects of music listening in offices, by using a variety of methods – which taken together complement and confirm each other. One significant element in all three studies is the importance of ecological validity, contextualisation, which has been limited in previous studies. Another important aspect relates to the argument that music at work can be understood as a multidisciplinary subject. This view is not just present when previous literature is reviewed in a theoretical sense, but also when I carry out the research in practice. I draw upon different perspectives, and a pragmatic approach allows me to pick and mix the kinds of methods and approaches that are best suited to answering the research questions in this project. The following chapters (3-6) report the results of these three studies, and chapter 7 concludes all three studies. 55 3 Current listening practices: an exploratory survey 3.1 Introduction The discussion in the introductory chapter of experiences of music while working revealed a number of issues for investigation. Although an increasing number of people have music access through portable listening devices and the internet, and employees appear to listen to music in offices, little is known about why they listen and what their listening habits are. The main aim of this survey is therefore to provide insight into how music in offices is experienced, and also to investigate how and why people listen to music in this context. Research on music preferences in the daily lives of adults suggest that a very wide variety of styles are listened to (Greasley, 2008). Is the same true of music listened to in offices? Or are certain genres more prevalent in this context? Some commercial music suppliers and some British radio stations (e.g. Classic FM), specifically target listeners in workplaces and promote music (commonly classical music) to reduce stress. But do employees use music in the way that these music suppliers suggest? And are those who listen to classical music less stressed? Almost nothing is known about how much time employees spend listening to music at work. Nor is there any information in previous studies about what type of activities employees carry out while listening. Bull (2007), who explored the ways employees used MP3 players to create privacy, did not explore the types of activities carried out concurrently. Laboratory experiments as well as intervention studies in workplaces have suggested that music is more suitable for simpler tasks (see chapter 1). But do employees listen to music only while doing simpler tasks? Research into listening in daily life shows that most music listening takes place in private – a situation in which there is a high degree of choice (Bull, 2007; North et al., 2004). 56 These findings are also congruent with a trend during the last decade of miniaturisation and mobility of personal listening devices (Bull, 2000; North et al., 2004; Théberge, 2001). But what are the listening contexts in offices and what kind of listening technology do employees use? There are disparate views of music at work. This can be seen in commercial surveys of the effects of music on employees, where some report positive effects on job satisfaction and productivity (Spherion, 2006), whereas others report that headphone use at work can be perceived as unprofessional (AOL.co.uk, 2007). The variety of views is also evident in research into music’s effects on task performance. On the one hand, music can be understood as relaxing, which can also aid creative thinking. This can happen because mild positive affect has the ability to broaden the cognitive material that can be recalled and eases integration of divergent material, thus leading to more creativity (Isen, 1999; Lesiuk, 2005). Some employees report using personal listening devices as a way to avoid interrupting sounds, both from the external environment (noise) and from other people interrupting them (Bull, 2007). But on the other hand, music listening can have a negative impact on task performance (of complex tasks in particular) (Furnham & Strbac, 2002; Furnham et al., 1999). Even though results are varied, many researchers agree that music can have negative effects on task performance if the music produces very high levels of arousal (although there are individual differences in terms of what constitutes very high levels), as this can lead to problems with attention, specifically narrowing of attention and difficulties in controlling it (see chapter 1, section 1.2.2 for a review). What functions does music have for employees in office settings? Do employees experience any disadvantages with music in this particular context? Exploring the functions of music in offices, but also reasons why employees may not listen at work, can provide multifaceted information on how music is both perceived and experienced at work. In order to examine the questions above, an online survey was designed. The rest of this chapter has three main parts: a section presenting more specific information about the 57 methods used, a section presenting the results, and a concluding section that draws together the results and discusses their implications. 3.2 Method It was important to reach people working in front of a computer in offices (as it was believed they would be more likely to use digital music technologies than employees not working in front of a computer). An online survey, designed to be spread and conducted on the internet, was therefore viewed as the most appropriate tool for making contact with this category of listener. A survey was also viewed as a suitable technique for collecting data from a wide variety of participants. The survey collected qualitative and quantitative data, to obtain a rich picture of the current listening practices of office workers. The following sections present details of the survey instrument, the respondents who took part in the survey, the procedure of the study and the analysis of the data. 3.2.1 Survey The survey consisted of 22 items (see appendix 1). The questions gathered quantitative and qualitative data on participants’ occupation, level of perceived stress in their jobs, amount of listening during a working week and type of music, activities carried out concurrently with music listening, listening technologies employed, perceived degree of choice over the music heard, and perceived functions that music listening had for the respondents. Respondents were also asked to state any reasons for not listening to music at work. The response choices contained a mixture of forced choices, free responses, multiple responses with Likert-scale (i.e., respondents could choose more than one answer and respond on a scale of 1 to 5), and percentage-scale responses. Forced choice responses were used to collect contextual data, e.g. occupation categories and physical workplace surroundings. Collecting forced data on contextual data avoided inconsistencies that may have arisen from different word uses of relatively consistent categories. Percentage-scale 58 responses collected data on the amount of music listening in a working week and headphone use, as it facilitated exploring more precisely relationships between these variables and other outcome measures. Multiple responses with Likert-scales were used to collect data on music listening technologies employed, activities carried out whilst listening, location and social environment when listening. It was deemed too simplistic to collect this type of data by forced choice as it was predicted that listening to music at work had several functions for employees, and the data collection method reflected this assumption. The free text questions aimed to capture the respondents’ thoughts about the functions of music, the music they listened to, and reasons for not listening to music at work. The aim was to collect rich exploratory data that emerged from employees themselves. Recent research has in particular highlighted the difficulties involved in eliciting information from respondents about musical preferences using genre categories, due to the many overlaps and blurred boundaries between different styles and genres (Greasley & Lamont, 2006; Hargreaves & North, 1999). Data on music preferences were therefore collected through a free text question, rather than by traditional tick-boxes of a smaller number of researcher-selected music styles. Due to the fact that the survey was a self-completion questionnaire and that respondents would participate voluntarily during working hours, length was kept to a minimum in order to achieve as satisfactory a response-rate as possible. The survey therefore did not include more time-consuming scales (e.g. personality traits inventories). 3.2.2 Respondents The sample constituted of 295 participants (175 females and 118 males5) who worked primarily in computer-based office environments. Distribution of the population was compared with data on occupational groups from the 2001 census for England 5 Two participants did not indicate gender. 59 (NationalStatisticsNomis, 2006). Distribution of people according to job categories and also gender distribution within these categories were highly similar between the survey and the population, with deviations of less than 5% per category (table 3.1). ___________________________________________________________________ Women, N (%) Men, N (%) Total __________________________________________________________________________ Occupation category Administrative occupations 40 (82) 9 (18) 49 Business and public service 30 (60) 20 (40) 50 Culture, media, sports 1 (11) 8 (89) 9 Health and social welfare 21 (88) 3 (13) 24 Managers 36 (47) 39 (51) 75 Protective services 4 (33) 8 (67) 12 Science and technology 7 (39) 11 (61) 18 Secretarial 17 (94) 1 (6) 18 Teaching and research 19 (50) 19 (50) 38 Total 175 118 293* ___________________________________________________________________ Table 3.1: Occupation and gender distribution * missing values for two participants Respondents were aged between 18 and 65 with a majority between 26-35yrs. During analysis, the age groups were categorised into younger (18-35, N=165) and older (36-65, N=129). All quotes cited are followed by respondent number, gender, age and title (e.g. 215, M, 19yrs, Administrative Assistant). The respondents found their jobs on average moderately stressful (x =2.48, Likert-scale of 1=not stressed at all to 5=extremely ¯ stressed. SD=0.88). Most people worked in open plan office environments (41%) or shared offices (30%), while 29% worked in private office environments. Gender, occupational category, age, reported job stress and working environment are all background variables which are investigated below as possible influencing factors on the effects and experiences of music in offices. 3.2.3 Procedure The questionnaire was administered online between December 2005 and May 2006, and as a paper copy for those groups employed in environments less orientated to IT (e.g., 60 protective services and certain health professionals)6. Respondents were recruited to the online questionnaire by an invitation e-mail containing brief information about the study. Since the aim of the study was to investigate how music is currently used in office-based workplaces, the invitation email deliberately encouraged responses from those people who currently chose to listen to music in the workplace. The invitation e-mail therefore asked: “Do you listen to music at work? Does music help you at work in some way, if so – how?”. The invitation e-mail also invited respondents to spread the questionnaire further to friends, family and colleagues if they wished. The paper copies were returned via post in stamped return envelopes. Respondents in the sample were initially identified through personal contacts in a variety of professions, using a snowballing technique. Doing so generated a wider sample than is likely to have been possible using paper copies only (this technique was also far more economical and perceived as more environmentally friendly than paper copies only). It could not be confirmed that all respondents answered the questionnaire in their office, and there is a risk with self-reports that time delays between a music experience and reporting of that experience can lead to inaccurate and inconsistent data (Greasley, 2008). However, from additional comments it was clear that many respondents had no problems with describing their music experiences in the workplace, and self-reports did therefore not appear disadvantageous for the reporting of music uses at work. Under-recruitment in a small number of occupational categories was remedied by contacting businesses, NHS care trusts, organisations and unions. A particular effort was made to include teaching and research professionals, protective service occupations, health and social welfare associate professionals, business and public service associate professionals, corporate managers and administrative occupations, who together account for half of the selfreported work-related stress, depression and anxiety population (HSE, 2003). Details of the specified job roles within each category were obtained through the Standard Occupation Classification 2000 (NationalStatistics, 2006). The sample was a subset of a larger sample which included non-office based UK workplaces (Dibben & Haake, 6 The proportion of data collected via paper copies was 7%. 61 forthcoming), and office workers were identified through a question in the survey that asked whether they worked in an office-based workplace or not. 3.2.4 Analysis Analysis of the quantitative data included descriptive and comparative statistical tests using the statistical software SPSS. Analysis of the free-response questions was carried out using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis can provide a rich detailed account of key themes in large data sets, and thus does not set out to test hypotheses. The approach was therefore deemed suitable due to the large number of participants in the survey study. The process is largely inductive and hermeneutic, and utilises a “bottom-up” approach by finding and coding emerging themes in the responses and then connecting them into a master list of themes. The analysis was carried out using the qualitative research software Nvivo. The next section presents the results from the study. 3.3 Results The results of this study provide an illustration of current listening practices, and reasons for listening or not listening to music in this context. Results highlight the many varied experiences that music listeners in offices had (e.g. inspiration, distraction, concentration, relaxation), but also reveal some more situation-specific issues that emphasise an underlying tension between internal needs and external demands. The results section consists of three main parts: details about listening practices, functions of music, and reasons for not listening. 62 3.3.1 Listening practices This section presents results on what type of music employees listened to in the office, what they did while they listened, how much they listened, what type of listening technology they used and in what social context they listened. Music listened to Participants were asked to describe in an open-ended question what type of music they listened to in the office. As stated earlier, recent research has shown that using genre categories to describe subjects’ musical preferences can be problematic, given that different styles and genres of music may overlap and there is not always agreement on where the boundaries between different genres lie (Greasley & Lamont, 2006; Hargreaves & North, 1999). For this reason, I decided not to use genre categories, and instead participants were asked to define their music preferences and styles themselves in as much detail as possible (I did not infer music styles from artists that they mentioned), and this data were further coded and analysed. Nearly 30 style categories emerged in the survey data (see appendix 4 for a list of all music styles). This suggests that employees do not necessarily listen to a narrower variety of music styles at work, compared to outside of work. The most frequently mentioned genre was classical music, followed by rock and pop music (table 3.2). Other commonly stated styles were indie and dance. However, the apparent prevalence of classical music is to a considerable degree a result of the way in which participants referred to what they listened to. Respondents who listened to classical music tended to describe their choice as “classical”, rather than mentioning individual classical artists or composers. However, people who listened to other types of music were most likely to list the artists they listened to, rather than describing their choice by a single style or genre. As there was a wide variety in the artists this group listened to, this meant no individual artists featured as frequently as the category “classical music”. In fact, compared to the grand total of 63 popular music genres (e.g. pop, rock, indie, dance), classical music is mentioned in a minority of cases. Top 10 music styles Classical Rock Pop Indie Dance Easy Listening Jazz Funk Soul Time periods (60s, 70s, etc) No. of times mentioned 52 37 25 24 16 13 11 7 7 6 % of total amount of participants (N = 295) 17.60% 12.50% 8.50% 8.10% 5.40% 4.40% 3.70% 2.40% 2.40% 2.00% Cumulative % 17.60% 30.10% 38.60% 46.70% 52.10% 56.50% 60.20% 62.60% 65.00% 67.00% Table 3.2: 10 most frequently reported music styles while listening in offices Among the particular artists that participants mentioned, the most frequently reported were the Arctic Monkeys, the Beatles, and James Blunt (table 3.3). It should be borne in mind that some of these artists were particularly popular at the time of the survey. For example, the Arctic Monkeys released their debut album in early 2006 (at the same time period as the survey was distributed), and it became the fastest selling album in UK chart history7. Similarly, James Blunt was nominated for five Grammy awards and won two Brit awards in early 20068, and was thus very popular at the time. Therefore, some artists’ positions on this list should not be regarded as a stable image of what employees listen to in offices, but rather as an illustration of the popular music scene at the time. (see appendix 5 for a list of all artists mentioned in the survey). Furthermore, age may play a significant role in the results. For example, out of the participants who mentioned Arctic Monkeys, no one was over 45 years old and most of them were between 26-35 years. If employees between 45-65 years only would have been sampled, the top 10 would most likely look different. It does, however, indicate that music listening at work mirrors general listening trends outside the workplace. 7 8 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4660394.stm, accessed 20 March 2010 http://www.brits.co.uk/videos/2006-british-male-james-blunt, accessed 20 March 2010 64 Top 10 music artists Arctic Monkeys Beatles James Blunt Coldplay Kaiser Chiefs Keane Mozart Radiohead Foo Fighters Red Hot Chili Peppers No of times mentioned 11 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 % of total amount of participants (N = 295) 3.70% 2.70% 2.70% 2.40% 2.40% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 1.70% 1.70% Cumulative % 3.70% 6.40% 9.10% 11.50% 13.90% 15.90% 17.90% 19.90% 21.60% 23.30% Table 3.3: 10 most frequently reported artists listened to in the office Many participants also reported listening to particular radio stations in the office. Table 3.4 shows the most frequently reported radio stations. A full list of all radio stations mentioned can be found in appendix 6. Top 10 radio stations BBC Radio 1 BBC Radio 2 Hallam FM BBC Radio 4 Virgin Classic FM BBC 6 Music XFM 96 Trent FM BBC Radio 5 Number of times mentioned 47 27 13 10 9 8 7 5 4 4 % of total amount of participants (N = 295) 15.93% 9.15% 4.41% 3.39% 3.05% 2.71% 2.37% 1.69% 1.36% 1.36% Cumulative % 15.93% 25.08% 29.49% 32.88% 35.93% 38.64% 41.01% 42.70% 44.06% 45.42% Table 3.4: 10 most frequently reported radio stations listened to in the office The high proportion of certain local radio stations (e.g. Hallam FM and 96 Trent FM) indicate to some extent the geographical location of many respondents (given that the survey was snowballed through personal contacts of the researcher, who at the time of this survey lived in East Midlands region in the UK), and can therefore be interpreted as a local radio station, rather than Hallam FM per se. 65 Some participants described a wider range of music preferences than others. For example, a lecturer described his music preference in his office as follows: Either classical music from www.lyricfm.ie or MP3s from my CD collection consisting of: Various Types of Metal: Sentenced, Death, Paradise Lost, Carcass, A Perfect Circle, Arch Enemy, Pestilence, Obituary, Napalm Death, Deicide, Morbid Angel, Megadeth, Fear Factory, H.I.M., Life of Agony, Linkin Park, Rammstein Trip-hop/Electronic: Massive Attack, Depeche Mode, The Human League, Jean Michel Jarre, Duran Duran,Faithless, Goldfrapp, Rock: Garbage, Iron Maiden, Eeels, Faith No More, Greenday, Ozzy Osbourne, Lenny Kravitz Film soundtracks: such as "A Beautiful Mind", "Braveheart", "Gladiator", "Amelie", "O Brother...", "The Mission" Classical: Dvorak, Smetana, Bach, Holst, Mussorgsky, Other: Johnny Cash, Israel Kamakawiwo’ole, Goo Goo Dolls, Enya, George Formby, Fun Lovin’ Criminals (292, M: 26-35, Lecturer) Other participants described their preferences in considerably less detail: Radio 1. (81, F:26-35, Back office administrator) This contrast in details of musical preferences is consistent with Greasley’s (2008) findings of different engagement levels among music listeners. One way in which this broadly manifested itself was in how respondents talked about their music preferences. More engaged listeners described their preferences in rich, detailed ways, whereas less engaged listeners used fewer words and often found music preferences difficult to describe. The qualitative data on music preferences from this survey were also quantified according to these two categories. Fifty respondents gave very few details of their music preferences, whereas 187 gave more nuanced responses. These two categories were analysed and compared with other statistical variables, and results are presented below in section 3.3.2 (along with details of the categorisation process). Activities carried out concurrently Respondents reported doing different activities while listening to music, and the frequencies of all activities are reported in table 3.5. Out of these, the most commonly occurring activities were “Driving/travelling”, “Doing routine tasks” and “Word 66 processing tasks” (table 3.5). The least common activities were “Talking to colleagues” and “Talking to others”, and “Doing graphical tasks”. Activities Driving/travelling Doing routine tasks Doing word processing tasks Surfing internet/e-mailing Taking a break/relaxing Doing numerical tasks Doing graphical tasks Talking to colleagues Talking to others ¯ x 3.54 3.40 3.21 3.12 2.86 2.34 2.17 1.85 1.63 SD 1.7 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.1 N 235 235 236 235 235 235 234 235 235 Table 3.5: Activities while listening to music at work (Likert-scale 1-5: 1 = never to 5 = always) These findings confirm in part earlier research suggesting that music listening is more beneficial when employees carry out simpler (e.g. routine) tasks (Fox & Embrey, 1972; Oldham et al., 1995). But the findings also suggest that employees sometimes do listen to music while carrying out more complex tasks, including word processing tasks. Influences of background variables including gender, age, working environments or occupational groups as fixed factors, and stress levels as a covariate, were examined through a series of analyses of covariance (i.e. one ANCOVA test per dependent variable, which included all background variables). There were no significant relationships between the background variables and activities. Time spent listening Respondents listened for 36% of their working week on average (x =36.26, SD=31.45), ¯ but with some listening hardly at all and some listening almost all the time. Influences of background variables including gender, age, reported stress levels, working environments, or occupational groups were examined through analysis of covariance, as in the section above. There were no significant relationships between the background variables and weekly listening time. 67 Of the 295 respondents, 81% reported listening to music at work. However, this cannot be viewed as an indication of general listening patterns amongst employees in the UK, since this survey aimed to elicit responses from people who perceived music to have potential benefits for them, and were therefore already likely to be listening to music at work. The survey was successful in doing this as indicated by the high proportion of respondents reporting listening to music at work compared to non-academic surveys of music listening at work. These studies suggest that the actual proportion of music listeners at work may be around a third (AOL.co.uk, online; Spherion, online). Listening technology Radio, CD player through the computer and the internet were the most commonly used listening devices at work (table 3.6), which is similar to the results Greasley (2008) found among adults in their daily lives. The least commonly reported listening devices were portable CD-players, public loudspeakers and cassette tape players. Listening device Radio CD-player (computer) Internet CD-player (car) MP3 player CD-player (portable or stereo) Public loudspeakers Cassette tape ¯ x 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.2 1.1 SD 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.5 N 236 234 232 232 233 232 231 231 Table 3.6: What listening technology respondents used (Likert-scale 1-5: 1 = never to 5 = always) Results highlight a decrease in popularity of cassette tapes in recent years compared to previous studies (Bull, 2000), and a prevalence of opportunities for self-selected music listening, confirming general trends in technology during the last decade. The prevalence of self-selected listening may reflect the sample in this study, in that those who feel that music has beneficial effects may listen to self-selected music more often. Influences of background variables including gender, age, reported stress levels, working 68 environments, or occupational groups were examined through a series of analyses of covariance, as above. The background variables showed no significant relationships with listening technology. Social environment Respondents rated how often they were alone and with colleagues when they listened to music at work (Likert-scale of 1 = never to 5 = always). Respondents reported being alone more often when listening to music at work (Alone x =3.9, SD=1.5, With ¯ colleagues x =2.6, SD=1.7). Listening alone also included listening by oneself in the ¯ presence of other people (e.g., using headphones in an open-plan office), as this was specified in the survey. These results are consistent with previous research suggesting that much music listening takes place in private – a situation in which there is a high degree of choice of music (Bull, 2007; North et al., 2004). This was further confirmed by respondents as they reported a high degree of choice when listening at work (on average 78% of the time). Influences of background variables including gender, age, reported stress levels, working environments, or occupational groups were examined through a series of analyses of covariance, as above. The covariate stress was significantly negatively related to whether participants reported listening with colleagues at work (F(1)=8.590, p<.01). Similarly, stress was positively related to whether participants reported listening alone at work (F(1)=4.848, p=.03). In other words, people who found their jobs stressful seemed more often to listen alone rather than in the company of colleagues. This may simply reflect the fact that those in stressful jobs had more senior roles, which may also be associated with private offices. Even so, it does suggest that stressed employees listen to music at work and that music can be beneficial for alleviating stress, as is further discussed in the next section. 69 3.3.2 Functions Respondents first described what functions music had for them at work in a free-response question. Then, they rated their agreement with different suggested functions, based on findings in previous research (see chapter 1). To collect first qualitative and then quantitative data were part of an attempt to make sure that respondents’ own experiences emerged in the study first, and that they were not biased by researchers’ ideas of experiences of music at work. Below I present the data in the same order: first qualitative, then quantitative, results. Qualitative results Five themes emerged from the answers to the free-response question on the functions of music at work: affect/arousal, managing work-related activities, environment, social interaction, and musical interest (table 3.7), which are discussed below. ___________________________________________________________________________________ Themes of functions Number of times mentioned ___________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Affect/arousal (174) Relaxation 107 Affect management 34 Entertainment 12 Enjoyment 12 Lift energy 7 Express emotions 1 Celebration 1 2. Managing work-related activities Engaging in Concentration Blocks out distractions Creates variation Motivates Minimise colleague interruptions through headphone use Inspires Aids creativity Speeds performance Escaping from Helps to think about something else Makes time go quicker Makes it feel less like work Reminding of world outside work (167) (132) 67 33 15 6 4 3 2 2 (35) 15 8 7 3 70 Separates work from relaxing 3. Environment Company Creates pleasant environment Provides a background sound 4. Social interaction Provides a talking point A way to express identity 2 (26) 13 9 4 (3) 2 1 5. Musical interest (2) Expands musical horizons 2 ___________________________________________________________________________________ Table 3.7: Themes of self-reported functions of music listening in offices (Totals within brackets) - Affect/arousal Listening to music at work was often viewed as an activity that helped to regulate and improve mood. Many of the respondents mentioned that music listening had stressreducing functions (using descriptions like “it relaxes me”, “calms me down”, “eases stress”, and “soothing”). For example, a Health and Safety Manager explained how certain music evoked memories that reminded him of a period when he was less stressed (“Rock music reminds me of my youth when I was not subjected to stresses.” 27, M: 2635yrs, Health and Safety Manager), and an Account Manager described how improved mood helped her to cope with stressful situations at work; [Music helps to] improve my mood and keep a balanced view to what you are dealing with… e.g. it might help me remain calm or positive when dealing with a stressful situation. (46, F: 26-35yrs, Account Manager) For some people music was experienced as cathartic and provided stress relief through representing negative affect in a public environment where acting out the experience was not deemed suitable; Lets me think, allows me to chill and unwind, if it’s a punky song I can imagine all my stresses being screamed out with the song even if I’m not screaming along with it. (202, F: 18-25yrs, Administrative Assistant) 71 The reports of mood improvement, relaxation and stress reduction can be understood as well-being related experiences. Given that people are more likely to report high subjective well-being if they experience positive affect more often (Diener & Lucas, 2000), this could be a route through which music listening can influence employee wellbeing. In other words, music can create a sense of well-being in offices, through providing frequent experiences of positive mood. It also emerged that these functions were associated with other functions. For example, experiences of relaxation through music listening were believed to increase focus (“Because I find it soothing it makes it easier to focus” - 181, F: 26-35yrs, Research Administrator) and aid creative thinking (“It’s relaxing not to work in silence. Being relaxed is more productive to creative thinking.” - 371, F: 36-45yrs, Web Editor in marketing). These relationships are explored statistically further below. - Managing work-related activities Music listening in relation to work activities appeared to have a dual function, enhancing engagement in, as well as escape from, work-related activities. Firstly, when respondents reported listening to music to engage in work-related activities, they often described how music listening through headphones aided concentration. Headphones in particular helped improve focus in two ways: blocking other sounds, and signalling withdrawal to colleagues. Employees blocked out distractions from the surrounding environment through using headphones: Helps me concentrate, especially when someone else is in the office, or talking on the phone, or having a meeting in my office, helps me to concentrate on what I am doing, not what they are doing. (265, F: 56-65yrs, Personal Assistant/Course Administrator) Listening to music aided concentration through removing auditory distractions from the office environment. It can be understood as a way to control the auditory working 72 environment (similar to Bull’s (2007) idea of music as cognitive control), and as a way to replace external interruptions with familiar sounds chosen by the individual (i.e. music). The latter conceptualisation resembles findings by Thorsén (1985) in industrial settings, in that the sound environment at work can condition listening practices (in Thorsén’s studies factory workers deliberately chose music which they perceived contrasted with the noisy auditory working environment). Many respondents reported that music listening helped them to concentrate on monotonous tasks, but some also described how the music could provide “clarity of thought” (175, M: 36-45yrs, Medical Staffing Manager) and could aid the thinking process (“It helps me to think” – 159, F: 18-25yrs, E-learning Materials Developer). This suggests that employees not only listen to music when they carry out simpler tasks, but that listening is also perceived to benefit the thought processes involved in more complex tasks. Using headphones was also reported to prevent interruptions from colleagues and therefore aid concentration: Improves my ability to focus on what I am working on. People tend to interrupt your work less if you are wearing headphones! (143, M: 26-35yrs, Grid Systems Manager) This “do not disturb” sign is akin to Bull’s (2007) concept of auditory privatisation. Bull argues that people reduce the experience of contingency by not being interrupted, and therefore feel empowered and in control. Being able to manage interruptions was described as a way to cope with stress, through having control over the auditory environment. This idea is also consistent with suggestions that noise at work can negatively impact on both physical and psychological well-being (North & Hargreaves, 2008; Warr, 1999). It was evident from how respondents used headphones that a sense of control was an important element in the use of this particular listening device. But a sense of control was also associated more widely with positive experiences from the music (“When I choose to listen to it, if find it relaxing and my work is more productive” - 197, F: 56-65yrs, Lead Nurse Modern Matron). 73 Other ways that music helped to engage employees while working was through a sense of inspiration. Music could be thought encouraging and motivating. Some explained that they felt more inspired to carry out certain tasks (“[Music can] make me more positive towards writing longer pieces of complex work which I don’t particular like” - 358, F: 26-35yrs, Educational Development Advisor), whereas others argued that the inspiration related to a deeper experience, sometimes described as spiritual: I listen to the music during work breaks because it transcends the workplace and acts as a form of escapism (I sometimes go to the gym at lunchtime which has a similar effect but lacks the spiritual dimension) (450, M: 36-45yrs, Project Manager) It has been suggested that music can be perceived as spiritual because the perception and cognition of music shares elements of ineffability with spiritual experiences (Sloboda, 2000). By providing an inexpressible experience at work, it appears that music has the capacity to stimulate employees in an environment where things are more often quantified and tangible. The second of the dual functions that related to work activity engagement was escape. When respondents reported listening to music to escape from work, they often described how music could provide something else to think about. It provided a diversion and prevented employees from engaging in other distracting behaviours, as illustrated by a Work Placements Coordinator: If music was not my distraction, then something else would be, i.e. something unproductive such as fiddling with papers or gazing out of the window. (369, F: 36-45yrs) Music’s distracting qualities were referred to as stress relief at work. Music was described as providing “a relaxing distraction” (134, F: 26-35yrs, Manager), and that it “can be relaxing if not trying to think” (131, F:46-55yrs Computer Manager). Music can in this case be understood as a way to manage internal interruption (thoughts), but also as a means by which leisure is allowed into work through associations, memories and daydreams (Thorsén, 1985). Music could provide “a clear break between the sterility of the office and the time spent on [a] rest break.” (415, M: 18-25yrs, Examinations 74 Assistant), as well as “lessen [the] need for breaks as [music] feels more recreational” (61, M: 26-35yrs, E-Commerce Affiliate Manager). The recreational experience in the workplace can be triggered by the fact that music “brings a bit of home into the workplace” (254, F: 26-35yrs, Information Officer). When music symbolised familiarity, it represented something outside of work. Music reminded the listener that “there is a world outside the office (77, F: 18-25yrs, Marketing Assistant), and paradoxically helped to both define and blur boundaries between work and leisure. - Environment, social interaction and musical interest Even though office noise was viewed as negative and something which music could eradicate, complete silence could be undesirable. Respondents reported listening at work in order to avoid the quiet of the office, and it could function as a substitute for absent colleagues (“It keeps me company when there isn’t anyone else around” - 357, F: 2635yrs, Receptionist). When colleagues were around, music that was heard out loud could “sometimes provides a talking point” (229, F: 36-45yrs, Space & Strategy Manager) and thus stimulated conversation. Listening at work could also be “a chance to listen to new albums” (200, F: 26-35yrs, Clinical Data Manager). Even though these functions were less frequently mentioned by the respondents, they often related to the other functions presented above. A comforting or uplifting environment that provided company also helped to relax and focus on the task at hand. The relationships between functions were also a finding that emerged overall in the analysis. It is therefore difficult to strictly categorise the functions as has been done in table 3.7. In order to further investigate relationships between different functions, exploratory factor analysis was carried out on the quantitative data and the results are presented below. First, however, descriptive analysis was carried out on the quantitative data on functions, and background influences were explored. 75 Quantitative results Respondents rated their agreement with 13 functions of music at work. Respondents agreed most strongly with statements that music ”Improves your mood”, “Helps you relax” and “Makes you happier” (table 3.8). Functions Improves your mood Helps you relax Makes you happier Makes you less bored Creates a suitable atmosphere Improves your focus Blocks out surrounding noise Inspires/stimulates you Helps your creative flow Distracts you from unwanted thoughts Makes you less tired Provides a different perspective Helps you pace your work ¯ x 4.4 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.1 2.8 SD 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 N 236 236 237 238 233 233 235 231 231 232 232 229 230 Table 3.8: Functions of music listening at work (Likert-scale 1-5: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) As was discussed earlier in chapter 1, North and colleagues (2004) found that the most frequently reported functions during typical office hours related to enjoyment, passing of time and creating a suitable atmosphere. The descriptive data in this study are fairly consistent with previous research, if improvements in mood, relaxation and general happiness are conceptualised as relating to enjoyment. Influences of background variables including gender, age, reported stress levels, working environments, or occupational groups were examined through a series of analyses of covariance (same procedure as above). Stress was positively significantly related to whether participants agreed that music could help them relax (F(1)=4.348, p=.04), which suggests that music can have relaxing functions at work – particularly if the participants are stressed at work. 76 The same covariate, stress, was also positively significantly related to whether participants agreed that music could distract them from unwanted thoughts (F (1)=9.739, p <.01). Apart from stress, no other background variable was significantly related to functions of music at work. The descriptive data in the previous section included large differences in response patterns, with standard deviations often being between 1 and 1.5 scale points on a 5 point Likert-scale. Few of the background variables (apart from stress, which covaried with some functions of music) have so far been demonstrated. Personality trait differences may account for some of the variation in responses (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2007), but these kinds of measures were not included in this survey due to time constraints for the respondents (see 3.2.1). However, music engagement has not been considered as a potential background variable. Greasley (2008) found that adults who were highly engaged in music more often referred to music as a resource in their daily lives. They also had more control over their music (i.e. they chose when to listen to a greater extent). Less engaged adults listened more to radio than to personal listening devices like MP3 players. Could differences in engagement with music account for some of the variances in the functions of music, listening time and perceived choice? For example, do less engaged respondents more often listen to radio, than highly engaged respondents? In order to explore these ideas further, some of the qualitative data on music preferences (section 3.3.1) were quantified. Firstly, respondents were separated into two different groups based on their engagement with music: high engagement (N=187), and low engagement (N=50). Data on respondents’ descriptions of music preferences were categorised according to the breadth and depth with which they described their preferences, following the idea that those highly engaged in music describe their preferences in many words, whereas those less engaged find it difficult to exemplify their preferences (ibid). If respondents exemplified one radio station only (or stated listening to 77 “radio”), they were categorised as less engaged. Respondents who mentioned a band, several artists or maybe different genres or radio stations were labelled as having high engagement with music. One exception was respondents who stated one single radio station which indicated a particular interest in music (e.g. certain internet radio sites such as http://www.di.fm/chillout/, or BBC 6 music), in which case they were also labelled as highly engaged. These two groups were then compared in terms of their listening patterns and experiences (i.e. weekly listening time, level of choice, functions, and use of radio and MP3 players) through a series of independent t-tests. Results are summarised in table 3.9. ___________________________________________________________________________ Engagement in music Variables Low, x (SD) ¯ High, x (SD) ¯ t ___________________________________________________________________________________ Choice (%) 60.30 (40.30) 82.56 (28.51) 4.423** Weekly listening time (%) 52.66 (36.14) 32.01 (28.66) -4.270** Functions (Likert scale 1-5) Blocks out surrounding noise Creates a suitable atmosphere Distracts you from unwanted thoughts Helps your creative flow Helps you relax Helps pace your work Improves your focus Improves your mood Inspires/stimulates you Makes you happier Makes you less bored Makes you less tired Provides a different perspective Listening technology (Likert scale 1-5) MP3/iPod player Radio 3.63 (1.20) 3.88 (1.11) 3.23 (1.24) 3.52 (1.09) 4.12 (1.18) 3.13 (1.24) 3.88 (1.04) 4.27 (1.06) 3.68 (1.02) 4.06 (1.08) 3.88 (1.29) 3.25 (1.26) 3.36 (1.07) 3.72 (1.26) 3.80 (0.98) 3.45 (1.22) 3.57 (1.10) 4.31 (0.85) 2.73 (1.20) 3.76 (1.02) 4.41 (0.78) 3.67 (1.08) 4.17 (0.87) 3.92 (1.07) 3.21 (1.14) 3.08 (1.18) 0.474 -0.491 1.084 0.252 1.269 -2.019* -0.720 1.056 -0.050 0.730 0.224 -0.223 -1.448 1.43 (1.12) 3.82 (1.75) 2.07 (1.52) 2.36 (1.60) 2.771* -5.616** ___________________________________________________________________________ Table 3.9: T-test, respondents with high and low engagement with music * p<.05, **p<.01 (High engagement N=187, low engagement N=50. Item 1= scale of 0-100, item 2 = Likert scale of 1=do not agree to 5=agree strongly, items 3-10= Likert scale of 1=never to 5=always) Interestingly, those who had low engagement with music listened significantly more to music at work than those highly engaged. This was unexpected, if one assumes that 78 listeners who were more highly engaged with music would also listen to music more frequently (which was broadly found by Greasley, 2008). However, the difference in choice over music heard illustrates that those less engaged in music may have heard more music in a working week, but had less choice over the music heard. The analysis also illustrates that those less engaged more often listened to radio than to MP3 players. This finding lends strength to Greasley’s (2008) arguments that those who are less musically engaged differ in their listening patterns compared to the engaged listeners, and that those who are more musically engaged collect more music and use technologies where they can have a greater level of choice over what music to listen to. However, many functions did not differ significantly according to engagement levels, which suggest that employees who are less engaged in music also use music in similar ways to those who are highly engaged. Even though some of these results are interesting and confirm previous research, the results need to be interpreted with caution. Analysing data by carrying out multiple testing on the same data set greatly increases the risk of Type 1 errors (Field, 2005). However, the broad trend suggests that differences in music engagement may help to explain at least some of the differences in response patterns. Secondly, given that some commercial music suppliers often promote classical music as an antidote to stress in the office, relationships between reported music preference and listening behaviour/functions were further investigated. Respondents who reported listening to classical music, who mentioned particular classical composers or genres (e.g. Mozart, Handel, baroque, opera), or who reported listening to radio stations playing classical music (e.g. Classic FM, BBC Radio 3) were organised into a separate category of classical listeners (N=52), which was then compared with the rest of the sample (N=184) through independent t-tests. In order to investigate whether those who listened to classical music at work felt more relaxed, job stress and relaxation through music were compared. Results are presented in table 3.10. 79 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Variables Classical, x (SD) ¯ Non-classical, x (SD) ¯ t ___________________________________________________________________________ Reported job stress Helps you relax 2.73 (1.01) 4.17 (0.96) 2.40 (0.87) 4.31 (0.92) 2.319* -0.922 _____________________________________________________________________ Table 3.10: Variable means, standard deviations and analysis of variance according to whether respondents reported listening to classical music or not Standard deviations in brackets. Listening to classical music at work N=52, not listening to classical music at work N=187. Both variables on a 5 point Likert-scale. * p<.05, ** p<.01 Classical music listeners experienced more job stress, but they did not find music at work significantly more relaxing than non-classical listeners. This finding suggests that classical music-listeners do not necessarily experience higher levels of relaxation at work, compared to for example pop music listeners. But there are issues with attempting to classify classical music as one genre. Classical music pieces can vary greatly in dynamics, orchestration, tempo, etc (e.g. Satie’s Gymnopedies compared to Dvorak’s New World Symphony). There are also similar issues with trying to classify the many different genres of what is sometimes simply called popular music, as Greasley (2008), among others, has illustrated. Even one artist may record songs that vary in dynamics, tempo and other sonic characteristics. However, the data on music preferences in offices did not suggest that slow relaxing music was more prominent, nor was the genre Easy Listening mentioned particularly often. Instead, the most mentioned artist at the time was Arctic Monkeys, a band often described as energetic and influenced by punk and indie9. Another aspect to consider is that the employees in this study listened to self-selected music. There may be certain types of music that would be beneficial if people were hearing imposed music. For example, DeNora (2000) has argued that many people rarely attach memories onto classical music as much as to more time-specific pop music. Because of this, classical music is often less significant as a part of identity work, and can therefore be suitable when people wish to concentrate. It is also possible that certain 9 http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/h3hj, accessed 2 April 2010 80 cultural associations of classical music may benefit relaxation (some classical music pieces are often associated with privilege, relaxation and so on). Still, it was evident that classical music listeners in this study did not differ greatly from those listening to other genres. The fact that those who listen to classical music at work did not find it more relaxing than those listening to pop and rock has implications for companies who are trying to market certain types of classical music CDs to office environments; the beneficial effects are not necessarily emanating from the sounding music alone, nor from a particular music genre. Instead, these findings suggest that people do listen to all kinds of music (defined as different genres, artists, or as differences in sonic qualities) while at work and can find music beneficial for relaxation. As mentioned earlier, many functions were interrelated according to employees’ own experiences. In order to examine these suggested relationships further, correlations between activities while listening, functions of music at work, weekly listening time and reported job stress were analysed. The aim was threefold; 1) to explore if variables were correlated as the qualitative data suggested, and identify potential clustering which may indicate underlying factors, 2) to explore how functions and activities were related, and 3) to investigate whether weekly listening time and job stress were related to the other variables. Previous research has for example suggested that more complex tasks may not be suitable to carry out while listening to music, as many people have found it distracting (Furnham & Bradley, 1997; Furnham & Strbac, 2002). If so, there may be a negative relationship between for example numerical and word processing tasks and listening time, as people would presumably listen less if they got distracted. Firstly, the R-matrix showed that many variables were significantly correlated (see appendix 7). Most correlations were found within each category, but there were also several of the activities that were correlated with the functions. The many correlations are further investigated below through exploratory factor analysis. Secondly, every function was positively correlated to at least two functions. The functions that were correlated 81 most often to an activity were “Helps you pace your work” and “Makes you less tired” (both positively correlated to 7 out of 9 activities, 5 of which were the same activities). The least frequent function to be correlated to activities was “Distracts you from unwanted thoughts”, which was positively correlated to two activities. Thirdly, pairwise correlations between job stress and the other variables and between listening time and the other variables showed that job stress was not correlated to any other item, whereas weekly listening time was positively correlated to many of the functions; “Creating an atmosphere” (r=0.23, p<.01, N=233), “Pacing of work” (r=0.25, p<.01, N=230), “Helps your creative flow” (r=0.25, p<.01, N=231), “Makes you less tired” (r=0.17, p=.01, N=232), “Improves your focus” (r=0.28, p<.01, N=233), “Inspires you” (r=0.22, p=<.01, N=231), and “Provides a different perspective” (r=0.17, p=.01, N=229). Even though many correlations were fairly weak, the results suggest that the more participants reported listening to music at work, the more they agreed that music listening at work could have these functions for them. Given that the R-matrix showed many significant correlations and evidence of clustering, it is possible that those variables may be measuring the same aspects of underlying dimensions (Field, 2005). In order to understand what these underlying dimensions may be, exploratory factor analysis was carried out on the correlations above. Six factors with larger Eigen-value than 1.0 were included for factor rotation. The components were rotated using oblique rotation (Oblimin with Kaiser Normalisation), as it was hypothesised that the factors may be related. The six factors extracted accounted for 65% of the variance. Structure matrix and items (including Eigen-values) are reported in Table 3.11. The first factor was labelled Inspiration, and accounted for 30% of the variance. This factor correlated with many of the items, but most strongly with the functions “Inspires/stimulates you”, “Helps your creative flow”, “Provides a different perspective”, “Helps you pace your work”, and “Creates a suitable atmosphere”. The second factor accounted for 11% of the variance. The factor mainly included concurrent activities while listening, e.g. “Doing word processing tasks”, “Doing 82 numerical tasks”, “Surfing/e-mailing”, “Doing graphical tasks”, and “Doing routine tasks”. It was initially thought that this factor was concentration-related, but this interpretation was dismissed when the sixth factor was analysed as it appeared more convincing. Because the main pattern (i.e. numbers in bold) for factor 2 did not include any functions, it is difficult to speculate what it may entail. The items included range from what can be described as simpler tasks (“Routine tasks”, “Surfing/e-mailing”) to more complex tasks (“Word processing”, “Numerical tasks”, “Graphical tasks”), and this factor was related to all of them. It was therefore hypothesised that it may be related to entertainment, company or accompaniment of some sort, and the factor was therefore labelled Accompaniment. ___________________________________________________________________________________ Inspiration Accompaniment Social Break Affect Concentration ___________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Inspires/stimulates you 0.85 0.50 2. Helps your creative flow 0.81 0.47 3. Provides a different 0.78 perspective 4. Helps you pace your work 0.72 5. Creates a suitable atmosphere 0.70 0.42 6. Makes you less tired 0.57 0.46 0.51 7. Doing word processing tasks 0.78 8. Doing numerical tasks 0.73 9. Surfing internet/e-mailing 0.65 10. Doing graphical tasks 0.59 0.58 11. Doing routine tasks 0.44 12. Talking to colleagues 0.91 13. Talking to others 0.89 14. Driving/travelling 0.81 15. Taking a break/relaxing 0.80 16. Improves your mood 0.45 0.92 17. Helps you relax 0.84 18. Makes you happier 0.52 0.80 19. Makes you less bored 0.65 20. Improves your focus 0.43 0.44 0.55 21. Blocks out surrounding noise 0.78 22. Distracts you from 0.46 0.67 unwanted thoughts % of variance 30% 11% 8% 6% 5.5% 5% Eigenvalues 6.52 2.39 1.74 1.36 1.21 1.12 __________________________________________________________________________________ Table 3.11: Structure matrix and item loadings for functions of music and concurrent activities N=225. Bold indicates pattern matrix. 83 The third factor was labelled Social, accounted for 8% of the variance and included the items “Talking to colleagues” and “Talking to others”. The fourth factor was labelled Break, included the items “Driving/travelling” and “Taking a break/relaxing”, and accounted for 6% of the variance. The fifth factor was labelled Affect and accounted for 5.5% of the variance. This factor included items such as “Improves your mood”, “Helps you relax”, “Makes you happier”, and “Makes you less bored”, but also the item “Improves your focus”, and four of the inspiration-related items (see table 3.11). Finally, the sixth factor was labelled Concentration, accounted for 5% of the variance, and included the items “”Blocks out surrounding noise” and “Distracts you from unwanted thoughts”. Results suggest that a single dimension, related to inspiration and creative flow, best explained the variance in functions, but that many other factors also accounted for the variance in both functions and activities which together explained 65% of the total variance. This finding highlights the fact that dimensions beyond age, gender, and other fixed background variables can explain differences in listening patterns. Even though the majority of employees perceived music in the office as positive, these individual differences can also be related to negative experiences. As I illustrate below, involuntary listening can have a number of negative effects, which is also why the distinction between voluntary and involuntary listening is important. 3.3.3 Reasons for not listening to music at work Respondents who listened to music at work were asked “Are there any reasons why you wouldn’t listen to music in the workplace?” Respondents who did not listen at work were asked “What are the main reasons for you not listening to any music at work?” Four themes emerged from the analysis: 1) work-performance related reasons, 2) concern for others and image, 3) external hindrances, 4) individual preferences (table 3.12). Music listening was not deemed suitable when respondents needed to communicate with clients or colleagues; 84 You miss office discussions and these can be very important when you work in a team and the discussions are usually work related. (397, F: 36-45, Technical Infrastructure Specialist) In these situations, listening to music was perceived as hindering work-related communication, and listening to music could therefore isolate headphone users from important discussions with other colleagues. Another common reason for not listening to music in the office was distraction. Respondents described how concentration and music listening can “contradict each other” and that it is “impossible to concentrate properly and listen to music” at the same time (184, 36-45yrs, Assistant Director). ___________________________________________________________________________________ Reasons Number of times mentioned ___________________________________________________________________________________ Listeners (L) 1. Work-performance related reasons Needing to communicate Need to concentrate Tasks incompatible with listening 2. Concern for others and image If it disturbed others Fear of distracting others Others present If seen as inappropriate Finds it inappropriate When in public areas of workplace In a shared space Missing office conversations 3. External hindrances If not allowed Not allowed If lack of facilities No facilities If someone else had chosen the music Not current practice Safety reasons Non-listeners (N-L) Need to communicate Need to concentrate Difficult to keep in the background L (98 55 34 9 (89 37 23 18 7 3 1 (24 12 5 4 3 10) 4 6 N-L 18) 3 12 3 25) 10 12 3 4. Individual preferences (6) Not in the mood 4 Wants silence 2 ___________________________________________________________________________________ Table 3.12: Themes emerging from an analysis of the reasons not to listening to music in offices (totals within brackets) 85 Some reported that complexity, loudness and music with lyrics in a well-known language could be distracting when working. Enjoyable music could also be distracting: I can’t concentrate properly on work when music I enjoy is playing, as I want to listen to the music! (131, F: 46-55yrs, Senior Lecturer) It may be that familiar music becomes distracting if it evokes memories and/or emotions. This idea was discussed earlier, and is based on DeNora’s (2000) idea that beneficial music for concentrating is music which is not associated with the listener’s life or memories. Furthermore, the idea that music and concentration are difficult to combine is also consistent with research into background music, task performance and cognitive load (Kiger, 1989; Konecni, 1982), building on the Yerkes-Dodson’s (1908) theory of an inverted U-relationship between performance quality and arousal, as discussed previously in chapter 1 (1.2.2). This relationship between arousal, music and task complexity was illustrated by a Deputy Director: If I am doing something detailed and my arousal level is already at optimum so that the music is a distraction. (276, F: 46-55yrs, Deputy Director Research and Consultancy) These results appear contradictory compared to respondents’ claims that music listening at work could aid concentration and improve focus, discussed above. How can music be both an aid to concentration, and a distraction from the task at hand? One explanation is the conditions of the working environment, which could influence perceptions of music’s role and whether it is a help or a hindrance. In this instance, the Deputy Director cited above worked in a private office, and would therefore not need to manage surrounding distractions in the same manner as someone who worked in an open plan office and reported using music to block out surrounding noises when they needed to concentrate. This variety of functions highlights the need for more contextual as well as individual data to understand the different experiences of music at work. Respondents were concerned that music at work could disturb others: 86 Personally I feel it would be inappropriate to listen to music out loud in the workplace, especially in an open plan office. With varying tastes in music it could cause more stress for people being made to listen to music given the choice they would not. (12, F: 26-35yrs, Sales Administrator) This participant and many others were aware that their preferred music may not be the musical choice of others. A Research Fellow commented that “music is rather personal” (208, M: 26-35yrs), and several respondents reported using headphones in order to minimise potential disturbance in the office. Headphones were often perceived as a useful way to minimise disturbance, although one respondent pointed out that “poor quality headphones may lead to noise pollution” (415, M: 18-25yrs, Examinations Assistant). One respondent described how he would be happy to actively modify his music choices in order to satisfy colleagues’ needs, if necessary: I would probably just tailor the music I played to suit other peoples tastes/tolerance generally my musical tastes are so broad that there’s always something in my collection that people like. (291, M: 26-35, Lecturer) As discussed above, respondents appreciated having a sense of control over their listening, and they seemed to apply this understanding through being aware of the impact that their own behaviour had on other people. Some respondents showed a concern for the business image. They were sometimes worried that having music on in the background would “display an unprofessional image” (40, F: 26-35yrs, HR Consultant) and even be considered “a little bit rude” (183, M: 4655, Senior Academic Liaison Librarian) towards clients. Music at work could contradict a professional image and symbolise a lack of care of customers and clients. Concerns about disturbing other people and appearing unprofessional were evaluated against individual wishes to listen to music at work, illustrating a tension between wanting to listen to individually selected music and needing to manage the social situation in the office. A Sales Administrator working in an open office-environment explained: 87 I have worked in open plan offices where listening to music has been permitted and in offices where it has not been permitted. I definitely think there is a positive to listening to music whether it [would] be, in the workplace or outside of it. It really allows you to relax and take your mind off of things. However, I am not convinced that listening to music in the workplace is 100% acceptable. Where for example a radio is allowed to be played out loud there can be the issue of what station to listen to, also volume level and how close you sit to the radio - you can’t please everyone. I worked in an open plan environment in a role of Customer Services. Personally I felt it inappropriate for a radio to be on - what did customers think when they called to discuss financial and personal matters to have a radio playing in the background? I now work in an open plan office where loud music is not played. A few people listen to MP3s but I do find that quite antisocial especially if you are trying to get their attention. Also, when they have the volume up high I can hear “noise” coming from them which can be off putting. I think it’s more acceptable if you work in an office alone, e.g. from home but I would hope the music would be turned off if speaking with other people. (012, F: 26-35) Balancing individual preferences and external requirements seems to be a process at the heart of the experience of listening to music at work. Even though an employee wants to listen to music at work, it may not be appropriate to do so, and these circumstances needs to be further clarified. In particular, further research is needed to understand the choice processes by which employees decide why, when and what to listen to, and to identify particular situational circumstances that may influence these choices. 3.4 Conclusions Both qualitative and quantitative data point to a picture of music as fulfilling a wide variety of functions in post-industrial office settings, which differ from historical accounts of music both before and during industrialisation. Music in offices were not used to aid physical synchronisation or to communicate about work itself, as found by historical accounts of pre-industrial work contexts (Gregory, 1997; Korczynski, 2003). Nor was music used to express experiences of work, which Korczynski (2007) found in factory settings during the mid-twentieth century. Music listening in the modern office workplace has many different functions: affect management, engaging in/escaping from work activities, and environment/interruption management. Music listening did not only take place while employees were carrying out simpler routine tasks. Employees also listened to music while doing more complicated tasks, not previously associated with 88 music listening, such as word processing tasks. An important dimension for respondents was inspiration; they listened to music at work to become more creative and stimulated. Music listening could sometimes be distracting in a negative sense, and some respondents found certain musical parameters could be particularly distracting. These findings can be interpreted as being broadly in line with the idea of an inverted U-relationship between performance quality and arousal (Kahneman, 1973; Konecni, 1982). However, results also suggest that distraction is not always conceptualised as negative – as has been suggested in previous literature (Furnham & Bradley, 1997; Furnham & Strbac, 2002; Furnham et al., 1999). Instead, distraction emanating from music could often be a welcome break from thoughts and daydreams. Experiences of control have emerged in the data as a powerful and important aspect of music listening as relaxation. Music provided respondents with a sense of control over their surroundings and emotions. They could manage external interruptions, as well as vent emotions through the music. Music also distracted employees from their own thoughts, which could be relaxing, and also brought a sense of leisure into their working environment, which they often found soothing. The more stressed employees were, the more they agreed that music at work helped them to relax. This finding is consistent with ideas that listening to self-selected music can have therapeutic benefits for individuals as it can help to increase self-consciousness, reduce feelings of isolation and improve control over emotional reactions (Batt-Rawden & DeNora, 2005; Ruud, 1997). In other words, music listening at work seems to be an important coping strategy to alleviate stress in offices. As mentioned earlier, some commercial music suppliers target employees to provide classical music for stress relief in offices. Data suggest that classical music is being listened to in offices, but that employees also listen to many other music styles and artists. Listening to classical music was not necessarily related to greater levels of relaxation. Data from the survey suggest that there are no strict boundaries in terms of music use between work and leisure. This was evident when looking at technology use 89 and music preference in offices. Listening technology used in the workplace resembles that used by adults in daily life (radio, CD-player through computer, and internet), and music preferences at work seems to mirror music trends outside of work, which opposes any ideas of the existence of particular “office music”. This finding is similar to the results found by Greasley (2008) in the daily lives of adults, in that a wide variety of music was listened to. On average, respondents listened to music for a third of their working week. This result is congruent with the findings of non-academic surveys of employee listening behaviour (AOL.co.uk, 2007; Spherion, 2006), in which respondents reported listening for about three hours per day, but there are no academic surveys to compare findings against. The more employees listened, the more positive functions of music they reported, which challenges suggestions of a main negative effect of music while working. There were some differences in engagement levels in terms of time spent listening to music at work, and listening technology use. Respondents less engaged with music spent more time listening to music, listened more often to radio (highly engaged listened more often to MP3 players) but had less control over the music they heard. Given that control over music was viewed as an important aspect of relaxation, it would be plausible to think that less engaged respondents felt less relaxation as a result of music listening. They indeed scored lower in relaxation than highly engaged respondents, but the difference was not statistically significant. Data on reasons for not listening to music at work showed that many respondents were worried about how their own music listening patterns affected others. They were careful to not disturb colleagues, and were concerned about how being seen to be listening to music affected the image of their company or organisation. The data also illustrate specific situational conditions that respondents took into account, evaluated and responded to when listening to music at work. There seems to be a tension between individual desires and external requirements, a tension that employees who wanted to listen to music at work needed to manage. 90 Control over the music heard can be understood as influencing many of the functions that respondents reported. The importance of control has a number of implications for researchers as well as for employers. If researchers allow participants to choose the music they hear, the researchers will be able to detect a wider variety of functions and effects. Evidence for this is the fact that distraction was conceptualised by listeners not only as negative but also as concentration-enhancing, which was not detected in previous studies where the music was selected by the researchers only. It is important to also investigate the effects of imposed music, but the distinction between imposed and self-selected music has to be acknowledged first. Turning to the implications for employers, if managers make sure to facilitate an environment, or technical solutions, where employees can have a greater level of control over music, then the experiences and outcomes should be more positive. Such an environment was created in the intervention study reported in the next chapter. 91 4 The effects of a music listening intervention 4.1 Introduction Intervention studies have the longest academic tradition among studies of music at work. They were particularly frequent during the 1930s and 1940s, when both researchers and employers were interested in ways to increase production (see earlier review in chapter 1). Music listening in the Fordist workplaces was characterised by piped music played through loudspeakers, chosen by researchers or managers or broadcasted by corporations like Muzak Inc. This type of listening is less common today in the post-Fordist officebased workplace, which is more often characterised by self-selected, individualised listening. Two studies have methodologically reflected newer ways of listening (selfselected listening using personal listening devices) and have found that individual, selfselected music listening can improve mood and work performance among office workers (Lesiuk, 2005; Oldham et al., 1995). In chapter 2, I argued that more field research is needed to confirm and validate the results of these studies. I also argued that music listening in breaks may be an alternative for those who want to listen at work, but find it distracting to listen while working. On the basis of the findings in the previous studies by Oldham and colleagues (1995) and Lesiuk (2005), the following was predicted: Hypothesis 1: Office-workers will exhibit more positive work responses (e.g. work performance, job satisfaction, organisational satisfaction) when they listen to music than when they do not. Hypothesis 2: Office-workers will report more positive mood, higher well-being and less anxiety and stress when they listen to music, than when they do not. Oldham and colleagues (1995) and Bull (2007) have suggested that music could help to reduce environmental interferences in the office, and that this function of music while 92 working may be related to other positive outcomes (higher organisational satisfaction, increased sense of privacy and control of working environment). Based on these findings, coupled with the idea of an additional listening condition, the following was also predicted: Hypothesis 3: Office-workers will report less environmental interference when they listen all day, compared to listening in breaks and not listening at all. In chapter 3, qualitative data from the survey suggested that music listening can stimulate social interaction, for example by providing a talking point. But music listening was sometimes reported to have a negative impact on colleagues, through preventing social interaction in the office. Therefore, it was predicted that music listening while working would reduce social interaction in the office. Participants were expected to report less social interaction when listening to music all day and during the break listening condition, compared to no listening. Furthermore, given that breaks are commonly a time when colleagues interact socially, social interaction was expected to be less during breaks than during all day listening: Hypothesis 4: Office-workers will report less social interaction when they listen to music than when not listening, and less social interaction when they listen in breaks, than when they listen all day. A third condition was added to the study: listening to music at work during breaks. Following evidence that short breaks at work can be beneficial for well-being (Henning et al., 1997; McLean et al., 2001), and that people can be distracted by music while performing tasks (Daoussis & McKelvie, 1986; Furnham & Bradley, 1997), this condition was included to examine what, if any, effect shorter periods of music listening have compared to continuous listening and no listening. The next two sections present details of the methods and results of the quantitative data, before the follow-up interview study is presented and discussed. Finally, the quantitative and qualitative data are discussed together and the whole study concluded. 93 4.2 Field study method The study included a six week long field study and follow-up interviews four months later. The data collected during the field study were quantitative and qualitative (the majority being quantitative through self-report questionnaires). The follow-up interviews were not originally part of the research design, but were developed after some initial data analysis. Methods and results from these interviews are presented in section 4.4 below. As mentioned earlier in chapter 2 (2.3.1), a pilot study was carried out prior to the field study, but the organisation unexpectedly withdrew from the study. Another organisation was contacted and this is the organisation that eventually participated in the six week study reported below. The next sections describe the study design, the organisation, recruitment process, details of participants, procedure and measures used. 4.2.1 Research design The study used repeated measures within-group design with three conditions. During a total of six weeks in January and February 2007, participants spent two weeks listening to music whilst working (condition 1), two weeks listening to music in breaks (condition 2) and two weeks not listening to music at all (condition 3). For each of these six weeks the participants were asked to fill in response sheets. The order was counter-balanced, and participants were split into three groups. Group A did the condition order 1-2-3, group B did order 2-3-1 and group C did order 3-1-2. Repeated measures were used for three reasons. Firstly, it has been suggested that repeated measures are suitable for studies in real life, as people would be more likely to be exposed to the different treatments (Mitchell & Jolley, 2004). Secondly, it has been suggested that repeated measures should be used when individual differences between subjects are likely to mask treatment effects (i.e. it allows for better internal validity) (ibid; Robson, 2002). Thirdly, fewer participants are needed in order to achieve adequate statistical power. This makes it easier to recruit participants (ibid; Robson, 2002), which is a particular problem for in-situ studies 94 4.2.2 Organisation The research institute was both a public and a private organisation, and received some funding from government research councils, as well as private funding from its commercial operations. It was a very large organisation located in central England, with about 500 employees, including many different teams with a variety of skills, beyond those of the scientists. The workplace had in the past been a teacher training college and resembled a campus with long corridors and many private small offices (figure 4.1), as well as shared ones. Open plan office spaces were rare, although there were some (figure 4.2). Figure 4.1:Photo, private office at the research institute Figure 4.2: Photo, one of the few open plan office spaces at the research institute The organisation was chosen based on the geographical proximity to the researcher and the fact that it consisted of various job roles (including staff responsible for IT and personnel). Other determining factors were that the organisation consisted mainly of offices (including shared and private offices) where employees worked in front of computers, and that job roles did not consist mainly of customer communication (i.e. no call centres). 95 4.2.3 Recruitment and participants After making initial contact with the Personnel Manager, invitation e-mails were sent out to all employees. Twenty-one employees responded and volunteered to take part in the study. The 21 participants (table 4.3) were between 24 and 61 years of age (x =41.57); ¯ seven were female and 14 were male. Six of them were specialist scientists, the rest had a variety of jobs found in most organisations (including roles within sales, marketing, administration, finance and IT). Average job complexity (on a scale of 1=not at all complex to 7=very complex) was 5.43, suggesting that most jobs were fairly complex. The sample was smaller than initially hoped for. It proved difficult to find a large group of volunteers who were prepared to take part in the field study for six weeks, while working. Some were worried about listening all the time, some were worried that the data collection would take up too much time from work, and some of those who already listened to music while they worked were worried about being without it for two weeks. Pseudonym Age Tom Dan Neil James Alec Steven Adrian Bethany Peter Olivia Raymond Patrick Rachel Fiona Emily Brian Mark Chris Lucy Craig Pauline 24 25 28 28 29 32 37 39 40 41 41 41 46 49 49 51 51 53 54 54 61 Occupation Contracts Officer Analytical Geochemist Sample Preparation Technician Database Developer Electronics Engineer Geophysicist Transport Administrator Analytical Geochemist IT Developer Head of Sales Business Development Specialist R&D Workshop Manager Software License Manager Quality Manager Administrator Chief Curator Manager, Sales Desk Minerals Geologist Analytical Geochemist Publications manager Editor Table 4.3: Pseudonyms, ages and occupational titles of participants in field study 96 There was a great deal of general enjoyment of music among the participants (x =4.43 on ¯ a scale of 1=dislike it very much, to 5=like it very much). Music was also very important in the participants’ lives (x =4.14 on a scale of 1=not at all, to 5=extremely). Eight ¯ participants had had formal music education. The minimum amount was two years and the maximum ten years (x =4.5 years). 19 participants listened to music at work prior to ¯ the experiment, and they listened to a wide range of genres and artists (displaying a similar pattern to that of the survey respondents in Chapter 3). 14 listened solely through loud speakers and three used headphones all the time. Two used headphones 50% of the time spent listening. They were asked to continue the same listening patterns during the experiment. Participants’ names were changed in order to maintain their anonymity. 4.2.4 Measures and procedure The week before the experiment, demographic data and data on existing music listening practices were collected in an “Introductory survey”. The data collected during the actual experiment were collected through two different surveys, a “Well-being survey” and a “Between condition survey” (including work performance and other work responses see more details below and appendix 9). Participants were asked to complete these surveys before the experiment started, in order to obtain baseline data, and also throughout the whole experiment. Each condition took two weeks to complete, and during one condition period participants were asked to complete two “Well-being surveys” and one “Between condition survey” (figure 4.4). As there were three conditions in the field study, a total of six well-being surveys and three between condition surveys were collected per participant, plus one of each survey during pre-experiment data collection (baseline). Two “catch up days” were included in each condition (see figure 4.4). Participants were given the possibility to take a break from the experiment if they had done 8 experiment days during a condition. However, if they had missed out on one or two days during these weeks, they were given a chance to catch up. This meant that by the end of the condition they were able to have accumulated 8 experiment days. 97 Week 1 Monday Experiment day Wellbeing response sheet Tuesday Experiment day + survey day Wednesday Experiment day Thursday Experiment day Friday Experiment day Week 2 Monday Experiment day Wellbeing response sheet Between condition response sheet Tuesday Experiment day + survey day Wednesday Experiment day + survey day Thursday Catch up day Friday Catch up day Figure 4.4: Field study, data collection schedule for each condition The concept of catch up days was developed during a pilot experiment in a different organisation. It became clear during the pilot that was almost impossible to ensure that all participants would be in their office every day for 6 weeks. Employees can become ill, may have to stay at home with sick children, or are required to participate in meetings or training sessions. Therefore it was considered a more realistic scenario to aim for 8 experiment days out of 10 and give the participants the flexibility to organise the experiment days in as they saw fit. This meant that participants did not do their experiment in a controlled environment, but it was deemed more desirable to carry out the field study in their actual working environments, resembling their normal working lives as closely as possible. Qualitative data were also collected, both throughout the experiment and afterwards. Participants could add additional comments in the end of all surveys to clarify their ratings if they wanted to. An e-mail was sent out immediately after the end of the experiment, asking for additional comments. Introductory survey The survey was administered a few days before the experiment started, in order to collect information about demographic details (gender, age and job role) and about the participants’ listening habits in their workplace. It was regarded as important to 98 understand whether or not the participants usually listened to music in the workplace (and obtain details about functions it might have for them), as this factor was thought to be a potential influence on the results of the experiment. For example, if some of the participants listened to music regularly at work prior to the experiment, they might experience listening to music in breaks as a negative change in their environment (as they listen less than they are used to). If participants did not usually listen to music at all prior to the experiment, they might find the unlimited music listening condition distracting. Data on personality traits were also collected before the experiment started, using Saucier’s (1994) short version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. This test measures extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and intellect/openness. Well-being survey Well-being was captured through multiple measures. Job Affect Scale (Lesiuk, 2005; Oldham et al., 1995) consisted of twelve mood items divided between four mood states: nervousness, relaxation, enthusiasm and fatigue. An anxiety-stress questionnaire was also used (Cook et al., 1981) to collect data on job-induced tension, somatic tension and general fatigue and uneasiness. In addition to these measures, an overall measure of wellbeing was created for this survey; “Please indicate your general well-being during the last two days at work (on a scale from 1=poor to 5=very good)”. Between condition survey - Work performance: Job performance was measured by adopted items from Ashford and colleagues’ (1989). These items were intended for supervisors to rate employees, but this was not feasible in this study as the job roles did not include close supervision. The items were therefore adapted into first person form for self-reporting purposes, and included items ”My performance levels have been satisfactory”, “I have performed high quality work”, and “I have been effective in my job”. In order to strengthen the validity of work 99 performance data, given that supervision work performance ratings were not suitable, organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) items were included and intended to capture a broader conceptualisation of the term work performance. OCB was measured through van Dyne & LePine’s (1998) two item scale, including the items ”helps orient new employees” and ”helps others who have a heavy workload”, although these were also adapted into first person form for self-report purposes. These two scales were then combined to one overall mean of work performance, including OCB. All items were measured on a Likert scale of 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. - Environmental interruption: Interruptions deriving from the surroundings were measured by using a three item scale (Oldham et al., 1995), including items such as ”interruptions at work often prevent me from giving my full attention to my job” (Likert scale of 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree). - Co-worker satisfaction: Three items were used to measure co-worker satisfaction (Oldham et al., 1995), including ”the way my coworkers are easy to make friends with”, ”the opportunity to develop close friendships with my coworkers”, and ”the way my coworkers get along with each other” (Likert scale of 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree). - Job satisfaction: Three items were used to measure job satisfaction (Oldham et al., 1995), including ”my job in general”, ”the amount of challenge in my job”, and ”the kind of work I do in this job” (Likert scale of 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree). - Organisational satisfaction: Three items were used to measure organisational satisfaction (Oldham et al., 1995), including ”the organisation in general”, ”the organisation as an employer”, and ”this team (originally “office”) of the organisation” (Likert scale of 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree). - Social interaction: One item was created for this purpose, as no specific measures of social interaction in a workplace were found. “I have interacted socially with my colleagues during the last 1.5 weeks at work” (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). - Absence: Participants were asked to fill in how many days they had been absent during the past 2 weeks. 100 4.2.5 Analysis Quantitative data were analysed using the statistical software SPSS, and included descriptive and comparative statistical tests, as well as correlation-related explorations. 4.3 Field study results Overall, the study showed no overall effects of music listening on mood, work performance or satisfaction-related measures. However, the results showed that these variables were positively correlated during the music listening conditions, and negatively correlated to stress, anxiety and environmental interference. The next sections present the results of the field study in more detail: main effects, analysis of individual differences and conclusions. 4.3.1 Main effects of music listening on work performance and mood To examine the relations between music listening at work and employee responses, scores for employee responses in the music listening conditions (all day listening, break listening) were contrasted with the control condition (no listening). Through a series of two way analysis of variance, results showed no significant differences between the conditions in the responses (table 4.5). Data on social interaction were not normally distributed, and so was tested through a Friedman’s ANOVA, but revealed no significant differences either. Thus, hypothesis 1-4 were not supported for any of the measures. No main effects of listening to music were confirmed. Further analysis was carried out, and a series of repeated measures ANOVA that included the “baseline” (i.e. the scores of all measures taken the week prior to the experiment started) showed significant differences between conditions in scores for anxiety and stress, and work performance (table 4.5). 101 ___________________________________________________________________________ Variable Baseline All day Breaks No listening F (excl. baseline) F (incl. baseline) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Enthusiasm x ¯ 20.81 SD 4.25 Relaxation x ¯ 23.14 SD 3.92 Anxiety x ¯ 21.52 SD 2.62 Well-being x ¯ 3.95 SD 1.02 Environmental interferences x ¯ 4.21 SD 1.22 Work performance x ¯ 5.51 SD 1.27 Job satisfaction x ¯ 5.29 SD 1.06 Co-worker satisfaction x ¯ 4.87 SD 1.41 Organisational satisfaction x ¯ 5.02 SD 1.08 Absence x ¯ 0.38 SD 1.07 Social interaction ¯ x SD 3.43 1.43 20.50 4.83 22.80 3.33 30.12 2.56 3.77 0.82 4.16 1.16 4.90 0.74 5.08 1.29 5.15 0.99 4.89 1.07 0.10 0.44 19.90 4.33 22.19 3.34 30.07 2.25 3.83 0.62 3.92 1.35 4.79 0.82 5.29 1.44 4.95 1.26 4.73 1.29 0.10 0.30 20.45 4.19 22.02 3.30 30.76 2.25 3.93 0.69 3.98 1.29 4.93 1.02 5.31 1.27 4.76 1.34 4.84 1.22 0.19 0.68 0.44 0.51 0.70 1.15 1.87 71.87* 0.40 0.30 0.53 0.52 0.29 4.12* 1.24 0.79 2.29 0.72 0.34 0.47 0.24 Chi-Square (excl. baseline) 0.75 Chi-Square (incl. baseline) 3.48 1.44 3.57 1.33 3.33 1.24 5.81 6.29 Table 4.5: Variable means, standard deviations and analysis of variance for baseline and experimental conditions Note: N=21 for all variables and conditions. df=3 when Mauchly’s test indicated that assumption of sphericity had not been violated, otherwise the degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity. * p <.05 Participants were significantly more stressed and anxious, and had worse work performance throughout the whole experiment, compared to before. 102 4.3.2 Analysis of individual differences To examine variations in participant responses to music listening conditions, differences in scores between music listening conditions (all day listening and break listening) and control condition (no listening) were calculated for all dependent measures. Differences between all day listening and no listening were called “Diff1”, and differences between break listening and no listening “Diff2”. Correlations between score differences of the measures were examined as well as correlations between score differences and individual background variables. The main aim was to investigate whether variations in differences across participants showed systematic patterns – i.e. whether people who responded positively in mood to the music conditions also responded positively in terms of work experiences, while people who responded negatively in mood would also evaluate the work experiences negatively. The correlations with background factors were an exploration of possible causal factors – i.e. whether positive or negative effects of music on work experience relate to personality. Relationships among mood- and work responses Table 4.6 shows correlations between variables in the music conditions compared to control condition. Correlations between variables in the all day condition (compared to control condition) appear above the bold diagonal, and correlations in break listening condition (compared to control condition) appear below the bold diagonal. Correlations between identical measures appear in bold along the diagonal. There were more correlations within mood responses, and within work responses, than between the two groups of responses. When investigating all day listening score differences (Diff 1), wellbeing was positively correlated with work performance and relaxation positively correlated with job satisfaction. Among the break listening score differences (Diff 2), environmental interferences was negatively correlated with three of the work responses; work performance, job satisfaction and organisational satisfaction. 103 Mood Variables 1. Enthusiasm 2. Relaxation 3. Anxiety 4. Well-being 5. Work performance 6. Job satisfaction 7. Co-worker satisfaction 8. Organisational satisfaction 9. Social interaction 10. Env interference 11. Absence 1 0.50* 0.21 0.04 0.65** 0.08 0.21 -0.21 0 -0.15 -0.06 -0.26 2 0.17 0.45* -0.59** 0.38 0.28 -0.07 -0.01 0.01 0.33 -0.01 0.15 3 -0.33 -0.18 0.36 -0.23 0.03 0.27 0.07 0.25 -0.41 -0.24 -0.34 4 0.38 0.54** -0.67** 0.32 0.18 0.09 -0.16 -0.19 0.11 0.23 -0.02 5 0.09 0.37 -0.14 0.50* 0.64* 0.54** 0.35 0.45* 0.17 -0.55** 0.08 Work responses 6 0.14 0.49* -0.19 0.39 0.44* 0.43 0.06 0.65** 0 -0.49* -0.01 7 -0.2 0.05 -0.37 0.3 0.36 0.3 0.88** 0.37 -0.1 -0.03 0.38 8 -0.08 0.29 -0.09 0.25 0.16 0.68** 0.51* 0.58** -0.13 -0.43* -0.09 9 0.22 -0.14 -0.05 -0.19 -0.07 0.24 0.25 0.36 0.06 0.08 0.13 10 0.04 0.29 0.03 0.15 -0.01 0.03 -0.19 0.21 -0.18 0.35 0.22 11 -0.32 0.01 -0.06 -0.02 -0.06 -0.01 0.13 0.01 0.09 0.35 0.77** Table 4.6: Correlations between all the variables in the two experimental conditions, compared to control condition * p < .05, ** p < .01 The only two variables that were not correlated to any other variables were absence and social interaction. Taken together, the correlations among responses in both music listening conditions (when compared to no listening) show a complex picture of how mood and work responses were related during the study (figure 4.7). The visual representation in figure 4.7 illustrates how positive mood-responses to music (well-being, enthusiasm, relaxation) relate to work responses when participants listened in offices, and also provides a suggestion of how music listening may function in offices in general. For example, when music listening increased relaxation, it also increased well-being and job satisfaction, as the two variables were related. Music listening also increased work performance and enthusiasm, as these two variables were positively correlated to wellbeing, as well as organisational satisfaction and co-worker satisfaction – two variables positively correlated to job satisfaction. This is a route through which music may operate for employees who enjoy music listening at work. For employees who experience music as stressful, music is likely to have direct negative effects on relaxation and well-being (as these variables are negatively correlated to anxiety and stress), but also indirect negative effects on the other variables mentioned (such as job satisfaction and work performance). It is unclear whether the actual music is perceived as stressful, and/or 104 whether music can relieve anxiety and stress evoked by other stressors. Similarly, if music is experienced as environmental interference, then music listening can have negative effects on satisfaction-variables and work performance, and indirectly on moodvariables. Enthusiasm Well-being Anxiety and stress Work performance Environmental interference Relaxation Job satisfaction Co-worker satisfaction Organisational satisfaction Figure 4.7: Visual representation of correlations among variables while listening to music in the office (Dark green arrows: positive correlations all day condition score differences, light green arrows: positive correlations break listening score differences, dark red arrows: negative correlations all day score differences, light red arrows: negative correlations break listening score differences. Thicker arrows indicate p<.01, thinner arrows indicate p <.05) But if music is instead experienced as a solution to decrease other environmental interferences, then music listening can have a positive influence on the variables in the model. Important research questions that this raises are: when is music stressful and interfering, and when is music a way to reduce stresses and interferences? Listening to music in order to manage environmental interferences has been mentioned in chapter 3, and also by Oldham and colleagues (1995) and Bull (2007), but little is known about when music itself constitutes the disruption in the office environment (Oldham et al., 1995). 105 Relationships between score differences and individual variables Extraversion, age, job complexity and previous average listening time at work were examined to see if there were any relationships with outcome measures. Pearson’s correlation revealed four significant correlations. Firstly, there was a negative correlation with age and well-being Diff 2 (r=-.435, p=.049), suggesting that younger participants were more likely to score higher on wellbeing while listening to music during breaks, than older participants. Secondly, weekly listening time and enthusiasm Diff 1 were positively correlated (r=.515, p=.024). The more participants listened to music before the experiment, the more they also reported increased enthusiasm during all day condition. Thirdly, extraversion and job satisfaction Diff 1 were negatively correlated (r=-.482, p=.027). This suggests that the introverted participants were more satisfied with their job while listening to music all day, compared to when they listened to no music at all. Lastly, job complexity and wellbeing Diff 1 were negatively correlated (r=-.541, p=.011). The more job complexity participants reported, the less wellbeing they reported in all day listening condition. This suggests that if participants had simpler jobs, they were more likely to report higher well-being when listening to music all day. The idea of a negative relationship between beneficial effects of music and task complexity is consistent with previous research and theorising (Furnham & Allass, 1999; North & Hargreaves, 2006; Oldham et al., 1995). However, the link between introversion and beneficial effects of music contradicts previous research, and was unexpected (Cassidy & MacDonald, 2007; Furnham & Bradley, 1997). It may be that the social and physical environment plays an important mediating role, which could mean that introverts prefer to control their environment with music, compared to not being able to control their environment at all. The research design (i.e. “in situ” field study) would therefore have been better suited to register such effects, compared to previous studies which have been mainly laboratory-based (Cassidy & MacDonald, 2007; Furnham & Allass, 1999; Furnham & Bradley, 1997; Furnham & Strbac, 2002; Furnham et al., 1999). 106 4.3.3 Conclusion Data from the field study showed no main effect of music listening. Allowing participants to listen to music all day, or during breaks, did not reveal any overall effects on work performance and mood – neither positive nor negative. The absence of significant main effects was unexpected, given that both Oldham and colleagues (1995) and Lesiuk (2005) found that self-selected listening in offices had positive effects on mood and work-related responses. The lack of a main effect can be understood through an examination of individual differences. Even though there were no main effects of music listening on work performance and mood, it appears that music still had effects. The model of correlations illustrates a first attempt to map out how music listening functions in offices, and the model takes into account both beneficial and disrupting processes. Certain individual factors - including age, previous listening habits, personality and job complexity - also influenced the scorings of the mood and satisfaction variables. Some of the significant results that were found were puzzling; participants reported overall significantly more stress and anxiety, and worse work performance, throughout the whole experiment compared to prior to the experiment. This result is contradictory, as the experimental conditions include such different listening conditions as listening to music all day and not listening at all. This would suggest that the differences in the data are not because of the music listening per se. What other factors influenced their responses? Questions about the experiences among participants could not be uncovered through further analysis of existing data. Also, the fact that music appeared to have different effects during the experiment – ranging from positive to negative – suggested a need for qualitative data that could provide an insight into how and why people find music suitable or unsuitable for working. 107 4.4 Follow-up interviews In order to find out more about the effects of music during the field experiment, followup interviews were designed and carried out four months later with 11 participants. Interviews were viewed as the most suitable method to validate and enhance understanding of the quantitative data, as participants could be asked why they responded the way they did and thus qualify and contextualise their quantitative responses. Followup interviews had not been utilised in the previous field experiments (Lesiuk, 2005; Oldham et al., 1995), and were not a part of the original design of this study. The next sections present details of the design and procedure, and the results and conclusions of the interview analysis. 4.4.1 Design and procedure Interviewees were contacted to take part in voluntary follow-up interviews, and 11 participants agreed to take part (table 4.8). Pseudonym Tom James Alec Bethany Olivia Raymond Fiona Brian Lucy Craig Pauline Age 24 28 29 39 41 41 49 51 54 54 61 Occupation Contracts Officer Database Developer Electronics Engineer Analytical geochemist Head of Sales Business development specialist Quality Manager Chief Curator Analytical Geochemist Publications manager Editor Table 4.8: Pseudonyms, ages and occupational titles of participants in follow-up interviews Extracts of individual quantitative results were used during the interviews to prompt participants to remember their experiences during the experiment. The interview schedules were semi-structured and designed with two main objectives in mind: 1) to increase insight into the difference between pre-experiment measures and experiment 108 measures by exploring other influencing factors, 2) to obtain more detailed insight into the effect of music and individual differences (figure 4.9). 1. Can you tell me about the general experience of the experiment? 2. Can you tell me if/how the music affected you during the experiment? 3. Did you use the catch up days? 4. How did you find being told how to listen? 5. How did you feel about having gaps within the conditions? 6. How did you find being sent the surveys? 7. What was your experience of reflecting on how you felt in the past? 8. When you answered the survey questions, what proportion do you think is attributed to the music that you were listening to? Figure 4.9: Interview-schedule for follow-up interviews The 11 individual interviews were carried out in June 2007. The interviews were recorded using a digital dictaphone supplied by Sheffield University, were carried out “in situ” at the workplaces and lasted 40 minutes on average. Participants were interviewed in their own offices (apart from Alec who I interviewed in the canteen during his lunch hour at his request). Interviewees were reminded of the purpose of the study, confidentiality policy, withdrawal and complaints policy. All interviewees were assigned a pseudonym in accordance with Sheffield University’s ethics guidelines. Qualitative data from the field study (follow-up interviews) were transcribed and analysed using the Grounded Theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), with strong elements of theoretical sampling. Given that the follow-up interviews were carried out as a way to qualify contradictory results in the quantitative data, the analysis targeted discussion of these particular results through theoretical sampling, in order to complement the quantitative data. However, other relevant emerging themes that related to experiences of the field study were also explored. The analysis procedure consisted of theoretical sampling of the questions that had been identified during the quantitative analysis. After that, the process consisted of moving back and forth between qualitative 109 and quantitative data, in order to explore the experiences of the field experiment. Exploratory analyses were carried out on three interviews, which indicated general themes and served to build rich descriptions of these themes. Extreme cases that did not fit these general themes were also identified and analysed. Reasons for shared or varying experiences were explored, and the analysis continued until no new insights emerged. Notation: EM – e-mail conversation FI – follow-up interviews NR – Narrative responses from additional comments in surveys 4.4.2 Results During the analysis of narrative responses from the study (i.e. voluntary additional comments in the questionnaires) and follow up interviews, five main categories of response emerged: 1) positive experiences, 2) negative experiences, 3) views on music’s perceived compatibility with working, 4) views on the relationship between musical effects and other external factors, 5) participants’ experiences of the experiment methods and processes. Theme 1: Positive experiences Many comments that related to experiences of the study involved descriptions of “taking a break” from work in some shape or form. Pauline, a scientific editor in her early 60s, wrote immediately after the study had ended: Pauline: This period of the year, January to March, is always very busy when authors realise they have run out of time at the end of the Financial Year and are keen to pass their text on to anyone who will receive it (usually the editor). I mention this as a backdrop because I found the pattern listening for four periods during the day remarkably effective in stress reduction: a reminder to stop, breathe deeply and slow down. (NR 06) 110 Interestingly, the effects of music on relaxation did not show in Pauline’s individual mood ratings (All day listening: 22.50, Breaks: 20.50, No listening: 23.00). Instead, relaxation even decreased slightly during the breaks, which appears contradictory in contrast with how she described her experience. When I asked her about this during the follow up interview, she looked back in her diary and explained: Pauline: I was working on some fairly difficult stuff with an author, and didn’t really know what I wanted them to do. I was also working on a couple of things that I really needed to finish before I retire. […] [The ratings seem to be] a reflection of the work I was doing at the time. That looks like it, yes. (FI 06) This could be a methodological issue, as it seems that the mood response scale (JAS) in this case did not measure music-related mood, but overall mood – which can be influenced by many different factors in everyday life. Pauline suggested that the music may still have contributed to a reduction in stress. She said: “Maybe, if I hadn’t had those breaks, it could have been much worse”. When probed about how music was able to relieve stress for her during the break listening condition, Pauline stated: Pauline: Anneli: Pauline: What the music did was it helped me to break up my day and think “Well, I don’t actually have to sit and concentrate on this all day long or for 7,5 hours, I can listen to my music and do something else, write e-mails or something”. You know, it dispersed the day a bit more with… things. I found it quite useful to just pace yourself a bit more. Because you can get a bit intense at work, I find. Intense, do you mean in terms of difficult to slow down….? Yeah. […] you are just a bit too focused, and sometimes you need to pull back. And then you come back to things with maybe a clearer head. I just forgot to do that in the past. (FI 06) The music allowed her to “pull back”, to shift attention away from the tasks and create a space for reflection. Craig described a similar shift in attention between tasks and the music, and how this was related to his mood: Craig: It [the music] kind of blended in to the general ambience... Like if the sun is shining, it makes you feel happier. You don’t sit and stare at the sun, watching it shine. And the music kind of blended into that same environment. It was just there and it was a nice thing to have in the background. And I did find, sometimes, when I had hit the end of a report, I feel I could relax, sit back, “I’ll 111 Anneli: Craig: take a little break”. I quite enjoyed the music being there. Or if a particular track came on that I enjoyed, I would then break, I would stop and listen to it. So it is almost as if you would go between different ways of listening. Yes, very much so. Sometimes it is background, and I didn’t even hear it, really. It was on but I wasn’t listening. It was just there. But, you know, noises catch your attention and if you hear something you like you want to stop and listen to it. And then I found myself drumming on the table, tapping my feet... So that was good, that was a boost. (FI 23) Music varied between being located in the forefront and in the background of Craig’s auditory workspace, and when in the forefront he was able to relax and enjoy the music, which he felt increased his subjective well-being. Pauline’s and Craig’s comments reveal a complex relationship between relaxation and concentration, emotion and cognition. This idea confirms the relationship illustrated in the correlation model (figure 4.7) between well-being and work performance, and is also consistent with Isen’s (1999) ideas about positive affect and cognition, where positive affect triggers positive memory material which is rich and complex and cognition becomes more flexible and creative. But the way that music influenced relaxation can also be understood as the opposite of working; leisure in the workplace. Olivia, who particularly enjoyed listening in breaks as it “becomes a pleasure to enjoy with my coffee” and “reinforces the idea of a ‘break’”, reflected that perhaps she had “just been enjoying the novelty of a break” as she did not usually take breaks outside of lunch (NR 07). Another participant, Ed, argued that it was the actual music that contributed to increased relaxation: “I do feel more relaxed and ready for work after listening to music for more than five minutes” (NR 17). Similarly, Craig believed that music was particularly useful for relaxing and taking a break: Craig: I suppose sometimes I could just switch off to it, and then it was almost back to my normal condition of not having any music. It was just there but I could push it to the background. But then when I was more relaxed it was still there and I could just switch on to it, whereas if I listen to no music at all and I take a relaxation break I usually go out to find someone to talk to. To break the silence. But immediately, with the music there, the silence was already broken. So I got that immediate relaxation effect without thinking about it. (FI 06) 112 Craig wanted to fill his breaks at work with sounds, not with silence. Without music, he would have to get out of his office and perhaps walk down to the canteen to look for colleagues to talk to. With the music, “silence was already broken” and he could relax and have a break without needing to leave his office. Surprisingly, this experience occurred when Craig listened to music all day, not during breaks as might have been expected. Instead, he found break listening stressful, as I describe in the next section. Theme 2: Negative experiences For some participants, certain elements of the experiment were problematic. These were situations where participants felt irritation or stress as a result of taking part in the study. Craig found the break listening condition particularly stressful: Craig: Anneli: Craig: I was glad it ended because that was a relief of another little bit of pressure. I did find actually, while I stopped and listened... I was torn in two directions, because I enjoyed listening to the music and I did find it more relaxing, but the pressure got higher to stop listening and do some work. So I was being pulled in two directions there. How did this pressure affect you? I just get more agitated. Just a little bit more bad-tempered, I suppose. And I just felt that I needed to speed up on the work that I was doing, to catch up. (FI 23) The conflict that Craig experienced consisted of him feeling that music was enjoyable yet feeling guilty for doing nothing, for not working. Fiona also described feeling as if she “was bunking off work a little bit” (FI 01). For Fiona, her personality and her attitude to work and leisure contributed to the perception of music as leisure in the workplace. She described having a very clearly defined boundary between work and home life, and that music was seen as something belonging to the latter: “maybe I associate music with what I do out of work, rather than what I do in work”. She explained further: Fiona: Since I did the experiment, I have not walked out of the house in the morning with a couple of CDs, thinking: “I’ll listen to those at work”. I have thought I ought to do that, really, but I don’t. I pass them, all stacked up. We do have a lot of music, but I have never thought: “I’ll pick those two out and bring them to work and listen to them”. So maybe I am associating music with my out of work 113 life, my leisure time, not with work. […] I view work as work, and home as home. I have got a very good work-life balance, which I think a lot of people do at [company name]. Maybe because I have been at work for so long, I go in in the morning and come out at night, there is stuff I do out of work and stuff I do in work. I don’t bring the music into my working environment. (FI 01) Both Craig and Fiona did not listen to music prior to the study, so it is not surprising that they found it difficult to think of music listening as a part of their working day. But was it the music listening per se, as a specific activity that Craig and Fiona associated with leisure that made them feel guilty for not working? Or would it have been the same if they had carried out some other activity during the breaks? Craig: Yes, it would have been the same. It wasn’t the activity; it was the extra “to-do thing”. It was taking me away from higher priority things. It is kind of bad time management. That is the way I look at it. If you have got important things to do and less important things, you put the important things first. And when you feel you need to relax, either don’t do anything, or do a few quick wins, a few easy things. But the main focus should be on the main priority things. And being forced to stop doing those, to do something trivial… as I imagined listening to music is, at that time… then that was stressful, yes. That was negative. So it wasn’t the music, it would have been reading the news paper, doing a sudoku, sitting and having a cup of tea… (FI 23) Craig describes music in this particular context as “trivial” compared to his other tasks, which are described as “important” and should be “the main priority” (FI 23). But other non-work related activities would also be perceived as trivial, which confirms the contextual importance in order to understand music use in offices. Music can be seen as important and desirable, and office workers certainly feel that music can provide relief from boredom, and relaxation from a stressful job. However, music is not the main priority in this context. This is consistent with the previous research of music listening in daily life, which suggests that music listening is rarely the main activity when people listen as they go about their daily lives (DeNora, 2000; North et al., 2004; Sloboda et al., 2001). In the workplace, music listening is also given a clearly subordinate position. The main priority is carrying out the work tasks. This may or may not be done while listening to music, but if there was any perception that music may affect work tasks negatively, participants chose not to listen to music. 114 Another frequently mentioned aspect that participants found irritating was interrupted listening. Lucy said: Lucy: And the real problem was that you would start playing something, and then you had to turn it off, go and do something else, and you would come back and it would be the end of the CD. So you put it on again, and you would only get so far and then begin again. So I heard the beginning of all of them many times, and then I got annoyed. (FI18) For Lucy, the irritating factor in interrupted listening was the element of repetition. Tom also found the interrupted listening in the break listening condition annoying, as he wanted to continue to listen: Tom: Once I started listening to the music and listened for 10 or 15 minutes and then have to turn it off, and then go back to not having it, was… It makes it sound like a drug, doesn’t it? (laughs) I don’t know, you just kind of get into it, don’t you? Well, at least I do. So I just wanted to continue listening, and I had to turn it off and start again. It was just frustration, more than anything, I think. (FI11) Tom was used to listening to music while working prior to the experiment, so he was missing his usual working routine. Alec, who also used to listen at work, experienced a spill-over effect from not having music at work: Tom: I guess when I didn’t listen to music at all for the period, you know when you don’t listen to any, I suppose it did have a little bit of an effect. I didn’t feel quite as relaxed when I got home. (FI17) Not having music meant that Alec did not have his usual element of relaxation throughout his working day, and he noticed this only when he left the office. Bethany used to listen to a great deal of music at work prior to the study, about 80% of her working week. She was initially worried about taking part in the study as she was not sure if she was able to go without music for two weeks. But instead of feeling stressed and annoyed by the lack of music, Bethany was surprised to find the opposite: 115 Bethany: Anneli: Bethany: I cried and stamped my feet and kicked bins (laughs), and after a couple of days it wasn’t a problem. And what I was finding was… It worked quite nicely because there were two of us out of the lab both on the same schedule, but of course we had other people around. So I would go into the lab, this was during the last week, and if someone had the radio on in there, I would have to ask them to turn it off. Not even because of the experiment, but because I found it REALLY distracting! Really? Really, it just really grated on me. Really strange! Really strange. (FI13) Instead of finding the lack of music a difficulty, as she initially expected, she found it more difficult to manage her auditory environment and her colleagues. She explained: Bethany: Anneli: Bethany: Anneli: Bethany: Mentally, just that sort of pressure, and just this issue of having got used to the silence, and then actually having to say to people: “Can you turn that off, because it is doing my head in and I can’t concentrate”. I explained to them why, because they are not used to me doing that. They were quite sympathetic to it, but yes, I think it had an effect on them as well. In what way do you mean? I am not really into micro-managing people, “you shall do this, or you shall do this, or you shall do this at this time”. I let them get on with it. More of a handsoff approach. But I had to actually interrupt and stop X from listening to Virgin Radio, or whatever, Trent fm or whatever it was. And do you think that affected her? No, I mean, she is a big girl, she dishes it out as much as she can take it. So she was absolutely fine as soon as I had explained why. She was absolutely fine about it, and she understood. But I don’t feel particularly comfortable asking them to do it when more often than not it is me in the instrument lab with the volume up at 120 db to drown out the sound of the chillers and instruments. I think they were a bit shocked. (laughs). (FI 13) She experienced the very opposite of her previous position with music at work. Previously she was more likely to be the person playing music that others might not have liked. As will be illustrated later, when she was interviewed in the interview study (chapter 5), she defined herself as someone who listens to music almost constantly at work. But during this study she happened to be put in some of her colleagues’ shoes, and she found it uncomfortable to have to ask music listening colleagues to turn their music down or off. The idea that music can become disrupting and evoke feelings of irritation resembles the negative correlation between environmental interference and the other variables in the correlation model (figure 4.7). 116 Theme 3: Music’s perceived compatibility with working When people talked about concentration and distraction in relation to music listening, they mainly talked about whether they felt that music listening was compatible with work tasks or not. If they felt it was, they described the music as concentration-enhancing, and if not the music was described as distracting. Different factors were mentioned that could influence whether music listening during the experiment was distracting or concentrationenhancing (table 4.10). Factors influencing perceived compatibility between music and work Musical structure Example quotes: The ones that I found it hardest to listen to and work at the same time tended to be the ones with a more complex musical structure behind them (Pouges are a 10 or 12 piece band, Mahler a whole orchestra, the Jools Holland orchestra were another distracting one) where as the ones I could listen to easily tended to be some variation on the theme of guitar, bass, keyboard, drums, vocals. (Raymond, EM12) What have I got, on my player? I have got Dylan, who I couldn’t listen to because he is too lyric-rich, basically. […] I’d be sitting here thinking: What does he mean by that? (Pauline, FI06) Given I'm a reasonably good clarinettist (when I have time to practice!) I wonder if the musician part of me was subconsciously hijacking my thought processes to study the technical content of what I was listening to? (Raymond, EM12) Maybe I associate music with what I do out of work, rather than what I do in work. (Fiona, FI01) I don’t listen to a lot of music at home. It’s not something I naturally tend to do, unless if I really want to listen to it. I don’t like background music. Music is serious for me. So I am actually either participating in it, or I am sitting down wanting to listen to it properly. (Lucy, FI18) I have got so many people coming in and out of the office, as you have just witnessed, and I certainly didn’t feel that I wanted the music on when they were there. (Lucy, FI18) It was mostly when I was trying to write something… sort of complex arguments and detailed replies and things like that, then I found it difficult. (Brian, FI05) I didn’t feel it was forced. That was the thing. Because I felt I could turn the volume down or switch it off when it really was too distracting. When the phone rang, or when someone came in to speak to me. (Craig, FI23) Lyrics Musical training Environmental associations Previous listening habits Work-related interruptions Task complexity Sense of control Table 4.10: Factors influencing perceived compatibility between music and work 117 Some of these factors are music-related. However, some are related to individual differences, socio-environmental differences and beliefs, as well as to aspects of the work tasks. Another possible influencing factor is personality. This idea emerged when doing both axial and mixed method analysis of Lucy and Craig. Lucy was used to silence in her office, and found music very distracting: Lucy: Particularly as I am not used to having music around me, and I found it a complete distraction. I really didn’t enjoy the experiment, full stop. (FI18) But interestingly Craig, who was also used to silence prior to the experiment, enjoyed having the music playing during the all day listening condition: Craig: I did find, sometimes, when I had hit the end of a report, I feel I could relax, sit back, “I’ll take a little break”. I quite enjoyed the music being there. Or if a particular track came on that I enjoyed, I would then break, I would stop and listen to it. (FI23) Lucy and Craig both had similar listening habits prior to the experiment, but experienced the music very differently. This would suggest that there were personality differences and maybe other situational differences that could explain why Craig got used to music, whereas Lucy did not. Their individual personality scores revealed that they were almost each other’s opposites in four out of five traits (table 4.11). Personality traits Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Openness Lucy 7.63 4.75 8.13 4.13 5.63 Craig 4.00 8.00 7.75 6.88 7.75 Cut-off points 5.7 7.32 6.74 5.79 6.55 Table 4.11: Personality trait scorings, comparison between Lucy and Craig All scales 1-9, cut-off points (normative values) by Saucier10 They were both conscientious, but the other four traits differed. Craig can be defined as open, which involves being imaginative, intellectual and creative, and being generally more open towards new experiences, whereas Lucy’s scorings defined her as closed. This may explain why he found it easier to get used to listening to music even though he did 10 http://www.uoregon.edu/~gsaucier/gsau41.htm, accessed 26 November 2009 118 not do so prior to the experiment. Lucy’s low scoring in emotional stability may have influenced her experiences - she often got very irritated with the music. Craig, on the other hand, scored higher on emotional stability and was perhaps not as easily influenced in terms of mood. Lucy also pointed out that she had frequent visitors and was often interrupted, which she felt was stressful. This affected her listening experiences during the experiment, as she got annoyed by the interrupted listening and having to turn the music on and off. Craig did not mention being interrupted. Either his position involved working for longer spells without any interaction, or he did not feel stressed about interruptions. These aspects of both individual differences and potential differences in social interaction as a part of the job appear to play an important role in explaining the differences in music experience that these two participants had – despite the fact that they were both used to silence at work prior to the experiment. Lucy felt very strongly that music listening and concentration were not compatible. It may be that this perception is particularly strong for someone like Lucy, considering her combination of different factors. Firstly, she had a particular combination of personality traits (closed, neurotic) that may have influenced her willingness to try new things, and her perceived levels of stress and anxiety at work. Secondly, the kind of work she did (which involved being interrupted frequently) also influenced her perception of music as unsuitable in her office. Thirdly, she was not used to listening to music while working. Although it is difficult at this stage to speculate about causal relationships, it seems plausible that a combination of her personality traits and her kind of work influenced her attitudes towards music listening at work on a more general level. This would have led to her never trying it out, and thus not being used to the activity. Fourthly, Lucy’s musical activities took place in her leisure time, and through attending music performances (choir practices, orchestra performances). This kind of music engagement was conceptualised by her as different from listening to music while doing something else. Finally, and related to the previous point, she also viewed music as “serious”, and not as “background music” and this attitude seemed likely to affect her willingness to listen to music while working. 119 Lucy’s experiences are challenging previous studies of music listening and attention/concentration/task performance. Previous studies have seldom taken the types of factors mentioned above into account. Certainly, Lucy being extraverted and still finding music at work very distracting is contradictory to previous studies (Cassidy & MacDonald, 2007; Furnham & Allass, 1999; Furnham & Bradley, 1997). What seems to have been missing in those previous studies is the “bigger picture”, i.e. consideration of situational factors and their combination with personality traits and habits, given that the results here suggest that these factors are related and can even override each other. Theme 4: Relationship between musical effects and other external factors During the interviews, all participants were asked how much they thought the music listening affected their answers. Nine out of 11 answered in percentage form, and most participants thought that music had had some kind of effect on their scorings, although their responses varied greatly. James was not able to answer this question even after probing (“I honestly couldn’t tell you”, FI10), and Brian also found it difficult to express: “I don’t know how you would quantify it, but… It was a significant factor for the good”. (FI05). The two participants, Tom and Alec, who felt that the music had most effect on their answers during the study (75% and 60%, respectively), were both under 30 with similar previous music listening habits (i.e. both finding music extremely important in their lives and listening to music for about 20-30% of their working week prior to the experiment). Lucy, who reported strongly disliking music listening during the experiment, said she thought music influenced each response with about 10%. Given her strong negative reactions to the field study this was surprising, as it was expected that she would have reacted more strongly to the presence of music. This would suggest that people who find music important and listen a lot generally also find that music influences other aspects of their working lives, while those who do not enjoy music at work are less affected by the music. However, even though 10% is not a great deal compared to 65%, it is worth bearing in mind that the effects can still be meaningful – especially if they are very negative, as in Lucy’s case. Other aspects that participants felt influenced their 120 answers during the field study were work-related aspects (fluctuations in workload and pressure, technical problems, relationships with colleagues, internal politics, satisfaction with organisation), individual differences (personality), leisure-related aspects (social interactions outside of work, holiday plans), sleep patterns, the weather, physical health and sense of well-being. Theme 5: Participants’ experiences of the experiment methods and processes In the interviews, participants were asked a number of brief questions about how they perceived aspects of the experiment methods and procedures. This was to explore briefly whether any methodological issues could have influenced their quantitative results. To summarise, most interviewees did not seem to have a problem with following the structure of the field experiment. However, some occasionally forgot put the music back on after interruptions, which could have resulted in a weakening of any effects of music listening. Participants did not seem to have reacted particularly negatively towards having conditions that spanned more than two weeks (including weekends), nor did they seem to have any problems with responding to the surveys – although some found some of the questions unusual. One thing that was reported to be difficult was to reflect and describe moods experienced in the past. This difficulty of remembering and briefly describing all the moods that had occurred the past few days, could also have lead to a weakening of the results, as it is possible that participants’ current moods influenced their memory retrieval (Isen, 1999). The construction and inclusion of catch up days was generally wellreceived, well-used and described as a beneficial feature of the study design. 4.4.3 Conclusion Music listening was described as beneficial by some, but also as disruptive and annoying by others. Participants described different factors that influenced whether they felt that music was either distracting or beneficial. These factors included musical structure, lyrics, musical training, work and leisure associations, previous listening habits, workrelated interruptions, task complexity, and sense of control. But these factors did not 121 operate in isolation; they influenced each other. Through the interviews, it emerged that particular combinations of these factors resulted in particular attitudes to and experiences of music. Two participants with similar listening habits prior to the study reacted very differently to the presence of music. A personality trait analysis revealed that their different personality traits could explain their different experiences of music. The personality analysis also challenges previous studies of music, task performance and personality, in that a highly extraverted participant found music listening very distracting. Music was often conceptualised as leisure at work. This was illustrated by the way that many participants described music listening as “taking a break”. Even though not everyone experienced music as a clearly defined break (given that they listened while working too), almost everyone who experienced listening to music as positive referred to relaxation. Music listening created space for reflection in the cycles of their working day and subsequently brought new perspectives on their work tasks. Yet, at the same time some participants also described feelings of guilt over the occurrence of leisure at work. For some, music listening created a tension between their own well-being and what they felt were main priorities in the workplace. As I pointed out in chapter 1, conceptualising music as leisure at work is a rare occurrence in previous studies. As such, the idea of music as evoking guilt and other tasks being the main priority at work feeds into a debate about the role of work and play in Western society (Lewis, 2003; van Meel & Vos, 2001). But these ideas also illustrate the current experiences of combining music listening and working in an office. 4.5 Discussion and conclusion of the study: qualitative and quantitative data combined The objective for the quantitative part of the field study was to find out if there were any main effects of music listening on measures of mood and work performance. Main effects were expected, based on results in previous studies (Lesiuk, 2005; Oldham et al., 1995). But there were no main effects of music listening in this study. Instead, the results 122 showed a number of individual differences and interrelations between variables. For example, during the music conditions, relaxation, enthusiasm, well-being, job satisfaction, work performance, organisational satisfaction and co-worker satisfaction were positively correlated (and some of them interrelated). Stress, anxiety and environmental interference were negatively correlated to the mood, work performance and satisfaction variables. Causal directions could not be identified, but the different variables were related to each other, directly or indirectly. Correlations between, for example, organisational and job satisfaction are perhaps obvious, but it is interesting to see that well-being and work performance were positively correlated when participants listened to music all day. The objectives for interviews were two-fold. Firstly, they were aimed at increasing insight into the difference between pre-experiment measures and experiment measures by exploring other influencing factors. This was achieved by identifying other factors that influenced participants’ scorings (e.g. work-related aspects, individual differences, leisure-related aspects, sense of well-being), and exploring to what extent participants perceived that music had actually influenced them during the study. Secondly, they were designed to obtain more detailed insight into the effect of music and individual differences. This was achieved by identifying and exploring positive and negative experiences during the study. The findings revealed a complex picture where the conceptualisation of leisure at work was viewed as something positive, but it also sparked feelings of guilt and tension. The findings also illustrated that many different factors influenced whether participants found music and work compatible, factors that go beyond music and task complexity – which most previous research has focused on. Four main conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. Firstly, given that no main effects of music listening were identified, it seems as if the relationship between music and working is too complex to allow a researcher to find such an effect of music in this context. Qualitative data suggest that music listening in breaks may be more beneficial for some, whereas less beneficial for others. In order to 123 understand more about the effects of music listening while working or at work, individual differences and interrelations between variables need to be investigated further. The current state of knowledge offers by no means a clear picture of the effects of music while working, and this suggests that more research is needed. Secondly, there were many interrelations between variables which suggest that music had both positive and negative effects for different individuals. Influencing factors were stress/anxiety and environmental interference, but questions remain about the relationships between these influencing factors and music. In other words: when is music listening at work a way to reduce stress, anxiety and environmental interference, and when is music listening at work the source of stress, anxiety and environmental interference? Thirdly, a more detailed insight into the experiences of music suggests a complex conceptualisation of music at work, often manifested as leisure at work. This conceptualisation included mixed feelings; both pleasure and guilt. This notion raises further research questions. How do people cope with feelings of guilt and tension when they want to listen to music at work? Furthermore, if some employees feel a sense of guilt by engaging in so-called leisure activities at work, some managers are also likely to view music as leisure at work. Who in the workplace decides whether music listening should be allowed or not? What limits and regulations surround the practice of music listening in offices? Finally, data from the follow-up interviews also suggested which factors may play a role in shaping opinions about music and work compatibility, and that those factors reach beyond music-related factors and task complexity. More exploratory research is needed to identify factors that play a part in attitudes and decisions about music and work compatibility. A clearer picture of music and work compatibility can provide key insights into the many ways that people engage with music in everyday life, and also more practical knowledge for employees and managers in offices who want to understand 124 whether employees would benefit from music listening or not. The next two chapters (5 and 6) present an interview study which was carried out to explore these questions further. 125 5 Experiences of music listening in offices and their contextual influences I: Internal needs 5.1 Introduction This chapter and the next present the last of the three studies in this thesis: an interview study exploring the contextual aspects shaping music listening in offices. The quantitative and qualitative data from my two previous studies, discussed in chapters 3 and 4, suggested factors that appeared to be important in the experience of listening to music at work, and by conducting this interview study, I was able to look at these issues in more depth.. For example, IT and HR managers were included in the interviews and were asked to explain their views, as managers, of employees listening to music at work. Aspects of individual listening patterns were also explored in more depth, such as the relationship between the functions of music and activities carried out concurrently. Two higher constructs emerged in the analysis: internal needs and external considerations, which are introduced in more detail in section 5.3 below. This chapter presents method details and one of the constructs: internal needs. This concept includes individual reasons for listening to music at work. Chapter 6 presents information on how participants considered external demands when they listened. 5.2 Methods 5.2.1 Organisations Two workplaces were chosen as case studies: a research institute and an architectural practice. The two workplaces were selected because they offered a variety of job roles (the majority involving desk-based computer use and relatively little customer communication), a range of workspaces (private, shared and open-plan offices), and geographical proximity to the researcher. It was especially important to find a variety of office types, as most organisations tend to be limited to one or two main types of workspace. The research institute was the same workplace that was investigated in Study 2 (chapter 4, see 4.2.2), a large organisation located in central England with about 500 employees in various job roles. The workplace had in the past been a teacher training 126 college and resembled a campus building, with long corridors (figure 5.1), private small offices, and smaller shared workspaces (figure 5.2). Figure 5.1: Photo, corridor at the research institute Figure 5.2: Photo, smaller shared workspace at the research institute The architectural practice employed 120 people, and was located in the north of England, in an open plan space in a converted church. The office had a large shared ground floor space (figure 5.3) and workspaces located on balconies, with very few private offices. Figure 5.3: Photo, ground floor space at the architectural practice 5.2.2 Interview schedules The interview schedules were semi-structured and designed around main subjects (including prompts and probes), adjusted as appropriate to the three main types of interviewees: architects and technicians, information technology managers and human resource managers. Table 5.4 shows an overview of the different topics used, and how 127 topics were altered according to the different interviewees. The interviews provided more opportunity to elaborate on topics and thoughts than the survey questions in chapter 3, and also had a broader scope than the interview schedules in the follow-up interviews in chapter 4 (which served to compliment particular aspects of the quantitative study). All interviewees were asked brief questions about their occupation, their physical and social working environment and the extent to which people listened to music in their organisation. They were also asked if they listened to music at work, their opinions on music listening at work, and whether they felt there were any disadvantages to music at work. HR managers and IT managers were asked to describe any issues with music at work that they could identify from a professional perspective, and whether the organisation had a music listening policy. Individual listening habits were explored in terms of time spent listening per week, technological access to music, reasons for listening and music preferences. Interviewees who listened at work were asked what they did concurrently with the listening, and the extent to which certain music fitted certain job tasks. Listeners were also asked whether and how their listening practices influenced their social interactions at work, and whether any other activities at work had the same functions as music. Interview schedule main topics Demographics General listening practice within the organisation Individual listening habits Concurrent activities Sonic qualities Social interaction Other activities Possible disadvantages Possible issues from a professional perspective Policy Views of the role of music at work Listeners x x x x x x x x IT managers x x x HR managers x x x x x x x x x x x x Table 5.4: Overview of interview topics according to interviewees A main aim was to explore the complexities of music listening in offices, and the interactions between listener, music and situational context, from the perspective of 128 the interviewee. In order to emphasise my interest in their subjective experiences, I said in the beginning of each interview: You may find some questions silly, far-fetched, or difficult to answer, for the reason that questions that are appropriate for one person are not always appropriate for another person. Since there are no right or wrong answers, you should not worry about these but just do the best as you can with them. I am only interested in your opinions and personal experiences. You are more than welcome to interrupt, ask for clarification, criticise a line of questioning and so on. 5.2.3 Participants and interview procedure Eleven participants were recruited on a voluntary basis through one main contact at each workplace. Both contacts were asked to recruit as widely as possible among listeners across age, gender, job role and type of workspace. In both workplaces, the participants included an information technology manager and a human resource manager, in order to gain insight into company policies relating to music at work. Table 5.5 presents demographic information on the participants. Unfortunately, only one female participant came forward to participate in the study, hence the study has a male bias and possible effects it might have on the results are considered in the discussion in Chapter 7 (7.4). Individual interviews of approximately one hour each were carried out at the workplaces in December 2006, and were recorded for later transcription. Participants at the research institute were interviewed in their own offices (with the exception of one which was carried out in a meeting space). All interviews at the architectural practice were carried out in a meeting room next to the open plan office space. Prior to the interviews, participants were given an information sheet describing the purpose of the study, and the confidentiality, withdrawal and complaints policies. Interviewees signed a form to confirm their voluntary participation and informed consent to participate. All interviewees were assigned a pseudonym to ensure anonymity, and RI for research institute or AP for architectural practice. 129 Pseudonym John (RI) Mark (RI) Gender M M Age 32 50 Workplace Research institute (RI) Research institute (RI) Research institute (RI) Research institute (RI) Research institute (RI) Research institute (RI) Architect practice (AP) Architect practice (AP) Architect practice (AP) Architect practice (AP) Architect practice (AP) Occupation Administration Officer Sales Desk Manager Benjamin (RI) William (RI) Patrick (RI) M 54 IT Security Manager Working environment Smaller open plan office, sharing the space with 8-10 other people. Private office inside another office space where 3-4 other people worked together (“the goldfish bowl”: see Figure 2) Private office Main tasks at work Data entry Dealing with customer queries online, managing a webshop and a reception (including a visitors shop) Responsible for IT security in the organisation, informing employees of risks and responsibilities and giving computer support. Responsible for the personnel team in the organisation Designing equipment for the scientists in the organisation. Also responsible for the workshop. Analysing water and soils in the laboratory, analysing quantitative data and writing reports. Managing a number of large architectural projects, and running projects together with project architects and architect technicians Responsible for IT security in the company, informing employees of risks and responsibilities and giving computer support Running architectural projects together with other Architects, Directors and Architectural technicians Producing detailed drawings for architectural projects together with other Architects and Directors Managing a number of large architectural projects, and running projects together with Project architects and Architect technicians M 64 Personnel Manager Private office M 40 Bethany (RI) Adam (AP) F M 38 44 David (AP) M 29 Research and Development Workshop Manager Analytical Geochemist Associate Director and responsible for HR ICT Manager Private office and a workshop Private office, and a laboratory shared with a small number of scientists Large open plan office, seated in a team of 8-9 people Large open plan office, within which he was rarely desk-bound Large open plan office, seated in a team of 8-9 people Large open plan office, seated in a team of 10 people Large open plan office, seated in a team of 7-8 people Charlie (AP) Matthew (AP) Peter (AP) M 31 Project Architect M 31 Architect Technician M 30 Associate Director Table 5.5: Participants in the interview study 130 5.2.4 Analysis Interviews were transcribed and analysed using a grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The analysis procedure began with listening to the audio recordings to create transcripts. The data were then analysed through memo-writing and axial analysis to summarise and contrast emerging themes. First thoughts were jotted down underneath an analysis segment (a paragraph, or whatever was perceived as an entity) in a separate memo. Similar segments, or those which were felt to relate to each other, were merged. Summary notes were regularly created, which allowed reduction of data, expression of current understanding and raising of other questions (see appendix 13 for examples of memos and summary notes). Exploratory analyses were carried out on three interviews, which indicated general themes and served to build rich descriptions of these themes. These themes were then exhausted through theoretical sampling of the remaining interviews. The circumstances and preconditions, properties, characteristics and consequences of music listening at work were explored. Extreme cases that did not fit these general themes were also identified and analysed. Reasons for shared or varying experiences were explored, and the analysis continued until no new insights emerged. Visual representations were regularly created to aid the analysis process and improve understanding of the relationships between the themes. The analysis process also involved moving back and forth between data and published research, in order to develop a detailed in-depth account of the experiences of music listening at work. The two companies were only compared when it appeared important for the emerging themes. This happened in particular during the in-depth analysis of external considerations, as the analysis revealed different attitudes and business practices when it came to, for example, IT policies. The next section presents the results of the study. 5.3 Results When the interviewees talked about music listening in their offices, one over-arching theme emerged in nearly all of their comments. This theme consists of an individual having to balance internal needs and external considerations (figure 5.6). The same theme also emerged earlier in the survey study (chapter 3). Internal needs are all the different reasons and motivations for an individual to want to put music on in the 131 office. These can be related to experiences of pleasure and enjoyment associated with music listening in general and/or can be driven by a need to control the environment in some way, whether that means an external environment (managing interruptions), or an internal one (managing thoughts or motivation). However, in an office it is not always possible for an individual to do as they please. The analysis also revealed many external demands for the individual to consider, including: other colleagues’ needs, legality and technological limitations. Thus, when people chose to listen to music at work, they engaged in a process of balancing internal needs and external considerations. I E Figure 5.6: Responsible listening through balancing internal needs (I) and external considerations (E) This process was discovered through the emergence of a theme that I have called “responsible listening”, which can be understood as a manifestation of this balancing process. I will discuss this particular process in chapter 6, and also provide a more detailed model of how it works, but at this stage it is worth saying that it was clear that this balancing process is fundamental to understanding music listening in offices. When participants were working, they were in a social environment, and were there in order to do their jobs. Music listening, within this context, was therefore not the main priority. However, it became clear from the interviews that music could still be a very important element of their working day. It is this clash of priorities and wishes that creates the need for the balancing process and “responsible listening”. 132 For clarity, the two aspects, internal needs and external considerations, are presented in separate chapters. The rest of this chapter presents details of the internal needs, and the next chapter (6) presents details of the external considerations and also concludes the whole interview study by reflecting on these two main themes together. In looking at the area of internal needs, three themes emerged: managing internal and external environment (theme 1); enjoyment of music (theme 2); and spontaneous selections (theme 3). Results related to music preferences in offices are also discussed, before the results of themes 1-3 are concluded. 5.3.1 Theme 1: Managing internal and external environment Interviewees tended to describe the effects of music at work in three distinct ways: as a negative distraction from work; as a welcomed distraction; and as a way to block out other distractions. Whether music was seen as distracting depended on a mix of background and situational factors, including personal perceptions of one’s own abilities, the nature of the task being done at the time, and perceptions of the music itself (an overview of these factors is shown in figure 5.7). In this model, background factors as well as situational factors influence whether music is perceived as interrupting or not. When music was not considered to be a distraction, it was often viewed as a means to manage other potential distractions, whether external (background noise, other people), or internal (intrusive thoughts or a tendency to daydream). In some cases, the fact that music was distracting was seen as a benefit, for example where the external environment was particularly noisy or busy. This section first presents evidence of how music can be a distraction, then how it can aid concentration. In these results, some situational factors will also be presented, as they emerged while talking about music as distraction or concentration enhancing. Situational aspects and background factors are then further explored in a separate section. 133 Managing internal and external environment Situational factors: Background factors: Personality Habits at home Attitude towards silence Attention capacity Task complexity Task familiarity and confidence Familiarity of and taste in music Control over music Sonic factors (volume, dynamics) Acoustics in the office Music is interrupting Hindering concentration Music is not interrupting Aid to manage other interruptions External Sounds Music is not preferred ”Lesser of 2 evils” Sound blocking Social interactions ”Do not disturb” Internal ”Welcomed distraction” Outcomes Figure 5.7: Managing internal and external environment Music as a distraction/interruption Adam, an Associate Director at the architectural practice, described drawing as “a familiar task” that felt “intuitive” and “natural”, whereas he was not as comfortable with writing. Adam (AP): I have never been particularly comfortable with writing. It is not my strongest side, by any means. And I always tend to feel – having to write reports and stuff – a) quite dull, b) not something that I really want to be doing, and it is not my favourite task. Nor do I feel that I am the most eloquent writer. And therefore I find that I need to concentrate harder about what I am saying, and therefore music in the background can be a distraction, whereas when I am drafting - drawing on the computer or whatever – that comes far more naturally to me. It is much more intuitive as well, an intuitive part of the design process that is going on at the same time as you are drawing it. This suggests there is interplay between skills and self-confidence, and tasks can be perceived in different ways (familiar-unfamiliar, intuitive/natural-unnatural). When a task is perceived as more difficult (and the person is less confident about their abilities 134 to perform the task) it is easier to be distracted. If music is added to this particular situation, it can – as in Adam’s case – be distracting. When someone in a shared working environment listens to music that is audible to others, there is a risk of disturbing them. Bethany, an analytical geochemist at the research institute, who spent half her time in a shared laboratory, illustrated this problem: Bethany (RI): We used to have a thrash metal fan in the team, (laughs) it used to get a little bit fraught. Because I don’t actually find thrash metal all that helpful to work to. I have no idea what he was playing. I did ask him occasionally. It just went in through one ear and out through the other. Unfortunately the thrash metal didn’t do the same thing, it rattled the brain around in there. Her description of the thrash metal as something that “rattled the brain around” suggests she perceived it as noise rather than music, and found it disruptive – rather like the effect of someone dropping a saucepan lid on the floor. We can probably assume that her colleague would not describe his preferred music in this way. Thus, music preference is another factor that can play a role in whether music is seen as distracting or not. In her interview, Bethany made a distinction between distractions she has control over, and distractions out of her control. A distraction which is out of control is also likely to be irritating. And equally, something which is irritating is likely to be distracting. Bethany later stated in her interview that music “can be a distraction when I need to concentrate on something, but I have control over that”. A sense of control over the music source appears to play an important role in the perception of music. When someone has little control, the experience can escalate to become irritating. The idea of music generating irritation is in direct contrast to claims that music most of the time brings out positive emotions (Lesiuk, 2005; Sloboda & O'Neill, 2001). Another aspect that played an important role for the experience of distraction was perceived memory/attention capacity. Participants evaluated whether they possessed the memory and/or attention capacity required for the task at hand. When Matthew, an architect technician, was doing data entry tasks, it required low levels of attention capacity: 135 Matthew (AP): I suppose you can allow music to distract you a little bit more, because you are actually running through a process of doing one thing and then another and another… Because it is like a mechanical kind of thing that you are doing, it is not really work that you have to think too much about. It is just literally record, write, input. As simple as that. Bethany felt that she could not afford to attend to music and a task concurrently when she was doing particular types of activities, such as reading or writing: Bethany (RI): At the moment, reading a paper. If I am trying to write anything. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn’t and it’s just a case of recognising “Ok, I am not doing so well at this, I am getting a bit distracted. I’ll knock the music off and see if that helps”. So those kind of, more focused… where my random access memory is being used up a bit more, sometimes I can’t afford to spend any of it on the music. I have to concentrate a little bit harder. And then it tends to go off. She made an illustrative comparison to computer random access memory, and how she felt that she could not afford to allocate her attention to music, as it was being taken up by the task. This connects to a study by Konecni cited in North (2008, p.91), which also refers to attention to music through the analogy of computer memory. The researchers argued that very arousing music may “reduce the amount of processing capacity that can be allocated to a concurrent task”. In this study, participants chose simple, undemanding music while carrying out complex mental tasks. In Bethany’s case, it is unclear what influenced this sensation and what exactly made music so arousing in this particular situation – perhaps increased pressure of a work task (e.g. meeting a tight deadline, or a high stake situation in terms of reputation) changed the complexion of the music she listened to as it occupied more attentional focus than usual. For Bethany, the loudness of music did not affect levels of distraction, and modifying the volume did not improve her concentration when she felt that music was distracting. But others found that modifications in volume could indeed influence their concentration ability. Charlie, a project architect, was one of them: Charlie (AP): I probably listen to it much quieter in the office. Just because of that ability to concentrate. Otherwise I would just end up listening to the music and not doing any work. 136 One explanation for why the level of volume can influence concentration is that louder music demands more attention, and lowering the volume can be understood as a strategy to reduce arousal (Berlyne, 1971). However, this was contradicted by the interview with Mark, a sales desk manager at the research institute, who had no problems listening to very loud music in the mornings while working: Mark (RI): As soon as I get in at half six, quarter to seven, the music goes on. And my first member of staff arrives at half past seven. And in that first hour, or three quarters, I am rocking! This is up very loud, I am the only one here and it goes through my computer. And it is loud. I can’t hear anybody coming in, usually. (laughs) And quite often I have been startled by someone or something at the door. But again, I am not disturbing anybody else. I don’t believe I am disturbing myself, and I still manage to plough through my work. Reasons why music can be perceived as distracting are many. The aspects that have been identified so far are perceived attention capacity, perceived difficulty of task, task familiarity and confidence, familiarity of and preference in music, perceived control over music, and music volume. Many of these circumstances can be understood as functioning differently when listeners experience distraction from other sources. In these instances they often found music beneficial for concentration, rather than distracting. Music as an aid to manage other distractions When interviewees did a task they felt familiar and confident with, they also felt they had a greater attention capacity (i.e. not too much attention was taken up by the task). This meant they felt bored more easily, which resulted in internal interruptions like day dreaming and intrusive thoughts. Music listening was a strategy to manage these internal interruptions, as John, an administration officer at the research institute, explained: John (RI): The job that I do is... well, not tedious, it is repetitive. And your concentration can wander if you don’t have some form of stimulus. And I find that the radio provides that. In a nutshell that is basically it. Music reduced internal interruptions for John by providing a focus and stimulation, as it kept his mind from wandering. It became a welcomed distraction which helped to 137 keep his thoughts together and provided stimulation. The idea of stimulation in a situation of boredom can be understood in relation to Berlyne’s U-curve (Konecni, 1982). Low levels of engagement mean that unless one has something specific to concentrate on, the mind will try to seek out other stimuli, which may have negative consequences for the performance of the task. This perspective – music’s effects on simple tasks and boredom - has also been the main focus for research on music at work (as discussed earlier in chapter 1, see 1.2). When participants experienced external interruptions (e.g. noises from colleagues, phones, and other events in the office environment) they often tried to manage these interruptions by blocking them out with music. Patrick, a research and development workshop manager at the research institute, explained: Patrick (RI): For me, there’s a certain comfort zone that is created by music. And that blocks out people yacking in the next office and people shouting at each other in the corridor, and other people’s problems and vehicles arriving outside. It does filter those distractions out, I think. It is giving me total control of my aural environment, yes. And I find I can actually concentrate. I find myself concentrating, and focus more. This can be understood as a way to prevent the person from hearing the sounds otherwise perceived as interrupting, similarly to Bull’s (2007) idea of music as cognitive control. In other words, by blocking sounds out, the auditory workspace was managed and controlled. But it can also be understood as a way to replace external interruptions with familiar sounds (music) chosen by the individual. In open plan offices, this was often done by using headphones, whereas in private offices it could also be done by listening via loudspeakers. The reason why listeners in open plan offices chose to use headphones was out of consideration for other colleagues, as they wanted to avoid interrupting them. However, this sometimes needed to be managed so that employees did not completely isolate themselves. There were several strategies for this, which are further discussed in the section about auditory awareness (chapter 6, section 6.2.3). There were contradictions in the interviews. Some of the interviewees described how music could be a strategy to block out surrounding noises when they tried to do a more challenging task (often defined by participants as writing or reading). Yet later 138 in the interviews there was evidence that music was distracting when they did word processing tasks. It appeared that the environmental interruptions could have a penetrative effect that changed the complexion of some of the previously discussed factors (e.g. task effects, sonic factors, perceived memory/attention capacity). Even if someone is doing something that would require high levels of attention in an environment with external interruptions, and which is usually hindered by the presence of music, music can still aid the process of concentration. The role of music in these situations may function as the lesser of two evils, so to speak. Participants preferred to listen to their own chosen music (often very familiar music) rather than listening to the (not chosen) external interruptions (music or other sounds). Participants also managed external interruptions from colleagues (social external interruptions) through listening to music, as the presence of music in the workplace was a way of sending out a “Do not disturb” sign. The sign could be visual (in the case of using headphones) as well as aural (in the case of listening via speakers). Peter, another Associate Director at the architectural practice, and Patrick illustrate: Peter (AP): I tend to try and listen to my music quite quietly, so I can just unplug… you can hear people asking you, or whatever. Sometimes you do it if you are particularly busy and you need to get something done, to dissuade people. It is like that old trick of pretending you are on the phone, or something like that, you know. So yes, it is perhaps a statement to other people, “look I want to get this done at the moment”, that sort of thing. If my own staff came into the office and there was clearly an issue that needed urgent attention, I would switch it off. If… as they sometimes do and I won’t mention any names – one in particular, he is an absolute craftsman but he is a bit of a procrastinator and he will come and talk to me about details of things which don’t necessarily need to be discussed. If he comes in and this is the kind of agenda, then I would probably leave the music on, maybe turn it down a bit. Patrick (RI): Using headphones to signal to others a wish not to be disturbed is related to what Bull (2007) calls auditory privatisation, and this function was also found by Thorsén (1985) in factories. As noted by Birnholtz and colleagues (2007), headphone use, or playing of music through speakers, acts as a public display of attention and awareness and is part of a larger set of practices through which workers afford themselves periodic privacy and mitigate the control over interactions which result from open plan offices. Bull (2007) talks about “the power of the listener to define his or her own 139 space and interaction” (p.109), and argues that the feeling of insulation that headphone listening permits through decreasing interruptions, leads to a sense of invulnerability. By not being interrupted, people reduce the experience of contingency and they therefore feel empowered and in control. This reasoning was not explicitly expressed by the participants in this study, as their accounts were more focused on reducing interruptions in a pragmatic way in order to get their tasks done. And sometimes, as discussed later in chapter 6, participants perceived the insulation as negative because it could cut off possibilities for useful interaction with other colleagues. Bull also argues that music listening at work can signify status, as the “Do not disturb” sign also communicates that an employee can listen whenever they want. However, these interviews revealed that a common consequence of status (for example occupying a more senior role) was a need to remain available (see chapter 6), as a higher status meant more demands on availability, at least in the architectural practice. Music can also be used as a “Do not disturb” sign when employees are not actually working, but still do not want to be disturbed. Matthew described how some newly employed colleagues tended to use music listening as a way to make themselves appear busy. He explained that some of those who were new to the organisation did not perform well at work and found their jobs difficult. Some of these colleagues therefore listened to music, partly to distract themselves from the fact that they were not doing so well, and partly to hide from others that they were not working. Music, Matthew argued, was particularly useful in this case because no one can actually see that someone is listening to the music rather than doing work, as one cannot see where the attention is directed. The only thing that is visible is the headphones, which seems to communicate “Do not disturb, I’m concentrating”. However, the participants in this study wanted to be productive and do a good job, and when they felt that they were not achieving this goal while listening to music they usually turned the music off. Patrick called this “being disciplined”, which suggests that the opposite situation that Matthew described could be understood as not being disciplined (e.g. appearing busy when actually procrastinating). Theoretically, this activity can be understood as invoking boredom as “a personal defence against personal responsibility for poor performance” (Fisher 1993, p.408). 140 Underlying conditions for using music to manage environment Not all participants listened to music to manage their working environment. So what other reasons did they have? Adam said that he had been listening to music while drawing for a long time (“something I have always done, even through student days”). The environment that he created can be understood as familiar in a wider sense, as it reminded him of a familiar way of doing things (DeNora, 2000). Another aspect within this familiarity-dimension, is the relationship to silence. John and Mark described their feelings toward silence: John (RI): When I was at school, when I used to have homework, I always used to listen to music whilst doing it. It helped me concentrate. My parents would say “you can’t possibly concentrate when you are listening to music”. But it never worked like that. I couldn’t concentrate if it was silence. And I have taken that into the workplace, and I work better with some kind of background noise and I choose that to be music. I don’t like silence. I detest silence. Except when I want to go to sleep. I just don’t like silence. Some people do. Even at home, you know, I am on my own and I want to read the paper – I would still have the music on loud. And I believe I can concentrate on reading a piece of paper and hearing the music. So no, I don’t like silence at work. Mark (RI): It is unclear whether John and Mark found silence unpleasant because they were used to listening to music, or whether they preferred to listen to music because they disliked silence. But they both found silence unpleasant, and created a context in which music was familiar and conducive to what they were doing. There may also be further circumstantial reasons for why employees listen to music and how they listen. John recalled a change in his listening practices as a result of moving from one office to another within the same organisation: John (RI): And then we moved, and the dynamics of the office changed, and therefore so did our music listening tastes and times we listened and everything else. John described an element of conformity to whatever the practice was in a particular office: “you just conform to their working atmosphere”. In the architectural practice, one particular feature of their office design appeared to have an impact on their listening behaviour: 141 Charlie (AP): I think it is quite unusual, the way our office is. Ours is open plan, but with a nice big acoustic… it is designed to have acoustics spread. So I can hear diagonally up, right across the office to the top balcony and right down below. But you couldn’t hear someone sat about two foot to the right or two foot to the left. It is very weird how you get that. And I think that’s quite unusual, quite strange, and that’s why people tend to shut themselves off in there. The acoustics in their workplace were perceived as unusual, which was due to how the church building had been designed. Charlie believed that employees used headphones to obtain privacy as they knew that otherwise “every sound is heard”. The awareness that sound travelled so easily in their office increased the tendency of people to be silent, Charlie argued. And the more silence in the office, the more prominent any conversations were, because they stood out against the silence, which promoted the use of headphones even more. It was interesting to see that an architectural practice had chosen an office building with such difficult acoustics. As some of the interviewees pointed out, communication is an important factor in the architectural profession. Therefore, one could say that their particular office was not well-suited, acoustically, for the kind of work they do, because it promoted silence and headphone listening. One could imagine why the visual style of the building would appeal to architects, as it had an unusual design and I felt it was an inspiring space to inhabit. Yet the acoustics and their effects on communication had not been taken into account. It seems that there are situational factors in the office, and within the job role, that can impact on listening behaviour. This contrasts with the view of Bull (2007) who stated that “the desire for managing the workplace through music is premised upon the use of music prior to work” (p.110). Of course, people who dislike silence and are used to working with music on are likely to take that routine into the workplace. But listening behaviour can also just be dependent on what people are currently doing in the workplace (e.g. whether everyone else listens), and what the workplace is like in terms of design and acoustics. 5.3.2 Theme 2: Experiences of enjoyment Interviewees felt that being able to listen to music at work was important for them. Music made them feel good; it was considered to be a positive experience. Patrick explained how the indicators that music was a positive experience often took a physical character: 142 Patrick (RI): It feels like the hair is standing up. Do you know what I mean by that? I don’t know if you have ever experienced that real kind of warm feeling. I don’t know where it is. It is in your stomach, probably, or probably not. It is probably in your pancreas… But I feel, I don’t know if any one else does, a physical feeling of almost elation. A little bit like that first drink. (laughs) These are the indicators that music is influencing me in a positive way, certainly. Marks comment earlier (p.134) about listening to music in his office early in the mornings also illustrates the enjoyment and pleasure of listening. Music was an important part of Mark’s life; he was brought up with “music in the house”. He had a large collection of music (“about three hundred CDs”, “five to sex hundred tapes, double sided tapes”, and “three hundred albums”), and believed he “wouldn’t enjoy coming to work as much” if he was not able to listen to music at work. John, similarly, felt that music listening was an important part of his working day: John (RI): Anneli: John (RI): As soon as I come in, in the morning, the radio goes on. As soon as I go in the evening, the radio goes off. Be it the radio, CD, whatever. I couldn’t work without it. It would just be a nightmare. Too tedious a job, inputting all day. So is that your main motivation for listening to music? Like anybody, I like music, so it is part of my life anyway. For working, in this environment, in this job, in the job that we do – data entry work constantly all day – it is a welcomed distraction. Distraction is probably not the right word, but, you know, it just helps the day to go on. It would be a long day without it. As John pointed out, he did not only listen to music at work because he found his job tedious. Music was an important part of his life, even outside work. But being able to listen to music in this context was so important that he felt that not being able to do so would be “a nightmare”. Peter described how listening to music could sometimes give the same sensation as drinking a cup of coffee: Peter (AP): It is quite a nice reward if you have been talking for a long time in a meeting, and you have either a coffee or listen to some music. Nice. It is a really positive thing. Perhaps it is not only the music itself that generates this feeling of reward. It is rather a way of “treating yourself” after a long or hard period of work - whether it is a coffee or listening to music. It is an activity in which Peter cares for himself. In addition, other aspects influence his experiences; for example, the fact that he likes the music 143 that he listens to means that it might give him a sense of well-being. This does not exclude the fact that other types of rewards (e.g. coffee, sweets, or a leisure/private activity) can give a sense of well-being, just that music may. But is it something in the sounding music that generates the feeling of reward, or the fact that it feels like a way of treating onself? Even though Peter enjoyed music partly because it could give him a sense of reward after working hard, he argued that music was also to be enjoyed on its own merits: Peter (AP): Because it is something to savour as well, music, it is not just like… you know, treat it like a pair of ear muffs. It’s something to enjoy as well, through its own… in its own right. For Peter, music was not just functional, it was something to be enjoyed “in its own right” - not just as a definition of how it helps something else. Ear muffs are used to keep ears warm; they are defined in terms of their functionality. Peter argued that music is not simply a tool for work, but something more than that. This makes sense, as otherwise he would only listen to music at work, and never anywhere else. The idea of functional music evoked a vigorous debate among musicology scholars in Scandinavia and Germany in the 1970s, and the same arguments can be found in the works of Theodore Adorno (as discussed in chapter 1). Music in workplaces (all sorts of popular music, not just muzak) have been heavily criticised in these kinds of debates (see earlier discussion, section 1.3.1). However, this was not what Peter was saying. Peter had no issues with music being functional, but he also felt that it had dimensions beyond its functionality. Even though some interviewees connected their enjoyment to the functions of music listening, like John, other interviewees expressed a more simplistic view (“I just listen to it because I like it”, Matthew). This notion of “just liking it” was difficult to reflect on and explain, as Patrick described: Patrick (RI): I suppose the first question is, why do we listen to music at all? And there must be an emotional, or kind of physiological response to it. I am sure we don’t really know which it is. Or it might be both. And it certainly gives us a sense of well-being. I am sure that’s right. So yes, I get a sense of well-being from it. And if I get a sense of well-being from that activity and I can still work effectively, then I feel like I have had a good day. And that’s… I suppose that’s a motivating thing. But maybe that’s making too much of a 144 conclusion out of it. I feel more comfortable, it makes things more enjoyable, therefore I feel better about doing it, I guess. I suppose, in a nutshell, I just like it. (laughs) Patrick enjoyed listening because it made things “more enjoyable”, which gave him a sense of well-being and he felt better about doing his tasks. Yet, he described his experience as “just liking it”, as he felt analysing the underlying factors might be to make “too much of a conclusion out of it”, again underlining the idea that enjoyment of music is difficult to explain. 5.3.3 Theme 3: Spontaneous selections Some interviewees stated that their music choices at work were mood dependent, rather than depending on what they were doing. For example, Adam took this view: Anneli: Adam (AP): Do you think that there is certain music that fits certain job tasks? No, I don’t actually, because I think that it is more about what mood you are in, rather than what task you are doing. For me, personally. So I might listen to heavy rock one day, and I might want to listen to quiet jazz the following day. But I could be doing just the same task. So it is very much about what mood you are in for. This contrasts with previous findings (Bull, 2007; Voida et al., 2005), which indicated that employees listened to different music when doing different tasks. Instead, Adam stated that he chose different music irrespective of the task. Many interviewees found reflecting on this selection process difficult. For example, Bethany stated some reasons for why she might pick a certain piece of music to listen to, such as whether she could sing along, or if she was particularly attracted to certain musical parameters (“something with a nice tune”, “a hook line” or “a rumbling bass line”). Charlie felt it was difficult to explain the process of choosing music at work: Anneli: Charlie (AP): And how would you know what to choose? That is always the tricky thing with iPods, flicking through hundreds of tracks. I think it comes back to, as I said before, the half of dozen albums off the moment, that I listen to the most. Like at the moment I listen to the Killers album, non-stop, I think. And I went to see Razorlights a few weeks ago so I listen to that quite a lot. And then there’s probably some stuff just behind that, like Keane’s new album and I have got Ray Lamontagne and stuff like that. Stuff that I have listened to recently, rather than going back into… Unless I am scrolling through and I think “I haven’t listened to that album for a while”. But that’s more rare, generally speaking. There are stuff like Green 145 Day as well, but generally speaking my most recent albums are the things that I tend to head for first. If I don’t fancy any of them I just scroll through and find something else. Charlie seemed to go through phases of listening to something intensively, and then change after a few weeks. But the whole process seemed somehow instinctive; he talked about “fancying” listening to something. So how can this instinctive selection process be triggered? What could trigger someone’s “fancy”? Mark said: Mark (RI): It might be that I have heard a snippet on the radio last night, or there was an article about it: “Oh, I haven’t heard this music for some time”. I dig out the cassette or I have a CD there. I might play it for that reason. Or it is simply “No, I haven’t heard them for some time” and it just comes in to mind. Alternatively I might have seen a television program with a snippet of their music on, or even one of their concerts. And I thought “Yes, I’ll listen to that”. The spontaneous element of choice for Mark, hearing an artist on the TV or on the radio, triggered him to put that artist on at work. Alternatively, he came to think about something that he hadn’t heard for a long time. The process involved little preorganisation, and he did not have a particular work music playlist. Patrick also described an element of spontaneity in his music selection process for work. Patrick liked all the CDs that he had at home, and could pick any CD to bring to work, and he explained the selection process as “a chronology of events”: Patrick (RI): To some extent it is like “What have I got with me?”. I don’t have an iPod that I use, or computer files that come from the internet, so I don’t have an unlimited choice. The choice is confined really to what I have got there on CD, and that’s influenced by what I have picked up, and that is to some extent influenced by what was on top of the pile. So my choices are immediately limited to that. And the influences that come into play after that will be… For example, I came in yesterday with the new Lily Allen CD and Faithless’ Greatest Hits. The first one I chose was the Lily Allen CD. Not sure why I chose that one first… I think I hadn’t heard it, apart from the two hits you have heard in the charts. I had heard the Faithless one before, so I was quite curious to what the rest of her stuff was like. So that went on first. And then Faithless was the other one that I had brought in so I put that one after that. I suppose, that is contrast, isn’t it? Mood. I don’t think either of them affected my mood particularly, I think I felt more curiosity of what Lily Allen sounded like. That’s why I put her on first. I don’t know if it goes any more deeply about it than that, really. He found it difficult to pinpoint why he would choose one album before another, and stated that it was sometimes just linked to a degree of curiosity, rather than a mood 146 management strategy. Bethany, who mainly listened to Radio 1 and occasionally switched to her own music, reflected on the difference in her approach at work and at home: Bethany (RI): Anneli: Bethany (RI): It’s weird because at home I am the other way around. That would be more my chosen music and then occasionally a particular show that I want to listen to, or a particular event that I want to listen to and I’ll switch over to the radio. Why do you think there’s a difference between your work listening habits, that you have just described, and your home listening habits? I think it is opportunity and laziness, at work. I put it on until it annoys me and it’s a proactive decision to turn it off again, whereas at home I have actually got time to sit there and think “What do I fancy listening to? I like that track, but I don’t quite fancy listening to that track off that album” and I will be physically switching between albums. So I think it is just having the opportunity and the motivation to do it At home, Bethany could afford the luxury of “sit[ting] there and think[ing]” about her music selections in a proactive way. Her listening at work seemed more reactive. This can be understood as a pragmatic approach, as the main focus at work is to work - not to spend time selecting music. Therefore, there is not as much time for reflecting on moods and what one “fancies” listening to in the office. As the interviewees tried to explain the process of music selection at work, some also started to reflect more widely over the relationship between music choice and mood, and discovered experiences they perceived as surprising. David, an ICT manager at the architectural practice, said: David (AP): Anneli: David (AP): It is strange, because when I am sad I listen to sad music and when I am happy I listen to happy music. I would think it should be the other way around, shouldn’t it? You should cheer yourself up! “Naaah, I prefer to be miserable, I’ll put that on.” Why do you think that is? I have got no idea. It would be interesting to see if anyone else is the same as me, or if I am just a bit weird. David listened to music that reinforced his current mood state, rather than trying to improve it. He found this curious, as he felt it ought to be the other way around - that negative mood states should be avoided; “you should cheer yourself up!”. He did not appear to see the point of being sad in this situation. Lesiuk (2005) has argued that people who “wallow” in sad emotions through music may actually be practising 147 enjoying negative emotions. In other words, by allowing oneself to feel sadness or anger evoked through music, these emotions can become more familiar and less frightening. People can also use music listening to get into a negative mood, if they feel that it is suitable (DeNora, 2000; Lesiuk, 2005). The suitability depends on the situation and it is argued that mood regulation actually consists of achieving positive situational outcomes rather than positive moods (Erber et al., 1996; Martin & Davies, 1998). Thus, according to these ideas, David would feel that by putting “sad” music on, he would ultimately achieve a positive situational outcome. It seems that something in the process of listening to sad music helps him in the office. According to Brown & Theorell (2006), mood management through music listening can take two forms; homeopathic and allopathic strategies. People can reinforce current mood, like David (homeopathic). They can also choose music to alter their mood (allopathic). Peter mentioned both homeopathic and allopathic use of music, but, like David, found homeopathic use hard to justify: Peter (AP): Anneli: Peter (AP): Anneli: Peter (AP): Anneli: Peter (AP): Anneli: Peter (AP): Anneli: Peter (AP): Anneli: Peter (AP): Sometimes you pick a piece of music to alter how you feel. And sometimes you pick a piece of music to reinforce you. So if you are feeling frustrated about something, there are two ways to go. You can pick something chilling and relaxing, or you could go the other way and put some that would respond to that, and you can almost work your aggression out with something quite loud and upbeat. Something that it quite dynamic. I suppose I do a bit of both, really. I was just going to ask you. Yes, I probably do… if I am frustrated or busy at work, I probably listen to loud music more than I would to quiet music. Slower tempo. I think so. So you are not then trying to directly eliminate your frustration by becoming chilled and relaxed? It is enjoyable, for some reason. I don’t know why! (laughs) So is it more like some sort of catharsis almost? Yes, I think it is. I don’t know it should be relaxing to have someone screaming at you when you are quite frustrated. Maybe it is… I don’t know why that should be so. Because you would think that, logically, you would get even more frustrated if you did that. You would do, wouldn’t you? But you don’t. I don’t think so, no. No, I quite enjoy it. Maybe it is my inner teenager trying to come out. (laughs) So what happens then? If you are frustrated, and you listen to some really quite loud, rowdy music, what happens with you and your frustration? I think it usually just bounces along with it. It is like… Say you get up early on a Sunday morning. The CD you pick to play wouldn’t be some thrash metal or anything, you would want your “Sunday morning reading the paper” sort of music, wouldn’t you? And I think the time when you would like to 148 listen to loud music is perhaps when you feel a little bit more energised, should we say. The length of the quote illustrates how difficult Peter found it to reflect on this process, how instinctive emotional responses were and how difficult it was to formulate these instinctive experiences in words. He also felt it was somewhat contradictory to choose homeopathic use of music, in other words to attempt to work through a mood state through accentuation, rather than to eliminate the mood. Peter was surprised to feel relaxed when he listened to loud music in a state of frustration. The music he usually listened to at work in these situations were different types of rock; “Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath’y, sort of traditional heavy rock” but also “more recent rock, Queens of the Stone Age, System of a Down, that sort of anxiety stuff”. He felt that this music was energising and suitable if he was frustrated, as it mimicked the energy in his frustration. He continued: Peter (AP): Anneli: Peter (AP): I think there is something enjoyable and something ironically, that it does relax you about having this loud music. I think you do get some reward from it, because obviously you do it because you enjoy it. So there must be, despite the angst in the music or liveliness in the music, I think the net effect must be positive, even though it is… Perhaps it does in some way soothe and relax you. Otherwise you wouldn’t do it, if it made you more and more miserable, or more stressed. So how do you think that works? Good grief! I don’t know! I need someone who is doing a PhD in music to tell me that! I don’t know. Maybe it’s something that chimes with how you feel at that moment, maybe in some way it is some kind of a fellow sufferer, or something. (laughs). Having been reassured by the fact that other people feel the same way, or something curious. But, I don’t know the way music affects you… because even in that music there’s certain… it’s not just abut the rhythm or the beat, there’s melodies and all sorts of things that I wouldn’t have the faintest idea about, that will affect how you feel. And even something quite aggressive, on the surface sounds quite aggressive, will have certain appeal of sooth. Aural appeal, you know, something that is pleasing to the ear. Just like, I don’t know, a painting… I am more used to thinking in visual terms. A painting of a very dark scene, or a war image or something like that, will still, although it might be jagged edges or lots of black, it will still conform to the aesthetic norms. Or at least play with those to exaggerate the emotion you have to that piece. So it will still comply with the aesthetic rules. And the same, I am sure, with aggressive music has its foundation… If you analyse it I am sure you will still find that some way it plays your emotions. Not all the negative, I am sure that there are plenty of positive ways it will affect your mood and how you feel. Peter found it “ironic” that loud angry music could relax him. He talked about “reward”, and that the main experience is “positive”. He linked this to a sense of 149 shared anger, a “fellow sufferer”. DeNora (1999) has described this as a process in which the listener can express themselves symbolically in a “virtual realm” (p.40), an environment in which they are in control. Thus, it may be that both David and Peter accentuated their current moods (sadness and frustration) through listening to music that they felt corresponded to these emotions, and that this practice allowed them to vent some of these emotions in an environment where it may not have been suitable to vent them directly (in the office). Therefore, they may have felt that the outcome was ultimately positive – they could feel the emotions and work through them through the music. Peter pointed out that angry music can still be aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable to the individual. This is another element of his experience of this particular music – it does not simply represent emotions of frustration and anger, it is also aesthetically pleasing. Furthermore, Peter recognising his emotional needs at work can also be understood as a wider set of skills in care of self (Batt-Rawden & DeNora, 2005), perhaps even as a type of emotional intelligence (Gardner, 1983). Music was perceived as an easy and useful way for him to create a space for his private mood in a public setting. So why did these two interviewees find some of their affective experiences to music “strange”, “weird” and “ironic”? It suggests that these experiences were unexpected, and that other experiences were expected. Patrick explored the notion of presupposed ideas of music: Patrick (RI): Anneli: Patrick (RI): So the other influence to what makes me put a certain record on, it’s got to have to do with the mood I am in. I suppose you can sort of divide music into fast, slow, loud, soft, mellow, relaxing, challenging… all those categories. And I guess there must be an influence on that decision, in the sort of mood I am in, if I am angry… I am not actually prepared to define what mood influences what type of music, I don’t think it is quite as simple as that. I wouldn’t say “I feel really chilled today, so I’ll listen to Morcheeba”, for instance. I think if I feel really chilled, I’ll listen to the Pogues. I mean it is just as likely. But, and I am not sure I can actually qualify this, but I know there is a link. Are you out to change your mood? No, I don’t think so. I don’t think it works that way around for me. I don’t think I listen to music to change my mood, I think my mood influences the music. In fact, I know that for certain. Patrick began by assuming that certain pieces will have certain emotional effects. Then he changed his mind and argued that perceived musical emotions do not 150 necessarily correspond with his felt emotions. This distinction has been made by Gabrielsson (2001), who states the importance of distinguishing between emotions perceived and emotions felt. Just because an emotion is perceived in a music piece does not mean that a person will actually feel that emotion. Patrick listened to music that reflected his positive mood when he was in a positive mood: Patrick (RI): I wouldn’t try and improve my mood by picking music to listen to, no. It is never something that I have done, and if I am not feeling in a good mood, I probably wouldn’t listen to music, actually. I don’t use music to improve the way I am feeling. [...] I think I would make an actual choice of not listen to anything. I might listen to the radio, Radio 4-type stuff, but I probably wouldn’t listen to music. For me, music doesn’t cheer me up in that sense. But if I am cheerful, it is a reflector of that. And it is something that I could perhaps amplify that feeling with by… It is like singing I suppose. You know, if you are in a really good mood, you feel like singing. Well, I do. So it is possibly not far removed from that, sort of emotional kind of thing. But I certainly wouldn’t sing if I was depressed. [...] It is the sort of slightly clichéd view… which I kind of, initially when you asked that question I thought “Well, yes, it is obvious if you were doing something sort of active and energetic, you would want fast dancing music”… and if you were doing something that took a lot more patience and concentration you would want the opposite. But I don’t think that reality is true. [...]If the mood I am in is reflected in the music I play, which we have agreed it must do to some extent, I suppose logically there is quite a narrow band of music that I end up playing, and that’s probably true, actually. This is relating my mood into my chosen music, and I do actually listen to the same music quite a lot at work, which is weird. I have never really considered that before. On the one hand, Patrick did not agree with the “clichéd” view of the relationship between musical parameters and emotional effect. Yet, he stated that he listened to much the same kind of music to reflect his positive mood. Perhaps his preferred music did not necessarily correspond to music which in a “clichéd” way reflected positive mood (e.g., mainly major chords, faster tempo). He often listened to AC/DC’s “Back to Black” album at work, an album which can be perceived as energetic (a driving steady beat, with typical hard rock rhythms and band set up), but which may not always be perceived as necessarily “happy”. So what is a “clichéd” view of music and emotions? Is there a widely accepted (non-academic) discourse about the fact that certain music pieces have certain effects because of the musical parameters involved, that people automatically refer to? As mentioned, there is a distinction between perceived and felt emotions, and many research studies have failed to make this distinction. Thus, it is equally plausible that other people outside of academia can fail to distinguish between the two, leading to what Patrick described as a “clichéd” view 151 – an assumption that happy music will automatically make someone happy. However, what seemed important to the listeners was that they were able to choose music that matched their mood and perhaps engage in an activity of actively caring for their emotional needs by acknowledging and confirming their current mood. 5.4 A note on music preferences When music listening in offices is discussed in general media, there is often a particular interest in the actual preference of music; are certain artists or genres more suited to a working environment? Can listening to Mozart actually result in higher productivity? The process of selecting music is a central aspect in the discussion of music at work. The themes in this study revealed a compromising process between internal needs and external considerations, which takes place within the listener. This means that music selection occurs in many different ways and for many different reasons. However, as the process of selecting music is so central to this study, it is important to lift this aspect out and investigate it more closely. Music selection was discussed in relation to internal needs. When some of the interviewees talked about how music could be perceived as distracting, they commented on the dynamics of music. Music with an irregular dynamic was perceived as potentially distracting. When interviewees talked about music that could aid concentration, some mentioned familiarity of music. Music selection was often related to the mood someone was in, but the selections also appeared to involve a level of spontaneity, curiosity and not always an organised or planned approach. This fluid approach may relate to the fact that employees did not prioritise careful selection of music pieces in this situational context - after all, they were there to work. Music selection was also mentioned in relation to external considerations, which is discussed in depth in next chapter (6). Interviewees had to consider others so as not to disturb them, and this could involve considering what music to play. If it appeared difficult to agree on what music to listen to, then radio was considered as a neutral choice. Music selection also related to the idea of remaining aware of their surroundings, as some interviewees found certain artists easier to listen to while still maintaining their awareness (e.g. the “thinner” texture of certain singer/songwriter artists). 152 Most interviewees stated that they listened to the same music at home as at work. As Patrick put it; “Anything that I would listen to at home I would be happy to listen to at work.” They chose certain music when they wished to achieve something - whether that was consideration of colleagues, concentration for themselves, awareness of their surroundings or other factors. Certain types of music and/or certain artists were perceived as more suited in some instances. But as most interviewees brought music with them from home, environments outside work provided the foundation for music selection for work. Thus, all music that they listened to at work they also listened to at home, but there was music that some of them did not bring to work. One example was classical music. Neither Adam nor Mark listened to classical music at work, but for different reasons: Adam (AP): Anneli: Adam (AP): I might listen to a bit more classical at home, than I do here. Why is that? Probably because if I was going to bother, I would actually have the time to sit and listen to it. Because ideally it is just background music here, you know. I like classical as well. Although I don’t tend to play it that much at work. Why is that? I am not sure, actually. It is a very good question. I am not sure. I have got a funny feeling that my colleagues might perhaps not like it as much as ordinary, standard pop music. Mark (RI): Anneli: Mark (RI): Adam felt that he wanted to listen to classical music in a more attentive way, and not have it on in the background. He wanted to have “the time” to listen more carefully. He seemed to have a clear idea of how he wanted to listen to this particular music, and the situational context of work did not suit his preferred way of listening to classical music. The idea of classical music as more suitable to listen to at home was also found by Thorsén (1985) among Swedish factory workers, but not by DeNora (2000) who stated women in her study most frequently cited classical music as useful for concentrating (although it is unclear whether they were working at home or somewhere else). Mark, on the other hand, was more concerned with what other people would think of classical music if they heard it, thus his reason for not listening to classical music at work related to not disturbing colleagues. At the time of the interview, Peter avoided one band in particular that he otherwise listened a lot to at home: 153 Peter (AP): Anneli: Peter (AP): Anneli: Peter (AP): We are going through listening to a lot of Four Tet at the moment, at home. But I don’t listen to that at all here, because it just… it is too many quiet stretches where you’ll just start to hear stuff coming through. Through the music. So there would be a difference some of the music you listen to at home and… Definitely. …outside of work and here. Yes. I mean, there’s some stuff I listen to in all places, but, yes. For Peter, the dynamics of this music made it difficult for him to concentrate, as it did not help him sufficiently to screen out other noises around him. Instead, he preferred music that was consistently loud, as he could avoid hearing distracting sounds from his environment. It seems, then, that all music listened to in the workplace would also be listened to outside of work, but not all music from home was brought into work. Some interviewees described how they shifted between listening to music on radio, and music from their own CDs/MP3s. For example, Bethany said: Bethany (RI): Anneli: Bethany (RI): I listen to mainstream radio, Radio 1 mostly. Until the DJ starts to really get on my nerves. I usually start with that in the morning and finish up with that late at night. And if I really get immensely frustrated about Sara Cox going on about Lola [Sara Cox’s daughter], Joe Whiley making a mess of everything, I tend to switch over to just listening to stuff that I have got stored on my hard drive, and switch back later on in the day if I remember. So your baseline music listening would be Radio 1? Generally, yes. The motivation for Bethany to shift from radio to her own MP3s was “irritation” and “frustration” with the DJs. She describes disliking them “going on”, “making a mess”, and how they could “get on her nerves”. The fact that Bethany found one DJ in particular very irritating may be because this DJ appeared to talk a lot about her daughter. As Bethany was nearly 40 with no children at the time of the interview, it might be that Bethany found it difficult to relate these experiences. Adam also described feeling annoyed with DJs and preferring using the shuffle setting on his MP3 player instead. That way he could listen to a selection of his own favourite music, “without the downside of having some prat in between the tracks”. Bethany sometimes randomised her music on her computer media player. When she occasionally listened to an album from start to finish, she found that she could easily “lose track” of her listening if she had to move between her office and the lab. To “listen from beginning to end” was therefore not convenient for her. This can be 154 understood as a sense of flow and consistency in the listening experience that disappeared. However, Bethany was not concerned about the loss of seamlessness in her listening experience. She accepted that her listening at work sometimes got interrupted. Music was therefore not prioritised, but instead adapted around her work tasks. Some interviewees had certain music genres that they preferred, and described them in a detailed manner. For example, Matthew said: Matthew (AP): I am a bit of a snob, actually. I am more into my indie and rock, and I have pretty much closed out anything else. I just don’t really listen to any dance kind of music or anything like that, or anything overly heavy. Nothing charty or poppy or anything like that, I just like good guitar music really. Other interviewees, like John, did not express any particular music preferences at work: John (RI): Anneli: John (RI): I don’t necessarily have a preference as such. Obviously if you listen to Radio 1 or Trent, then it is generally pop I suppose. I don’t sit there and think “Oh, I want to listen to dance” or whatever, I don’t listen to the stations that have classical or anything like that. I just listen to what’s on the radio. Whatever it would be. When you bring CDs in and play through your computer, what kind of music is that? It could be a right mix of anything, it just depends. I mean, if you bring your CDs in, it might be that you have a deadline to keep and you just want to shut out everybody else in the office. So you just listen to anything. I don’t really have a set genre of music that I listen to. It would be either dance music, pop or electro... anything. I am not really bothered as such, to be fair. John seemed unwilling to commit to a preference for particular music styles. This approach to music is consistent with studies which have identified different engagement levels when listeners talk about style preferences (Greasley, 2008; Greasley & Lamont, 2006). It is interesting to note John’s “not really bothered”attitude to music, considering that he felt that music was so important to him that working without music “would be a nightmare”. For John, it was extremely important to have music on, but it appears to be less important what kind of music it was. One might imagine that someone who found music at work very important would also be a very “fussy” listener. But, as was discussed earlier, it may be that he was so used to 155 having music on in the background that it created a familiar environment where he felt comfortable working, regardless of the kind of music. It was clear from the themes that emerged out of the interviews that control of music was seen as very important, and perceived control was linked to whether employees found music distracting or not. But it is also important to note that many interviewees sometimes listened to radio. Bull (2007) distinguishes between the “post-Fordist taste ghetto of the radio user” and the “hyper-post-Fordist iPod user who desires her eclectic mix of privatised sounds” (p.116). Bull also describes the radio listener in an office as one who “is being fed a diet of commercial radio” (p.116). But are people actually “being fed” radio passively? Or are they rather “feeding themselves”? Interviewees in this study sometimes preferred and chose radio at work for various reasons; wanting variety, not wanting (or having sufficient time) to carefully select music, perceiving radio as more neutral (i.e., less imposing) and less isolating. Although radio listening means less control over the selection of music than listening to a personally designed playlist, it still involves a level of choice as the radio channel still has to be selected. Some people preferred certain radio stations, and had thus come to expect a certain type of music while working. In that sense, they still selected the music. And, perhaps more fundamentally, they could choose to have the radio on or off. Piped music (e.g., muzak) is one instance where the music is completely outside the choice of listeners/employees, and there were no such incidents of listening among the interviewed. The only other situation where music is completely non-chosen is when music is being imposed onto a colleague, and this was experienced as very irritating by the receiver (as discussed earlier, see 5.3.1). 5.5 Conclusions of internal needs Music at work could be a negative distraction and a strategy to block out other distractions. The ability to manage the auditory working environment was highly valued by many of the participants. Music was also related to a strong sense of enjoyment, although reasons for this enjoyment were difficult to describe, as were reasons for choosing particular music at work. Some aspects of the experiences of music listening relating to emotions were perceived as surprising and/or contradictory by the interviewees, especially homeopathic use of music (Brown & Theorell, 2006). 156 Homeopathic use of music may be particularly useful in environments where emotions can not be acted out as readily, such as in offices or other public workplaces. The music selection process seemed to consist of spontaneity and desire for variation, which contrasts to the idea of a music listener as an organised DJ (DeNora, 2000). The music selection process in offices instead involved elements of spontaneity, curiosity, and desire for variation. Participants did not always know what music they wanted to listen to, or they did at least not ponder upon it – instead a sudden thought about a particular artist or song could lead to them putting that music on. This highlights the office environment as a space where any self-directed listening is often subordinate to other activities. Music was often brought into work from home, but some music styles or artists were perceived as less suitable at work (classical, or particularly dynamic music). Interestingly, one participant who appeared to have a low engagement with music and little interest in music style preferences still described music as immensely important for him in his daily work life. The element of control emerged as important in almost all themes throughout the interviews and supports the idea that people want to select their own music. The combination of a spontaneous attitude and a desire for control can be understood as a result of the specific environment where they listened. Offices may not always afford the luxury of time to reflect on music choices in the same way as other environments can. The earlier model (figure 5.7) shows the factors that participants were aware of when they perceived music to be either distracting or concentration-enhancing. Some of these factors lend support to previous studies based on the inverted U-model by Yerkes & Dodson (Daoussis & McKelvie, 1986; Furnham & Allass, 1999; Furnham & Bradley, 1997; Kiger, 1989; Ransdell & Gilroy, 2001; Salamé & Baddeley, 1989). For example, this study also identified attention capacity, task complexity, task familiarity, music familiarity, personality, volume and dynamics in the music as important factors. Whereas previous studies have tested how these aspects function in experimental studies, this study emphasised that listeners are also aware of these aspects and how they are affected by them. There are also some new findings, in addition to those tested in previous studies. Task confidence, music preferences, 157 perceived control, a habit of listening while working, and relationship to silence were other influencing factors which could affect the perception of music as either distracting or beneficial for concentration. The model expands on previous research by illustrating a host of situational factors that shape listeners’ perceptions, and also by showing that even though music is perceived to be distracting, situational aspects (distracting sounds or people interrupting) can still shift this perception so that music is judged to be preferable - the lesser of two evils. The next chapter (6) presents details of the second overarching theme, external considerations, and also draws together the two themes to conclude the results of the interview study. 158 6 Experiences of music listening in offices and their contextual influences II: External considerations 6.1 Introduction This chapter presents the second set of factors that people listening to music in offices take into account: external requirements. As mentioned in chapter 5, interviewees had their own internal reasons for listening (or not listening) to music at work. However, they could not always do as they wished, because they had external aspects to consider, which arose from the fact that they were in an office situation. Four main external considerations emerged from the analysis. Firstly, many of the requirements related to IT security or how the use of certain listening technology impacted on the organisation (theme 4: Welfare of the organisation). Secondly, listeners had to consider the impact on other people (theme 5: Welfare of others). A third theme related to the importance of remaining in contact with the surroundings, especially when using headphones (theme 6: Auditory awareness). Finally, music appeared to be associated with leisure at work and there appears to be a debate about whether this is appropriate (theme 7: Music as leisure in the office). 6.2 Results related to external considerations 6.2.1 Theme 4: Welfare of organisation During the development of the field study, I discovered that the IT managers in the organisations I studied had the power to decide whether office employees can listen to music via computers. Two IT managers were therefore included in this study (Benjamin at the research institute and David at the architectural practice). The main issues they mentioned centred on the impact of music listening on network performance, legalities, communication of policies, and storage of music. These issues were also familiar to music listening employees in both offices, and some of their comments are included in these sections too. The IT security issues raised in this section mainly apply to listening to music in a digital format through computers, as IT security issues derive from computers connected to some kind of network. 159 Impact on network performance Network performance was viewed as an important aspect in relation to music listening, because issues with the computer network could have negative effects on organisational communication. One technological aspect that was particularly significant was so-called “streaming”. Streaming is a process whereby media content is continuously delivered and presented to the user. It is different from downloading in that the media content does not have to be delivered and saved first on a local server before listening/watching. However, the activity consumes bandwidth while it is streaming, and this could pose problems for the organisation. At the architectural practice, the bandwidth was used to support e-mail systems, internet, intranet and an extranet system. David believed that if employees streamed music, the whole system would slow down considerably and “probably cause a bottleneck” which “would kill it altogether”. Further, he said: David (AP): That’s not illegal but we don’t allow it, because “we pay for the bandwidth, so why should you use it”, that sort of thing. This is an interesting comment, as there are many things that the company does pay for the employees to use. Some may be regarded as necessities (heating, toilets, running water), but others could be regarded as optional extras yet are still paid for by the company (tea, coffee, and water coolers). Why is radio streaming seen as something that the company should not pay for, even though companies often pay for other everyday non-necessities? It may be that radio/music listening is seen as something personal, and therefore not viewed as something the company should assist with. At the research institute, radio streaming was also seen as inappropriate, as Bethany explained: Bethany (RI): We are not supposed to listen to streamed music from an internet site, so if you wanted to listen to Radio 1, my understanding is that you would have to use a stand-alone media player rather than streaming straight through from the site itself. That’s the policy as I understand it. […] I am guilty of streaming radio from one particular website. 160 Bethany sometimes streamed music, but the word “guilty”, suggests that she knew she was doing something she was not supposed to. Yet she did not clarify why it was not allowed, and neither did John (“I don’t know the true ins and outs of it”, John). Mark did not listen to streamed music and explained that he thought that might be because he was “not sure about the legalities of it”, or because he was “old-fashioned”, but that he was “very careful with that”. A lack of clarity surrounding the IT regulations in relation to music emerged in interviews from the research institute. Many assumed that streaming was not allowed, but in fact it was permitted, as Benjamin (the IT manager) explained: Benjamin (RI): I suppose a few years ago it was more frowned upon than it is now, in a sense that a few years ago we had a relatively low bandwidth connection to the internet. So then we could tell people when they were listening to their radio and stuff that they were impacting the business, because obviously the internet connection is there for the business. But these days we have quite a fast connection to the internet and so the traffic involved in streaming radio and things is like negligible. So we don’t really talk a lot about that. If you were impacting the business, we’d pay more attention to it, but I don’t think it is. In contrast to David, Benjamin was not under the impression that radio streaming had any negative impact on the business nowadays. Video streaming, however, was not allowed at the research institute as it takes up more bandwidth. There appeared to be differences in listeners’ awareness of what was allowed and what was not. Listeners in the architectural practice had a clear understanding of what was allowed in their organisation, whereas listeners at the research institute appeared unsure (many thinking that radio streaming was not allowed, although it was). This may result from the ways in which the listening policies were communicated in the two organisations, which turned out to be quite different – a topic discussed later. Another aspect that came out of the interviews with the two IT managers was their attitude to the internet and use of music through it. They both argued that the internet connection was there for the business, and David stated that the business had paid for the broadband, “so why should they [the employees] use it [for streaming]”. This attitude raises some interesting questions regarding music’s role and position in the workplace. It appears from the attitude of the IT managers that music is not seen as a 161 necessity, and thus not something that the company should provide. Instead, music may be seen as something leisure-related. Legalities One worry that both IT managers expressed related to the legalities of music in offices. They were concerned about illegal copying of CDs and illegal downloading of music and programs, i.e., infringement of intellectual property rights: Benjamin (RI): Obviously we are very clear on the fact that whatever they download should be paid for. We don’t allow anything that is illegal on site. And if we do find it, it would be a serious offence. Possibly people could get dismissed for things like that. It is a serious offence, so people know that and I advise them regularly. Anneli: Have you had any problems with people downloading…? David (AP): Obviously it is a problem. Any IT manager who sits there and says it isn’t is lying! Audits are taken once a month and the users are made aware that this happened. And anything that is found on their machine they’ll face disciplinary action. Illegal downloading was clearly considered inappropriate and misuse could lead to the person being “dismissed” or facing “disciplinary action”. Illegal downloading was defined as downloading of music without paying for the tracks. Legal (i.e., paid for) downloading was allowed in the research institute, but not in the architectural practice, except with permission from the IT team. The framework for UK copyright laws can be found in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This act states that it is illegal to copy music without buying the piece first. But the statutory definition of “copying” also includes “storing the work in any medium by electronic means” (OPSI, online). This means that a purchased CD should not be copied and stored in an electronic format (“ripping”). It has been suggested that the storing of purchased music in electronic form should be made legal (BBC, online). However, at the time of these interviews, this practice was illegal. Neither the music listeners, nor the IT managers, were aware of this: Bethany (RI): Anneli: Bethany (RI): Generally it is actually on my computer. Does that mean that you bring CDs in and save them on the hard drive? Yes, I would just copy. I think that’s perfectly legitimate when you have paid for the CD, so I don’t see there’s any legal problems with doing that, as I own the CD. 162 David (AP): Anneli: David (AP): The only thing we allow them to do, that we ask them to do… Actually, this is in the actual e-mail internet policy. To actually listen to tracks they have brought in from CD and converted to MP3. So that is completely legitimate? Yes. Charlie stated that the responsibility for breaches of copyright law ultimately lies with the IT managers: Charlie (AP): The worry is that the person responsible for that is the IT manager, and he potentially has the possibility to be taken to court himself for having dodgy things on people’s desktops. How did the IT managers manage the legality-related issues and attempt to prevent breaches of the Copyright Act? Benjamin and David had two slightly different approaches to legality and the controlling of employees. David described a system that his IT team used, which he referred to as a “Big Brother system”: David (AP): Anneli: David (AP): The software out there is mainly called Remote Desk Topping. It allows you to log. Every machine logs what it is doing, basically, from a mouse click to a curser move to an application opening… Everything a user does in a modern business environment can be logged, and it is logged for obvious reasons: for malpractice, for people physically deleting files on purpose. You can tell which machine and where it has come from. What kind of details can you go down to in terms of the music? You can see whether iTunes is used… You can see if it has been used, but you can’t actually see what it has been used for. So iTunes could have been open, but iTunes has many functions. It has the function to play music from a CD, to play music converted to an MP3, and it also has the function to download music. Benjamin was able to log some kinds of activities on the employees’ computers, but the kind of information he could obtain was less detailed than David’s: Benjamin (RI): Obviously if they are doing something like listening to internet radio, or something like that, then we can track that through the system we have in place to sort of monitor, or log, internet traffic, if you see what I mean. So we could look at that and see if they are listening to their radio, probably. But if they’ve just got a CD in their local CD drive, then no, we wouldn’t know. We have nothing in place for that kind of thing. Benjamin described his overall approach as “fairly relaxed”, but also “a bit woolly” and “vague”. He explained that the ground rule was that everything must be legal, but 163 that employees were given “a fair amount of leeway”. The management of his organisation took the view that “staff are adults” and should know what to do and how to behave. Benjamin felt that that making something explicit can sometimes “create problems”: Benjamin (RI): We have discovered over the years that there are always exceptions. My theory is that the environment out there with all the people who are working, it is always more complicated than you think it is. And for me to try to sit here and not really understand what is going on in the organisation, and then to come up with a suitable rule, I think you are just creating a problem for yourself. I’d rather wait for problems to arrive. And certainly when you have something technical, like the use of our bandwidth to the internet for example, we have like a simple technical measure of what people are doing, and it makes it very easy. When you don’t have that measurement, it becomes quite difficult. Some people for example, we have a team of people in our drawing office who are preparing maps all day. They sit in front of their screens, bigger screens than this, and they are doing maps. And they all listen to music or listen to the radio on their headphones. And if you took them away from them, there would be a mutiny, it simply wouldn’t work. It is an essential part of their working practice, to work like that. So it is not something that you can mess around with easily. Benjamin recognised and respected the complexities of people and their individual preferences, and his viewpoint can be interpreted as anti-reductionist, in that he did not make simplistic assumptions regarding how people and environments functioned. Instead, he assumed that situations were complicated by default. His approach can also be understood as more reactive, rather than proactive (like David’s). Furthermore, Benjamin felt that the employees were entitled to a level of privacy: Benjamin (RI): We’re administrators, so we can connect to people’s PCs and try and sort out problems, that kind of thing. But we don’t do it to look around. We don’t have time and we shouldn’t really go on fishing expeditions, we can’t go around looking through people’s PCs to see what we might find. That’s not the kind of approach we have. [...] Their PC... they have a kind of personal relationship with their PCs, it is a bit like your own desk, isn’t it? I don’t expect anyone to walk in here demanding to see my desk without a good reason, for example. One consequence of this reactive approach was that it was more difficult to detect issues with legality (illegal music downloading in particular): Benjamin (RI): We can’t have unlicensed or illegal copies on our systems, we are quite clear about that. The other question is: would we recognise unlicensed or stolen music if we found it? We probably wouldn’t. So there is a problem there. [...] 164 We don’t want to interfere with people’s work by slowing it down too much, but we want to keep track of what they are doing. It is something that we are gradually working towards doing. [...] In fact, the more I think about it, the more worried I get about the legal side of things. Because we could be complicit and kind. So perhaps I’ll revisit that. I think at the moment… I mean, it is ever so hard to know exactly what is going on. It sounds a bit reckless, as if we are not really in control, but in fact, it is just the way things are technically. If we started blocking MP3 files then we might find we are interfering with some people’s work, I don’t know. Benjamin saw a potential conflict between strict control of computer usage and interfering with people’s work. This can be understood as a perspective stemming from his idea of complexity within the environment and among people. To have strict control over computer use could clash with the general approach within his organisation, that “staff are adults”. Benjamin also highlighted the issue of using resources to monitor legality breaches, and the fact that technology is developing at such a rapid pace that allocation of resources may not keep up with technological developments (new software and listening technologies). The issue of (lack of) resources also emerged in David’s interview. Although he utilised the “Big Brother system”, he was not always able to detect illegal music downloading: David (AP): I have to admit, music is not really something that I go into great detail on, it is more software and other nasty things like pornography and harassment… If I was to do that, that would be the only thing I’d do, 24/7, every single day. [...] Obviously you have to be prepared to manage it totally, and if you are one person looking after 120 members of staff, then music isn’t really top of the list of the agenda to do. So, maybe I am a bit relaxed on that policy. Even though the IT managers clearly felt that illegal downloading of music was a “serious offence” that could lead to “disciplinary action”, the interviews revealed that they both had quite a relaxed attitude towards it. What were the underlying reasons for them to take a relaxed approach to a potentially “serious offence”? One reason was that so far they had not had any major issues with music and legality: David (AP): I have never had any major causes for concern, but you never know. [...] We have never got to the situation where we have had to take anyone to a tribunal or have anyone standing up and saying “You have done this”, so it has never got into that situation. Not over music, anyway. And I doubt very much that it would do. 165 Benjamin (RI): With this issue, because it hasn’t had a high profile within the organisation, it is not addressed, and it is possible that it will become a serious issue. [...] But until it becomes an issue, we would probably leave it as it is. Another reason for a more relaxed approach to legality issues was the difficulty with proving that the MP3 files were in fact illegally downloaded, as David explained: David (AP): It is possible to do it and find out exactly, but then the user could argue that he hasn’t got it “because it is actually a CD that belongs to me”. And then you would have to go through the painstaking process of saying “Can you bring the CD in to prove it?”. And then all they have to do is to buy the CD. The system is there to find it, it is just managing it. It is probably one of the things that is unmanageable, you can see it, but how can you stop it? The only way you can stop it is through physically stop people from going on to the internet. You have to allow an amount of trust to employees. It should be pointed out that this is actually a misunderstanding of the law and that it would not make a difference if the employee had the CD. In other words, David’s attitudes and behaviours are here guided by a misunderstanding. As Benjamin hinted earlier, by banning downloading, IT staff could be seen to be interfering with people’s personal liberties at work. David mentioned “trust” in his discussions about monitoring computer use and music listening. Benjamin (and his organisation) viewed the employees as adults, and they allowed a greater amount of freedom - until employees “deviate from accepted standards”. But even though David explicitly talked about trust, he appeared to have less trust in the employees than Benjamin, as he used a system to monitor their computer use. Miller & Weckert (2000) have suggested that monitoring can display a sign of distrust and create a vicious circle, where employees feel distrusted and could become less trustworthy as a result, and therefore require more monitoring. Monitoring employee use of the internet and applications raises a number of issues for both employers and employees. Many organisations find it difficult, and not always beneficial, to maintain strict control of employees (Simmers, 2002). According to Miller & Weckert (2000), employees who are monitored and watched can suffer negative consequences such as “ill health, stress and lowering of morale”, and also experience “health, stress and morale problems to a higher degree than other employees” (p.259). 166 David pointed to the lack of consequences for illegal music use, and both David and Benjamin referred to music listening as a “grey area”. The term “grey area” has also been used in the media in debates about copyright acts around the world, and by a Performing Rights Society representative during a phone conversation (PRS, 2008). Both Benjamin and David agreed that completely banning music at work would make things clearer and easier, at least from an IT perspective. Yet, they could both see reasons for not banning it: David (AP): People enjoy listening to music, it does help them with their work, you can see that. But from an ICT perspective, from a professional perspective, music is a big no no. But from a personal perspective, then… music is good. Because I enjoy listening to it, and so do they. But, yes, if you are looking at it from a professional perspective, there are pitfalls and if you take away the application away all together you have killed the problem. [...] within an ICT environment, ideally we wouldn’t have it. But personally it helps. Benjamin (RI): Things are changing quite rapidly, and it is hard to keep up. Cause one of the things [the organisation] wants, obviously, is members of staff who are up with these technologies, who know how to use new technologies, who aren’t afraid of it. So we are not going to jump on people and say “don’t do all this stuff”. […] You can’t be too dictatorial. It is very hard to be too dictatorial as well as maintain a kind of flexible working environment that we want to have. David, a listener himself, distinguished between a personal and a professional perspective. Benjamin, who did not listen at work, saw negative consequences of banning music listening as the organisation wanted to encourage IT skills and not be “too dictatorial”. The fact that David saw that music can be beneficial at work is interesting in the light of his earlier comments on p.159. One would imagine that he would think there would be a good reason for the company to support music listening, and even facilitate it. Yet, as discussed earlier, David did not think that employees should use their broadband to stream media content. In other words, he did not make the connection that music listening is something the company might want to facilitate. Although neither of the IT managers had experienced any issues surrounding music and legality, they were both clear on the fact that it was a serious issue. This was however contradicted by their apparent relaxed approach towards the matter. The reasons for this approach can be understood as a combination of different factors: resources within the IT teams; the fact that there had not been any major problems; 167 organisational backing of music listening facilities; an understanding of complexities within the environment and among people; a view that staff are adults and should be trusted; personal enjoyment of music at work; not wanting to discourage IT-interested staff; and that IT-technologies can sometimes have a business benefit. The two IT managers displayed different approaches to managing the issue of legality, one that involved a monitoring system, and one that could be described as more reactive. The interviews revealed some difficult balances that the IT managers had to maintain: personal versus professional attitudes, monitoring versus privacy, and investing money to control use without interfering with people’s work. There appeared to be confusion and lack of clarity surrounding the exact legal requirements of music listening, something which may relate to how policies were communicated. Communication of policies The communication of policies regarding music was generally vague. Benjamin, the IT manager at the research institute, explained that the organisation did not view the development of music policies as a priority. IT security-related matters in general were clearly communicated in various ways (e.g. induction courses, IT security talks, newsletters), but music was not specifically discussed in these communications. Instead, Benjamin believed that people mainly discovered what was allowed through interaction with their colleagues. As for the architectural practice, they had a monitoring system through which IT staff checked on the use of applications. Each project leader or manager individually monitored their teams for any issues, and reported any IT issues to David. However, David had never had any reports from managers of misuse of listening technologies: David (AP): I think people realise that they can listen to music and they understand fully that we give them this privilege. I mean, a lot of people who come from other companies go ”Wow, we can listen to music!”. Yes, as long as you don’t abuse the privilege, and as soon as someone starts abusing the privilege you know we run a big brother system and it is there, so… they are not going to do it. Obviously if they do it, it just gets taken away. It is not in their best interest to do it. David believed that people in his organisation were inclined to follow rules and not abuse the system, as that might result in a perceived privilege being taken away. The 168 IT manager and his team appeared to be in control of the supply of the music. From one perspective this relationship can be understood as a power-related one. In return for being allowed to listen to music, employees are more likely to adhere to what IT decides. Music is a gift from the authority of IT, given to the employees in exchange for caution on their part regarding IT security risks. From another perspective, it can be seen as a mutually beneficial situation, where employees get what they want (music) and IT get what they want (more IT security). However, it was ultimately the IT team and the manager who decided what the risks were and how to define risky behaviour by employees, and they who had the power to stop the music supply – at least via the internet. One area where the communication was clear and explicit was in relation to storage of music on the networks, or to be more precise, on shared hard drives. Benjamin, the IT manager at the research institute, stated that they were not supposed to back up any personal material on behalf of the employees. The underlying issue was related to resources within the IT team, and the fact that they were not supposed to manage personal files, only work-related ones. Bethany, also from the research institute, explained further: Bethany (RI): Anneli: Bethany (RI): Anneli: Bethany (RI): I have heard of cases where network drives have been used to put music on, and that was stamped out very effectively, I think, by our computer services people. About a month ago, according to a reminder in a news letter. It is not appropriate to do it, and quite rightly so. So yes, I run it off the hard drive. This incident you mentioned, what happened then? It was just a circulated computer news letter by IT support people. They notify us with these news letters that go out monthly with changes in policies, changes in resources, potential upgrades and reminders about what you can and can’t do. What constitutes computer facility abuse, basically. It was worded along the lines of “Staff are reminded that it is not appropriate to put things like this up on the server”. And as far as I know, everybody will have scuttled back to their office to check that they haven’t got anything up on their servers, and if they had, remove it somewhere that was a bit more personal. Do you know why it is not considered appropriate? Yes, it is obvious to me. For example, a megaminute for an MP3 track, people are going to attempt to store vast libraries and you are using up the computer resources. So it should really be dedicated to entirely work related material. Not supposedly leisure material. Or comfort material, or whatever you want to call it. But it is not appropriate that it is stored there, and I fully agree with that. We have a fair amount of space. The hard drives on our computers are not inadequate for putting that kind of stuff on. I have already agreed that it should be frowned upon, and it does borderline and constitute abuse of the servers to do that. 169 Bethany illustrated a link between personal material in a public building and the concept of storage space or, as Bethany puts it - a distinction between “work-related material” and “leisure material”. Storing of music files on shared hard drives was “frowned upon”. Attempts to store music on network drives were “stamped out very effectively”, thus the organisation clearly discouraged storing music on network drives. According to Bethany, this activity “constitutes abuse of servers”. These words illustrate that a clear line has been drawn in terms of music at work and its boundaries, and that crossing of those boundaries was considered inappropriate. Storing music uses computer resources, space that an organisation may want to use for other items. The inappropriateness can be understood as a competition for space, where “work-related material” is prioritised over “leisure material”, as it may otherwise impose extra workload on IT staff (maintenance and backup). Storage of music files in the architectural practice was viewed in a similar way. According to David, the IT manager, music was stored in the following way: David (AP): To a library, on their local disc. No personal information, including music, is saved to the server. The local disc on their machine, we say “that is your space, and if you have got anything private you save it there and it is your personal responsibility to back it up.” Music files were seen as private, part of an individual’s personal life, and separate from work. This was an external consideration that needed to be taken into account by listeners when they wanted to listen to music, as listeners who stored music on company hard drives put a strain on IT staff members and faced warnings from the IT department. It is not clear which of these considerations actually motivated employees to keep the rules – the altruistic reason, that it caused problems for others, or the selfish reason, that they might get into trouble. Although music files themselves were considered personal and private, IT staff members were responsible for maintaining music listening software: Benjamin (RI): The other thing is that people may be using programs to listen to their music, which introduce security issues to their PC. Things like RealPlayer. RealPlayer has security vulnerabilities in it from time to time, and it is possible that if someone is trying to exploit these they might try and get someone to visit a website and download something. But what they are 170 downloading would be designed to actually exploit the vulnerability in RealPlayer and perhaps crash it, or perhaps allow somebody to gain control of your PC. These are the sort of scenarios you would have to think about. So there is a security risk associated with that. But I think it is a manageable risk. We do have ways to try and clean up content coming down from the web. So we look for these kinds of exploits. And we do try and patch our PCs so that keybits of software are kept up to date. David (AP): We have a big bill policy which allows us to physically monitor everything that goes on within the system, which also means monitoring applications. [...] The first port of call is me to see if it actually is a cause for concern. Thus there is a clear distinction between the maintenance of individual files, and the maintenance of software that these files use. The distinction could be related to practicality (it is more difficult for individual employees to learn all the risks associated with certain software), but from the perspective of music in the workplace the policies and rules appear contradictory. This distinction between the status of music files and listening software at work as private or work-related becomes more contradictory when one considers Benjamin’s earlier comments about employee privacy. He talked about employees’ relationship to their PCs as something “personal”; “a bit like your own desk”. In other words, Benjamin saw employees’ PCs as personal, music listening software on their PCs as work-related, and music files stored on their PCs as personal. David, on the other hand, did not perceive that there was an issue of employees’ privacy in this context, and took a different approach through his organisation’s so-called “Big Brother system”. One can imagine scenarios where the boundaries between “personal” and “work-related” in music listening practices could become even more blurred. How, for example, would these IT teams handle a situation where a computer virus was spread on the shared network as a direct result of a music file that someone brought in and had stored on their local drive? The responsibility for eliminating the possible security threat would probably involve the IT team, and is the kind of situation that could cause more nuanced policies to be developed. 6.2.2 Theme 5: Welfare of others Interviewees said that they avoided imposing music onto their colleagues. They tried to show respect for their colleagues and their working environment, through avoiding creating undue difficulties for someone through a particular listening behaviour. The 171 reason why imposing music onto colleagues was viewed as inappropriate was difficult to justify for some: John (RI): I just, out of courtesy I wouldn’t have it on. I don’t know the actual, in-depth reason for that, but, you know, I just wouldn’t. I would have it turned down or I would turn it off. [...] I don’t know. I just wouldn’t have it on. I would turn it down. One of the two. Very difficult thing to explain. The reasons why one should consider other people seemed implicit and obvious. People respected each other, and there was at the same time a large amount of tolerance for individual music preferences. However, this could become difficult if someone chose music that the others could not tolerate. Bethany, who spent about 50% of her working time in a laboratory, indicated that there existed an unwritten rule that whoever spent the most time there alone in a day would put their music on. Colleagues who used the laboratory only occasionally accepted this. If they all found it hard to compromise, they listened to the radio as it was perceived as “relatively neutral” because they did not “have any control over” it. That way, Bethany argued, “maybe everybody gets a bit of what they want”. The potential for disagreement over music was reduced if employees liked more or less the same type of music. It was not entirely clear how disagreements and opinions surrounding music listening behaviour were communicated. At the research institute, listeners argued that other people ought to say if they were annoyed by someone’s music: Patrick (RI): If I felt that it was being a nuisance to the people in the other offices, I would turn it off. I would trust them to come and tell me if I hadn’t realised. Mark encouraged his members of staff to tell him if they wanted him to modify his listening behaviour; “I have said to my staff: if you don’t like anything particular that I play, then let me know”. However, he had never had any complaints, and neither had Patrick. It may be that their positions of authority could inhibit the responses of their staff members, who might not feel comfortable challenging their manager. Even though John also thought that people should voice any annoyance, he explained that he would take a different action in the same situation: 172 John (RI): I would hate to think that someone was listening to a genre of music that I couldn’t stand, and it was affecting my working day, which it probably would. If someone listened to heavy metal all day, it would do my head in! So then I couldn’t concentrate, but then I would just stick my earphones on. Although it appears as if he is contradicting himself, this theme connects to the theme “managing interruptions” (see 5.3.1). Being exposed to unwanted music can also be managed through putting headphones on, rather than expressing the annoyance to colleagues. When others were present in or around the office, the interviewees modified their listening behaviour. Mark worked in a private office within a larger shared office. He could close the door to his office, but often kept the door open to maintain contact with his team. Throughout the morning, Mark made sure not to disturb anyone else, and not to impose his music on his colleagues. When a colleague entered his office, he would turn the music down, to a “reasonable level”. When Mark was alone, he widened his personal space through music so that it reached the whole of the larger shared office space. When someone else entered that space (the larger office) and he had to share it, he shrunk his personal space by turning the volume down. That way, music did not reach the whole office and did not impinge on other people’s spaces. As the first colleague who came into work each morning did not work in his office but further down in the corridor, Mark would only turn the music down a little bit when that colleague arrived. However, when people actually entered the larger shared office space, the music was turned down more, and this whole process can be interpreted as one of enlarging and shrinking personal space through the use of music. If colleagues in the same corridor had meetings at the research institute, music would be turned down or off as a way of considering both visitors and colleagues: Bethany (RI): If people are having meetings in here, then we moderate our music, we moderate our behaviour, we are not shouting the usual good natured abuse from one office to the other when we might have visitors in here. So you do take that into account. Music listening behaviour was seen in the context of any kind of behaviour at work, as Bethany stated. Patrick described it as “rude” to have music on if someone came into his office, as it could be a distraction both to him and his visitor: 173 Patrick (RI): It is clearly a distraction to me because I am listening to it and unless I turn it down or off it is impossible for me to suddenly switch off to it. It is probably a distraction for them as well, because they are probably thinking “Bloody hell, what is this?”. Or “Oh, I like this, I can’t remember who it is by”, you know. […] I would instantly turn the radio off, or the music off, if there was any sort of group discussion or anything like that. I think people shouldn’t be expected to concentrate with something else going on in the background that they haven’t chosen. And likewise, if I go into the workshop and we are talking about something… The radio can be quite loud in the workshop because it has got to be heard over the machinery. And if we are standing next to the bench discussing something, we will always turn it down or off. I suppose we have sort of an intuitive protocol with other people. Patrick did not state how he would know that the music could be a hindrance for concentration; instead he referred to “an intuitive protocol”. Thus, it did not appear that this was something that he and his colleagues made explicit, by, for example, complaining (even though they thought they ought to). Patrick recognised that if someone has to listen to something that they have not chosen, they may not like it. Thus the importance of perceived control is emphasised in this quote. Furthermore, he recognised that people may find it hard to concentrate with music (or possibly certain types of music) on, which links to the discussion about when and how music becomes distracting, as discussed earlier (5.3.1). 6.2.3 Theme 6: Auditory awareness Using headphones in the office was seen as a resource for managing interruptions, as discussed earlier, especially if the office had an open plan design. However, there were drawbacks with using headphones in offices, according to the interviewees. Bethany explained: Bethany (RI): I suppose you are less aware of audible clues of what is going on around you, whether that is… It is a solution. It is also a problem. You know, you can be sort of aware, you hear a conversation and know [a colleague] is on the phone and dealing with something. And in putting headphones on you kind of isolate yourself from what is going on around you. But it is also a way of isolating yourself if something is going on around you that is distracting you. Like my 180 decibel drum and bass. (laughs) Reduced auditory awareness can become a problem under certain circumstances, if employees are required to remain aware of their surroundings. For example, Adam’s job role involved him overseeing the work of his team, both in terms of conversations 174 between colleagues in the office and phone conversations. Therefore it was important that listening to music did not prevent him from doing this. In a more general sense, the need for auditory awareness can be understood as a function of how much communication is required as a part of one’s job. Charlie argued that architecture in general involves interaction, and that this “interaction between people is very important in architecture”. John, who worked in an open plan office where the team worked more individually, also recognised this: John (RI): It couldn’t work in all offices. It couldn’t work if you had to constantly communicate with each other on a working basis, but in here it does. For other people in the office, the “withdrawing behaviour” among headphone users could be seen as negative: Peter (AP): I know some people have, some group leaders or associates, have issues if they are trying to talk to lots of people in their group whilst listening to music. Some people find that slightly off-putting that they can’t just say somebody’s name and they are automatically able to talk to you. The kind of work the architectural practice carried out was structured and designed around small teams who were positioned in close proximity to each other. The teams often had work-related conversations with each other while working. If someone listened to music through headphones, it became difficult to have “a casual conversation”, Adam explained. The spontaneous character of casual conversations, to be able to “turn around and say: Where are we up to?” (Charlie), requires auditory awareness and availability. When someone listens to music through headphones, a more direct action - visual or physical - may be required by colleagues in order to get the listener’s attention: Charlie (AP): It is when people have their music too loud, and they are just completely in their own world, that it becomes really frustrating. Because you have to go over there and give them a good shake and wake them up. Having to approach the listener, maybe enter their visual space or physically touch them, appeared to be another irritating issue, as well as having to repeat questions or comments. A consequence of reduced auditory awareness was that team members felt that the functioning of the team was not as smooth as it could or should be: 175 Charlie (AP): The fact that people are switching themselves off and not talking to the person next to them, or two desks down, it isn’t a good thing in terms of how the office is working and how it is progressing in terms of knowledge and general chat about where things are up to on other projects, not just your own project. Charlie had also noticed another consequence of lack of auditory awareness that had been discussed at a managerial level in the architectural practice: Charlie (AP): Anneli: Charlie (AP): I know that one of our previous directors has had a real frustration because you learn a lot from listening to people. He found it really frustrating that half of your battle is listening to someone having a telephone conversation, and you learn quite a lot from that. And a lot of the younger members of staff who tend to be the ones who listen to music more than the older members of staff, tend not to pay any attention and switch off. They would not listen. To the... To the general buzz of the office. It might not even be something that you are working on, but it might be something that you know something about and that you can chip in and help or it might be just something that you just think “I might need to know that further down the line”. He used to always whinge that the youngsters weren’t actually learning the stuff that they should do. Half of the way that I have learnt is listening to other conversations, and picking stuff up and asking questions about something that you don’t understand. You know, you would say “Why has such and such happened?”. Whereas if you are listening to music you do tend to be somewhat shut off, if you are just sitting there listening purely to music, which a lot of people do... more and more so. […]I think it is fair to say that would be a criticism of listening to music in general. Music in headphones, rather than music necessarily. Charlie suggested that listening to others, even if it is not strictly related to someone’s own project, could aid informal learning. The knowledge a person picks up informally, through listening to “the buzz of the office”, may be useful in future projects, and this knowledge may be difficult to obtain if someone uses headphones. It is not the sounding music per se that detracted from informal learning, but listening via headphones. As this particular listening technique involves physically placing objects in the ears which transmit music straight into the ear canal, it cuts the listener off more than listening through speakers. This may partly be a generational matter: Charlie was under the impression that younger members of staff seemed to listen more to music than older employees. But it is also worth noting two aspects of the design of this office. Firstly, the open plan office space encourages using headphones, in order to block other sounds out and to avoid imposing music onto non-listening colleagues. Secondly, the unusual acoustic design of the architect practice may foster 176 more silence in the office, and therefore encourage headphone use in particular (as discussed earlier), in order to create privacy and avoid eavesdropping on other private conversations. Charlie further argued that the informal learning he mentioned may not only be related to work projects, but it may also be significant for socialising processes with colleagues. The withdrawal through the use of headphones could be seen as negative in social situations at work but outside of the office, as Patrick also explained: Patrick (RI): Actually, there is a chap that I sit next to in the tea room and he listens to an iPod some days, and when he is sat next to me listening to his iPod, I feel that I can’t just turn to him and engage in a conversation. So I actually feel that he has put a wall up, he has alienated himself, and I feel slightly uncomfortable about that. Why did Patrick feel uncomfortable in this situation? It may be because they were in a public space where they were expected to interact - there may be social norms associated with this tea room that created an expectation that people would interact there. Patrick may have felt uncomfortable because this person was displaying an unusual behaviour in that context. It may also be that Patrick felt as if this colleague defined him (Patrick) as an “interruption”. It is important to emphasise that these potentially negative consequences associated with a lack of auditory awareness emerged only if a listener was in a situation where auditory awareness was particularly required. So how did interviewees solve the problem in a situation where auditory awareness was essential? Adam (AP): Anneli: Adam (AP): Often when I listen to music I only have one earpiece in. And do you find that that works? That works brilliant, so that I can listen to music and I can keep tabs on… if someone talks to you or whatever, or you can hear a conversation. So yes, most of the time when I am just doing odd bits of job it’s only with one earpiece. And if I am trying to concentrate, or I know that I am not going to be needed, then it’s both earpieces in and turn the volume up. By using this listening technique, Adam was able to keep one ear “open” towards the rest of the team. The technique can be understood as a compromise between his internal needs (wanting to listen to music, perhaps managing interruptions) and 177 external considerations. This activity was a way to practise responsible listening. Charlie described a similar approach when listening to a stand-alone radio: Charlie (AP): Quite a lot of people – and I tend to do it sometimes – are listening to one ear, so that you have got more of a chance to listen. And I sit in the corner, so I normally have the ear that’s facing everyone else without music. He also described two further strategies: Charlie (AP): Anneli: Charlie (AP): Stuff like Damien Rice and Ray Lamontagne and stuff like that, I like to listen to at work. Stuff that I can actually hear people over the top of as well. Not really loud music. So you would like to still have some sort of connection with the outside world? Yes, I do. I always try to… I have it so that I can hear the phone. If the phone rings. And also if someone starts shouting at me. That doesn’t mean to say I always hear them, but I try and leave it not too loud. Both Damien Rice’s and Ray Lamontagne’s music can be described as singer/songwriter music mainly containing vocals and acoustic guitars, with a thinner musical texture than traditional rock bands. This, Charlie argued, meant that he could “hear people over the top” of the music, as the music was “not really loud”. His choice of words is interesting when he states that he plays music more quietly in case someone starts “shouting” at him, rather than just talking. This suggests perhaps that he still struggles with remaining auditorily aware of his surroundings. Reasons for wanting to maintain auditory awareness were communication with colleagues, as mentioned by other interviewees, but also “if the phone rings”. In addition, he also modified the volume of the music, so that it is not “too loud” either (although it is questionable whether his music may still have been too loud for his colleagues if they had to “shout” at him). Some interviewees pointed out that people who got irritated by others’ lack of auditory awareness seemed to be those who did not listen to music themselves. Therefore, they may have found it difficult to appreciate why someone would listen to music at work. They felt that others’ listening behaviour affected their own work experience – they may have to “invade” someone else’s territory, and it is possible that they find this experience conflicting. They feel they ought to be able to communicate with their colleagues at work, which is what they are there to do. They 178 may also feel that the isolating behaviour is causing disruption to expected teamwork, with one person’s behaviour thus affecting the whole team. Employees found that they interpreted music’s presence as communication. Apart from the individual who may be seen to communicate “Do not disturb” signs, music’s presence could also be interpreted as communication of a wider set of values and attitudes among employees, which I discuss in the next section. 6.2.4 Theme 7: Music as leisure The presence of music in an office was found to send out a message of “leisure”. Different people within the organisations valued the appearance of leisure in different ways. Some saw it as a benefit and a “privilege”: Peter (AP): I think the general idea is that it is something that is positive, you know, that is something that is almost a perk that you can listen to music in the office. This comment suggests that music at work was almost seen as a luxury, and it was not something that people expected in all offices. It is not like finding that an office has no running water, instead it was seen as a privilege and a positive surprise to find that music is allowed. In Fordist work settings (typically factories during the early to midtwentieth century), music at work was sometimes viewed as a “gift” from the management to the workers (Jones & Schumacher, 1992). What is different in modern offices is that it is not the music itself which is viewed as a privilege, or a gift, but the facilities and the opportunities to listen. As was discussed in the theme Welfare of organisation, music was not always seen as a necessity (although some listeners explained it was a necessity for their individual working day). This idea that music is not a necessity feeds into the idea of music as a privilege. If music is seen as a privilege and/or a luxury, it can also symbolise generosity and care by the organisation towards its employees. The presence of music can be understood as recognition that employees are individuals with their own preferences and not just wage slaves. Peter (AP): I suppose because the practice sees itself as a reasonably open minded and creative place, so that sort of thing does offer… does send out quite a strong message that people can do that if they want. They are not just plugged into their CAD-machine to draw buildings, they are here to do something slightly 179 Anneli: Peter (AP): less formal, you know, a bit more creative and the ability to do what they want really, to a certain extent. In that sense. It is not a call centre or something that’s mechanical or, you know, there is a bit more freedom, or more liberal atmosphere to the place. I think that probably does help. It could be used to make a statement about the place as well. Not a formal statement, but at least it adds to the feeling of being relaxed, maybe. Yes, it is almost like some sort of informal business practice, isn’t it? Of what the place is about. Yes. In the same way as you don’t see everybody in a suit and tie, you know. Peter identified many different symbols that the presence of music expressed in the architectural practice: “open minded”, “creative”, “less formal”, “freedom”, “liberal”, “relaxed”. He compared it with wearing a more casual work dress, as opposed to the more formal “suit and tie”. Many of these expressions - less formal, freedom, relaxed, and having a casual work dress - could be interpreted as referring to leisure, in the traditional, industrial sense (in other words, the opposite of work). By allowing employees to listen to music, the company distinguished themselves from that traditional, industrial notion of the term “work”. The other terms Peter used are perhaps not related to leisure, but can be understood as relating to what the organisation wants to be and the kind of values they wish to foster: open mindedness, liberality and creativity. Allowing employees to listen to music at work strengthens all these associations, and can in an implicit way communicate these messages, or values, both to employees and to others outside the organisation. These symbols can also be understood as pointing towards allowing areas of employees’ private and personal habits into work, and a way for the organisation to respect individuality. However, the association between music at work and leisure could also be interpreted in a more negative light - as described by Will, the Personnel Manager at the research institute: Will (RI): Anneli: Well, you see, it’s a bit difficult for me, because I am sort of the old-school type of thing, I suppose. So music was never allowed when I worked, you know, it just wasn’t an issue because people didn’t listen to music. And if they did it was frowned upon, and it would probably have been stopped. But now things are more liberal. I can’t imagine… I wouldn’t be happy with people in personnel listening to music. I would just see it as a distraction, and not very professional, really. That’s my view. You know, everybody sat around with music blaring away, it doesn’t… to me it wouldn’t give the right impression, of what we were about. In your opinion, what kind of impression would it create if people do… 180 Will (RI): Well, probably fairly over-relaxed impression, and probably that they don’t really care. Will also perceived that music could symbolise relaxation, as Peter did, but he felt differently about it. He viewed music at work negatively within his team context of the personnel department; it did not create the right impression of “what we were about”. Whereas Peter saw music as symbolising freedom and creativity, Will perceived that music at work symbolised that the music-listening employees “don’t really care”. Headphone use in particular could create this kind of image, according to Will, where it could be understood as a symbol of unavailability (in that it can send out a message that says “Do not disturb”, as discussed earlier). It is interesting to reflect on why relaxation can be perceived as a lack of concern. If alertness and vigilance are perceived as characteristics of work and working, then the opposite (relaxation) could be interpreted as not working. Interviewees who listened to music at work also felt that in some contexts music could symbolise being unprofessional, and they modified their listening behaviour in these situations. They would for example turn the music off or down when speaking to customers or clients on the phone, as Bethany explained: Bethany (RI): Internal calls I don’t tend to bother because people tend to know me, and I know I will switch it off if it is not appropriate or interfering. External calls I will always switch it off, because there is this sort of professional image to maintain when dealing with customers and stuff. Bethany felt that she needed to appear professional towards external contacts at work, and the presence of music in the background was not seen as professional. Will, the Personnel Manager at the research institute, believed that his opinion had been formed by the organisational culture in which he had worked previously, where music was “frowned upon”. This environment was described by Will as “very strict” and “regimented”, with “lots of rules to follow”. It is easy to imagine that something associated with relaxation would contradict the values and norms of Will’s previous environment. Two more aspects are worth noting in terms of Will’s contextual circumstances. Firstly, the organisational context in which he had worked for all of his life was government employment. It is therefore possible that there exist norms that stipulate a duty to be available to other people as their work is associated with public 181 service, and also perhaps because their work is financed by taxpayers. Secondly, at the time of the interview he worked as a personnel manager. The job role for anyone working within personnel involves dealing with people, and Will felt that music could obstruct the performance of such jobs: Will (RI): I think it’s a view that you should be alert to people. Which you probably can’t be if you are sat there with a pair of headphones on. Just thinking about someone who is data processing, just simply transferring information, maybe they can do that, and nobody would be too worried because they are not so much in a thinking job, if you know what I mean, that requires you to use a lot of mind, just dead routine work, I don’t know. But where you are supposed to be reactive, sort of organising and sorting things out, it just doesn’t seem to fit with me. He felt that reduced auditory awareness contradicted their job roles as personnel staff who have to be “alert to people” and “reactive”. Not being alert and reactive therefore equals being unprofessional in their particular context. As discussed before, being able to relate to the motivations for listening to music at work can shape opinions of the presence of music in the office. Some non-listeners found it difficult to understand why others listened to music at work, whereas others accepted the idea that it was important for some, even though they themselves preferred not to listen. Adam believed that if consultants themselves listened to music while working, they would probably not react negatively to the presence of music in the architectural practice, and the most important thing in the end was the work performance: “as long as they get the work that they want”. This pragmatic approach is similar to the argument about bandwidth made by Benjamin; the priority is the potential impact on the business. Mark, who worked as a sales manager, described how he avoided music listening when writing yearly reports about his staff. Mark argued that this was out of courtesy to his employees, and it seemed to be related to what the presence of music symbolised in the office. He stated that people may remark: Mark (RI): “Well, he is doing it while he is listening to rock music? How can he actually form an opinion? How can he actually phrase stuff? Is he really concentrating on my report?” 182 Those who reacted in this way are likely to be people who were not used to working in the presence of music, but also people who were not satisfied with his report. Just as Adam argued concerning his organisation, if the job gets done then no one is likely to complain. If people are unable to relate to music listening, then the presence of music in the office could symbolise distraction and perhaps being unprofessional. They may also be suspicious towards particular types of music which they believe induce particular kinds of moods (e.g. if Mark listens to what is perceived as sad or depressing music, his staff may fear that he would give them more negative remarks as a result). Thus, if they receive a report that they are not satisfied with, they might use this idea of music as being distracting in order to question the validity of the report. Mark did not want to risk his reports being questioned, and subsequently did not listen to music while doing them. 6.3 Conclusions of external considerations The external demands that listeners had to consider included organisational matters (technology and legality); other people; remaining auditorily aware; and considering the symbolic and influential role of music in an office setting. Views on music at work were characterised by varied perceptions and opinions, and sometimes contradictory discourses. Music at work was seen as a “grey area” between private and public by the interviewees. It was viewed as “personal”, “private” and “leisurerelated”, as evidenced by discourses and behaviour. It was also portrayed as functional and enjoyable. The varied interpretations illustrate music’s ambivalent and changing role in the workplace. They also point towards an idea of music in the office as a blurring of boundaries between work and leisure/private life, a phenomenon which met with different reactions in different situations and by different people. Although music listeners seemed to balance their listening behaviour with external demands very carefully, listening to music was nevertheless perceived as inappropriate for some. Judgments regarding the blurring of boundaries between work and leisure can be understood as emanating from individuals’ ideas of the distinctions between work and private realms, stemming from previous working environments and their wider values and norms. However, ultimately the judgment of music’s presence in the office appeared to be related to potential impact on the organisation, colleagues and the quality of work. 183 Defining boundaries between work and leisure is problematic. Even if we talk about “blurred boundaries”, we still assume that the boundaries exist, although they seem to shift and interact in different situations. Music is particularly difficult to define in relation to work and leisure boundaries, because many employees listen to music while they work. In that sense, it is not directly comparable to “cyberloafing” (D’Abate, 2005), or other activities where employees take a break from a task to engage in some other activity. And, as I have illustrated earlier, some of the motivations for listening can be a direct response to the working environment (e.g., managing interruptions). It is therefore worth considering whether music listening should still be seen as a “leisure” or “personal” activity at work, especially if it takes place as, for example, a means of enhancing productivity through managing the auditory environment. What does one mean by a “leisure” activity at work? If someone is doing a “leisure” activity while working, is the activity still leisure-related – or has it become integrated into the working activity? It is not as clear-cut as putting work aside for a while in order to make a personal phone call during office hours. And even if the music listener sees music as integrated into their working day, there may be others in their immediate surrounding who do not see music as suitable at work (e.g., managers, clients, visitors). Perhaps, then, music at work can be seen as both a work-related activity and a leisure activity, or as a means to bring private habits into a public environment for the purpose of well-being and work performance management. If music has negative consequences at work in some way, then people who do not advocate music listening at work may define it as leisure in order to rationalise why it should not be present in the office. Music has not always had an obvious place in the workplace (Korczynski, 2003), and there are still workplaces today that ban music listening. This can be perceived as negative by employees, perhaps because we now have an understanding of music as a personal and emotional resource (Frith, 2002). This idea is discussed in more depth in next chapter (7). 6.4 Overall conclusions When interviewees talked about music listening in their offices, there was one main process that emerged in nearly all of their comments. This process consisted of an individual having to filter “internal needs” (managing internal/external environments, enjoyment of music) through “external considerations” (e.g. welfare of organisation, 184 welfare of others, auditory awareness). Thus, when people choose to listen to music at work, they engage in a process of balancing and compromising these internal and external aspects. This does not happen automatically just because external demands are present, but is more specifically linked to employees’ awareness of these external factors. I have therefore called this aspect “external considerations”. An important factor is to what extent employees are aware and consider these demands. This process was discovered through the emergence of a high-level theme that I have called “responsible listening”, which can be understood as a manifestation of this balancing process (figure 6.1). External considerations high Responsible listening Internal needs low high low Figure 6.1: Responsible listening When employees are aware of and consider external factors (i.e. when they are high on the external considerations dimension), and also have high levels of internal needs (i.e. individual motivations for listening), they practice responsible listening. But what is considered responsible listening is to some extent subjective. Some individuals may only define a listening behaviour as responsible when a listener is acutely aware of many external factors and takes all of them into account in their listening practices, whereas others may have a lower threshold for their definition. 185 Responsible listening could be practiced in many different ways, depending on what the internal and external aspects were. For example, if one wanted to concentrate, yet needed to remain aware of the office surroundings, then the listening behaviour was carried out in a way that allowed the listener to do so. For some, this meant listening with one earpiece. For others, it meant listening to music with a thin texture, so that other sounds could permeate their musical space, or listening to music on a low volume. If employees wanted to manage their disrupting thoughts during a boring task in a shared space, but still not disturb others, then some listened to radio as it was perceived as more neutral than self-chosen music. No examples of employees with low external considerations and low internal needs were found in this study, and this is discussed in chapter 7, where this model is further developed. Chapter 7 also brings together results from all three studies in this thesis, discusses these in relation to previous literature and outlines the methodological, theoretical and practical implications of this research. 186 7 General conclusions This chapter brings together the conclusions of the thesis, by discussing the empirical work detailed in the four previous chapters with respect to existing literature. A brief summary is presented before considering the main findings thematically. This leads to the presentation of a framework for understanding music listening in office Finally, I consider research deficits, and conclude the thesis with a discussion of practical implications and areas for future research. 7.1 Summary Using a mixed methods approach, this thesis has investigated the role of music in the office for over 300 employees, and has examined the functions of music, current listening practices, contextual influencing factors, and reasons for not listening to music. The methodological procedures for the three studies, which comprise the main body of the thesis, included qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection (chapter 2). I argued in chapter 1 that ecologically valid research was needed, as laboratory research into background music and task performance does not fully encompass the experience of music in offices. No studies to date had explored the patterns of listening in offices in such depth, nor acknowledged the rich social circumstances that shape and influence listening practices in this context. Across all three studies, the findings present a varied picture. Music could be distracting while working, but could also help to manage other distractions in the office environment. Music could be relaxing when employees chose to listen, but annoying when imposed. Even though music was subordinate to work activities, it was nevertheless important in many different situations, for many different reasons. Many of the participants in the research reported that music in the office was very important to them in order to manage the auditory office environment and its distractions, to manage mood and internal thought processes, to accompany tedious work tasks and to inspire them. There were many contextual aspects that were taken into account when employees listened at work (e.g. other people present, potential impact on organisation, demands relating to the job role), and these aspects shaped 187 and modified their listening patterns. The findings contribute to knowledge in that they show the important and multidimensional roles that music can play for employees and in which situations, which highlight the need to consider the workplace as a part of peoples’ everyday lives. In the next section, I consider the wider empirical findings across chapters and in relation to previous research. 7.2 Findings in relation to previous research Although music psychological and music sociological studies have started to explore people’s everyday environments and the role music plays in these (Bull, 2007; DeNora, 2000; Sloboda et al., 2001), the workplace has rarely been studied as a part of people’s everyday environment. This is surprising given the total number of hours that most people spend working each week. Instead, music psychology has often assumed that music listening in everyday life takes place during leisure time, or while travelling (Bull, 2007; DeNora, 2000; Dibben & Williamson, 2006; North et al., 2004). The results in this thesis showed that music is listened to in offices, and that it plays a role in many aspects of employees’ experiences at work, which are discussed in greater detail in the following sections below (7.2.1 and onwards). The results in all three studies illustrate that music preference was varied and selection occurred in many different ways and for many different reasons. Nearly 30 style categories and 311 artists were mentioned in Study 1 (chapter 3), and no particular music styles or artists seemed to be prevalent in the office context. There were no main effects of music listening on mood, work performance or satisfaction measures, in contrast to previous studies by Lesiuk (2005) and Oldham and colleagues (1995). The varied experiences that emerged in the interviews (chapters 5 and 6) also confirmed this finding. Although it seems that one cannot expect to see one major effect of music, this does not mean that the music had no impact on the participants – instead the effects were mediated by factors within the listener, within the recorded music piece, and within the listening situation. In the next sections I particularly consider music’s role in engagement with work, managing well-being, the dynamics of individualisation and collective life, and blurring the boundaries between work and leisure. 188 7.2.1 Engagement with work Study 1 (chapter 3) illustrated that employees listened to music to manage workrelated activities, and that this covered both helping them to engage with their work, and helping them to escape from certain aspects of work activities. Employees who used music to help them engage with work activities commented that it helped to enhance concentration and creativity, which can be understood as accompanying more complex tasks. Those who said music helped them escape from certain aspects of work activities felt that listening helped to avoid boredom and to make time go quicker, which can be thought of as accompanying simpler tasks. The fact that employees listened to music while doing more complex tasks expands on previous research, which had only found that listening to music was suitable when carrying out routine tasks (Fox & Embrey, 1972; Oldham et al., 1995; Wokun, 1969). Study 3 (chapter 5) provided detailed accounts of how employees enhanced their concentration on both complex and simpler tasks with the help of music, by reducing both internal and external distractions (e.g. blocking out unwanted sounds, signalling to colleagues not to disturb, preventing daydreaming and helping to block unwelcome thoughts). Whether employees listened while doing routine tasks or more complex work can be understood in relation to what functions music had for them. A self-reported function found in all three studies was the concept of positive distraction. The finding that distraction could be perceived as positive contradicts previous research which has conceptualised the distracting effect of music as something negative (Cassidy & MacDonald, 2007; Daoussis & McKelvie, 1986; Furnham & Bradley, 1997; Furnham & Strbac, 2002). It appears that music can generate different kinds of distraction. It can be distracting for task performance, but the same music can also provide distraction from thoughts and day dreams: a positive distraction. But can we be sure that positive distraction has no negative impact on performance if there are no “objective” data on work performance but only self-reports? Perhaps employees think they are working just fine because they are happy listening to music, but they could be making mistakes (e.g. in data entry), which they would not necessarily realise. A different research design with performance indicators evaluated by supervisors could help to shed light on this issue. But in terms of listener experience, we can assume 189 that employees are able to tell the differences between positive and negative distraction themselves. All three studies in this thesis indicated that negative distraction (often emanating from imposed music) is accompanied by irritation. Feelings of irritation did not create a pleasant listening experience. The positive distraction, on the other hand, was found to be soothing, stress relieving and inspirational. The amount of time spent listening, and the activities carried out concurrently, depended on the perceived compatibility between music and work. This compatibility could be evaluated on a short-term basis (whether to listen from one moment to the next) or on a long-term basis (whether music should accompany work at all). The individual employee’s view on this compatibility affected whether they perceived music as conducive to concentration or not. Qualitative data in study 2 (chapter 4) and study 3 (chapter 5) illustrated specific factors that could influence the perceived compatibility. Certain background factors could play an important role. Participants who were used to listening to music while working and who disliked silence in general often found music concentration-enhancing. Previous musical training and whether they associated music with leisure could also influence their perceived compatibility. But in the moment of the music listening event, other aspects also influenced their perception of music as either concentration-enhancing or distracting: sense of control, their perceived attention capacity (whether they felt they needed to concentrate or not), surrounding interruptions, familiarity and confidence with the task at hand and task complexity all played a role. In addition, certain elements of the sounding music could be experienced as influencing the levels of concentration. Familiar music with a regular dynamic was perceived as more conducive to concentrating, and some found certain lyrics more distracting. Qualitative data in Study 3 (chapters 5 and 6) illustrated in more detail that external aspects could also influence perceived compatibility (e.g. perceived appropriateness, welfare of others). Study 2 and 3 illustrated the processes of using music to manage and control interruptions in the auditory environment. The private office was seen as a personal space, in which the listener could decide what music to listen to and when, as long as 190 they were on their own. Employees also sometimes transformed their office environment with the help of music. Sometimes they engaged in a process of enlarging and minimising personal space, through the modification of volume. Study 3 (chapter 5) illustrated how some listeners preferred music to other distracting noises in the office, even though they might not have listened to music otherwise, a finding termed the “lesser of two evils” concept. The concept showed how listening patterns and the effects of music can be modified by other contextual aspects. Being able to manage interruptions and unwanted office noise lead to a sense of well-being and improved concentration. The fact that music offers a means to cope with perceived difficulties in office environments (e.g. open-plan offices and shared offices) may be a reason why music is particularly important within this type of workplace. 7.2.2 Managing well-being Across all three studies, listening to music relaxed the participants. Study 1 showed examples of how music could contribute to relaxation: through channeling stress and negative emotions, and through reminding listeners of time and space outside of work. Those who reported listening to classical music at work did not indicate higher levels of relaxation than those listening to other types of music, as might have been expected, which indicates that the music preference, rather than music type, is a major component in the way in which music can contribute to relaxation. The qualitative data from Study 2 (chapter 4) showed that many participants felt that music in the office provided them with a break from work and created space for reflection. Study 3 (chapters 5 and 6) provided more in-depth illustrations of the different ways that music influenced well-being. Homeopathic use of music (to reinforce current mood through listening to music, as discussed on p.148) may be particularly suitable in work environments, where emotions cannot be expressed as readily as in other situations. The findings of all three studies highlight that the participants engaged in health and well-being related behaviours at work, through listening to music. In study 2 (chapter 4), relaxation, enthusiasm, well-being, job satisfaction, work performance, organisational satisfaction and co-worker satisfaction were positively correlated during the music conditions (and some of them interrelated). Stress, anxiety and environmental interference were negatively correlated to mood, work 191 performance and satisfaction variables. Causal directions are unclear in the empirical data, but there are two theoretical reasons why it is plausible to argue that well-being leads to better work performance. Firstly, it is consistent with Isen’s (1999) idea of mild positive mood and its impact on cognition, and secondly, it is consistent with the idea that mild positive mood increases subjective well-being (Diener & Lucas, 2000). This suggestion was confirmed by qualitative data in Study 1 (and also by quantitative data in Study 2), where participants described how increased relaxation could improve their focus and aid creative thinking. There is also another perspective on the way in which music listening can improve well-being. Being able to manage distractions was associated with a sense of relaxation, and having to listen to imposed music and getting distracted was perceived as annoying and stressful. This is consistent with Martí’s (1997) research, in which he sought to find out what were the most annoying sounds in the streets of Barcelona, through mapping complaints to a local newspaper. He found that street musicians, neighbours practising instruments, and recorded music in public spaces (piped music in shops, music coming from radios and stereos) were perceived as the most irritating sounds. Martí argues that there is no real difference between which sounds were perceived as music and which as noise, but that the main characteristic is that the event is out of the listener’s control. Control also permeated the concept of music listening and well-being in all three of my studies. Music provided a sense of control over mood and environments, and this experience was an important aspect of stress relief. Other studies have also found that control is a particularly important aspect of wellbeing. In organisational psychology, it is recognised that control is one of the determinants of well-being at work (Warr, 1999). Furthermore, control has been identified as influential in research on music preference and pain control (Mitchell et al., 2006), and post-operative care (MacDonald, 2006), as well as in studies of music listening and well-being in daily life (Batt-Rawden & DeNora, 2005). In study 1 (chapter 3), employees felt they could choose which music to listen to for 78% of the time they spent listening to music at work, and employees in all three studies reported high levels of choice most of the time. Not having control means potentially experiencing sounds (music, but also other nonmusical sounds) as noise. Office noise can have a negative impact on productivity, 192 reduce job satisfaction, increase dislike for the office environment, and even cause medical symptoms (see review in North & Hargreaves 2008). Office noise also increases stress, and the negative effects are made worse when people believe they have no control over it, or when they are not used to it previously (ibid). It is therefore not surprising to find that employees valued music listening, as it was often used to minimise office noise. But the negative effects of office noise should also be of interest to managers, given that it can produce stress. Work-related stress is related to ill-health (Donald et al., 2005; Smith, 2001) and stress in the workplace can also reduce productivity, in particular when stress manifests itself as a reduction in psychological well-being (Donald et al., 2005). In addition, Oldham and colleagues (1995) have also argued that there is a negative relationship between distractions at work and reported satisfaction with job, colleagues and work team. Given that music gave participants an opportunity to manage unwanted office noise, it is plausible to argue that having this opportunity might also reduce stress and other negative effects of office noise. 7.2.3 The dynamics of individualisation and public responsibility Listening to self-selected, self-directed music in an office-based workplace means engaging in an individual activity in a (more or less) public space. Employees mainly listened to music alone. In other words, they often listened to their own selected music or radio station, and did not often share a listening environment with colleagues (although some did). Listening alone could also mean using headphones in open plan or shared offices. In this sense, listening at work can be understood as individualised, both in terms of its mode of consumption and the many different functions it can have. Music can be seen as a way to create boundaries, define territories and express identity. Lack of opportunities to display personal distinctiveness in offices can undermine self-identity (Baldry, 1997; Elsbach, 2003), and music may therefore be particularly important in open-plan offices as a means for employees to assert their identities. But even though many employees listened alone, the office environment played a very important role for their listening practices. The individualised listening patterns are mediated by a sense of responsibility to the organisation and colleagues. In the studies 193 in chapters 3-6, this dimension manifested itself as a tension between internal (individual) needs and external (public) considerations. Employees who listened at work were aware that their listening patterns could be a problem for other colleagues or for the organisation. They were aware of their social surroundings and tried to avoid imposing music on their colleagues, realising that it could evoke negative feelings. They did this by modifying their listening behaviour, in terms of listening technology, music styles and volume. The etiquette involved an underlying respect for people and their working environment. This could become difficult if someone chose music that the others could not tolerate, and radio was seen as a neutral compromise in these circumstances. If a music listener felt irritated by someone else’s music, they could manage that external distraction through using headphones. If this was not possible, listeners felt that others should let them know if their listening patterns were annoying. This can, however, be difficult as people’s positions within the group may inhibit their responses. A condition for modifying listening behaviour was the presence of other people in the office. It was seen as rude to expect someone to be able to concentrate with potentially unwanted (or at least unchosen) music in the background. The understanding of this aspect among the music listeners is likely to relate to their own experiences of having music imposed on them. Although headphones were generally viewed as a useful strategy to avoid disturbing others, they could cause issues if the listener became very isolated from their social environment. Being isolated could lead to less participation in work-related or casual discussions, which could also inhibit work-related interaction and learning. As a result, employees performed a careful balancing act between their own desires, and what was perceived as appropriate within the context: they listened responsibly. The finding that employees managed interruptions in the office lends support to Bull’s (2007) concept of auditory privacy. However, it is different from Bull’s idea in that employees often strove to maintain some kind of contact with their surroundings. They were aware of the potential issues that could arise from being completely isolated. Therefore, they did not try to create an “aural cocoon” (p.113), as Bull has suggested. Instead, as Beer (2007) argues, listeners “tuned out” the environment with music, rather than completely blocking it out. In offices, their private listening space needs to be permeable by the day-to-day demands of the work environment, and 194 listeners therefore adopt strategies to avoid the isolation from the shared physical space of the workplace that headphone listening might otherwise cause. Study 3 (chapter 6) identified specific aspects of the organisational functioning that certain listening patterns could affect. In particular, listening via the internet was associated with certain risks. IT managers were concerned about the legality of music downloads and the speed of network performance (if the listening technique involved streaming). There were no specific music listening policies in place, and music was often conceptualised as a “grey area” that was associated with IT security policies in general but not subject to its own particular rules. The interviews with the IT managers revealed two different approaches to their staff in terms of music listening: proactive (including audits and scans of employees’ computers) and reactive (including viewing staff as adults able to make sensible choices, not restricting IT use, and solving problems as they arose). These different views can be understood as a set of wider practices within each workplace which reflects organisational norms (Furnham, 2005). 7.2.4 Blurring the boundaries between work and leisure Music listening mainly took place while employees were actually working, and was thus an integrated part of their working day. In terms of music preferences, boundaries between leisure and work were often blurred: music preferences were the same as outside of work (i.e. listeners brought music into and out of work). Technology use was also similar to that of everyday life. In other words, in terms of type of music listened to, and the equipment people used to listen, there were no specific “office routines”. The listening patterns found in the studies are a reflection of the patterns in daily life, and the working environment is a part of that everyday life. This contrasts with the idea of work and leisure as two opposites, developed during the industrialisation period, where work became associated with public and leisure with the private domain, and music became associated with private/leisure (Korczynski, 2007). The growing interest, during the first part of the 1900s, in the idea of increasing productivity through playing background music (see 1.2.1) meant music at work became more commonly accepted. The existence of accounts of self-selected music listening in offices from the first part of the 1900’s (Antrim, 1943; Gatewood, 195 1921) suggests that it is possible that there has been more music at work than researchers have been aware of. Music as representing leisure (or private life) was met with mixed emotions in my studies. Some interpreted music as leisure as a sign of a liberal and positive approach of the company, and felt it represented an attempt by the company to distance itself from a traditional and controlling (Taylorist) approach to the relationship between managers and workers. Others, who viewed work mainly as a drive for efficiency, felt music listening at work signified laziness and unavailability. The fact that music sometimes evokes guilt suggests that there may be clear boundaries between work and leisure, that the existence of music blurs these boundaries, and that some people found this problematic. But sometimes it was not so clear what music actually represented, and different aspects relating to music listening represented different things. Study 2 suggested that music could be seen as both work and leisure, when technology use was analysed. Whereas digital music files and the physical computers that held them were seen as private/leisure, music listening software was seen as belonging to work. This inconsistency in conceptualising music depending on what aspect of music one talks about created confusion among listeners as well as among the management. These contradictory views can be understood in relation to the wider context of the changing nature of work where boundaries between different life realms are becoming increasingly blurred (D’Abate, 2005; Lewis, 2003). If leisure and work are considered as two separate entities (in the industrialised sense), then defining music as leisure at work can be a way to undermine employees’ private habits, by defining music as something that does not belong at work (i.e. music is not compatible with work). But if leisure and work are viewed as more integrated, then music as leisure at work can be viewed as a compliment to work, and as a way to structure and manage the work environment as well as the individual in that environment. Even though the idea of music at work as an example of boundary blurring between work and leisure may appear to be a new development, it is worth noting the historical aspect of the role of music at work (Gregory, 1997; Korczynski, 2003; Thorsén, 1988). Prior to the Western industrial revolution, music and work were not perceived as separate entities. For example, the vast number of work songs (e.g. sea shanties and weaver songs) illustrates that singing was often routinely used for synchronisation of 196 physical movements and for alleviating boredom (ibid). The phenomenon of music in offices may currently be in a transitional period, and can be understood as moving along with changing ideas of work and leisure (from separate entities to more integrated) and the rapid technological developments that have been seen during the last decade. But if music while working is not a new phenomenon, what is new is the opportunity for individualised listening through personal, and sometimes portable, listening devices at work, such as MP3 players. As a private, enjoyable and functional activity, music in offices can be understood as a way to bring private habits into work (ways to manage environments and interruptions, ways to relax, acknowledge and be aware of mood, as a technique for care of self), which is perhaps part of a set of modern requirements for regulating personal well-being in public spaces. 7.2.5 Music selection and preference Study 3 (chapters 5 and 6) illustrated that music selection was influenced by both internal and external aspects. Music selection in the office was an individual process (i.e. individuals selected music according to their personal musical preferences) and the process was often driven by factors such as variation, curiosity and spontaneity. It could also involve taking certain external aspects into account (e.g. trying to comply with colleagues’ preferences). Participants seemed aware of what kind of music best suited their individual goals. Greasley & Lamont (2006) who studied adult music preferences, discussed “conscious awareness of music” (p.965) in relation to mood regulation. The interviewees in the current research also showed a conscious awareness of music, but it was not always related to mood regulation. They were, for example, very conscious of the kind of music that would enable them individually to concentrate, or maintain awareness of surroundings. Thus, it seems that having a conscious awareness of music does not always exclusively relate to mood regulation. There was no evidence in any of the studies for particular “office music”, in the sense of a specific type of music that suited the office context in general. Music styles were varied and in general seemed to follow on from participants’ music preferences outside of work. There was no music that they only listened to in the office, and not at home. However, there was some music that some of the participants chose not to listen to at work. This happened if they tried to achieve something contextually 197 specific, for example considering colleagues or concentrating while doing a particular task. Aspects of the music such as perceived dynamics, texture, volume and familiarity could influence whether or not a participant would listen to that music at a particular point in time. Music selections could be related to mood, but the selections often involved a level of spontaneity and curiosity, rather than organisation and planning. Music was not automatically prioritised in this context; it was instead woven into the demands of their work. 7.2.6 Theoretical perspectives on music, boundaries and territories Control of music and the auditory space emerged in this research as a central aspect. Despite some studies acknowledging that music can evoke irritation and annoyance in certain circumstances (Gabrielsson, 2001; North et al., 2004; Sloboda & O'Neill, 2001), fewer studies have sought to explain what mechanisms may affect our perception of music as “music to our ears” or as simply noise. Below I present some theoretical perspectives that give insight into this important aspect of music listening in work environments. Whereas the distinction between public and private was considered clearly defined during the industrial age, it has become less defined with the transition to an information society (Junestrand et al., 2001). The development of new technologies have interacted with the shifting of boundaries between public and private space, and music listening can be understood as a way to construct private space and mark territories in everyday life. Frith (2002) argues that the use of music to construct a private space has developed through the emergence of radios in homes. Radios were the first technological listening device that started blurring the boundaries between public and private space, by bringing elements of the public into a private realm. This development led to people being able to switch their attention between background and foreground music. People were able to construct a private space within a larger public space through being able to screen out background sounds and focus attention to foreground sounds. Yet, although we are skilled at screening out music in many environments today (in restaurants, shops or at home or in the car with the radio in the background), we can still find imposed music extremely annoying. The reason for this could be understood though our current understanding of music’s effects, according to 198 Frith, which is conceptualised in terms of individual psychology. Frith (2002) suggests that our understanding of the effects of music in modern societies is related to what he calls “the articulation of self” (p.45), and that this understanding of music’s power could help to explain why involuntary listening can be experienced as annoying: It is because music is now used to mark out private territory that it can also ‘invade’ it; it is because music has become so deeply implicated in people’s personas that it can be ‘misused’; and it is because music is now so widely employed as an emotional tool that its misuse is genuinely upsetting. (Frith 2002, p.46) Involuntary listening can create irritation because it is connected to emotional uses of music as well as marking of private space; if a territory can be marked, then it can also be invaded. The idea of music as invading someone’s territory has been discussed in connection to music and oppression. Cloonan & Johnson (2002) have suggested that music-related oppression may be anything from “discomfort which is incidental to the intended function of the music, to the deliberate deployment of music as an instrument of pain” (p.28). In the case of music listening in offices, it appears that most of the annoyance caused is incidental, rather than deliberate. Cloonan & Johnson argues that in today’s modern societies there is “increasingly portable noise in increasingly densely packed spaces” (p.31). This then becomes a potential site for conflicts, as the auditory boundaries are more flexible than visual boundaries: More often, it is sound itself that is used to oppress, to take up public space at the expense of others. Sound thus becomes an invasion of personal space. (p.29) Cloonan & Johnson point out that the key issue is the sense of invasion of personal territory, rather than the loudness of the music per se. Brown and colleagues (2005) have suggested that territoriality in offices is partly connected with the idea of psychological ownership, but only if the object that a person feels psychological ownership for is within a social realm. If so, the person feels a need to construct and communicate the boundaries of the object. It seems that employees working in openplan offices in particular have a desire for privacy and control over their auditory environment in order to work effectively (Ding, 2008). Ding defines privacy as “personal control over interactions and/or communications with others” (p.402). Thus music listening in offices can be seen as a process through which listeners mark their 199 own territories, and respect others’ territories not marked by music. The music listeners’ territories are also respected by non-listeners through acknowledging the “do not disturb” sign. Music listeners in offices appear aware of the power that music in offices can have to both seal off a territory, and invade other territories. By listening in certain ways, irresponsibly for example, the listener lacks civility and therefore burdens others with the burden of their self (Höflich, 2006). By not invading other people’s territories, colleagues are spared interaction with the listener by not having to hear their personally selected music. But why is it so irritating to have your personal space invaded, and why is it seen as bad manners? Duncan (1984) argues that manners can have a reflexive character. Manners can indicate how one wants to be treated oneself. Therefore, Duncan argues that “anger over ill manners of others arises out of the belief that not following our manners is a way of telling us that we are not really important in the eyes of the transgressor” (p.267). Imposing music onto others in an office environment is clearly not seen as appropriate. Thus in considering other people in the office by modifying listening behaviour, employees may communicate to their colleagues that those colleagues are important and respected. If someone feels they are having their own personal space invaded, they may feel as if their music listening colleague does not consider them to be important. Public spaces are often used for information or advertisement, but are also associated with social interaction, rather than personal expression (Eriksson et al., 2007). Using a public space for a private purpose can therefore be seen as anti-social, and an increasing number of rules have been applied to public spaces (for safety and in order to control these spaces) (ibid). Perhaps this may be one of the reasons for why people use personal technologies in public spaces, as a way to avoid the rules, surveillance and imposed control. Disappearing into one’s own world of music in a public space may mean that one can reclaim the sense of control that has been lost. Another perspective on the use of personal technologies in public spaces is that it is a manifestation of the individualisation that has characterised the 20th and early 21st century, in which individuals to an increasing extent have to construct their own lives (Bauman, 2001; Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2001). 200 7.3 A framework for music listening in offices The research reported in this thesis has investigated listening to music in offices from the listeners’ point of view. The results in all three studies have in different ways highlighted the interplay between individual experiences and the context within which the listening experience is situated – the office. A tension emerged between internal needs and external requirements, which is managed on a daily basis. In this section I further explore the model initially presented in chapter 6 and consider the concept of responsible listening as well as the other possible combinations of internal needs and external considerations (figure 7.1). I distinguish four possible behaviours relating to music listening in offices: responsible listening, irresponsible listening, sympathetic occasional listening or non-listening, and unsympathetic non-listening. Firstly, the combination of moderate to high levels of internal needs and awareness of external considerations is located in the top right hand corner of the model: employees displayed the behaviour of “responsible listening”. Participants wanted to listen but were restricted due to external requirements, which they considered and respected. They were aware of external demands and adapted their listening patterns so as to fit in with the demands (e.g. modifying volume, choice of music styles, listening technology). Secondly, if an employee has moderate to high levels of internal needs, but low awareness of external considerations, they are more likely to listen irresponsibly. This may involve listening in such a way that disturbs other colleagues, complicates the organisational functioning (e.g. slowing down networks, breaching copyright laws), or isolates them from colleagues when their auditory awareness is required. Irresponsible listening was perceived as irritating, annoying and disrespectful. Even though few major problems had been experienced by the interviewees or by the IT managers, all interviewees recognised the potentially negative impact that irresponsible listening could have – on colleagues and on the organisations – and this seemed to provide the motivation for engaging in responsible listening behaviour. People engaging in irresponsible listening existed mainly in reports of others’ behaviour in this research, so it is unclear how many employees engage in this type of listening pattern and how widespread it is. 201 External considerations high Responsible occasional listening Sympathetic non-listening Internal needs Responsible listening low high Unsympathetic non-listening Irresponsible listening low Figure 7.1: Two-axis model of self-directed listening in offices Thirdly, employees who have low to moderate levels of internal needs can be understood as occasional listeners, or non-listeners. They may listen occasionally or never, because that suits their work environment and/or personal preferences better. If they also have high levels of awareness of external considerations, they would hypothetically sympathise with listeners in the office. The concept of being aware of external considerations has so far in this research encompassed awareness of ways that listening patterns can affect others. But this could also hypothetically include an awareness of the fact that other employees want/need music at work, which they would understand and/or respect. Finally, employees with lower levels of internal needs would not be inclined to listen to music, so they are likely to be non-listeners. If they also have lower awareness of external considerations, this could lead them to being unsympathetic towards listeners at work. Their lack of awareness may decrease their understanding of the wider working environment and colleagues’ needs and experiences. In other words, they are likely to be non-listeners who find it hard to understand why anyone would want to listen at work. 202 Looking at these four positions in relation to the current research, it is clear that most of the participants in the three studies displayed moderate to high levels of internal needs and high levels of awareness of external considerations. In other words, most of them fitted into the category of responsible listeners. Some spoke about experiences they had had with colleagues who had listened without consideration for others, but none of the participants admitted to listening in an irresponsible way. Other participants had lower levels of internal needs, i.e. they listened only occasionally, often due to the levels of social interaction required in their job role. One participant in Study 2 (chapter 4), Bethany, actually decreased her internal needs during the field study. In the beginning, she had very high levels of internal needs and reported listening to music almost all the time. However, after the field study, she reported being more easily distracted by music and sometimes preferred silence to music, much to her surprise. Some participants stated that they never listened to music at work - for example Craig, who, in contrast to Bethany, increased his internal needs. Other participants who did not listen to music at work (Fiona and Lucy in chapter 4, and Will and Benjamin in chapters 5 and 6) still seemed aware of the fact that some of their colleagues found music conducive in the office. The research did not find anyone who combined low internal needs and low external considerations. The two-axis model (figure 7.1) provides a framework for the experiences of music listening in offices, as experienced by the employees. The framework takes into account the tension between the individual motivations for listening and the contextual aspects in which the listening takes place. The model can be applied to any research into self-directed listening where the research aims to contextualise the listening event, as well as other occurrences of private habits in public settings. The details of the internal needs and external considerations may of course differ from context to context. 7.4 Research deficits This research has been conducted with the aim of meaningfully contributing to academic literature and detailed records have been kept of how the research was carried out, to enable others to replicate the studies. However, there are several limitations with the current research and questions which remain to be addressed. 203 The majority of the sample in all three studies consisted of those who felt that music listening in offices was beneficial for them. They were included because the overall focus was to understand the functions of music for employees in this context. The thesis has therefore not provided an answer to how many people on average listen to music in an office environment. Additional research into this area would provide more evidence about the extent to which music is a part of everyday office work (either through employees listening to music, or through being exposed to music by other colleagues). Nor has this study included many people who regularly find music highly annoying and distracting, and their experiences of music in the workplace are therefore less well understood. The data was collected between 2005 and 2006. Given the speed with which listening technologies and IT software are being developed, the most modern and up to date listening technologies or practices have not been included in this research: for example, the popular programme Spotify had not been released at the time of the data collection, and use of MP3 players may have superseded internet listening. There was also a male bias in the interview study (Chapter 5-6), resulting in a difficulty in generalising the results of this study to both men and women. However, there were no particular gender differences in the other two studies, and the key themes throughout the thesis were found in all three studies, suggesting that the broad interpretations can indeed be generalised, despite the male bias in study 3. In future interview studies, a particular effort to reach female listeners would be advised to address this imbalance. There were some particular limitations to study 2 (chapter 4). It is possible that by having two-week long conditions, confounding factors may have increased in strength. However, by the same token, any effect of the music may have been equally increased. It is also possible that the current study design included too much flexibility, and therefore too little control, which may have weakened the quantitative results. By allowing participants a great amount of freedom (e.g. catch up days and flexible schedules, and their own choice of music), it is possible that the effects of music may have been “drowned” by the number of other factors involved. However, as a researcher, it was a risk I was aware of and wanted to take, because in contrast to some of the previous studies, the study design allowed for high ecological validity as it closely resembled the participants’ normal working weeks. The sample in Study 2 was smaller than initially hoped for and may have led to a Type II error: the lack of 204 main effect could have been due to the small sample and subsequent lack of statistical power. The small sample size was the result of difficulties in finding a large group of volunteers who were prepared to take part in the field study for six weeks whilst working. Some employees were reluctant to take part because they felt that the study would detract from their work objectives and be distracting. This was a worry not only among those who did not usually listen at work, but also among those who listened a lot and feared being without music for two weeks. This highlights some of the issues involved in recruiting employees in real workplaces, and also emphasises the fact that music is a subordinate practice in this context. However, by utilising mixed methods data collection, the initial quantitative findings could be contextualised through analysis of qualitative data, which provided different perspectives on the initial data. And the data from the follow-up interviews suggests that the effects were very individual and varied, so it is likely that the result would have been the same even with a larger sample. 7.5 Practical implications and opportunities for future work There are a number of suggestions for future research, based on the findings and also on the limitations of the current research. An important aspect of considering the implications of this research is evaluating the potential implications it might have for employees, managers and companies. 7.5.1 The benefits of own music control Firstly, managers can benefit from recognising the importance of employees being able to select their own music. As has been discussed throughout this thesis, there are many positive benefits to employees choosing music they like. It was clear that music acted as an aid to manage stress levels (e.g. relaxation, well-being, inspiration) which is beneficial for work performance. Future research could add more medical and neuropsychology-driven perspectives. For example, physiological indices of stress (e.g. cortisol or other hormones) could be measured, in order to further triangulate the research methods. The qualitative aspects of self-regulation of well-being through music, as well as the existence of “learning periods” (Batt-Rawden & DeNora, 2005; Lesiuk, 2005), could also be investigated in studies using diary methodologies. 205 There were few reports of manager-imposed music in offices in this research, which is positive, given the many negative impacts of imposed music (stress, anxiety, irritation, staff conflicts). More common were reports of colleagues listening irresponsibly and imposing music onto colleagues, and this should be of interest to managers in particular, as it can impact individual performance as well as team functioning. The key message is to allow employees to control their auditory environment as much as possible – whether they want to work with music on, or in total silence. The next step forward for researchers may be to move on from classifying employees simply as music listeners or non-music listeners, and to explore the subtleties within employees’ listening behaviour – whether they listen a lot or hardly at all. Future research could, for example, explore in a more in depth way the contextual conditions surrounding whether employees perceive music as distracting or concentration-enhancing (both situational and background factors, as identified in section 5.3.1). More detailed task performance studies could be carried out “in situ”. But the design of such a study needs to take into account the office environment and potentially overriding factors (e.g. the lesser of two evils, positive distraction). 7.5.2 Music access and storage In chapter 6, it was found that the IT staff had concerns about music access in offices, at least regarding digital music listening through computers. IT staff as well as employees felt that the rules and policies relating to music listening at work were vague, and music was often seen as a “grey area”. This lead to considerable confusion about policies on streaming of music, copyright laws and storing of digital music files, both for IT staff and employees. Given that IT managers are legally responsible for the computers and networks within the company and different music software and listening devices are continually being developed, it would be advisable for them to review their policies on music, evaluate their approach and offer advice for their employees. 206 7.5.3 Education and development of policies Music listening and listening patterns are currently being discussed and debated. However, this is mainly happening in internet forums, and company representatives are not usually a part of the debate. There could be scope for education, and the development of a code of practice within the companies and organisations. These discussions would benefit from including balanced accounts of positive and negative aspects of listening in office environments. It would be useful to distinguish irresponsible listening from responsible listening, and make employees aware of the negative effects of imposed music. It may be beneficial to offer non-listening employees the opportunity to try listening to music at work, and for everyone to agree on what is acceptable listening behaviour. This would minimise some of the tension for employees between internal needs and external considerations, and establish a clearly defined framework around music use at work which would minimise any experiences of guilt. There may not be one particular framework or set of policies that work for all companies, but through discussion and reflection, managers and employees can reach an agreement on policies together. The model proposed earlier, along with comments from participants, identified the concept of irresponsible listening behaviour, yet little is known about the occurrence of this behaviour in workplaces. Identifying irresponsible listeners may be a challenge, as simply by labelling a type of behaviour as irresponsible one is suggesting that the behaviour is unwelcome. People may therefore be less likely to want to admit to listening in a way which causes problems for their colleagues and organisation. A redefinition of the term or approaching the issue from some other perspective may be called for in this case. 7.5.4 Other cultures, technologies and work environments This research was carried out in the UK, but other cultures could certainly be investigated. For example, some of the Asian economies (India, China, Japan) who have developed many new “white collar” jobs in office environments could provide interesting opportunities for comparative studies. This could help to shed light on to what extent the ambivalent attitudes towards music as blurring public/private 207 boundaries is a cultural or universal phenomenon. Throughout this study I have been approached by several business managers in offices in India who have been particularly interested in understanding more about the benefits of music at work for work performance. The role of particular listening technologies could also be studied further. The type of technology and the use of them could be explored more extensively, but also their relation to IT security, given that the risks associated with internet-based listening technologies were a particular worry for IT managers. This research found that listening technologies were mainly used individually, although there is evidence that some offices use technologies that allow sharing playlists with colleagues and thus use music to communicate music preferences and aspects of their personal identities (Voida et al., 2006). I have been shown a particular piece of software that was kept on the company’s intranet, and functioned like an online music library. Colleagues were allowed to upload their own CDs and also rate any music in the library. Every Friday afternoon the highest rated music from the library was played through loudspeakers in the office, as a kind of “democratic office playlist”. It is possible that there are other listening technologies that allow sharing and interacting with colleagues, which would be interesting to study from the perspective of organisational satisfaction and coworker satisfaction. Work environments other than offices could also be investigated. Previous research has often focused on industrial workplaces, and a few studies have up until this point studied music in offices. Other high stress work environments, like hospitals, could be investigated further. Could a private space be created within the wider public hospital settings through music listening, which could provide employees with relaxation while they work? Furthermore, very little research has been carried out into the effects of music on employees in the retail sector. The research efforts to date in this area have almost exclusively focused on the effects on customers in retail environments (North & Hargreaves, 2006). The music in some retail environments is imposed, particularly in chain stores (DeNora, 2000), but little is known about how this imposed music is experienced by workers in the stores. One person in Study 1 (chapter 3), who was 208 excluded from the data set as he was a student, also worked part-time in a large UK supermarket. He said: At Christmas we get the same 3 Christmas CDs over and over for the full 9 hour shift… torture!! I’m sure there’s a human rights cruelty issue here... This could provide a starting point for research into how music affects the employees in retail environments. Even though customer behaviour and spending may be the most direct route to finding out about financial benefits or drawbacks in the retail industry, effects on employees may indirectly influence these aspects through customer service behaviour, mood and helpfulness. If music affects employees negatively, there may also be other financial drawbacks, such as high staff turnover costs, low morale and effectiveness, high absenteeism through sickness, and other health issues. Some larger retail chains have their own radio stations that broadcast background music and adverts toward customers. Could these radio broadcasts also be directed toward staff? Could staff interact in some way with the selection of music (e.g. “Staff Top 50” on Friday afternoons)? By considering the beneficial effects of music at work, and minimising the negative ones, music can continue to perform an important role in the everyday lives of employees. 209 References Adorno, T. W. (1976). Introduction to the sociology of music. New York: The Seabury Press Inc. Antrim, D. K. (1943). Music in industry. The Musical Quarterly, XXIX(3), 275-290. AOL. (online). One in five use iPods at work. [accessed 7 August, 2007, from http://lifestyle.aol.co.uk/careers-and-work/one-in-five-use-ipodsat/article/20061030053409990001]. Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes and consequences of job insecurity: a therory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of management journal, 32, 803-829. Attaran, M. (2000). Managing legal liability of the net: a ten step guide for IT managers. Information management and computer security, 8(2), 981-900. Baldry, C. (1997). The social construction of office space. International Labour Review, 136(3), 365-378. Batt-Rawden, K., & DeNora, T. (2005). Music and informal learning in everyday life. Music Education Research, 7(3), 289-304. Bauman, Z. (2001). Consuming life. Journal of Consumer Culture, 1(1), 9-29. Bazeley, P. (2009). Editorial: Integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203-207. BBC. (online). Copying CDs could be made legal. [accessed 19 September, 2009, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7176538.stm] Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2001). Individualization: institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Becker, J. (2001). Anthropological perspectives on emotion and music. In P. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion: theory and research (pp. 135160). New York: Oxford University Press. Beer, D. (2007). Tune out: Music, soundscapes and the urban mise-en-scéne. Information, Communication & Society, 10(6), 846-866. Belojevic, G., Slepcevic, V., & Jakovljevic, B. (2001). Mental performance in noise: the role of introversion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(2), 209-213. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Meredith. Biley, F. C. (2000). The effects on patient well-being of music listening as a nursing intervention: a review of the literature. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 9(5), 668677. Birnholtz, J. P., Gutwin, C., & Hawkey, K. (2007). Privacy in the open: how attention mediates awareness and privacy in open-plan offices. Paper presented at the International ACM Conference on Supporting group work, Sanibel Island, Florida. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Brennan, A., Chugh, J. S., & Kline, T. (2002). Traditional versus open office design: A longitudinal field atudy. Environment and Behavior, 34(3), 279-299. Brooks, L. J., & Bowker, G. (2002). Playing at work: Understanding the future of work practices at the Institute for the Future. Information, Communication & Society, 5(1), 109 -136. Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 577–594. 210 Brown, S., & Theorell, T. (2006). The social uses of background music for personal enhancement. In S. Brown & U. Volgsten (Eds.), Music and manipulation: On the social uses and social control of music (pp. 126-160). New York/Oxford: Berghahn Books. Bull, M. (2000). Sounding out the city. Oxford: Berg. Bull, M. (2007). The auditory privatisation of the workplace Sound moves: iPod culture and urban experience (pp. 108-120). New York: Routledge. Burns, J., Labbé, E., Williams, K., & McCall, J. (1999). Perceived and physiological indicators of relaxation: as different as Mozart and Alice in Chains. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 24(3), 197- 202. Cassidy, G., & MacDonald, R. A. R. (2007). The effect of aggressive and relaxing popular music on the task performance of introverts and extraverts. Psychology of Music, 35(3), 517-537. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2007). Personality and music: Can traits explain how people use music in everyday life? Journal of British Psychology, 98(2), 175–185. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clarke, E. F. (2006). Commentary on Huovinen’s “Varieties of Musicological Empiricism”. Empirical Musicology Review, 1(1), 28-32. Clarke, E. F., & Cook, N. (2004). Empirical Musicology. Aims, methods, prospects. New York: Oxford University Press. Cloonan, M., & Johnson, B. (2002). Killing me softly with his song: an initial investigation into the use of popular music as a tool of oppression. Popular Music, 21(1), 27–39. Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work: a compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. New York: Academic Press Inc. (London) Ltd. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. D’Abate, C. P. (2005). Working hard or hardly working:A study of individuals engaging in personal business on the job. Human Relations, 58(8), 1009–1032. Daoussis, L., & McKelvie, S. J. (1986). Musical preferences and effects of music on a reading comprehension test for extraverts and introverts. Perceptual and motor skills, 62, 283-289. David, C. (2006). The sound of music. Business Express, September, 16-18. Davis, T. R. V. (1984). The influence of the physical environment in offices. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 271-283. DeNora, T. (1999). Music as a technology of the self. Poetics, 27(1), 31-56. DeNora, T. (2000). Music in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeNora, T. (2001). Aesthetic agency and musical practice: new directions in the sociology of music and emotion. In P. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion (pp. 161-180). New York: Oxford University Press. DeNora, T. (2003). After Adorno: rethinking music sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270-283. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage 211 handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed ed., pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dibben, N., & Haake, A.B. (forthcoming). Dibben, N., & Williamson, V. J. (2006). An exploratory survey of in-vehicle music listening. Psychology of Music, 35(4), 571-590. Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2000). Subjective emotional well-being. In M. Lewis, & Haviland-Jones, J.M. (Ed.), Handbook of Emotions (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. Ding, S. (2008). Users’ privacy preferences in open plan offices. Facilities, 26(9/10), 401-417. Donald, I., Taylor, P., Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., & Robertson, S. (2005). Work environments, stress, and productivity: an examination using ASSET. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(4), 409-423. Duncan, H. D. (1984). Communication and the social order. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Elsbach, K. D. (2003). Relating physical environment to self-categorizations: Identity threat and affirmation in a non-territorial office space. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 622-654. Erber, R., Wegner, D. M., & Therriault, N. (1996). On being cool and collected: mood regulation in anticipation of social interaction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(4), 757-766. Eriksson, E., Riisgaard Hansen, T., & Lykke-Olesen, A. (2007, February 15-17). Reclaiming public space - Designing for public interaction with private devices. Paper presented at the Tangible and Embedded Interaction conference, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA. Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 46, 395-417. Fox, J. G. (1971). Background music and industrial efficiency - a review. Applied ergonomics, 2(2), 70-73. Fox, J. G., & Embrey, E. D. (1972). Music - an aid to productivity. Applied ergonomics, 3(4), 202-205. Frith, S. (2002). Music and everyday life. Critical Quarterly, 44(1), 35-48. Furnham, A. (2005). The psychology of behaviour at work. The individual in the organisation. Howe and New York: Psychology Press Taylor & Francis Group. Furnham, A., & Allass, K. (1999). The influence of musical distraction of varying complexity on the cognitive performance of extroverts and introverts. European Journal of Personality, 13(1), 27-38. Furnham, A., & Bradley, A. (1997). Music while you work: the differential distraction of background music on the cognitive test performance of introverts and extraverts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11(5), 445-455. Furnham, A., & Strbac, L. (2002). Music is as distracting as noise: the differential distraction of background music and noise on the cognitive test performance of introverts and extraverts. Ergonomics, 45(3), 203-217. Furnham, A., Trew, S., & Sneade, I. (1999). The distracting effects of vocal and instrumental music on the cognitive test performance of introverts and extraverts. Personality and Individual Differences, 27(2), 381-392. 212 Gabrielsson, A. (2001). Emotions in strong experiences with music. In P. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion: theory and research (pp. 431-449). New York: Oxford University Press. Gardner, H. (1983). De sju intelligenserna (Frames of mind - The theory of multiple intelligences) (3 ed.). Jönköping, Sweden: Brain Books AB. Garreth, R. K., & Danziger, J. N. (2008). On cyberslacking: Workplace status and personal Internet use at work. Cyberpsychology & Behaviour, 11(3), 287-292. Gatewood, E. L. (1921). An experiment in the use of music in an architectural drafting room. Journal of applied psychology, V, 350-358. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Greasley, A. E. (2008). Engagement with music in everyday life: an in-depth study of adults' musical preferences and listening behaviours. PhD thesis, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent. Greasley, A. E., & Lamont, A. M. (2006). Music preferences in adulthood: why do we like the music we do? Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition, Bologna, Italy. Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22. Gregory, A. H. (1997). The roles of music in society: the ethnomusicological perspective. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (Eds.), The social psychology of music (pp. 123-140). New York: Oxford University Press. Hargreaves, D. J., & North, A. C. (1999). The functions of music in everyday life: redefining the social in music psychology. Psychology of Music, 27, 71-83. Henning, R. A., Jacques, P., Kissel, G. V., Sullivan, A. B., & Alteras-Webb, S. M. (1997). Frequent short rest breaks from computer work: effects on productivity and well-being at two field sites. Ergonomics, 40(1), 78-91. Höflich, J. R. (2006). The mobile phone and the dynamic between private and public communication: results of an international exploratory study. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 19(2), 59-68. HSE. (2003). Press-release. [accessed 4 November, 2004, from http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2003/e03111.htm.] Huron, D. (2009, 12-16 August). Why some ethnomusicologists don't like music cognition: Finding common ground in the study of musical minds. Paper presented at the 7th Triennial Conference of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music, Jyväskylä, Finland. Isen, A. M. (1999). Positive affect. In T. Dalgleish, & Power, M. (Ed.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 521-539). Chicester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Jensen, K. L., Arens, E., & Zagreus, L. (2005). Acoustical quality in office workstations, as assessed by occupant surveys. Paper presented at the Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, Chine. Johnson, B. R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. Johnson, B. R., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. Jones, S., & Schumacher, T. (1992). Muzak: On functional music and power. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 9, 156-169. Jorgensen, H. (1989). Musikopplevelsens psykologi. Oslo: Norsk Musikforlag A/S. 213 Junestrand, S., Keijer, U., & Tollmar, K. (2001). Private and public digital domestic spaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Science, 54(5), 753-778. Juslin, P. N., & Laukka, P. (2004). Expression, perception, and induction or musical emotion: A review and a questionnaire of everyday listening. Journal of New Music Research, 33(3), 217-238. Kahneman, D. (1973). Arousal and attention. In D. Kahneman (Ed.), Attention and effort (pp. 28-49). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Kallinen, K. (2002). Reading news from a pocket computer in a distracting environment: effects of the tempo of background music. Computers in Human Behaviour, 18(5), 537-551. Kaplan, L., & Nettel, R. (1948). Music in industry. Biology and human affairs, 13, 129-135. Kiger, D. M. (1989). Effects of music information load on a reading comprehension task. Perceptual and motor skills, 69, 531-534. Konecni, V. J. (1982). Social interaction and musical preferences. In D. Deutsch (Ed.), The psychology of music: Academic Press, Inc. Korczynski, M. (2003). Music at work: towards a historical overview. Folk Music Journal, 8(3), 314-334. Korczynski, M. (2007). Music and meaning on the factory floor. Work and occupations, 34(3), 253-289. Korczynski, M., & Jones, K. (2006). Instrumental music? The social origins of broadcast music in British factories. Popular Music, 25(2), 145–164. Korczynski, M., Robertson, E., Pickering, M., & Jones, K. (2005). 'We sang ourselves through that war': women, music and factory work in world war two. Labour History Review, 70(2), 185-214. Lanza, J. (1994). Elevator music: a surreal history of Muzak, easy-listening and other moodsong. New York: St. Martin's Press. Leather, P., Beale, D., & Sullivan, L. (2003). Noise, psychosocial stress and their interaction in the workplace. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 213222. LeCompte, D. C., Neely, C. B., & Wilson, J. R. (1997). Irrelevant speech and irrelevant tones: The relative importance of speech to the irrelevant speech effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23(2), 472-483. Lesiuk, T. (2005). The effect of music listening on work performance. Psychology of Music, 33(2), 173-191. Lewis, S. (2003). The integration of paid work and the rest of life. Is post-industrial work the new leisure? Leisure Studies, 22(4), 343-345. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. MacDonald, R. (2006). An investigation of the effects of post-operative music listening in hospital settings. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition, University of Bologna, Italy, 22-26 August. Marcus, L. (2008, 7 July). Desk jockeys, Guardian, pp. 1-2. [also available on http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/jul/07/workandcareers] Martí, J. (1997). When music becomes noise: sound and music that people in Barcelona hear but don't want to listen to. World of Music, 39(2), 9-17. Martin, L. L., & Davies, B. (1998). Beyond hedonism and associationism: A configural view of the role of affect in evaluation, processing and selfregulation. Motivation and emotion, 22(1), 33-51. 214 McGee, W., & Gardner, J. E. (1949). Music in a complex industrial job. Personnel psychology, 2, 405-417. McLean, L., Tingley, M., Scott, R. N., & Rickards, J. (2001). Computer terminal work and the benefit of microbreaks. Applied ergonomics, 32, 225-237. Miller, S., & Weckert, J. (2000). Privacy, the workplace and the Internet. Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 255–265. Mitchell, L. A., MacDonald, R. A. R., & Brodie, E. E. (2006). A comparison of the effects of preferred music, arithmetic and humour on cold pressor pain. European Journal of Pain, 10(4), 343-351. NationalStatistics. (2006). Standard Occupational Classification 2000. [accessed 18 May, 2006, from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/methods_quality/ns_sec/soc2000.asp NationalStatisticsNomis. (2006). Census data 2001 for England. [accessed 25 May, 2006, from http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/ North, A., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2006). Music in business environments. In S. Brown & U. Volgsten (Eds.), Music and manipulation (pp. 103-125). New York: Berghahn Books. North, A., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2008). The social and applied psychology of music. New York: Oxford University Press. North, A., Hargreaves, D. J., & Hargreaves, J. J. (2004). Uses of music in everyday life. Music perception, 22(1), 41-77. Oldham, G. R., Cummings, A., Mischel, L. J., Schmidtke, J. M., & Zhou, J. (1995). Listen while you work? Quasi-experimental relations between personal-stereo headset use and employee work response. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 547-564. OPSI. (online). Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. [accessed 27 October, 2009, from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1]. Oravec, J. A. (2002). Constructive approaches to internet recreation in the workplace. Communications of the ACM, 45(1). Parente, J. A. (1976). Music preference as a factor of music distraction. Perceptual and motor skills, 43, 337-338. PRS (2008, 18 December). [Personal communication]. Ransdell, S. E., & Gilroy, L. (2001). The effect of background music on word processing. Computers in Human Behaviour, 17(2), 141-148. Roberts, J. (1983). Playing at work. Leisure Studies, 2(2), 217-230. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research - a resource for social scientists and practitioners-researchers (Second ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Ruud, E. (1997). Music and the quality of life. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 6(2), 86-97. Saarikallio, S., & Erkkilä, J. (2007). The role of music in adolescents' mood regulation. Psychology of Music, 35(1), 91-112. Salamé, P., & Baddeley, A. (1989). Effects of background music on phonological short-term memory. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 41a, 1826. Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: a brief version of Goldberg's unipolar big-five markers. Journal of personality assessment, 63(3), 506-516. Scherer, K. R., & Zentner, M. R. (2001). Emotional effects of music: production rules. In P. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion: theory and research (pp. 361-392). New York: Oxford University Press. 215 Siau, K., Nah, F. F.-H., & Teng, L. (2002). Acceptable internet use policy. Communications of the ACM, 45(1), 75-79. Simmers, C. (2002). Aligning Internet usage with business priorities. Communications of the ACM, 45(1), 71-74. Sloboda, J. A. (2000). Music and worship: A psychologist's perspective. In J. Astley, T. Hone & M. Savage (Eds.), Creative chords: Studies in music, theology and Christian formation (pp. 110-125). Leonminster, U.K.: Gracewing. Sloboda, J. A., & Juslin, P. N. (2001). Psychological perspectives on music and emotion. In P. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion: theory and research. New York: Oxford University Press. Sloboda, J. A., & O'Neill, S. A. (2001). Emotions in everyday listening to music. In P. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion: theory and research (pp. 415-429). New York: Oxford University Press. Sloboda, J. A., O'Neill, S. A., & Ivaldi, A. (2001). Functions of music in everyday life: an exploratory study using the experience sampling method. Musica Scientiae, V(1), 9-32. Smith, W. A. S. (1961). Effects of industrial music in a work situation requiring complex mental activity. Psychological reports, 8, 159-162. Sogin, D. W. (1988). Effects of three different musical styles of background music on coding by college-age students. Perceptual and motor skills, 67, 275-280. Spherion. (online). Spherion survey: Workers say listening to music while working improves job satisfaction, productivity. [accessed 20 August, 2007, from http://www.spherion.com/press/releases/2006/IPod_at_Work_Snapshot.jsp]. Théberge, P. (2001). 'Plugged in': technology and popular music. In S. Frith, W. Straw & J. Street (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to pop and rock (pp. 3-25). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, W. F., Schellenberg, G. E., & Husain, G. (2001). Arousal, mood, and the Mozart effect. Psychological Science, 12(3), 248-251. Thorsén, S. (1985). Musik på en fabrik. En intervjuundersökning om musik, arbete och fritid. (Music in a factory. An interview study about music, work and leisure). University of Gothenburg: Department of Cultural Sciences. Thorsén, S. (1987). Från spinnvisor till P3-musik: en historisk diskussion av arbetsmusikens funktioner (From spin melodies to P3 music: a historical discussion of the functions of music at work). Svensk tidskrift för musikforskning (Swedish journal for music research), 7-36. Thorsén, S. (1988). Music at work - A musicosociological analysis. Paper presented at the Musiosociological Conference, Gothenburg, April. Thorsén, S. (1989). Music och arbete: Slutrapport for projektet Bakgrundsmusik i arbete och fritid (Music and work: End report for the project Background music at work and in leisure) (pp. 1-83). Gothenburg: Musicology Department. Uhrbrock, R. S. (1961). Music on the job: its influence on worker morale and production. Personnel psychology, 14, 9-38. van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviour: evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of management journal, 41, 108-119. van Meel, J., & Vos, P. (2001). Funky offices: Reflections on office design in the ‘new economy’. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 3(4), 322–334. Voida, A., Grinter, R. E., & Ducheneaut, N. (2006). Social practices around iTunes. In K. O'Hara & B. Brown (Eds.), Consuming music together: Social and 216 collaborative aspects of music consumption technologies (pp. 57-83). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Voida, A., Grinter, R. E., Ducheneaut, N., Edwards, W. K., & Newman, M. W. (2005). Listening In: Practices surrounding iTunes music sharing. Paper presented at the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland; OR; USA. Warr, P. (1999). Well-being and the workplace. In D. Kahneman, Diener, E., & Schwartz, N. (Ed.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 392-412). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Withman, M. E. (2003). Enemy at the gate: Threats to information security. Communications of the ACM, 46(8), 91-95. Wokun, W. (1969). Music for working. Science journal, 5a, 55-59. Wyatt, S., & Langdon, J. N. (1937). Fatigue and boredom in repetitive work. Industrial Health Research Board report No. 77. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. [accessed 4 February, 2005, from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Yerkes/Law/]. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459-482. 217 Appendix 1 The online survey (chapter 3). 1. To what occupation category do you belong? Teaching and research professionals Protective service occupations (for ex police, fire fighters, prison service assistants, NCO’s) Health and social welfare associate professionals (for ex nurses, midwives, dentists, therapists, youth workers, housing officers) Business and public service associate professionals (for ex pilots, train drivers, finance related professionals, sales/buyers, health officers, Corporate managers Administrative occupations (clerks, admin assistants, telephonists, credit controllers) Other, please specify ____________________________ 2. 3. Do you mainly work in a computer-based office environment? yes no What is your current occupation title? _________________________________ 4. Tell me about your workplace. Do you mainly work (please tick only ONE alternative): In a shared room__ On the road__ In an open office environment__ Other (please specify)______________________ In a private room__ From home__ 5. How stressful to do find your job generally (please tick only ONE alternative)? Mildly stressful Moderately stressful Very stressful Extremely stressful Not stressful at all 6. Can you describe what ‘stress’ is for you? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7. Do you ever listen to music while working? (This can include times outside a physical workplace, for example whilst driving) Yes If Yes, continue on to question 8. If No, what are the main reasons for you not listening to any music at work? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………… If you answered No to question 7, move directly to question 18 now. No 218 8. Thinking about your working week, approximately how much do you listen to music on a scale from 0 to 100 (i.e. for what percentage of your working week)? _______ (Only numbers may be entered in this field) 9. What type of music do you prefer to listen to in your workplace? Please be as specific as possible, i.e. examples of artists/bands/radio stations. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10. What functions do you believe it has for you? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11. What are you usually doing at the same time as listening to music at work? (Indicate on a scale from 0 = Never to 4 = Always) Doing word processing tasks Doing graphical tasks Doing numerical tasks Taking a break/relaxing Talking to colleagues Talking to others Surfing internet/e-mailing Driving/travelling Doing routine tasks Other, please specify ____________________________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 12. When you listen to music at work, what functions do you think it has for you? Indicate your agreement with the following statements (on a scale from 0 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree): Helps you relax Improves your mood Improves your focus Makes you less bored Distracts you from unwanted thoughts Blocks out surrounding noise Makes you less tired Makes you happier Helps your creative flow Inspires/stimulates you Provides a different perspective Helps you pace your work Creates a suitable atmosphere Other, please specify____________________________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 219 13. Who are you with when you listen to music at work? (Indicate on a scale from 0 = Never to 4 = Always): Alone (can also be private listening in an open office/public space) With colleagues Other, please specify____________________________ 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 14. How do you listen to music when you are at work? (Indicate on a scale from 0 = Never to 4 = Always): 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 CD-player (portable or stereo) CD-player (computer) CD-player (car) Internet Mp3/iPod player Radio Public loudspeakers Walkman (cassette tape) Other, please specify____________________________ 15. How often do you choose what to listen to when you listen to music at work? (Indicate on a scale from 0 = Never to 100 = Always): ______ (Only numbers may be entered in this field) 16. Do you use head phones when you listen to music at work? No____ Yes, on a scale from 0 to 100, I use head phones______ 17. Are there any reasons why you wouldn’t listen to music in the workplace? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………… 18. To which age group do you belong? 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 19. Are you: female male 20. Please write below any additional information or comments that you would like to add in relation to music listening in the workplace …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 220 Appendix 2 Invitation e-mail for online survey (chapter 3) Do you listen to music at work? Does music help you at work in some way, if so – how? Take the opportunity to participate in an exciting new survey about music listening in the workplace! When you have completed the survey, feel free to forward to friends, colleagues or relatives who are in employment to ensure we gain maximum exposure at this important time. If each of your contacts then forward to other contacts (and so on), it will help us to reach enough people to capture a robust sample. Your help and support will be greatly appreciated. The survey is available on: http://music.dept.shef.ac.uk/musiclistening This survey explores the functions of music listening at work. This research forms part of a project investigating the effects of music listening in work, carried out at the Department of Music, University of Sheffield. All information you give will be treated in confidence, and reported anonymously in any publications arising from the study. The survey takes 10 minutes to complete. You can later in the spring 2006 go to the following webpage to view a summary of the results: http://www.shef.ac.uk/music/staff/ndibben/workmusic.html (the page is not active at the moment) If you have further questions about this survey, or want further information about the project, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with Anneli Beronius Haake (mup04amb@sheffield.ac.uk). I look forward to your participation! Anneli Beronius Haake Project leader/PhD student Department of music University of Sheffield Safety note: This survey does NOT: - Install any ActiveX components or other software programs - Use cookies The survey is anonymous and does not store any information about who has filled in the survey. The system used for this survey is PHP Surveyor http://www.phpsurveyor.org/ 221 Appendix 3 Participant information sheet (used in the survey study (chapter 3), but was also adapted for the field study (chapter 4) and the interview study (chapter 5)). Music listening in the workplace You are being invited to take part in a research project. Before you decide it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. Ask us if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. Take time to decide whether or not you wish to take part. Thank you for reading this. What is the purpose of the project? This survey explores how people use music listening at work and what the functions are in their daily lives. The project, in which the survey is included in, is carried out at the Department of Music, University of Sheffield and will finish earliest spring 2006. I aim to contribute to deeper understanding of how music listening is used in workplaces and what the underlying processes are. Why have I been chosen? The study includes participants across many different occupational categories. Do I have to take part? It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part. Refusal to take part will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you decide to take part you are still free to withdraw any time, without penalty or loss of benefits, and without giving a reason. What will happen to me if I take part? This study involves one survey including questions about music listening in your workplace. You will answer the questions in the survey and then submit the survey. The project, in which the survey will be included, will be completed during spring 2006 at the earliest. If you take part, your responsibilities are to fill in the survey online. What do I have to do? There are no lifestyle restrictions as a result of participating. What are the possible disadvantages and risks of taking part? There are no risks of taking part in this project. What are the possible benefits of taking part? Currently there are no studies of people’s music listening habits in workplaces. The working environment has been subject to many studies, for example lighting, heating, desk heights etc. However, the auditory environment has seldom been investigated. This study is one of the first ever to focus on the music listening habits of the employees and the role it plays in their workplaces. Whilst there are no immediate benefits for those people participating in the project, it is hoped that this survey will provide valuable knowledge about the roles that music plays in the workplace. What if something goes wrong? If there is a problem that neither I nor my supervisor can help you to solve, complaints will be handled by the University’s Registrar and Secretary, which is the designated official person at the University responsible for receiving complaints brought against the University. Registrar & Secretary University of Sheffield Firth Court, Western Bank Sheffield 222 S10 2TN Tel: (0114) 222 1101 Will my taking part in this project be kept confidential? All information which is collected about you during the course of the research will be kept strictly confidential. Any information about you which is disseminated will have your name and address removed so that you cannot be recognised from it. What will happen to the results of the research project? The results will be published in academic journals after the completion of the project. Data collected during the course of the project might be used for additional or subsequent research. You will not be identified in any report/publication. Copies of the results can be obtained through contacting University of Sheffield, Music Department, tel: , http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/music Who is organising and funding the research? The research is organised through the University of Sheffield, Department of music. The research is partly sponsored through the Academic Division, Graduate Research Office, University of Sheffield and Arts and Humanities Research Council. Who has reviewed the project? This project has been reviewed through the Departmental Ethics Review Procedure, in which the project has been assessed according to the University Research Ethics Regulations. Contact for further information Project leader: Anneli Beronius Haake University of Sheffield Department of Music 38 Taptonville Road SHEFFIELD S10 5BR UK Ph: E-mail: mup04amb@sheffield.ac.uk Supervisor: Dr Nicola Dibben University of Sheffield Department of Music 38 Taptonville Road SHEFFIELD S10 5BR UK Ph: E-mail: n.j.dibben@sheffield.ac.uk Thank you for reading this information. I look forward to your participation! 223 Appendix 4 List of all music styles listened to in the office, as reported by respondents in the survey study (chapter 3). (Missing cumulative % is due to some respondents only reporting radio stations as their preference) % of total amount of participants (N = 295) No of times mentioned 52 37 25 24 16 13 11 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 17.60% 12.50% 8.50% 8.10% 5.40% 4.40% 3.70% 2.40% 2.40% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 1.40% 1.40% 1.40% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% Cumulative % Music styles Classical (incl. baroque, choral, chamber, opera renaissance, romantic) Rock (incl. grunge, progressive, ballads, 60s, 70s, 80s, post) Pop (incl. chart, guitar, British invasion, 60s, 70s, 80s, electro, compilations) Indie (incl. Brit, rock, guitar based) Dance (incl. electronic, trance, 70s, compilations) Easy Listening Jazz Funk Soul Time periods (e.g. 60s, 70s, 80s not mentioned in relation to a music style) Country (incl. Americana) Folk (incl. Folktronica) Metal (incl. new metal, heavy metal) World music (incl. Greek, African, Buddhist chant) Hip hop Reggae (incl. roots, dub) Soundtracks Ambient Blues Punk (incl. Ska) Chill-out House R&b Singer/songwriter Early music (incl. vocal/choral) Military Rap Seasonal Techno 17.60% 30.10% 38.60% 46.70% 52.10% 56.50% 60.20% 62.60% 65.00% 67.00% 69.00% 71.00% 73.00% 75.00% 76.40% 77.80% 79.20% 80.20% 81.20% 82.20% 82.90% 83.60% 84.30% 85.00% 85.30% 85.60% 85.90% 86.20% 86.50% 224 Appendix 5 List of all music artists A-Z listened to in the office, as reported by respondents in the survey study (chapter 3). No of times mentioned 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 1 2 1 1 % of total amount of participants (N = 295) 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 1.00% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 3.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 1.00% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 2.70% 0.30% 1.00% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 1.00% 1.40% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% No of times mentioned 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 % of total amount of participants (N = 295) 0.30% 1.00% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 1.00% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 1.40% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 2.00% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% All music artists A Perfect Circle Abba Abdullah Ibraham Adam Beyer Aerosmith AFI Air Al Green Alain Souchon Albinoni Album Leaf Alice Cooper Alter Ego Andreas Scholl Annie Mac Anthony and the Johnsons Arch Enemy Arctic Monkeys Arnold Audioslave Babyface Babyshambles Bach Badly drawn boy Barber Bartok BB King Be Bop Deluxe Beach Boys Beatles Beautiful South Beethoven Beta Band Black Eyed Peas Blink 182 Bloc Party Blondie Blue Oyster Cult Boards of Canada Bob Dylan Bon Jovi, Brahms Breeders Bryan Adams All music artists Kruder & Dorfmeister KT Tunstall Kylie Larry Coryell Lasgo LCD Soundsystem Led Zeppelin Lemon Jelly Leonard Cohen Less Than Jake Lindstrom Linkin' Park Liszt Lou Reed Louis Armstrong Low Fidelity Allstars Macy Gray Madonna Magic Numbers Magnum Mahler Porcupine Tree Manic Street Preachers Manu Chau Marillion Mark Hollis Maroon Five Martin Sexton Martinu Marvin Gaye Megadeth Mercury Rev Metal Fingers Metallica Michael Chance Morbid Angel Morcheeba Morrissey Motley Crue Mozart Mylo Napalm Death Nat King Cole Neil Young 225 Buena Vista Social Club Calico Cara Dillon Carcass Cardigans Carl Craig Cat Power Celine Dion Charles Daniels Chemical Brothers Chris Rea Christina Aguilera Clannad Cocteau twins Coldcut ColdPlay Common Corelli Damien Rice Daniel Beddingfield Daniel Powter Danny Rampling Darkness Dave Matthews David Bowie David Gilmore David Gray Dead 60's Death Deep Dish Def Leppard Deftones Deicide Depeche Mode Depth Charge Derrick May Dido Dixie Chicks, DJ Shadow Doves Dvoark Editors Eels Elbow Elgar Eliza Carthy Elton John Embrace Enigma Enya 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 1.00% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 2.40% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 1.40% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% New Model Army New Order Nick Cave Nick Drake Nickel Creek Nina Simone Nine Inch Nails Nirvana Norah Jones Oasis Obituary Ocean Colour Scene Offspring OMD Ordinary Boys Otis Redding Paradise Lost Patrick Doyle Paul Brady Paul Weller Pearl Jam Pestilence Pete Tong Peter Gabriel Peter Harvey Phil Collins Philip Glass Pink Floyd Pixies PJ Harvey Placebo Plaid Portishead Presidents of the United States of America Pretenders Prince Prodigy Prokofiev Python Lee Jackson Queen Queens of the Stone Age Rachel Stevens Radiohead Rage Against the Machine Rammstein Rancid Ray Charles Red Hot Chilli Peppers Reel Big Fish REM 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 6 2 2 1 2 5 1 4 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.70% 0.30% 1.00% 1.00% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 1.40% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 1.00% 0.70% 0.30% 2.00% 0.70% 0.70% 0.30% 0.70% 1.70% 0.30% 1.40% 226 Eric Clapton Faith No More Faithless Farnon Fat Freddy's Drop Flaming Lips Foo Fighters Fountains of Wayne, Fourtet Frank Sinatra Fun Lovin’ Criminals Funeral For A Friend G4 Genesis George Jones Geri Halliwell Girls Aloud Gorillas Groove Armada Guns’n Roses Gwen Stefani Handel Happy Mondays Hard-fi Hed Kandi Human League Ian Brown Ill Divo Jack Johnson James Blunt Jamie Cullum Jamiroquai Jan Garabek Janis Joplin John Butler Trio John Coltrane John Dowland John Martyn John Williams Johnny Cash Johnny Lang Johnny Lee Hooker Jools Holland and His R&B Orchestra Jose Gonzalez Joss Stone Joy Division Jurassic 5 Kaiser Chiefs Kansas Kate Bush Kate Rusby 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 8 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 7 1 3 1 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 1.70% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 1.40% 2.70% 1.00% 1.00% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 1.00% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 2.40% 0.30% 1.00% 0.30% Rimsky-Korsakov Roisin Murphy Rolling Stones Royksopp Ryan Adams Salif Keita Sandi Thorn Santana Sara Machlaghlin Savage Garden Schubert Scissor Sisters Sentenced Seth Lakeman Shostakovich Sigur Ros Simon & Garfunkel Simply Red Smashing Pumpkins Smetana Smiths Snow Patrol Son House Spice Girls Spritualized Starsailor Status Quo Stereophonics Stevie Wonder Sting Stone Roses Sufjan Stevens Sugarbabes System of a Down Tears for Fears The Charlatans The Eagles The Fall The Go Team The Kinks The Radio Dept The Roots The Streets The Strokes The Verve Tokyo Adventures Tori Amos Tracy Chapman Trentemoller U2 Unkle 1 1 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 0.30% 0.30% 1.40% 1.00% 1.00% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 1.00% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 1.40% 0.70% 0.70% 1.40% 0.70% 1.00% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 1.70% 0.30% 227 Katie Melua Keane Kelly Clarkson Kenny G Killers King Crimson. King Tubby, Kinobe KLF Korn 1 6 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0.30% 2.00% 0.70% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% Van Halen Vivaldi Walton Waylon Jennings Ween Weezer Westlife Wheatus Will Young William Byrd Yes 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 228 Appendix 6 List of all radio stations listened to in the office, as reported by respondents in the survey study (chapter 3). Number of times mentioned 47 27 13 10 9 8 7 5 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 % of total amount of participants (N = 295) 15.93% 9.15% 4.41% 3.39% 3.05% 2.71% 2.37% 1.69% 1.36% 1.36% 1.36% 1.36% 1.02% 0.68% 0.68% 0.68% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34% Radio stations BBC Radio 1 BBC Radio 2 Hallam FM BBC Radio 4 Virgin Classic FM BBC 6 Music XFM 96 trent fm BBC radio 5 Galaxy Real Radio Radio Sheffield BBC radio 7 Heart.fm Launch.co.uk 991hitsfm.com BBC Hereford and Worcester BBC World Service Broadland 102.4 FM capital fm Coast to Coast AM di.fm/chillout/ Jazz FM KEXP.org KMFM Magic 105 Megarock radio NDR2 NME.com NPR Prank Radio Samurai FM Shoutcast.com signal 1 Vibe vocm.com Woxy.com www.lyricfm.ie 229 Appendix 7 Correlation matrix of activities, functions, job stress and weekly listening time (listwise N=225) **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Activities 1 1. Surfing internet/emailing 2. Driving/travelling 3. Talking to others 4. Doing routine tasks 5. Doing graphical tasks 6. Talking to colleagues 7. Doing numerical tasks 8. Doing word processing tasks 9. Taking a break/relaxing 10. Creates a suitable atmosphere 11. Pace work 12. Relaxation 13. Affect 14 Concentration 15. Creativity 16. Energy 17. Job stress 18. Weekly listening 1 0.18** 0.23** 0.43** 0.27** 0.23** 0.33** 0.43** 0.37** 0.30** 0.28** 0.21** 0.25** 0.13* 0.33** 0.19** -0.13 0.31** 0.07 0.15* 0.11 0.13 0.07 0.05 0.44** 0.18** 0.08 0.22** 0.18** 0.11 0.17* 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.15* 0.74** 0.25** 0.14* 0.14* 0.10 0.19** 0.01 0.02 -0.05 0.11 0.11 -0.07 0.42** 0.09 0.21** 0.38** 0.11 0.33** 0.29** 0.08 0.18** 0.25** 0.31** 0.24** -0.08 0.39** 2 0.18** 1 3 0.23** 0.07 1 4 0.43** 0.15* 0.10 1 0.26** 0.13 0.49** 0.23** 0.11 0.14* 0.21** 0.05 0.04 0.14* 0.19** 0.14* 0.06 0.22** 5 0.27** 0.11 0.15* 0.26** 1 6 0.23** 0.13 0.74** 0.09 0.13 1 0.22** 0.12 0.19** 0.06 0.18** 0.05 0.08 -0.07 0.14* 0.18** -0.10 0.32** 7 0.33** 0.07 0.25** 0.21** 0.49** 0.22** 1 0.44** 0.08 0.08 0.23** 0.01 0.08 0.23** 0.24** 0.09 0.03 0.37** 8 0.43** 0.05 0.14* 0.38** 0.23** 0.12 0.44** 1 0.06 0.29** 0.28** 0.17** 0.18** 0.30** 0.22** 0.13 0.08 0.37** 9 0.37** 0.44** 0.14* 0.11 0.11 0.19** 0.08 0.06 1 0.16* 0.12 0.19** 0.22** 0.00 0.27** 0.19** -0.11 0.07 10 0.30** 0.18** 0.10 0.33** 0.14* 0.06 0.08 0.29** 0.16* 1 0.49** 0.41** 0.40** 0.35** 0.53** 0.34** -0.07 0.23** 11 0.28** 0.08 0.19* 0.29** 0.21** 0.18** 0.23** 0.28** 0.12 0.49** 1 0.22** 0.28** 0.38** 0.52** 0.41** -0.05 0.25** 12 0.21** 0.22** 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.17** 0.19** 0.41** 0.22** 1 0.71** 0.41** 0.41** 0.45** 0.06 0.10 Functions 13 0.25** 0.18** 0.02 0.18** 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.18** 0.22** 0.40** 0.28** 0.71** 1 0.43** 0.55** 0.59** 0.06 0.09 14 0.13* 0.11 -0.05 0.25** 0.14* -0.07 0.23** 0.30** 0.00 0.35** 0.38** 0.41** 0.43** 1 0.48** 0.50** 0.11 0.20** 15 0.33** 0.17* 0.11 0.31** 0.19** 0.14* 0.24** 0.22** 0.27** 0.53** 0.52** 0.41** 0.55** 0.48** 1 0.51** -0.01 0.22** 16 0.19** 0.10 0.11 0.24** 0.14* 0.18** 0.09 0.13 0.19** 0.34** 0.41** 0.45** 0.59** 0.50** 0.51** 1 -0.03 0.18** 17 -0.13 0.04 -0.07 -0.08 0.06 -0.10 0.03 0.08 -0.11 -0.07 -0.05 0.06 0.06 0.11 -0.01 -0.03 1 -0.04 18 0.31** 0.05 0.42** 0.39** 0.22** 0.32** 0.37** 0.37** 0.07 0.23** 0.25** 0.10 0.09 0.20** 0.22** 0.18** -0.04 1 230 Appendix 8 Invitation to the field study (chapter 4). Invitation to participate in a research study about music listening in the workplace in xxxxx – January-February 2007. I am a PhD student at the Department of Music, University of Sheffield, doing research on music listening in the workplace. I am now looking for volunteers for an experiment in xxxxx. Please take a few minutes to read this through and see if you are interested in taking part. I look forward to your participation! Best regards, Anneli Beronius Haake PhD Candidate Background Never before has music been so easily available to so many people in Western society. This is a result of a rapid technological development during the last 20 years of individual playback equipment, including CD players, mini-discs and MP3 players. The working environment has been subject to many studies, for example lighting, heating, desk heights etc. However, the auditory environment has seldom been investigated. It is hoped that this study will provide valuable knowledge about some of the effects of music in the workplace. What is the project’s purpose? This experiment investigates the effects of self-selected music listening in the workplace on work performance and well-being. The project, in which the experiment is included in, is carried out at the Department of Music, University of Sheffield and will finish earliest spring 2008. The study aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of how music listening at work can affect work performance and wellbeing. Who can take part? - Anyone working mainly in front of a computer. - Anyone working onsite in xxxxxx for at least 4 days out of 5 per week during January and February. - Anyone who normally listens to self-selected music at work - Anyone who never or rarely listens to self-selected music at work. With self-selected music I mean music that you choose yourself (for ex CDs, MP3 files on your computer, cassettes, iPod etc). It is very important that the study involves those who do not normally listen to music at work, as well as those who listen, in order to investigate positive as well as negative effects of music in the workplace. 231 How many participants are needed? 80 What will happen to me if I take part? This experiment lasts for a total of six weeks and is scheduled to take place in January and February. Prior to these weeks you will fill out a demographic questionnaire and obtain information about the ethics procedure. The next six weeks (the experiment weeks) will include three different conditions: 1) Music listening all day, while you are working – 2 weeks 2) Music listening in break times, while you are NOT working (10 min x 4 per day) – 2 weeks 3) No music listening at all – 2 weeks. For each week during these six weeks, you will be asked to fill in response sheets that asks you how you are feeling, how you perceive your work performance, how satisfied you are with your job, whether you have experienced any environmental disruption etc. The total amount of time to fill in response sheets over the six weeks is 1 hour. If you take part, your responsibilities are to fill in the initial questionnaire, the response sheets every week during the experiment, and to follow the instructions for each condition (listening to music all day/listening to music during breaks, and not listen to music at all). Response Sheet safety note: The response sheets online do NOT: - Install any ActiveX components or other software programs - Use cookies All information which is collected about you during the course of the research will be kept strictly confidential. Any information about you which is disseminated will have your name and/or other personal details removed so that you cannot be recognised from it. The response sheets are anonymous and do not store any information about who has filled in the sheets. The system used for the response sheets is PHP Surveyor http://www.phpsurveyor.org/ I have more questions, who can I ask? Please contact the project leader, Anneli Beronius Haake, if you have any further questions about the study. E-mail: mup04amb@sheffield.ac.uk Mob: Please find a participant information sheet attached to this e-mail, with more detailed information about the study. Who can I contact to participate? Please contact the person who sent you this e-mail. This person will forward your email address to the project leader, who will contact you shortly via e-mail. Thank you for reading this! 232 Appendix 9 Field study measures, overview (chapter 4). Field study - Measures Introductory survey measures General What age are you? ….. Sex: Male/female What is your current occupation title? ………. What is the name of the team you work within? ………. Job complexity (Oldham et al., 1995) Please indicate your job’s complexity on a scale of 1 = not at all complex to 7 = very complex. Please indicate how much training is required for a person to successfully complete your job, on a scale of 1 = very little training to 7 = a great deal of training. Musical enjoyment and importance (Greasley & Lamont 2006) How much do you enjoy listening to music in general? (Please indicate on a scale of 1 = dislike it very much to 5 = like it very much) How important do you consider music to be in your life? (Please indicate on a scale of 1 = not at all to 5 = extremely) Musical education (self-made) Have you had any formal music education? Yes/No For how many years have you had formal music education? …… General listening practices Do you ever listen to music while at work? (This can include times outside a physical workplace, for example whilst driving) Yes/No (If no, what are the main reasons for you not listening to any music at work? …………………….) Thinking about your working week, approximately how much do you listen to MUSIC on a scale from 0 to 100 (i.e. for what percentage of your working week)? Please exclude any time you might listen to spoken radio from your answer. ………. How often do you perform the following work-related tasks whilst listening to music? (Please indicate on a scale of 1 = never to 5 = always. If you do not do this type of task in your job role, please choose No Answer) 233 E-mailing for work purposes Doing routine tasks Driving/travelling for work purposes Talking to others for work purposes Surfing internet for work purposes Talking to colleagues for work purposes Doing graphical tasks Doing word processing tasks Doing numerical tasks How often do you perform the following non-work related tasks whilst listening to music? (Please indicate on a scale of 1 = never to 5 = always) Taking a break E-mailing for leisure purposes Relaxing Surfing internet for leisure purposes Talking to others for leisure purposes Talking to colleagues for leisure purposes How often do you use the following music listening devices belonging to your work? (Please indicate on a scale of 1 = never to 5 = always) Public loudspeakers MP3 via work mobile phone Radio belonging to the workplace Intranet (sharing music with colleagues) CD-player (portable or stereo) belonging to the workplace CD-player (on work computer) Internet (downloaded, streamed, internet radio on work computer) How often do you use the following own music listening devices at work? (Please indicate on a scale of 1 = never to 5 = always) Own radio MP3 via own mobile phone Own Walkman (cassette tape) CD-player (on own computer) Internet (downloaded, streamed, internet radio on own computer) Own CD-player (portable or stereo) Do you use head phones when you listen to music at work? Yes/No Yes, on a scale from 0 to 100, I use head phones: …….. What functions do you believe music listening in the workplace has for you? ………………. Please indicate your agreement with the following statements about what functions music has for you at work (on a scale from 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree): Inspires/stimulates you Helps your creative flow Provides a different perspective Stimulates social interaction by providing a talking point Makes you happier Creates a suitable atmosphere Helps you pace your work Blocks out surrounding noise Improves your mood 234 Helps you relax Improves your focus Makes you less bored Makes you less tired Distracts you from unwanted thoughts Improves your well-being Can you think of any other activities that you do in the workplace, which have the same functions as music? Please describe the activities: …………………………. Personality traits, short version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers (Saucier 1994) Below is a list of common human traits. Please indicate to what extent each trait accurately describes you (as you generally are rather than as you wish to be). Extremely Extremely inaccurate Very inaccurate Moderately Slightly inaccurate inaccurate Neutral Slightly accurate Moderately Very accurate accurate accurate 1. Bashful 2. Bold 3. Careless 4. Cold 5. Complex 6. Cooperative 7. Creative 8. Deep 9. Disorganised 10. Efficient 11. Energetic 12. Envious 13. Extraverted 14. Fretful 15. Harsh 16. Imaginative 17. Inefficient 18. Intellectual 19. Jealous 20. Kind 21. Moody 22. Organised 23. Philosophical 24. Practical 25. Quiet 26. Relaxed [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 235 27. Rude 28. Shy 29. Sloppy 30. Sympathetic 31. Systematic 32. Talkative [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 33. Temperamental [ ] 34. Touchy 35. Uncreative 36. Unenvious 37. Unintellectual [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 38. Unsympathetic [ ] 39. Warm 40. Withdrawn [ ] [ ] Well-being survey measures Anxiety and stress survey Cook, J.D., Hepworth, S.J., Wall, T.D., & Warr, P.B. (1981) The experience of work: a compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. New York: Academic Press Inc. (London) Ltd. Source: House & Rizzo (1972). Responses: true or false (scored 1 and 2 respectively) Job-induced tension 1. My job tends to directly affect my health. 2. I work under a great deal of tension. 3. I have felt fidgety or nervous as a result of my job. 4. If I had a different job, my health would probably improve. 5. Problems associated with my job have kept me awake at night. 6. I have felt nervous before attending meetings in the company. 7. I often ”take my job home with me” in the sense that I think about it when doing other things. Somatic tension 1. I am often bothered by acid indigestion or heartburn 2. I sometimes feel weak all over 3. I have had trouble getting to sleep or staying asleep. 4. I get irritated or annoyed over the way things are going. 5. I may have an ulcer but I am not sure of it. General fatigue and uneasiness 1. I would consider myself in good or excellent health (R) 2. I would consider myself in fair health (R) 3. I do not have very good health. 4. I wake up with stiffness or aching joints or muscles 5. I seem to tire quickly Job affect scale (Lesiuk 2005; Oldham et al., 1995) 236 How have you felt during the last two days at work? Please indicate on a scale from 1=very slightly to 7=very much. very slighty 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 very much 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 calm sleepy (R) strong excited scornful (R) hostile (R) relaxed at rest nervous (R) drowsy (R) elated sluggish (R) General well-being (self-made) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Please indicate your general well-being during the last two days at work (on a scale from 1 = poor to 5 = very good) Between Conditions survey measures Co-worker satisfaction (Oldham et al., 1995) Indicate your satisfaction (on a scale from 1=not satisfied at all to 7=fully satisfied) during the last 1.5 weeks at work with: The way my co-workers get along with each other The opportunity to develop close friendships with my co-workers The way my co-workers are easy to make friends with Environmental interference (Oldham et al., 1995) Please indicate your agreement with the following statements (on a scale from 1=do not agree at all to 7=fully agree) during the last 1.5 weeks at work: I was able to concentrate fully on my job while at work (R) While at my workstation, I could work with few distractions or interruptions (R) Interruptions at work often prevented me from giving my full attention to my job Job satisfaction (Oldham et al., 1995) Indicate your satisfaction (on a scale from 1=not satisfied at all to 7=fully satisfied) during the last 1.5 weeks at work with: The kind of work I do in this job The amount of challenge in my job My job in general 237 Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (adapted from Van Dyne & LePine 1998, added to overall measure of work performance to capture several dimensions of work performance) Please indicate your agreement with the following statements (on a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Please indicate to what extent each statement accurately describes you during the last 1.5 weeks at work (as you generally have been rather than as you wish to have been). I have helped orient new employees I have helped others who have a heavy workload Organisational satisfaction (Oldham et al., 1995) Indicate your satisfaction (on a scale from 1=not satisfied at all to 7=fully satisfied) during the last 1.5 weeks at work with: This team of the organisation The organisation as an employer The organisation in general Social interaction (Self made) Please indicate your agreement with the following statement (on a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree): I have interacted socially with my colleagues during the last 1.5 weeks at work Work performance (adapted from Ashford, Lee and Bobko 1989) Please indicate your agreement with the following statements (on a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Please indicate to what extent each statement accurately describes you during the last 1.5 weeks at work (as you generally have been rather than as you wish to have been). I have performed high quality work My performance levels have been satisfactory I have been effective in my job 238 Appendix 10 Interview schedules for music listeners (chapters 5 and 6). Introduction: Thank you for being willing to take part in this interview. Can I first assure you that you will remain completely anonymous and no records of the interviews will be kept with your name on them. (go through information sheet, and then sign consent form) You may find some questions silly, far-fetched, or difficult to answer, for the reason that questions that are appropriate for one person are not always appropriate for another person. Since there are no right or wrong answers, you should not worry about these but just do the best as you can with them. I am only interested in your opinions and personal experiences. You are more than welcome to interrupt, ask for clarification, critisize a line of questioning and so on. I am a PhD student at university of Sheffield, and I am researching the area of music listening in the workplace. I became very interested in this when I was working in office environments in Sweden about 7 years ago. Finally, before we start – have I got your permission to record this interview? This is because I can then listen to what you are saying instead of having to write everything down, and I can also analyse the interview in greater detail. Can I first ask you: DEMOGRAPHICS -what is your occupation title? -do you work alone in your office? -if no – take details of how many people work in the same room. GENERAL -to what extent do people listen to music in general in this organisation? LISTENING HABITS -Thinking about your working week, approximately how much time do you spend listening to music on a scale from 0 to 100 -how do you listen to music – what music have you got access to and how? Itunes, cd, mp3. -Why do you prefer to listen to music at work? -What type of music do you prefer to listen to in your workplace? -Why do you prefer to listen to this particular music at work? TASKS -What do you do when you listen to music at work? Can you briefly decribe the task you are doing when you listen? Can you decribe the music you listen to when you do X Can u think about a recent day when you listened to music, describe what u were listening to + doing at the same time. 239 SONIC QUALITIES AND WORK -Are there certain music that fits certain jobtasks? (if yes - probes: describe the music, why do you think this is) are there certain music that does not fit certain jobtasks? If so – why, what music etc SOCIAL INTERACTION Does your music listening practices ever influence your social interactions at work Clarification: Do you talk to colleagues about music listening, or music that you are listening to? Does it have any impact on your work relationships? OTHER ACTIVITIES -Are there any other activities at work that has the same function for you as music? DISADVANTAGES -Are there any disadvantages with listening to music at work? 240 Appendix 11 Interview schedule for IT managers (chapters 5 and 6). Introduction: Thank you for being willing to take part in this interview. Can I first assure you that you will remain completely anonymous and no records of the interviews will be kept with your name on them. (go through information sheet, and then sign consent form) You may find some questions silly, far-fetched, or difficult to answer, for the reason that questions that are appropriate for one person are not always appropriate for another person. Since there are no right or wrong answers, you should not worry about these but just do the best as you can with them. I am only interested in your opinions and personal experiences. You are more than welcome to interrupt, ask for clarification, critisize a line of questioning and so on. I am a PhD student at university of Sheffield, and I am researching the area of music listening in the workplace. I became very interested in this when I was working in office environments in Sweden about 7 years ago. Finally, before we start – have I got your permission to record this interview? This is because I can then listen to what you are saying instead of having to write everything down, and I can also analyse the interview in greater detail. Interview: demographics -how many years have you worked within IT in this organisation? And within IT in general? general -to what extent do people listen to music in general in this organisation? issues -have you ever had any problems with people listening to music - downloading policy -have you got a formal policy on music listening in this workplace? issues -what are your considerations to music at work, from an IT security point of view? Individual listening -do you listen at work? Personal vs influences on employees. 241 Appendix 12 Interview schedule for HR managers (chapters 5 and 6). Introduction: Thank you for being willing to take part in this interview. Can I first assure you that you will remain completely anonymous and no records of the interviews will be kept with your name on them. (go through information sheet, and then sign consent form) You may find some questions silly, far-fetched, or difficult to answer, for the reason that questions that are appropriate for one person are not always appropriate for another person. Since there are no right or wrong answers, you should not worry about these but just do the best as you can with them. I am only interested in your opinions and personal experiences. You are more than welcome to interrupt, ask for clarification, critisize a line of questioning and so on. I am a PhD student at university of Sheffield, and I am researching the area of music listening in the workplace. I became very interested in this when I was working in office environments in Sweden about 7 years ago. Finally, before we start – have I got your permission to record this interview? This is because I can then listen to what you are saying instead of having to write everything down, and I can also analyse the interview in greater detail. Interview: Can I ask you: -to what extent do people listen to music in general in this organisation? -have you got a formal policy on music listening in this workplace? No – why? No point because no one is listening? If people listened – then would u want a policy, and what would it be? Policy on how? Policy on when? Music played out loud vs headphones? Music – leisure or work? Unprofessional? -how do you think music listening at work effects employees? Relationship bteween your personal beliefs and the organisation. Larger context: Interactions between employees, promoting bonding? Social events? Promoting wellbeing and health? (Is music an issue for HR? To what extent would they ever promote music as an intervention? Have they been trained to think about interventions, and is music a part of them). 242 Appendix 13 Examples of a memo and a summary note from the analysis of the interview data (chapters 5 and 6). Memo 1 Responsible listening Interview with Adam: Anneli: And is there a formal policy on music listening? Adam: (laughs) I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t think anybody is particularly worried about people listening to headphones, providing a) it’s not loud enough to disturb other people around you, and b) that you can at least hear, you know, keep track of what’s going on around you. I think you’ll find that the only restriction on listening to music in the office is we are not supposed to be streaming it over the computers. We don’t share music between us. We are an AppleMac office so we have all got iTunes, so theoretically we could be sharing our libraries with music but we don’t do that. That’s as much to do with data transfer as it has anything to do with policy. Anneli: Do you know further why you don’t stream. Is it because of the bandwidth? Adam: Yes, it is. I think we have one of the largest sized broadband connections possible, because the file sizes we deal with through our business are large. It’s not like sending Word-documents, you know. So we need that. It’s nearly a hundred people in the office, and we are all into the same network, so there’s quite a lot of traffic at any one time over the network. The software we use, a lot of it is on the server, and therefore, anything that clogs that up is going to slow the system down. Comments: He is saying that listening to headphones seems to be allowed - no one is "particularly worried" as long as you make sure not to "disturb other people around you" and as long as you can "keep track of what's going on around you". So it seems that headphone usage is viewed on as a potential threat to your "connectedness to others/availability" in the office, and also as a potential distraction to others. The question is of course: how can music become a distraction to others? When is it a distraction, and when is it not? Under what circumstances is it perceived as distracting, and not distracting? To come back to the issue of "connectedness/availability", I would guess that this is not an issue relating to music per se, but a more fundamental one to do with "blocking out sound". Therefore, it has more to do with the technology, rather than the music per se. It would be interesting to know whether people use other means of blocking out noise at work, or whether music is particularly preferred. So, it seems that people in offices can be more or less worried about the use of headphones, probably ranging from "not worried at all" through to "very worried". Adam believes that the employees in his offices are not "particularly worried". But this comes with a condition, they would not be "particularly worried" as long as the headphone user respect the two points mentioned (not distract others, and being aware of surroundings). One hypothesis would be that the feelings of "worry" could change along the continuum to "more worried", if a headphone user did not respect the two conditions mentioned. A follow up question regards the consequences of this worry. What happens if the worry increases? Will someone tell the listener to stop listening through headphones? Or will they tell a manager? Who, exactly, is worrying? Could the headphone user also worry - for example about the possibility of not respecting these two points? Are headphone users aware of these two points? If the headphone user is worrying too, is the worry related to the potential of distracting a co-worker (and thus perhaps the outcome would be a negative impact on the social relationship), and to not being able to pay attention to the environment (maybe missing out on what is being said, maybe irritating others through being unavailable)? Or is the worry related to the consequences if a co-worker would "tell the manager" and that the headphone user could be punished? Just to summarise, I have identified the concept of "headphone listening in open plan offices". It appears to be characterised by a "consideration" (properties) on the part of the headphone user, not to "disturb others" and also to be "aware of surroundings". It appears that one dimension of headphone listening in this context can be described as "worry", which would derive from a lack of consideration. It is unclear at this stage what the consequences would be of this worry. It is also unclear who exactly is worrying and why. 243