The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research in American Music Education 9780199844272, 0199844275

Table of contents :
Cover
The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research in American Music Education
Copyright
Contents
Acknowledgments
List of Contributors
The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research in American Music Education
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
PART I DEFINING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN AMERICAN MUSIC EDUCATION
Chapter 2 Qualitative Research in Music Education Concepts, Goals and Characteristics
Chapter 3 History of Qualitative Research in American Music Education
Chapter 4 Epistemology and Qualitative Research in Music Education
Chapter 5 Paradigms and Theories Framing Qualitative Research in Music Education
Chapter 6 Changing the Conversation Considering Quality in Music Education Qualitative Research
PART II VARIETY IN QUALITATIVE APPROACHES IN MUSIC EDUCATION
Chapter 7 Case Study in Music Education
Chapter 8 Doing Ethnography in Music Education
Chapter 9 Phenomenological Research in Music Education
Chapter 10 Narrative Inquiry and the Uses of Narrative in Music Education Research
Chapter 11 Practitioner Inquiry
Chapter 12 Mixed Methods Research in Music Education
PART III QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS IN MUSIC EDUCATION
Chapter 13 Collecting and Analyzing Observation of Music Teaching and Learning Data
Chapter 14 Conducting and Analyzing Individual Interviews
Chapter 15 Collecting and Analyzing Focus Group Data
Chapter 16 Collecting, Generating, and Analyzing Multimodal and Multimedia Data
Chapter 17 Music-Making As Data Collection and Analysis
Chapter 18 Software to Interrogate Qualitative Data in Music Education
PART IV QUALITATIVE RESEARCH WITHIN SELECTED AREAS OF MUSIC EDUCATION
Chapter 19 Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Music Education
Chapter 20 Qualitative Research in General Music Education
Chapter 21 Instrumental Music (Winds, Brass, Percussion)
Chapter 22 Instrumental Music (Strings)
Chapter 23 Qualitative Choral Music Research
Chapter 24 A Critical Analysis of Qualitative Research on Learning to Teach Music in Preservice Music Teacher Education
Chapter 25 Inservice Music Teacher Professional Development
Chapter 26 Community Music Education
Chapter 27 Qualitative Research Examining Students with Exceptionalities in Music Education
Chapter 28 Intersectionalities Exploring Qualitative Research, Music Education, and Diversity
Chapter 29 World Musics and Cultural Diversity in the Music Classroom and the Community
PART V ETHICS, PUBLISHING, AND THE FUTURE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN MUSIC EDUCATION
Chapter 30 Ethics and Qualitative Research in Music Education
Chapter 31 The Politics of Publication Voices, Venues, and Ethics
Chapter 32 Teaching Qualitative Research Experientially and Aesthetically
Chapter 33 Future Possibilities for Qualitative Research in Music Education
Index

Citation preview

T h e Ox f o r d H a n d b o o k o f

Qua l i tat i v e R e se a rc h i n A m e r ic a n M u sic E du c at ion

The Oxford Handbook of

Qualitative Research in American Music Education Edited by

Colleen M. Conway

1

3 Oxford University Press is a department of the University  of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford New  York Auckland  Cape Town  Dar es Salaam  Hong Kong  Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices  in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University  Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America  by Oxford University  Press 198 Madison Avenue, New  York, NY  10016

© Oxford University Press 2014 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored  in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the  prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by  law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent  to  the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address  above. You must not circulate this work in any other  form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Oxford handbook of qualitative research in American music education / edited by Colleen M. Conway. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–19–984427–2 (hardcover : alk. paper)  1.  Music—Instruction and study—Research— United States.  I.  Conway, Colleen M., editor of compilation. MT1.O95 2014 780.71'073—dc23 2013028960

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free  paper

Contents

Acknowledgments List of Contributors 1. Introduction Colleen M. Conway

ix xi 1

PA RT I DE F ININ G QUALITATIVE R ESEA RCH IN  AME R ICAN MUSIC EDUCATION 2. Qualitative Research in Music Education: Concepts, Goals, and Characteristics  Koji Matsunobu and Liora Bresler

21

3. History of Qualitative Research in American Music Education  Colleen M. Conway and Chad West

40

4. Epistemology and Qualitative Research in Music Education Randall Everett Allsup

57

5. Paradigms and Theories: Framing Qualitative Research in Music Education John W. Scheib

76

6. Changing the Conversation: Considering Quality in Music Education Qualitative Research  Mitchell Robinson

94

PA RT II VA R IETY IN Q UALITATIVE A P P ROACHES IN MUSIC EDUCATION 7. Case Study in Music Education  Janet R. Barrett

113

vi   Contents

8. Doing Ethnography in Music Education Patti J. Krueger

133

9. Phenomenological Research in Music Education Ryan M. Hourigan and Scott N. Edgar

148

10. Narrative Inquiry and the Uses of Narrative in Music Education Research Sandra L. Stauffer

163

11. Practitioner Inquiry Janet Robbins

186

12. Mixed Methods Research in Music Education Kate R. Fitzpatrick

209

PA RT III  QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS IN MUSIC EDUCATION 13. Collecting and Analyzing Observation of Music Teaching and Learning Data Margaret Schmidt

227

14. Conducting and Analyzing Individual Interviews Kathryn Roulston

250

15. Collecting and Analyzing Focus Group Data John Eros

271

16. Collecting, Generating, and Analyzing Multimodal and Multimedia Data Evan S. Tobias

288

17. Music-Making as Data: Collection and Analysis Kristen Pellegrino

307

18. Software to Interrogate Qualitative Data in Music Education Peter R. Webster

325

Contents  vii

PA RT IV  QUALITATIVE R ESEA RCH WITHIN SELECTED A R EAS OF MUSIC EDUCATION 19. Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Music Education Alison M. Reynolds

339

20. Qualitative Research in General Music Education Ann Marie Stanley

362

21. Instrumental Music (Winds, Brass, Percussion) Chad West

387

22. Instrumental Music (Strings) Margaret H. Berg

409

23. Qualitative Choral Music Research Bridget Sweet

429

24. A Critical Analysis of Qualitative Research on Learning to Teach Music in Preservice Music Teacher Education Mark Robin Campbell and Linda K. Thompson

448

25. Inservice Music Teacher Professional Development Colleen M. Conway and Scott N. Edgar

479

26. Community Music Education  Nathan B. Kruse and Erin M. Hansen

501

27. Qualitative Research Examining Students with Exceptionalities in Music Education Ryan M. Hourigan

524

28. Intersectionalities: Exploring Qualitative Research, Music Education, and Diversity Bruce Carter

538

29. World Musics and Cultural Diversity in the Music Classroom and the Community Yiannis Miralis

553

viii   Contents

PA RT V ETHICS , P U B LISHIN G , AND THE F UTU R E OF Q UALITATIVE R ESEA RCH IN  MUSIC EDUCATION 30. Ethics and Qualitative Research in Music Education Judith M. Birk and Cynthia S. Shindledecker

573

31. The Politics of Publication: Voices, Venues, and Ethics Mitchell Robinson

591

32. Teaching Qualitative Research Experientially and Aesthetically Liora Bresler

608

33. Future Possibilities for Qualitative Research in Music Education Janet R. Barrett

637

Index

651

Acknowledgments

This Handbook would not have been possible without the assistance of many students, scholars, readers, reviewers, study “buddies” and critical friends. Thanks goes out to Oxford reviewers who examined early drafts of the proposal, including Greg DeNardo from the University of Illinois and Wendy Sims from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Early drafts of the proposal were also informed by current University of Michigan PhD students and recent University of Michigan graduates including:  Ryan Hourigan, John Eros, Ann Marie Stanley, Kristen Pellegrino, Chad West, Lisa Furman, Scott Edgar, C. Michael Palmer, Erin Hansen, Sommer Forrester, and Shannan Hibbard. Extra thanks to Sommer Forrester and Shannan Hibbard, who read and critiqued multiple early chapters of the book. I have personally learned so much about qualitative research from every qualitative thesis and dissertation I have chaired, so thanks goes to all of the Michigan State University (1998–2001) and University of Michigan (2001–present) graduate students who I have had the pleasure of assisting in the thesis or dissertation process. Many of the authors in the book have relied on study “buddies” and critical friends to examine their manuscripts before they were even sent to me. Some of these scholars are thanked throughout the chapters, while others wished to remain anonymous. I know all the authors are appreciative of the work of those persons. I am humbled by and indebted to the terrific group of music education scholars who have contributed their expertise as authors of the chapters in this Handbook. Thank you to Randall Allsup, Janet Barrett, Margaret Berg, Judy Birk, Liora Bresler, Mark Campbell, Bruce Carter, Scott Edgar, John Eros, Kate Fitzpatrick, Erin Hansen, Ryan Hourigan, Pat Krueger, Nathan Kruse, Koji Matsunobu, Yiannis Miralis, Kristen Pellegrino, Alison Reynolds, Janet Robbins, Mitchell Robinson, Kathryn Roulston, John Scheib, Margaret Schmidt, Cindy Shindledecker, Ann Marie Stanley, Sandra Stauffer, Bridget Sweet, Evan Tobias, Linda Thompson, Peter Webster, and Chad West. Finally, a sincere thank you to the staff at Oxford University Press, including Adam Cohen and Caelyn Cobb. A special thank you to Senior Editor Suzanne Ryan for her assistance from the very early discussions of a Handbook possibility to publication of this volume.

List of Contributors

Randall Everett Allsup, Associate Professor of Music Education, Teachers College Columbia University Janet R. Barrett,  Professor of Music Education, University of Illinois Margaret H. Berg, Associate Professor of Instrumental/String Music Education, University of Colorado, Boulder Judith M. Birk,  Director, Medical School Institutional Review Board, University of Michigan Liora Bresler,  Professor of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Illinois Bruce Carter,  Member of the National Council on the Arts, National Endowment for the Arts Mark Robin Campbell,  Professor of Music Education, SUNY Potsdam Colleen M. Conway,  Professor of Music Education, University of Michigan Scott N. Edgar,  Assistant Professor of Music, Lake Forest College John Eros,  Assistant Professor of Music, California State University, East Bay Kate R. Fitzpatrick,  Assistant Professor of Music Education, University of Michigan Erin M. Hansen,  Visiting Assistant Professor of Music Education, University of Houston Ryan M. Hourigan,  Associate Director, School of Music, Ball State University Patti J. Krueger,  Professor of Music Education, University of Puget Sound Nathan B. Kruse, Associate Professor of Music Education, Case Western Reserve University Koji Matsunobu,  Honorary Research Fellow, University of Queensland, Australia Yiannis Miralis,  Associate Professor of Music Education, European University—Cyprus Kristen Pellegrino,  Assistant Professor of Music Education, University of Texas at San Antonio Alison M. Reynolds,  Associate Professor of Music Education, Temple University

xii   List of Contributors Janet Robbins,  Professor of Music, West Virginia University Mitchell Robinson,  Associate Professor of Music Education, Michigan State University Kathryn Roulston,  Professor, Department of Lifelong Education, Administration, and Policy, University of Georgia John W. Scheib,  Director of the School of Music and Associate Professor of Music Education, Ball State University Margaret Schmidt,  Associate Professor of Music Education, Arizona State University Cynthia S. Shindledecker, Director, Health Sciences and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board, University of Michigan Ann Marie Stanley,  Assistant Professor of Music Education, Eastman School of Music Sandra L. Stauffer,  Professor of Music in Music Education, Arizona State University Bridget Sweet,  Assistant Professor of Music Education, University of Illinois Linda K. Thompson,  Associate Professor in Music Education, Lee University Evan S. Tobias,  Assistant Professor of Music Education, Arizona State University Peter R. Webster, Scholar-in-Residence, Thornton School of Music, University of Southern California Chad West,  Assistant Professor of Music Education, Ithaca College

the oxford handbook of

Qua l i tat i v e R e se a rc h i n A m e r ic a n M u sic E du c at ion

Chapter 1

INTRODUC T I ON COLLEEN M. CONWAY

Music takes us out of the actual and whispers to us dim secrets that startle our wonder as to who we are, and for what, whence, and whereto. Ralph Waldo Emerson

Music education researchers who are looking to understand the “dim secrets that startle our wonder” look to qualitative research. The Handbook of Qualitative Research in American Music Education is a resource for music education researchers, music education graduate students, and P–16 music teachers. Qualitative research has become an increasingly popular research approach in music education in the last 20 years and until now there has been no source that clarifies terms, challenges, and issues in qualitative research for music education. This Handbook provides that clarification and presents model qualitative studies within the various music education disciplines. I begin this Introduction by locating qualitative research in music education within the larger field of qualitative research in social sciences and humanities research, within qualitative research in education, and within music education research in general. The middle section of this Introduction explains the scope and organization of this Handbook and examines challenges for authors within each of the five parts of the book. I connect these Handbook chapters to key characteristics of music education qualitative research and assist readers with developing criteria for evaluating qualitative research. I then consider what is potentially missing from the Handbook and conclude with a discussion of author expertise.

2   COLLEEN M. CONWAY

1.1 Locating Music Education Qualitative Research At the macro level, music education research is situated within the larger body of qualitative research in social science and humanities research. Denzin and Lincoln (2011a) suggest that: Sometime during the last two decades, critical qualitative inquiry came of age, or more accurately, moved through another historical phase. Out of the qualitative-quantitative paradigm wars of the 1980s there appeared, seemingly overnight, journals, handbooks, textbooks, dissertation awards, annual distinguished lectures, and scholarly associations. All of these formations were dedicated to some form of qualitative inquiry. (ix)

In the summer of 2011 my colleague, Ann Marie Stanley from the Eastman School, and I attended the Ethnographic and Qualitative Research Conference held annually in Cedarville, OH. This gathering attracts qualitative researchers from all over the world and from diverse backgrounds within social science and humanities research. The keynote speaker, Douglas Bilken from Syracuse University, talked about how it is now “routine” for qualitative researchers to “locate themselves through a sharing of their history in relation to the settings/contexts, issues, vocabularies, identities, and other factors associated with their topic of inquiry” (Ethnographic and Qualitative Research Conference Program, 3). This Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research in American Music Education will help music education researchers locate ourselves as a music education community within this larger community of researchers. Denzin and Lincoln (2011a) also refer to the term “locating” and devote the first five chapters in their most recent Handbook of Qualitative Research to what they label “Locating the Field.” In addition to the editions of Denzin and Lincoln’s Handbook of Qualitative Research (1994, 2000, 2005, 2011a), Sage Publications also publishes Handbooks of Grounded Theory, Ethnography, Interviewing, Narrative Inquiry, Performance Studies, Critical and Indigenous Methodologies, and many other texts on qualitative research aimed at assisting readers in locating the field. The Sage qualitative texts by Patton (2002), Creswell (2007), and Maxwell (2005) are commonly cited within music education research and are located within this larger field of social science and humanities research. Key journals that may be of interest to music education researchers within this larger body of social science and humanities research include: Journal of Contemporary Ethnography; Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research; The International Review of Qualitative Research; and Qualitative Inquiry.

INTRODUCTION  3

1.1.1  Qualitative Research within Education One of the strongest opportunities for music education researchers to locate ourselves within the field of educational research has been through the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Since the mid-1990s, the music education special interest group (SIG) has been a welcome place for researchers to, as Biklin suggested, “locate” ourselves through a sharing of our history in relation to the settings/contexts, issues, vocabularies, identities, and other factors associated with our topic of inquiry. Although Music SIG meetings have been largely attended by those within music education and the arts, music education researchers have been involved in many other AERA SIGs and Divisions, several of which are devoted specifically to qualitative research. Qualitative SIGs and mostly qualitative SIGs within AERA include: action research, arts-based educational research, lives of teachers, narrative inquiry, qualitative research, self-study of teacher education, and teacher as researcher. Many of the authors in this Handbook have held leadership roles within these various organizations of AERA. Handbook authors Bresler (­chapters 2 and 32) and Roulston (­chapter 14) are themselves situated in colleges of education and have published widely in general education books and journals, as have other Handbook authors. As will be discussed in ­chapter 3, early music education qualitative researchers were introduced to qualitative research through their work in colleges of education. Music education qualitative research begins appearing in our journals later than the early work of qualitative researchers in general education. Research texts and resources for qualitative research in education are numerous. Some of these sources seem to be regularly cited in music education research, including: Bogden and Biklin (2006); Denzin and Lincoln (2011); Eisner and Peshkin (1990); Merriam (1998 and 2009); Seidman (1990, 1997, 2006); and Stake (1995, 2010). Music education researchers should also be aware of the following qualitative journals in general education:  Qualitative Studies in Education and the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education.

1.1.2  Qualitative Research within Music Education Koji Matsunobu and Liora Bresler’s chapter in this Handbook, ­chapter  2, examines qualitative research within music education and suggests: “The past twenty years have been a coming of age for qualitative research in music education. From a marginal, pariah methodology, qualitative research has become a legitimate, central methodology, with its own conferences, research journals, and venues.” With regard to music education conferences, it seems as if we are now at the point where qualitative research can be found at all types of music education conferences. Whether within the National Association for Music Education (NAfME), AERA, or smaller conferences such as the University of South Florida’s Suncoast Symposium or Michigan State University’s New

4   COLLEEN M. CONWAY Directions in Music Education, conference presentations in music education now regularly include reports of qualitative research. In ­chapter 3 of this volume, Chad West and I examine and report on the number of qualitative research studies published within the Journal of Research in Music Education, the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, and the Journal of Music Teacher Education. Although the number of qualitative publications is not nearly equal to the number of quantitative publications in music education, qualitative researchers clearly have a strong and growing presence in these journals. Chapter  3 includes a report on the University of Illinois qualitative research conferences held in the early 1990s. In more recent years, the Narrative Inquiry in Music Education (NIME) venue has been well attended by qualitative researchers and has led to important music education qualitative research publications (Barrett and Stauffer 2009, 2011). Additional qualitative sources within music education are examined in ­chapter  3 and include:  Bresler and Stake (1992); Bresler (1995); and Flinders and Richardson (2002).

1.2 Scope and Organization of Handbook and Inherent Challenges for Authors The challenge for any Handbook editor is often to define the scope of the volume. Authors for this text were instructed to focus their chapters on qualitative research in American music education. The decision to be exclusive to studies conducted in North America (Canada and the United States) was made to help focus and contain the volume. Many authors struggled with this restriction, as there is a rich tradition of qualitative research within international contexts. Another delimitation aimed at focusing the scope of this book was that authors include only qualitative studies that appear in published journals or as dissertations, not conference presentations or unpublished manuscripts. The book is divided into five parts and contains 33 chapters. Part I  (Defining Qualitative Research in Music Education) includes five chapters that together describe the history, epistemological views, theoretical frameworks, and rigor within music education qualitative research. One of the biggest challenges for authors in this section was to capture the “moving target” that represents qualitative research. Understandings about research and terminology for qualitative research have changed much in the past two decades such that it was challenging for authors to settle on specific recommendations. The first five chapters in the second part of the text (Variety in Qualitative Approaches in Music Education) provide a description and music education examples of the following approaches: case study (­chapter 7); ethnography (­chapter 8); phenomenology (­chapter 9); narrative inquiry (­chapter 10); and practitioner inquiry (­chapter 11). The final chapter in part II of the Handbook, c­ hapter  12, addresses the use of qualitative

INTRODUCTION  5 research within mixed methods approaches. This chapter also presented challenges since true “mixed methods” designs are so new in music education. I expect that readers will find the chapter useful as music education continues to consider new designs and terminology for mixed methods research. As was the case for part I authors, all of the authors in part II struggled with the diverse uses of terminology in relation to their approach. Part II authors were appropriately cautious in describing what a particular approach “is” or “is not,” since these design constructs are still emerging and many researchers blend approaches and designs. The chapters in the third part of the Handbook (Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Music Education) describe data collection and analysis techniques as well as provide examples of studies in music education that have utilized these techniques including:  observation (­chapter  13); individual interviews (­chapter  14); focus group interviews (­chapter 15); journals, multimodal and multimedia data (­chapter 16); and music-making as data (­chapter 17). Chapter 18 addresses the use of software in qualitative data collection and analysis. It was challenging for part III authors to situate music teaching and learning at the center of the conversation, as the techniques used for qualitative research in general education and music education more specifically are closely aligned. Authors in part III did not attempt to provide a comprehensive collection of all music education qualitative researchers who used these techniques in their studies, but, rather, have selected exemplars for readers to consider. Authors in the fourth part of the book (Qualitative Research within Selected Areas of Music Education) examine the use of qualitative research in answering important research questions regarding music teaching and learning in a variety of diverse music education contexts. Each author examines key studies and provides suggestions for future questions that qualitative researchers may consider. Contexts examined in the chapter include:  early childhood music (­chapter  19); general music (­chapter  20); instrumental music-winds, brass percussion (­chapter  21); instrumental music-strings (­chapter 22); choral music (­chapter 23); preservice teacher education (­chapter 24); teacher professional development (­chapter 25); community music education (­chapter 26); music for students with special needs (­chapter 27); music education and issues of diversity (­chapter 28); and world music (­chapter 29). Authors in part IV had the dual challenge of presenting what was important about qualitative research in their area as well as what the profession has learned about the topic (i.e., instrumental music) through qualitative research. This balance between how research was done and reporting on findings proved to be the key challenge for authors in part IV. In most cases authors also needed to define their field (i.e., early childhood or community music) as part of the work. I am proud of the ways in which these authors grappled with this challenge and believe what has resulted will be valuable for the field. In the final section of the book (Ethics, Publishing, and the Future of Qualitative Research, chapter 30 examines ethics and qualitative research from the perspective of scholars within the University of Michigan’s Heath Sciences and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board. Issues associated with publishing and disseminating qualitative research are examined next, in ­chapter 31. This chapter also examines the review

6   COLLEEN M. CONWAY process and provides not only information about responding to reviewers, but also information about being a reviewer. The future of qualitative research lies in preparing the next generation of scholars; thus, c­ hapter 32 addresses the teaching of qualitative research. Experienced qualitative researcher Liora Bresler lets the reader “in” on her specific approach to the task of teaching about qualitative research, and her chapter includes a syllabus from her course as well as analysis of student work. In the final chapter, Janet Barrett from the University of Illinois assists readers in looking ahead to the future possibilities for qualitative research in music education.

1.3  Key Criteria for All Qualitative Researchers in Music Education Although all the qualitative research studies cited in this Handbook differ with regard to topics and designs, there are consistent headings that appear in most qualitative studies including:  research questions; past research and/or frameworks; approaches to design; sampling; data collection and analysis; and goodness criteria. This section of the Introduction examines some of these common aspects of qualitative studies.1 Some of these issues are examined in depth in other sections of the Handbook and these are noted throughout this section. This explanation of qualitative research presentation is meant to guide the reader in critiquing the original sources of studies shared throughout the Handbook.

1.3.1  Research Questions All aspects of a study, including design, data collection, analysis, and presentation of findings, are guided by the research questions. Qualitative researchers have a responsibility to share their research questions and carefully describe how they guided data collection, analysis, and presentation of findings. Chapter 2 of this Handbook examines some of the specific issues that tend to lead researchers to what one might call “qualitative questions;” while c­ hapter 4 reminds readers that epistemological assumptions are a part of the research process right from the development of initial questions. Chapter 5 considers how various theoretical frameworks may interact with the development of study questions. All of the chapters in part IV of the Handbook include discussions of types of research questions that have been examined in the various areas of music education. It is important to remember that research questions often emerge and change throughout the process of research, which I believe is one of the most exciting aspects of doing research in a qualitative way.

INTRODUCTION  7

1.3.2  Past Research, Conceptual Framework, Personal Framework, Theoretical Framework Most researchers review past research literature and develop research questions based on that literature. However, in some qualitative studies researchers outline research questions before a search of past literature. In these types of studies literature is consulted after data have been collected so that knowledge of what past researchers have found in relation to a phenomenon does not hinder the researchers’ ability to see what is most meaningful in the data. This order of process is particularly common in teacher research, action research, and practitioner inquiry (see ­chapter 11). Chapters  4 and 5 provide extended discussions of epistemology (­chapter  4) and theoretical frameworks (­chapter 5) and their interaction with the work of qualitative researchers. Although not all studies state specific frameworks, all research includes assumptions on the part of the researcher, and the researcher has a responsibility to address these assumptions in their work and share with readers how these assumptions influenced the design, implementation, and analysis in the study.

1.3.3 Approaches to Design In the History of Qualitative Research chapter (­chapter 3), Chad West and I document that early qualitative researchers rarely discussed the type of qualitative research but often referred to their work as simply qualitative. In recent years within music education it has been more typical to state a design. Specific designs for qualitative research are addressed directly in part II of this Handbook, as well as within the synthesis sections of the studies reviewed in part IV. Matsunobu and Bresler (­chapter 1) discuss the non-linear nature of design decisions: Qualitative researchers normally do not bring a fixed research design to fieldwork because they need to respond to the constraints and possibilities of each field. Research strategies are often emergent and subject to change in the research process (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007; Patton 2002). For example, initial research questions—often generated from etic points of view in the abstract context of scholarship rather than the realities of the settings—are refined over the course of research to make sense in the reality of each setting. Research is often guided by emergent questions. Some predetermined, a-priori categories for data analysis and codes may be kept, while others will be generated in the process of data analysis. Similarly, literature review needs to respond to emerging issues (Eisenhart 1998). The researcher goes back and forth between theoretical and empirical data to refine understandings and interpretations. Because of this emergent process of qualitative research, methodological explanation is often provided in retrospect (Barone 2001; Vidich and Lyman 2003).

This concept of retrospective design decision-making is one of the most exciting aspects of doing qualitative research. Collecting data and reflecting on its meaning and then

8   COLLEEN M. CONWAY making decisions about what is actually being examined as a chaotic and non-linear process is a key component of good qualitative research. As suggested above, part II (­chapters 7–12) authors examine various approaches for research that have been utilized in music education. However, Merriam (2009) suggests that some qualitative researchers do not choose a particular approach and instead complete what she terms a “basic qualitative research study” (22): A challenge to those new to qualitative research is trying to figure out what “kind” of qualitative research study they are doing and what their “theoretical framework” is. . . . In my experience, in applied fields of practice such as education, administration, health, social work, counseling, business, and so on, the most common “type” of qualitative research is a basic, interpretive study. One does a qualitative research study, not a phenomenological, grounded theory, narrative analysis, or critical or ethnographic study. Over the years I have struggled with how to label such a study, using words such as generic, basic, and interpretive. Since all qualitative research is interpretive, I have come around to preferring labeling this type of study as a basic qualitative study. (22)

I have been encouraging novice researchers to consider Merriam’s notion of basic qualitative research as well as considering blended options so that no researcher is boxed in by qualitative research designs that at the root are meant to help researchers examine issues that are difficult to examine, messy, and often unwieldy.

1.3.4 Sampling Regardless of the approach to qualitative research, all qualitative researchers employ purposeful sampling. Purposeful sampling allows the researcher to intentionally select information-rich, illuminative participants for in-depth study. Acknowledging the difficulty and ambiguity in selecting a sample size, Patton (2002) states in bold: “there are no rules for sample size in qualitative inquiry” (244). He writes about the difficulty in deciding the issue of sample size, likening it to the problem of a student who pesters her instructor about exactly how many pages a term paper should be, when the teacher has already said it should be long enough to cover the subject, no more, no less. To help the researcher, Patton suggests that validity of qualitative research depends more on the richness of the participants studied and the observation and analysis of the researcher than on the size of the sample. Patton (2002) provides a comprehensive discussion of 16 variations of purposeful sampling strategies used in qualitative research, including: extreme or deviant case, intensity, maximum variation, homogeneous, typical case, critical case, snowball or chain, criterion, theory-based sampling, confirming and disconfirming cases, stratified purposeful, opportunistic or emergent, purposeful random, sampling politically important cases, convenience, and combination or mixed purposeful sampling.

INTRODUCTION  9 Common purposeful sampling strategies used in music education include: “typical case sampling” to “illustrate or highlight what is typical, normal, average” (243); “critical case sampling” which “permits logical generalization and maximum application of information to other cases because ‘if it’s true of this one case, it’s likely to be true of all other cases’ ” (243); and “extreme or deviant case sampling,” meaning “learning from unusual manifestations of the phenomenon intensely, but not extremely, for example, outstanding successes/notable failures” (243). Regardless of the sampling strategy used, researchers have a responsibility to justify why particular participants were chosen and how the reader should consider them in relation to others. Handbook authors in part IV often address issues of sampling in relation to the studies being presented. The ethics chapter (­chapter 30) also discusses issues of sampling in qualitative research.

1.3.5 Data Collection and Analysis As mentioned earlier, decisions about the types of data to be gathered are guided by the research questions for a study. As presented in part III of the Handbook, music education qualitative researchers use a variety of strategies to collect information relevant to their research questions. The researcher has a responsibility to the reader to provide a thick description (Lincoln and Guba 1985) of data collection and analysis as well as findings. Each of the qualitative traditions (e.g., narrative research) has a slightly different approach to analysis of data. Part II authors (­chapters 7–12) address analysis in relation to design, while authors in part III (­chapters  13–17) address analysis in relation to the type of data (observation, interview, focus group, multimedia and multimodal, and music-making). However, there are some common traits in all qualitative analysis. Researchers begin analysis with a review of all data. They create transcripts for interviews and may enter transcripts and field notes into software if the analysis is to be supported with technology. The first step in most analysis procedures is to begin to code the data. During coding, the researcher typically identifies and tentatively names the conceptual categories into which the events observed will be grouped. The goal is to create descriptive categories that form a preliminary framework for analysis. Words, phrases, or events that appear to be similar can be grouped into the same category. These categories may be gradually modified or replaced during the subsequent stages of analysis that follow. Once the data has been coded, the researcher can begin to combine codes to create larger categories. Next, categories are reexamined to determine if and how they are linked, comparing and combining them in new ways in an effort to develop an integrated understanding. The results of qualitative studies are usually represented as findings or themes from the data. There is no template for the reporting of qualitative data. The story-like nature of the types of data collected can lead to any number of formats for reporting. The goal of the researcher is to provide a report that will be rich in detail and authentic. While the process of analysis has been described as a linear one, the individual steps may occur simultaneously and repeatedly. During the analysis additional data may be collected if

10   COLLEEN M. CONWAY the researcher uncovers gaps in the data. In qualitative research the analysis and data collection are really commingled, with one serving as a guide to the other.

1.3.6  Goodness Criteria In ­chapter 6 of this Handbook, Robinson suggests: The establishment of criteria for quality in qualitative research in music education has existed as a thorny issue within our profession for many years. The range of opinions and beliefs concerning “goodness” criteria for qualitative research is vast, and encompasses multiple belief systems, paradigm orientations and research stances.

Robinson’s chapter provides an extended discussion of these issues. For the purpose of considering key criteria of qualitative research I touch on just a few of these issues in this Introduction. Quantitative researchers use research design, statistical techniques, and replication to demonstrate that their findings can be applied to other settings, that is, generalized. The idea of generalization is wedded to the philosophical foundation—understanding phenomena on a macro level that supersedes context and human perception. Qualitative researchers carefully discuss their conceptual frameworks and their interactions with research participants in order for readers to have enough information to consider the possible transferability of findings to other contexts. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), transferability is defined as the “similarity between two contexts” or the “fittingness” or congruence between two contexts (124). The researcher is responsible for providing a thick, rich description of the phenomena and the contextual variables to allow the reader to determine transferability of the findings. Schwartz (1996) uses the idea of logical situational generalizability (7). If the reader can logically assume that participants in another population are in a situation similar to the one described in the study, it may be possible that results from the study are relevant in other contexts. All of the studies presented in the Handbook were chosen to represent some aspect of the qualitative research process. Not all studies included are exemplary models. But all studies presented in the Handbook report on at least some of the criteria outlined in this section.

1.4 Consideration of Issues Not Represented in the Handbook The most difficult tasks for a Handbook editor include decisions about what to include in the Handbook and what must be left out due to space limitations or other restrictions.

INTRODUCTION  11 In this section I think critically about the decisions that were made with regard to inclusion and direct the reader in thinking about what might be missing. In considering what might be missing or could have been considered for part I of the Handbook, it seems that a discussion of philosophical research or additional discussions of the use of philosophy in qualitative research might have been considered. Chapter 4, by Randall Allsup, offers the reader an introduction to epistemological issues with relation to qualitative research. However, philosophy is an area that might have received additional chapters. An examination of research methods textbooks in education and music education reveals that some writers consider philosophical inquiry to be a separate research method (e.g., Phillips 2008)  while others do not (e.g., Wiersma and Jurs 2005). Experienced scholars in music education take diverse positions on the issue. Heller and O’Connor (2002), for example, do not consider philosophy a research method, although they do consider philosophical discourse an important scholarly activity that is foundational in the research process (1090). Their definition of research focuses on knowledge acquisition supported by empirical evidence—that is, evidence that is observed through one of the senses—rather than systematic logic. In another chapter in the same volume, Elliott (2002) challenges that position, suggesting that Heller and O’Connor’s view is based on a particular ideology, empiricism, and represents a narrow perspective (89). John Scheib was asked to author ­chapter 5, on theoretical frameworks, which specifically grapples with the definition of theoretical framework; it includes a discussion of those frameworks and specific theories that have been explored in music education. His chapter includes brief discussion of what he refers to as “methodological” frames, including phenomenology, interpretive interactionism, symbolic interactionism, and social constructionism. He also provides a comprehensive look at “theories” used in music education qualitative research including theories of gender, teacher development, and role stress, among others. Scheib highlights that there is considerable confusion within the music education research community regarding theoretical frameworks and their use. Patton (2002) provides a list of what he considered the most common theoretical traditions, including: ethnography, autoethnography, reality testing (positivist and realist approaches), constructionism/constructivism, phenomenology, heuristic inquiry, ethnomethodology, symbolic interaction, semiotics, hermeneutics, narratology/narrative analysis, ecological psychology, systems theory, chaos theory (nonlinear dynamics), grounded theory, and orientational (feminist inquiry, critical theory, and queer theory, among others). Complete chapters could have been written about any one of these traditions. However, few of them have been used extensively in music education. Decisions regarding designs presented in part II of the book (case study, narrative, phenomenology, ethnography, and practitioner inquiry) were made with regard to the common use of those approaches within music education. I had considered a chapter on the use of grounded theory. Although Creswell (2007) includes grounded theory as one of five specific approaches to qualitative research (his list includes case study, phenomenology, ethnography, narrative and grounded theory) my initial sense was that there

12   COLLEEN M. CONWAY were not enough studies in music education that used the term “grounded theory” as an approach or design. In attending the Ethnographic and Qualitative Research conference in 2011 that I mentioned above, we noticed that the term “grounded theory” appeared in the abstract or handout of almost every presenter, but not as a design as much as an analysis procedure or as an overall term describing a characteristic of qualitative research. In ­chapter  2 of this Handbook Matsunobu and Bresler mention grounded theory briefly and state: The idea of building a local or grounded theory is appealing to music education researchers, and grounded theory is sometimes noted as a main methodological tool in music education research. However, such research does not always utilize a theoretical sampling or gradual sampling method. Rather, the emphasis is placed upon category formation, reformation, and comparison as well as a constant shift between coding and analysis. Because of its positivist and post-positivist orientation (Denzin and Lincoln 2011a), grounded theory is most frequently utilized in such fields as nursing and medical studies. Emphasis on grounded theory in music education research is less frequent, partly because its theory building process with gradual sampling involves multiple cycles of case selection and takes longer than other types of case study.

Kathy Charmaz (2007)2 states: Grounded theory is a method of qualitative inquiry in which data collection and analysis reciprocally inform and shape each other through an emergent and iterative process. The term “grounded theory” refers to this method and its product, a theory developed from successive conceptual analysis of data. Researchers may adopt grounded theory strategies while using a variety of data collection methods . . . It is often difficult, however, to discern the extent to which researchers have engaged grounded theory strategies. (360)

I feel as if these sources support the notion that grounded theory may be used as a method, but may also be regularly combined with other approaches. Very few researchers in music education have stated grounded theory as their approach. No music education scholars have written extensively on the topic when compared to the other authors in part II who have all published studies in music education using the approach they write about for the Handbook. The Handbook is quite comprehensive with regards to ways in which music education researchers have collected and analyzed their data. The one technique that some might consider missing from part III devoted to data collection and analysis is that of discourse analysis (Gee 2005). I am aware of several music education researchers who have used this technique (Dobbs 2005, 2008; and Talbot 2010) but did not feel at the time of Handbook publications that there was enough work in music education in this area to create a chapter. Decisions regarding inclusion of contexts for music education (part IV) centered around organizing the chapters so that there would not be too much overlap between

INTRODUCTION  13 topics but that all contexts that have been examined through a qualitative literature base would be addressed. I was initially concerned about overlap between early childhood music and general music but these two authors were able to negotiate clear divisions in their chapters. I had considered a separate chapter on composition and improvisation, but eventually decided to encourage authors to include studies in this area within their context (i.e., general music, band, choral, and strings). There was some potential overlap between community music education and the chapters on choral, band, and strings, but again authors worked well together to address this. Studies that address adult musical learning appear within the community music education chapter. The chapter on preservice teacher education includes studies up through undergraduate education and the inservice teacher professional development chapter then includes beginning teacher induction, graduate education, and teacher professional development. In terms of what might be “missing” from part IV of the Handbook, the constructs of culturally relevant pedagogy and multiculturalism are not as well-represented in the Handbook as the literature base may suggest. There is a strong chapter on world music in the classroom as well as a strong chapter on diversity. Yiannis Miralis, author of the world music chapter, has written about the challenge of defining the terms associated with world music including: multicultural, multiethnic, and world music (Miralis 2002, 2006), and Bruce Carter, who authored the diversity chapter, addresses definitions as well. However, both chapters had space only to gesture to the concepts of culturally relevant pedagogy and multiculturalism. I was unable to secure an author to address these concepts more completely. Finally, there are important issues in music education not addressed in the Handbook because qualitative researchers have not examined these areas. The most glaring example, to me, is in the area of music and arts education policy. In the epilogue of their most recent Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th Ed.), Lincoln and Denzin (2011b) suggest: One of the many myths surrounding qualitative research is that policy formulation utilizing such research is either difficult or impossible (Lincoln, 2011). Frequently dismissed as “anecdotal” by its detractors, qualitative research has often turned inward, addressing its own community of believers, who choose their own, less global, more locally focused means to effects social change. (717)

They go on to suggest that there are emerging trends in meta-analysis of qualitative data that may assist researchers and they conclude by suggesting: “An exploration of these options, with a direct focus on their applicability for policy purposes, is the centerpiece of new and future efforts at addressing the cumulation issue” (717). Several researchers have published work in Arts Education Policy Review (AEPR) based on qualitative inquiries (Conway, Krueger, Robinson, Hacck, and Smith 2002; Edgar 2012; Robinson 2005; and West 2011). These researchers have had to adjust their style of writing to reflect policy analysis as well as reporting of research. With music programs around the country under intense scrutiny, it may be time for all researchers to turn their energies towards policy work.

14   COLLEEN M. CONWAY It is important for readers to be aware that a new initiative from Oxford University Press will be providing commissions for Oxford Handbooks Online that will supplement material in Oxford Handbooks through online publication. So, chapters on topics like grounded theory, discourse analysis, culturally relevant pedagogy, and multiculturalism in music education may appear as the commissions for the new series if music educators continue to explore these topics to the extent that warrants similar treatment.

1.5 Author Expertise There are 32 authors and co-authors (including me) who have contributed to this Handbook. All are experienced in their fields. With the exception of the authors from the University of Michigan’s Institutional Review Board, all of the other 30 authors have conducted and published qualitative research in music education and hold (or have held) faculty positions in music education. These 30 authors represent diverse backgrounds within music education, including early childhood, general music, instrumental music, and choral music. Seven of the authors are full professors (Barrett, Bresler, Conway, Krueger, Robbins, Stauffer, and Webster), while 12 are associate professors (Allsup, Barrett, Berg, Campbell, Hourigan, Kruse, Miralis, Reynolds, Robinson, Roulston, Scheib, Schmidt, and Thompson). Eleven authors are assistant professors (Carter, Edgar, Eros, Fitzpatrick, Hansen, Matsunobu, Pellegrino, Stanley, Sweet, Tobias, West). Although it may seem surprising that a substantial number of the Handbook authors are junior faculty, I believe this can be attributed to the relatively “young” nature of qualitative research in music education. The senior authors of the book represent the researchers who have been forging the path for qualitative research in the last 10–20 years, while the junior authors are the future of qualitative research in music education. Authors in the book do their qualitative research in a variety of types of institutions and departments, including small and large public and private colleges, universities, and conservatories. Most are music education faculty, while Bresler and Roulston are in the College of Education. Hourigan, Krueger, and Scheib also hold posts within administration. Institutions represented include:  Arizona State University, Ball State University, California State University at East Bay, Columbia University—Teachers College, Eastman School of Music, European University—Cyprus, Ithaca College, Michigan State University, Temple University, University of Colorado, University of Georgia, University of Illinois, University of Michigan, University of North Texas at Denton, University of Puget Sound, University of Queensland, University of Southern California, University of Texas at San Antonio, West Virginia University. This variety of contexts for conducting qualitative research and the variety of lenses used to consider it provide strength to this volume.

INTRODUCTION  15

Notes 1. This section of the Introduction draws from Abeles and Conway (2010). 2. Charmaz is often referred to in the qualitative research scholarship as the author of “social constructivist grounded theory,” which differs from the older version put forth by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998).

References Abeles, Harold, and Conway, Colleen M. 2010. “The Inquiring Music Teacher.” In Critical issues in Music Education:  Contemporary Theory and Practice, edited by H. Abeles and L. Custodero, 276–302. New York: Oxford University Press. Barone, Tom. 2001. Touching Eternity. New York: Teachers College Press. Barrett, M. S., and Sandra L. Stauffer, eds. 2011. Narrative Soundings: An Anthology of Narrative Inquiry in Music Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Barrett, Margaret S., and Sandra L. Stauffer, eds. 2009. Narrative Inquiry in Music Education: Troubling Certainty. Springer, doi: 1007/978-1-4020-9862-8. Bogden, Robert., and Sari K. Biklin. 2006. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. 5th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Bresler, Liora. 1995. “Ethnography, Phenomenology and Action Research in Music Education.” Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning 6 (3): 4–16. Bresler, Liora, and Robert E. Stake, R. E. 1992. “Qualitative Research Methodology in Music Education.” In Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell, 75–90. New York: Schirmer. Charmaz, Kathryn. 2007. “Constructionism and Grounded Theory.” In Handbook of Constructionist Research, edited by J. A. Holstein and J. F. Gubrium, 319–412. New York: Guilford. Conway, Colleen M., Patricia Krueger, Mitchell Robinson, Paul Haack, and Michael V. Smith. 2002. “Beginning Music Teacher Mentor and Induction Policy: A Cross-State Perspective” Arts Education Policy Review 104 (2): 9–17. Creswell, John. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. 2005. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, Norman, K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. 2011a. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, Norman, K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 2011b. “Epilogue:  Toward a ‘Refunctioned Ethnography’” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th ed., edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonne S. Lincoln, 715–18. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

16   COLLEEN M. CONWAY Dobbs, Teryl, L. 2005. Discourse in the Band Room: How Talk Shapes Teaching, Learning, and Community in a Middle School Instrumental Music Classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 3177710. Dobbs, Teryl. 2008. “Discourse in the Band Room: The Role of Talk in an Instrumental Music Classroom.” In Diverse Methodologies in the Study of Music Teaching and Learning, edited by Linda K. Thompson and Mark R. Campbell, 137–60. Charlotte NC: IAP-Information Age Publishing. Edgar, Scott. 2012. Communication of Expectations between Principals and Entry-Year Instrumental Music Teachers. Arts Education Policy Review 113 (4). Eisenhart, M. 1998. On the Subject of Interpretive Reviews. Review of Educational Research 68 (4): 391–99. Eisner, Elliot W. and Alan Peshkin (Eds.) 1990. Qualitative Inquiry in Education. New York: Teachers College Press. Elliott, David. 2002. “Philosophical Perspectives on Research.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 85–103. New York: Oxford University Press. Ethnographic and Qualitative Research Conference Program. 2011. Cedarville, OH. Flinders, David J., and Carol P. Richardson, C. P. 2002. “Contemporary Issues in Qualitative Research and Music Education.” In The New Handbook of Research of Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 1159–76. New  York:  Oxford University Press. Gee, James Paul. 2005. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis:  Theory and Method. New York: Routledge. Glaser, Barney G., and Anslum Strauss. 1967. Discovery of Grounded Theory:  Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine. Hammersley, M., and Atkinson, P. 2007. Ethnography:  Principles in Practice. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge. Heller, J. J., and Edward J. P. O’Connor, E. J. 2002. “Maintaining Quality in Research and Reporting.” In R. Colwell and C. Richardson, eds. The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning. New York: Oxford University Press. Lincoln, Yvonna, S. 2011. Policy from Prose: The Perfect Adequacy of Policy Formulation from Qualitative Research. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Maxwell, Joseph A. 2005. Qualitative Research Design:  An Interactive Approach. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Merriam, Sharon, B. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, Sharon, B. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miralis, Yiannis, C. 2002. Multicultural-World Music Education and Music Teacher Education at the Big-Ten Schools:  Identified Problems and Suggestions. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International 54 (08): 2939A. Miralis, Yiannis. 2006. Clarifying the Terms “Multicultural,” “Multiethnic,” and “World Music Education through a Review of Literature.” Update:  Applications of Research in Music Education 24: 54–66. doi: 10.1177/87551233060240020106.

INTRODUCTION  17 Patton, Michael Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Phillips, Kenneth H. 2008. Exploring Research in Music Education and Music Therapy. New York: Oxford. Robinson, Mitchell, 2005. The Theory of Tensegrity and School/College Collaboration in Music Education. Arts Education Policy Review 106 (3): 9–18. Seidman, Irving. 1990. Interviewing as Qualitative Research. New York: Teachers College Press Seidman, Irving. 1997. Interviewing as Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. New  York:  Teachers College Press. Seidman, Irving. 2006. Interviewing as Qualitative Research. 3rd. ed. New  York:  Teachers College Press. Stake, Robert, E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stake, Robert, E. 2010. Qualitative Research:  Studying How Things Work. New York: Guilford Press. Strauss, Anslum, and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research:  Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications. Talbot, Brent. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis for Transformative Music Teaching and Learning: Method, Critique and Globalization. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 186, 81–93. Vidich, A. J., and S. M. Lyman. 2003. “Qualitative Methods: Their History in Sociology and Anthropology.” In The Landscape of Qualitative Research:  Theories and Issues, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 55–129. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. West, Chad. 2011. Teaching Music in an Era of High Stakes Testing and Budget Reductions. Arts Education Policy Review 113 (2): 75–79. Wiersma, William, and Stephen G. Jurs. 2005. Research Methods in Education. 8th ed. Boston: Pierson.

pa rt  i

DE F ININ G QUALITATIVE R ESEA RCH IN AME R ICAN MUSIC EDUCATION

Chapter 2

Qualitative Re se a rc h i n M u sic Educ at i on Concepts, Goals and Characteristics KOJI MATSUNOBU AND LIORA BRESLER 1

Sound is central to making sense, to knowing, to experiential truth. (Feld 1996, 97)

The past twenty years have been a coming of age for qualitative research in music education. From a marginal, pariah methodology, qualitative research has become a legitimate, central methodology, with its own conferences, research journals, and venues. Mainstream qualitative genres such as case study and ethnography have proliferated (Lane 2011). New genres such as narrative and arts-based research have emerged (Barrett and Stauffer 2009, 2012; Bresler 2006; Eisner and Barone 2012; McCarthy 2004, 2007). From a methodologically conservative discipline in the late 80s, inquiry in music education research has become fertile and cutting edge. A testimony to the richness, breadth, and depth of qualitative research in music education is this Handbook’s focus on qualitative inquiry. The discipline has extended its foci to explore the processes of music teaching and learning, attending to the voices of teachers and learners at different ages, stages, and educational levels (Blair 2009; Bresler 1998; Conway et  al. 2010; Powell 2003; Silvey 2005; Solomonson 2011). Research on the uses of technology in music education, corresponding to their dramatic increase in the past 30 years, has propagated (Bresler 1987; Ruthman 2006; Shin 2011; Thibeault 2007). Recognizing the educational power of music outside of schools, qualitative researchers have also examined the lived experience of listening to and making music in a broad range of settings, including instrumental studio

22    KOJI MATSUNOBU AND LIORA BRESLER teaching (Kedem 2009; Miller 2012), home schooling (Nichols 2012), musical interactions in playgrounds (Harwood 1998), performing arts centers (Bresler 2010), army bands (Cape and Nichols 2012), ensembles for elder musicians (Tsugawa 2009), and communities of ethnic music (Matsunobu 2011, 2012; Powell 2003; Veblen 1994). These experiences and educational practices of engaging in musical activities are not new (even when a specific technology may be). Performing and listening in diverse spaces, from the formal to the recreational, the mundane to the spiritual, have been with us for thousands of years. What is new is the application of disciplined, systematic inquiry toward an in-depth understanding of lived experience and processes of engagement, acknowledging the multiplicity of contexts and perspectives in shaping deeply held values, in learning, and in developing. Qualitative research, which is by definition a social construct, is an umbrella term for a wide array of genres, including case study, ethnography, phenomenology, narrative inquiry, action, and formative research. Recognizing the differences in intellectual traditions, purposes, units of analysis, and foci, there are still common elements likely to be agreed upon. This chapter examines the shared assumptions within qualitative research—its broad goals, key concepts, general characteristics, and methods. We draw on some current research in music education that exemplifies these goals and concepts, at times extending the scope of qualitative research to draw on the powerful characteristics of music and sound. Our charge is to focus on research in the United States. We take this to refer to research that was conducted in US universities, reflecting the intellectual and structural traditions in North America. We leave out fine work conducted by colleagues in Australia, Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa.2 However, it is important to remember that at all times, and particularly in the early twenty-first century, the disciplinary communities of research in music education are intensely globalized. American scholars, like their counterparts in other countries, travel around the world to present their work and publish in international journals and publications, with knowledge crossing both ways.

2.1 Intellectual Roots and Assumptions of Qualitative Research As a scholarly discipline, music education has its inception in two parents: music and education. Shaped by post-modernist thinking (Denzin and Lincoln 2011), qualitative educational research can be traced to multiple traditions, primarily philosophy, anthropology, and action research. These represent two orientations (Bresler 1996):  basic, with a primary goal of understanding (manifested, for example, in the traditions of Anthropology and Phenomenology); and applied, aimed toward a direct improvement of practice (manifested, for example, in Action and Formative research). Within philosophy, foundational to all research, phenomenology delves into uncovering the meaning

Concepts, Goals, and Characteristics  23 and structure of lived experience and the inter-subjective world (van Manen 1990), with hermeneutics examining the theory and practice of interpretation (Gadamer 1988). Qualitative research in music can be traced to ethnomusicology, itself the child of anthropology and musicology. Just as anthropologists seek to understand how a cultural system operates and shapes human interactions in a given society, ethnomusicologists explore the musical system of a culture and cultural system of music, focusing on the meanings and values of specific musical behaviors, processes, and products (Merriam 1964; Nettl 2005). The scope of ethnomusicology includes investigating the ways in which music is taught and learned in both formal and informal contexts. These approaches, with their distinct emphases and intellectual traditions, provide an epistemological foundation of qualitative research methodology, generating specific methods to address goals in music education. The underlying assumption of hermeneutics and phenomenology that has influenced field-based inquiry is that social reality is constructed based on the specific perspective of the individual, evidenced, for example, in the diverse experiences by different people of the same musical performance, shaped by their personal and cultural contexts. Accordingly, social reality, unlike physical reality, is perspectival and multiple. The situated nature of the researcher in relation to the social reality she studies marks a departure from the objectivist view that reality exists outside human consciousness. Qualitative research epistemologies presuppose that knowledge is neither inside a person nor outside in the world but exists in the relationship between them because humans are not mere repositories of knowledge but active constructors of meaning. In an interview setting, this suggests that the interviewee is seen as an active constructor of knowledge in collaboration with the interviewer rather than a vessel of answers (Holstein and Gubrium 2002). Whereas positivist research implicates fixed, objective distances, qualitative research involves the navigation of distances and movements among different perspectives, relying on the participants situated in diverse points, aiming to expand habitual forms of perceiving. Researchers, like their participants, are situated within a specific context and perspective. Researchers’ “subjectivities” (Peshkin 1988, 1994)—background, values, and lenses—shape their interpretation and as such, must be acknowledged in the foreground. Rather than an enemy, subjectivity in research is a given, part of the human condition. Typically too close to discern, our subjectivities require acknowledgement and effort to cultivate a certain amount of distance (Bresler, ­chapter 32 of this volume). Because of this nature, qualitative research can be conducive to self-awareness and the ability to perceive oneself. We are often unaware of our own values and frameworks of understanding until we face them in light of those of our informants. Positing that research is a journey and the researcher is a traveler, Kvale (1996, 4) observes, The journey may not only lead to new knowledge; the traveler might change as well. The journey might instigate a process of reflection that leads the interviewer to new ways of self-understanding, as well as uncovering previously taken-for-granted values and customs in the traveler’s home country.

24    KOJI MATSUNOBU AND LIORA BRESLER Emotions have an important role in helping identify subjectivity. From a feminist perspective, Jaggar (1989) argues against the view that emotion leads to errors or biases in research and claims that emotions and feelings are socially and culturally constructed and connected with cognition. Kleinman and Copp (1993) examine how emotions inform and support analysis. People in the same value system often share emotional responses and make similar judgments. Empathy, as Wilhelm Dilthey established more than a century ago, is a key goal of qualitative research (Stueber 2008). It is also its close partner (Bresler, 2013). Empathy3 involves “putting oneself in someone’s shoes,” in the specific context of the participant. Empathy helps us to understand the meaning of a person’s action and experience “from within” but not in an attached manner.4 The relationships of the researcher with the setting differ, depending on the specific scholarly tradition. Anthropologists and ethnomusicologists have typically been cultural outsiders to the settings they study. Music educators are often insiders of the culture and values of their settings. Therefore, they are the experts and most knowledgeable of cultural knowledge (Eisner 1991). As insiders to the setting, they are likely to have better understanding and discernment of contents, pedagogies, and traditions. The pitfall is that they may have stronger convictions and persuasions, and may be prone to be more judgmental and less open to alternative views. The forms through which interpretations are created and communicated shape the messages. The use of statistical measures and numbers emphasizes similarities across large samples and aims at reduction. Qualitative research, in contrast, aims at portraying the richness of individual cases through “thick descriptions” (Geertz 1973) and narrative, possibly incorporating visuals and sounds. The pursuit of depth and complexity, and the attention to holistic, contextual reality rather than a priori variables, require prolonged engagement. Prolonged engagement and immersion in the setting allow researchers to develop understanding through encounters and interactions with their participants, facilitating identification of additional foci and emerging relevant contexts. Data collection occurs simultaneously with preliminary data analysis, the latter shaping the next cycles of fieldwork. Research then is situational and emergent, recognizing and making explicit the interactive aspect between the researcher and the setting.

2.2 Interpretation Interpretation is required in any type of social research. In qualitative research interpretation is ongoing and multiple: qualitative researchers aim to provide credible interpretations of the meanings, functions, and consequences of human actions, from the viewpoints of diverse participants. Interpretation starts from the very beginning of the research design and process—what to look at, where to start, whom to talk to, what issue to draw on; it continues throughout the stages of data gathering, analysis, and write-up of the study.

Concepts, Goals, and Characteristics  25 Researchers aim to be reflexive and open to new ways of looking, while seeking trustworthiness of their observations and interpretations. The concept of an “interpretive zone” originally referred to teamwork in research, where the group has multiple researchers5 (Bresler et al. 1996; Wasser and Bresler 1996), and centers on contrapuntal interpretations as both process and product. The interactive voices of the different researchers—perspectives, commitments, and interpretations—create a polyphonic texture, with its consonances and dissonances. This zone forms a basis from which to further perceive, investigate, and negotiate understandings, striving to acknowledge multiple layers of meaning and achieve higher credibility. The practice of peer debriefing (one of the criteria suggested by Lincoln and Guba 1985) can be regarded as the creation of a (limited scope) zone to invite diverse etic perspectives, facilitating reflection on the gap between etic and emic perspectives in an effort to connect them.6 Qualitative research work often includes reflective anecdotes regarding the evolution of research perspectives, the trajectory of researchers’ engagement in the field, and the expansion of self-understanding. All of these bring to light the interpretation process and offer essential information about the researcher. The fact that qualitative research can inform, reform, and transform self-understanding is part of the reason why qualitative research can be so rewarding.

2.3  Reflexive Processes of Research Designing, Data Collection, and Analysis Qualitative researchers normally do not bring a fixed research design to fieldwork because they need to respond to the constraints and possibilities of each field. Research strategies are often emergent and subject to change in the research process (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007; Patton 2001). For example, initial research questions—often generated from etic points of view in the abstract context of scholarship rather than the realities of the settings—are refined over the course of research to make sense in the reality of each setting. Research is often guided by emergent questions. Some predetermined, a priori categories for data analysis and codes may be kept, while others will be generated in the process of data analysis. Similarly, literature review needs to respond to emerging issues (Eisenhart 1998). The researcher goes back and forth between theoretical and empirical data to refine understandings and interpretations. Because of this emergent process of qualitative research, methodological explanation is often provided in retrospect (Barone 2001; Vidich and Lyman 2003). In the field, the researcher aims to meet diverse participants and observe all relevant events, to grasp a picture of what is going on, especially in the beginning phase

26    KOJI MATSUNOBU AND LIORA BRESLER of fieldwork. Fieldwork may start slowly as the researcher settles into a site. Data collection typically takes weeks and months. So does forming relationships in the field. It is often after the researcher leaves the field that a clearer idea of what he should have done emerges. This is why preliminary data analyses in the form of contact summary sheets and interim reports (Miles and Huberman 1984/1994) are extremely valuable. While the extent of fieldwork varies across genres—ethnographies are particularly long, with researchers commonly staying for a number of years, whereas evaluation case studies are characteristically short—the principle of collecting as much data as possible to facilitate an in-depth understanding of the field or phenomena applies to any genre of qualitative research. Qualitative research is a collaborative endeavor, aiming to capture and incorporate different perspectives. Music educators writing within the traditions of ethnography and ethnomusicology collaborate with insiders to the culture. Support and assistance of these insiders for accessing the community, interviewing informants, and confirming research data, is the condition for successful research. Those operating in the traditions of action or formative research, typically key players in their settings, incorporate the voices of their collaborators in the settings. At the same time, they aim to draw on perspectives of outsiders for fresh perception of issues. In these processes, building relationships, including rapport and sociality, becomes a central part of the research experience. Qualitative researchers attend to what the informants feel, sense, and think, and become companions of the informants’ lives for short (or longer) periods of time. Relations have to be established and identities co-constructed (Hammersly and Atkinson, 2007, 4). Sometimes, the relationship fades out; at other times it continues and evolves after the project. What makes relationship in qualitative research unusual (as compared not only with quantitative research but also with “ordinary” life) is the intensified transformation of researcher/participant relationships, a transformation that works in both directions (Bresler 1997, 20). Qualitative research can be intensive in the forming of engagement and relationship. In his study, Matsunobu (2009) experienced such intensity while examining the lived experience of spirituality among adult music learners who participated in a musical pilgrimage from North America to Japan. As a researcher, language translator, and cultural insider, he shared 24 hours a day with the participants during the month of the pilgrimage. Drawing on the work of Victor Turner, he reported that the experiences of sharing sacredness and deepening spirituality brought him and his participants a sense of “communitas,” making them deeply connected. This shared experience served as a point of reference for their subsequent reflections and understandings of musical and spiritual growth. If the unit of analysis of phenomenology is the individual, emphasizing the uniqueness of the individual, the unit of analysis of anthropology and ethnomusicology is on the culture or sub-culture, highlighting shared values. The essence of ethnographic process is to make the strange familiar and to make the familiar strange. Emphasizing the former process, music education research has provided a wealth of knowledge about music teaching and learning. For instance, in his ethnography on Japanese brass bands,

Concepts, Goals, and Characteristics  27 Hebert (2012) examined broader social, cultural, political, and historical contexts of music education, and revealed the system through which these contexts shape the current practice of school band and the culture of competition. Feay-Shaw (2002) explored the interface of Ghanaian and school cultures by examining how Ghanaian music was transmitted and taught in different settings, including higher education and secondary school contexts, by cultural bearers, foreign practitioners, and schoolteachers whose exposure to and expertise in Ghanaian drumming significantly varied. Powell (2003), while working with a group of taiko players in a community setting as a participatory observer, revealed a cultural pedagogy that helped them communicate their spirits and achieve body-mind and body-instrument integration. Music education research also benefits from engaging in the process of making the familiar strange. For instance, Della Pietra and Campbell (1995) examined the culture of improvisation in American higher education using an ethnographic lens. Since improvisation is not a significant part of the musical training system in the United States, the researchers observed a music education methods course and examined the ways music education students developed an understanding of improvisation. Similarly, in her case study of a university vocal ensemble, Zaretti (1998) explored the processes and challenges of learning multicultural music through a combination of ethnomusicological and educational perspectives.

2.4 Exploration of and through Senses We see the world as a noun and hear it as a verb. (Burrows 1990, 21)

David Howes contends that anthropology’s engagement with the sensory has shifted over the last century and a half from a concern with measuring bodies and recording sense data to an interest in sensing patterns, followed by an interest in reading texts, and finally to writing culture (Howes, 2003, 3). In the course of these shifts, the content of anthropological knowledge has changed from being multisensory and social to being “spectacularly stylized” and centered on the individual ethnographer (Howes 2003, 3). The fundamental assumption of what came to be known as the “anthropology of the senses” is that sensory perception is a cultural as well as a physical act, that is—sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell are not only means of apprehending physical phenomena, but also avenues for the transmission of cultural values (Classen 1997, 401). Given that perception is conditioned by culture, the ways in which people perceive the world may vary as cultures vary. Sensation, Howes suggests, is not just a matter of physiological response and personal experience, but is the most basic domain of cultural expression, the medium through which all the values and practices of society are enacted. Every domain of sensory experience, from music and sound through the scent of perfume to the savor of dinner, is a field of cultural elaboration, an arena for structuring social roles

28    KOJI MATSUNOBU AND LIORA BRESLER and interactions. We learn social divisions, as well as distinctions of gender, class, and race through our senses. Sensual relations, Howes argues, are social relations (Howes 2003, xi). If anthropology of the senses attends to embodiment as a tool of research and aims to expand what we investigate, arts-based research is a distinctive genre of social research that focuses on communicating multisensory dimensions of human experiences (Cahnmann-Taylor and Siegesmund 2008; Leavy 2009). The underlying belief of arts-based research is that artistic processes can inform educational research because the arts open up human sensibilities. Irwin and de Cosson claim that we as artists live “a life of awareness, a life that permits openness to the complexity around us, a life that intentionally sets out to perceive things differently” (2004, 33). Indeed, fundamentals aspects of qualitative research, such as sense of space, meaning of silence, embodiment of relationship, ethics of mutual tuning-in, and nonverbal interactions, are what artists have explored through their work. For musicians, sound is a medium of knowing, and music serves for them as an inspiration and process of research (Gouzouasis 2006; Leavy 2009). Sonic ethnography is a form of research to explore auditory dimensions of human experience as shaping and being shaped by the sound world (Powell 2012). Sonic ethnography of the school environment illuminates the uses, functions, and meanings of sound and music as part of the everyday construct of lived experience at school (Gershon 2011; Lum and Campbell 2007). The enculturation of musicians into the sound world heightens their perception of temporal dimensions such as sonic form, dynamics, rhythm, timbre, and orchestration (Bresler and Stake 1992; Bresler 2005). Aspects of musicianship, such as embodied connection and improvisation, are key to forming relationships with participants and settings (Bresler 2006).

2.5 Case-Specific Understanding Every person is like every other person but like no other person (Denzin 2001, 39)

Qualitative research in education normally focuses on a few cases to facilitate in-depth study of educational phenomena. It is an inquiry of the particular rather than the general. The emphasis of the study is sometimes placed on understanding the case itself; other times examining specific issues across cases (Stake 1995). Either way, the quality of the study depends on the richness of case(s) rather than the size of sample(s). Cases may be selected for different reasons: typicality, variety, balance of the cases, and representation of issues. Generalization in qualitative research can be made not to the population but to the issues and concepts that have been explored. The discussion of validity in qualitative research has less to do with the replicability of research than the plausibility of interpretation.

Concepts, Goals, and Characteristics  29 Qualitative scholars argue that case-specific understanding may transfer to other cases because every case represents its kind and thus shares with other cases a set of social, cultural, and historical contexts (Denzin 2001). Barone and Eisner observe “In the particular resides the general,” suggesting that one of the functions of qualitative research is “to locate what is general in what is particular” (2006, 101). As Jean-Paul Sartre has observed early on (in Denzin 2001), the universality of human reality can thus be understood through the singularity. Context is background information that helps us understand the case. Contexts include the evolution of the case. In his Touching Eternity, depicting an art program in an Appalachian high-school, Barone (2001) depicts the geographical context of the school, as well as the economics of the region, the culture and worldview of its inhabitants, and the artwork presented on walls of the schools. Case studies in music education often opt for “typical” or non-atypical cases. For example, Silvey (2005) explored learning experiences of musical works through thirteen-year-old Ingrid. Silvey’s case report begins:  “There is nothing remarkable about Ingrid, one of three dozen young choral singers . . .” (11). Through this case, Silvey explains not only how Ingrid developed her relationships with musical pieces but also, without generalizing, what is possibly going on in the minds of many ordinary students. An in-depth understanding of a typical case helps the reader to understand the nature of other cases. Stake, Bresler, and Mabry selected ordinary schools for their case studies of music and arts education. Mindful about “the hospitality of school district and teachers, and the complexity of the arts offering and community” (1991, 3–4), they aimed for a variety of demographics. In this multiple case project, each of the seven sites was unique. The researchers’ interest was not in comparing the sites in terms of various criteria but in “giving each school a chance to tell its story of arts education.” Music education research targets not only typical cases but also exceptional and unusual cases, just as ethnomusicology research deals with both exceptional cases (e.g., gurus, leading performers, influential teachers) and ordinary cases (e.g., amateur players, beginning students) to draw a picture of a culture and its musical system. An example of an unusual case is that discussed by Carlow (2006), who explored immigrant students’ musical experiences. In this particular work, she shed light on a Russian immigrant of Korean ancestry who was in the school choir; she depicted this student’s experiences of cultural isolation, displacement, and also tension with a choral teacher. Among other participants, this student stood out, not because her parents come from distinctive cultural backgrounds, but rather, because she did not feel “American” she experienced being invisible in choral concerts at school. For a best-case example, Veblen (1994) observed and interviewed exemplary teachers to examine the changes and stability of the Irish music tradition. Here, the cases were selected by the reputation of teachers as well as their representation of diverse instruments, ages, and geographical locations. Within the context of scientific expectation of generalizability, and knowing that generalizations are impossible, as lived experience is never context-free, qualitative

30    KOJI MATSUNOBU AND LIORA BRESLER researchers face the complex relationship between the singular and the universal, individual and collective experiences, particularization and generalization, micro-analysis and macro-analysis (Seale 1999; Stake 2010). Aware that generalization across cases is impossible, some researchers intend to build a theory through case studies. Grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin 1990)  emerged from such aspirations, leading to the formulation of the “theoretical sampling” technique (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Theoretical sampling encourages a gradual sampling process of cases according to “their (expected) level of new insights for the developing theory, in relation to the state of theory elaboration so far” (Flick 1998, 65). This process involves teasing out patterns, themes, and concepts from data analysis, generating a hypothesis, and testing through purposefully selected cases to prove its applicability and also to rule out other explanations. The idea of building a local or grounded theory is appealing to music education researchers, and grounded theory is sometimes noted as a main methodological tool in music education research. However, such research does not always utilize a theoretical sampling or gradual sampling method. Rather, the emphasis is placed upon category formation, reformation, and comparison, as well as a constant shift between coding and analysis. Because of its positivist and post-positivist orientation (Denzin and Lincoln 2011), grounded theory is most frequently utilized in such fields as nursing and medical studies. Emphasis on grounded theory in music education research is less frequent, partly because its theory building process with gradual sampling involves multiple cycles of case selection and takes longer than other types of case study.

2.6 Writing, Representation of Data, and Criteria Differences among different genres of qualitative research have to do with goals, positionality of the researcher, emphases, units of analysis, and intellectual traditions (Bresler 1995; Jaeger 1997). Terms for qualitative research sometimes overlap. Different descriptors refer to various aspects of the research. The term case study highlights a bounded system (Stake 1995). The term interpretive inquiry (Erickson 1986) highlights the centrality of interpretation. Naturalistic inquiry emphasizes observations as non-interventionist nature of the research. Narrative inquiry refers to the centrality of first-person accounts (versus observations). Rather than being distinct genres, different terms underline different aspects of the research. The use of biographical and autobiographical materials, photographs and other visuals, poetry (Prendergast, Gouzouasis, Leggo, and Irwin 2009; Wiggins 2011), performance texts, and other cultural artifacts is often grouped under arts-based research.

Concepts, Goals, and Characteristics  31 The choice of terminology regarding what used to be “subjects” in positivism conveys values. Van Manen favors “persons” to refer to the uniqueness of each human being. He quotes Auden: “As persons, we are incomparable, uncountable, irreplaceable” (Auden 1967, in van Manen 1990). Many prefer the term “participants,” highlighting the collaborative aspect of the research, whereas others use the term “informants” (Schwandt 2001).”7 Key concepts travel across genres. Ryle’s “thick description” made famous by Geertz (1973) is central to many genres. Thick description refers to the researcher’s goal to report cultural meanings understood by the insiders and negotiated by the researcher. Geertz (1993) emphasizes that thick description is not the same as detailed description of the event but is rather an interpretive report of cultural meanings. Denzin (2001) comments that whereas “a thin description simply reports facts, independent of intentions or the circumstances that surround the action,” a good thick description provides context-rich information—the history and evolution of the action, the intentions of the actors, and the meanings exchanged by them—all of which helps us understand the deep structures, presuppositions, and meanings of social and cultural practices. In thick description, the researcher seeks an emic understanding and describes meanings of behaviors, situations, and events as they unfold in the lives of—and in the eyes (and ears) of—the informants (De Munck 2009). While in the field, the researcher seeks triangulation of data in order to increase trustworthiness of interpretation. Triangulation originally refers to the researcher’s effort to converge data from multiple sources. For some scholars, triangulation is not a strategy for convergence, but a way to look at the phenomenon from different angles for richer understanding, which may result in contradicting observations (Flick 1998). The researcher will practice “member check” or “respondent validation” of data in the field to ensure that collected data are reliable from the insiders’ viewpoints. The text may include many and diverse voices representing each standpoint. “Prolonged engagement” is also central to making a credible explanation of data. Qualitative researchers try to maximize their involvement in the field because the phenomena they study are often “long and episodic and evolving” (Stake 2010, 29). Deep immersion in a culture or group over a long period of time does not necessarily ensure the resulting interpretation. However, longer involvement allows for the emergence of more natural understanding of the case, affording a time and space to linger with the data, to scrutinize initial understanding, and to explore additional interpretations. Numbers are usually important. Quantitative ideas of enumeration and differences in size provide useful contextual information about the cases or phenomena under study in qualitative research. The distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods is more of a matter of emphasis on the particular or the general than a discrete boundary: if findings are drawn primarily from the aggregate of many individual observations, we call the study “quantitative,” but the research still may emphasize either the particular or the general (Stake 2010, 19). The criteria for high-quality inquiry and for high-quality reports are not the same (Bresler and Stake 1992). The former is controlled largely by the researcher who is

32    KOJI MATSUNOBU AND LIORA BRESLER responsible for providing a credible account and interpretation of the phenomenon with accuracy of information and well-rounded discussion of the data. The latter appeals to the experience of the reader, asking to what extent the research facilitates inferences and vicarious experiences regarding the reader’s own situations and responsibilities. The criteria for qualitative research (as well as quantitative research) reports are determined by both the researcher and the user of the research. Concerned about the impact of research, some postmodernist researchers extend the traditional view of credibility by promoting the use of fictionalized stories in the final report (Barone 2001; Barone and Eisner 2012; Denzin 2001). Still, many share the worry about misrepresentation and misappropriation of others. The acknowledgement of researchers’ values, the transparency of the research process, the recognition of multiple perspectives, and the practice of member checks are meant to increase trustworthiness.

2.7 Ethics Ethics must be embedded throughout the research process (Bresler 1997). Ethical concerns are present at each stage of the research process: when forming the study, entering and being in the field, conducting interviews, analyzing and interpreting data, leaving the field, writing and disseminating the report. Like other aspects of qualitative research, ethical concerns are emergent and subject to change depending on the nature of each field. Qualitative researchers apply research ethics not only in the abstract (in terms of general rules, principles, IRB procedures, consent forms, etc.) but also in concrete situations, to respond to the particular needs and ethical standards of the researched people. Beyond matters of legislation through consent agreement for fieldwork and interviews, ethical conduct for qualitative researchers involves caring, imagination, sensitivity, and empathy. Ethics, like the notions of privacy and confidentiality, is culture-specific. For instance, different cultures differ in their notions of separation between private and public spaces and the relationships between self and other (e.g., Hamid 2010; Katyal 2011). Formal ethical concerns must be negotiated in each case to protect informants’ dignity and potential vulnerability. As practices of music education involve participants with diverse cultural backgrounds and forms of music, we need to pay attention to situation-specific ethical norms in the research process. As ethnomusicology has noted time and again, ownership of music is culturally determined: some music allows only limited or strict access and is not supposed to be documented. Researchers need to be wary of the aftermath of their work. Published documents, even with anonymity, may reveal identities to insiders within the community. Insiders can easily figure out who said what based on their relationships with other members of the community and their relationships with the researcher. Thus, ethical concerns for within-group members must be extensive and carefully examined. Published documents may influence policymaking decisions, which can lead to disadvantageous results

Concepts, Goals, and Characteristics  33 for the community, individual members, and future practitioners. Researchers should be mindful of these possible outcomes of their practice before embarking on a qualitative research project and writing a report.

2.8 Coda This chapter has discussed qualitative research in music education, including its epistemological, methodological, and ethical assumptions. In addition to the types of qualitative research discussed in music education research, including case study, narrative, and ethnographic methods, other forms of qualitative research, such as auto-ethnography (Bartleet and Ellis 2009; Manovski 2012), self-study (Conway et al. 2010), and performance ethnography (Denzin 2003), are relatively uncharted. One emerging setting of inquiry is the Internet. People are increasingly experiencing and sharing music through the Internet and digital media and developing a network and a sense of belonging through online communication. The instruction of music is now provided online, often via Skype or YouTube, reaching out to students of geographically isolated places. Qualitative research is extending its scope to capture the nature of music-making and meaning-making processes mediated by digital media. The examination of explicit educational practices (Schmidt-Jones 2012; White 2012) is at its beginning, and we anticipate increasing research on the educational implications of online communication and sharing of meanings and values (Markham 2007). If the Internet invites a global, transnational expansion of musical practices, local cultures are as important in shaping identities. Qualitative research can be a powerful tool to uncover cultural assumptions and meanings of education anywhere. This is especially so when multiple cultures are compared (e.g., Tobin, Hsueh, and Karasawa 2009), either globally or locally. Brand made an apt observation regarding this matter through his cross-cultural work on music teacher education: “There is a need for understanding how music education students see their experiences. And the ethnographic interview provides a means of understanding through the eyes of music education students from both our culture and from another culture” (2002, 60–61). Qualitative research in cross-cultural contexts can bring an external gaze into our profession, making the “familiar strange” and raising critical questions; for instance, what is the nature of competition in our band world as compared to similar phenomena in other cultures (Hebert 2012)? Why do we have more band specialists than string specialists in our profession (Lo 2013)? Why do brass instrumentalists choose to teach general music rather than instrumental music (Robinson 2010)? Underlying the use of qualitative research conducted in cross-cultural, international settings is the expectation that the field of music education will be advanced further by examining our taken-for-granted assumptions (Bresler and Ardichvili 2002). We began our chapter by referring to Feld on the centrality of sound as a modality of knowing and being in the world. Sound is a way of knowing, and soundscapes are

34    KOJI MATSUNOBU AND LIORA BRESLER integral to social worlds. To understand the former is to know the latter. His concept of “acoustemology,” a union of acoustics and epistemology, highlights the dynamic interplay of sounds and sensuality in human emplacement in the world. As musicians and music educators engaged in the exploration of sonic sensibilities, we can contribute significantly to understanding the educational aspects of sound and music and the forms of knowledge and understanding that music education provides. The most important criterion for any research is that it is about something important to researchers, with implications to theory and practice. Qualitative research requires full commitment, heightened perception, prolonged and intensified engagement, a willingness and ability to notice and examine one’s fundamental assumptions, habits, and attachments. It requires openness to other ways of perceiving and understanding. These qualities are necessary, (though not sufficient), to convey the “compellingness” of the research to readers, to allow them to understand new and different perspectives. Craft is crucial—the craft of disciplined observation, producing data records, preliminary and intensive analysis, and writing. In these and other aspects of research we recognize the open-ended, improvised aspects that do not lend themselves to prescriptive recommendations, but require responsiveness to what we encounter (Bresler 2005). Precisely because the researcher is the main instrument, the commitment, skills, and abilities of the researcher are crucial. With pressure for quick products (impossible in a methodology that calls for prolonged engagement in data collection and analysis), qualitative research (like quantitative research) can be superficial, resulting in reporting and summarizing rather than expanding understandings. Cultivating qualitative research skills and sensitivities is a lifelong process, responding to new situations and contexts rather than importing “ready-made” categories. In this sense, the journey involved in qualitative research is similar to that of musicians and educators; it is a journey that leads to new encounters and opens up fresh insights into our understanding of the world.

Notes   1.  We are indebted to Betsy Hearne for her reading of this manuscript and helpful suggestions. 2. A wealth of research papers by researchers from all over the world can be found in such journals as the International Journal of Music Education, Research Studies in Music Education, the British Journal of Music Education, Asia-Pacific Journal of Arts Education, Music Education Research, the International Journal of Community Music, and the International Journal of Research in Arts Education. Sections attending to research in music education in these continents can also be found in the Handbook of Research in Arts Education (Bresler 2007). 3. Empathy is distinguished from sympathy, the latter characterized by emotional accord rather than cognitive perception, and as such lends itself to advocacy rather than inquiry.

Concepts, Goals, and Characteristics  35 4. Critical activists and scholars whose ultimate goal of research is to make social change may claim that all researchers take sides. They advocate one point of view or another. Value-free interpretive research is impossible (for instance, Denzin 2001). 5. But this concept can easily be applied in such a way as to include participants. 6. “Emic” refers to insider perspective and “etic” to outsider perspective. Emic theories are based on “native” explanations and predictions, while etic theories are on the researcher’s explanations and predictions. Etic is not simply an outsider perspective but an expert’s explanation. Most ethnographers seek to present emic-derived, folk theories while addressing comparative, cross-cultural, etic theories. (De Munck 2009, 13). 7. Reflecting similar concerns, some critical scholars avoid the term “data” because human experiences and narratives are not to be chopped into parts for comparison and labeling.

References Barone, T. 2001. Touching Eternity. New York: Teachers College Press. Barone, T., and E. Eisner. 2006. “Arts-Based Educational Research.” In Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, edited by J. Green, G. Camilli, and P. Elmore, 93–107. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Barone, T., and W. E. Eisner. 2012. Arts Based Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Barrett, M., and S. L. Stauffer, eds. 2009. Narrative Inquiry in Music Education:  Troubling Certainty. New York: Springer. Barrett, M., and S. L. Stauffer, eds. 2012. Narrative Sounding: An Anthology of Narrative Inquiry in Music Education. New York: Springer. Bartleet, B. L., and C. Ellis, eds. 2009. Music Autoethnographies: Making Autoethnography Sing/ Making Music Personal. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press. Blair, D. V. 2009. “Fostering Wakefulness: Narrative as a Curricular Tool in Teacher Education.” International Journal of Education & the Arts 10 (19). http://www.ijea.org/v10n19/. Brand, M. 2002. “An Ethnographic Study of Hong Kong and American Music Education Students.” Contributions to Music Education 29 (2): 47–65. Bresler, L. 1987. “The Role of the Computer in a Music Theory Classroom: Integration, Barriers, and Learning.” PhD diss., Stanford University. Bresler, L. 1995. “Ethnography, Phenomenology, and Action Research in Music Education.” Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning 6 (3): 6–18. Bresler, L. 1996. “Basic and Applied Qualitative Research in Music Education.” Research Studies in Music Education, 6: 5–17. Bresler, L. 1997. “Towards the Creation of a New Code of Ethics in Qualitative Research.” Council of Research in Music Education 130: 17–29. Bresler, L. 1998. “The Genre of School Music and Its Shaping by Meso, Micro and Macro Contexts.” Research Studies in Music Education 1: 2–18. Bresler, L. 2005. “What Musicianship Can Teach Educational Research.” Music Education Research 7 (2): 169–83. Bresler, L. 2006. “Embodied Narrative Inquiry: Methodology of Connection.” Research Studies in Music Education 27, 21–43. Bresler, L., ed. 2007. International Handbook of Research in Arts Education. New  York: Springer.

36    KOJI MATSUNOBU AND LIORA BRESLER Bresler, L. 2010. “Teachers as Audiences: Exploring Educational and Musical Values in Youth Performances.” Journal of New Music Research 39 (2): 135–45. Bresler, L. 2013. “Cultivating Empathic Understanding in Research and Teaching.” In Aesthetics, Empathy and Education, edited by B. White and T. Costantino, 9–28. New York: Peter Lang. Bresler, L., and A. Ardichvili, eds. 2002. Research in International Education: Experience, Theory, and Practice. New York: Peter Lang. Bresler, L., and R. E. Stake. 1992. “Qualitative Research Methodology in Music Education.” In Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell, 75–90. Reston, VA: MENC, The National Association for Music Educators. Bresler, L., J. Wasser, N. Hertzog, and M. Lemons. 1996. “Beyond the Lone Ranger Researcher:  Teamwork in Qualitative Research.” Research Studies in Music Education 7: 15–30. Burrows, D. 1990. Sound, Speech, and Music. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Cahnmann-Taylor, M., and R. Siegesmund. 2008. Arts-Based Research in Education: Foundations for Practice. New York: Routledge. Cape, J., and J. Nichols. 2012. “Engaging Stories:  Co-Constructing Narratives of Women’s Military Bands.” In Narrative Sounding:  An Anthology of Narrative Inquiry in Music Education, edited by M. Barrett and S. Stauffer, 23–36. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Carlow, R. 2006. “Diva Irina: An English Language Learner in High School Choir.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 170: 63–77. Classen, C. 1997. “Foundations for an Anthropology of the Senses.” International Social Science Journal 153: 401–412. Conway, C. M., J. Eros, K. Pellegrino, and C. West. 2010. “Life as an Instrumental Music Education Student: Tensions and Solutions. Journal of Research in Music Education 58 (3): 260–75. Conway, C. M., J. Eros, K. Pellegrino, and C. West. 2010. “The Role of Graduate and Undergraduate Interactions in the Development of Preservice Music Teachers and Music Teacher Educators: “A Self-Study in Music Teacher Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 183: 49–64. Della Pietra, C. J., and P. S. Campbell. 1995. “An Ethnography of Improvisation Training in a Music Methods Course.” Journal of Research in Music Education 43 (2): 112–26. De Munck, V. C. 2009. Research Design and Methods for Studying Cultures. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Denzin, N. K. 2001. Interpretive Interactionism. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K. 2003. Performance Ethnography: Critical Pedagogy and the Politics of Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln Y. 2011. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Eisenhart, M. 1998. “On the Subject of Interpretive Reviews.” Review of Educational Research 68 (4): 391–99. Eisner, E. 1991. The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York: Macmillan. Erickson, F. 1986. “Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd edition, edited by Merlin C. Wittrock. New York: Macmillan. Feay-Shaw, S. J. 2002. “The Transmission of Ghanaian Music by Culture-Bearers: From Master Musician to Music Teacher.” PhD diss., University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Feld, S. 1996. “Waterfalls of Song: An Acoustemology of Place Resounding in Bosavi, Papua New Guinea.” In Senses of Place, edited by S. Feld and K. H. Basso, 91–135. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

Concepts, Goals, and Characteristics  37 Flick, U. 1998. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications. Gadamer, H. 1988. Truth and Method. Edited and translated by G. Barden and J. Cumming. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company. Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. Gershon, S. W. 2011. “Embodied Knowledge:  Sounds as Educational Systems.” Journal of Curriculum Theorizing 27 (2): 66–81. Glaser, B. and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine. Gouzouasis, P. 2006. “A/r/t/ography in Music Research:  A  Reunification of Musician, Researcher, and Teacher.” Arts and Learning Journal 22 (1): 23–42. Hamid, M. O. 2010. “Fieldwork for Language Education Research in Rural Bangladesh: Ethical Issues and Dilemmas.” International Journal of Research and Method in Education 33 (3): 259–71. Hammersley, M. and P. Atkinson, P.  2007. Ethnography:  Principles in Practice. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge. Harwood, E. 1998. “Go on Girl: Improvisation in the Play of African-American Girls.” In In the Course of Performance: Studies in the World of Musical Improvisation, edited by P. Bohlman and B. Nettl, 113–26. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hebert, D. G. 2012. Wind Bands and Cultural Identity in Japanese Schools. New York: Springer. Holstein, J. A., and J. F. Gubrium. 2002. “Active Interviewing.” In Qualitative Research Methods, edited by D. Weinberg, 112–26. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Howes, D. 2003. Sensual Relations:  Engaging the Senses in Culture and Social Theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Irwin, R., L., and A. F. De Cosson, eds. 2004. A/r/tography: Rendering Self Through Arts-Based Living Inquiry. Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press. Jaeger, R. 1997. Complementary Methods for Research in Education. American Education Research Association. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Jaggar, A. M. 1989. Love and Knowledge:  Emotion in Feminist Epistemology. Inquiry:  An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 32 (2): 151–76. Katyal, K. R. 2011. “Gate-Keeping and the Ambiguities in the Nature of ‘Informed Consent’ in Confucian Societies.” International Journal of Research and Method in Education 34 (2): 147–59. Kedem, Y. 2009. “To Be Like Primrose: Understanding Tradition in a Viola Studio.” Music Education Research 13(2): 135–48. Kleinman, S., and M. C. Copp. 1993. Emotions and Fieldwork. Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications. Kvale, S. 1996. InterViews:  An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lane, J. 2011. “A Descriptive Analysis of Qualitative Research Published in Two Eminent Music Education Research Journals.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 188, 65–76. Leavy, P. 2009. Method Meets Art: Arts-based Research Practice. New York: Guilford Press. Lincoln, Y. S. and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Lo, K. Y. 2013. “An Intercultural Study of Selected Aspects of String Educators’ Beliefs and Practices in the United States and the United Kingdom.” PhD diss., Indiana University, Bloomington. Lum, C. and P. S. Campbell. 2007. The Sonic Surrounds of an Elementary School. Journal of Research in Music Education 55(1): 31–47. Manovski, M. 2012. Finding My Voice: [Re]living, [Re]learning, and [Re]searching: Becoming a Singer in a Culture of Marginalization. PhD diss., Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.

38    KOJI MATSUNOBU AND LIORA BRESLER Markham, A. N. 2007. “The Internet as Research Context.” In Qualitative Research Practice, edited by C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. Gubrium, and D. Silverman, 328–44. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Matsunobu, K. 2009. “Artful Encounters with Nature: Ecological and Spiritual Dimensions of Music Learning.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Matsunobu, K. 2011. “Spirituality as a Universal Experience of Music: A Case Study of North Americans’ Approaches to Japanese Music.” Journal of Research in Music Education 59 (3): 273–89. Matsunobu, K. 2012. “The Role of Spirituality in Learning Music: A Case of North American Students of Japanese Music.” British Journal of Music Education 29 (2): 181–92. McCarthy, M. 2004. “Using Story to Capture the Scholarship of Practice.” In Mountain Lake Reader:  Conversations on the Study and Practice of Music Teaching, 34–42. Project of a Consortium of Universities. The University of Tennessee. McCarthy, M. 2007. “Narrative Inquiry as a Way of Knowing in Music Education.” Research Studies in Music Education 29: 3–12. Merriam, A. 1964. The Anthropology of Music. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Miller, B. A. 2012. “Student Composition in a Private Studio Setting: Rethinking Assumptions.” In Narrative Sounding: An Anthology of Narrative Inquiry in Music Education, edited by M. Barrett and S. Stauffer, 305–27. New York: Springer. Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Nettl, B. 2005. The Study of Ethnomusicology:  Thirty-one Issues and Concepts. 2nd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Nichols, J. 2012. “Music Education in Homeschooling: Jamie’s Story.” In Narrative Sounding: An Anthology of Narrative Inquiry in Music Education, edited by M. Barrett and S. Stauffer, 115–25. New York: Springer. Patton, Q. M. 2001. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Peshkin, A. 1988. “In Search of Subjectivity: One’s Own.” Educational Researcher 17 (7): 17–21. Peshkin, A. 1994. “The Presence of Self: Subjectivity in the Conduct of Qualitative Research.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 122: 45–57. Powell, K. 2012. “Composing Sound Identity in Taiko Drumming.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 34 (1): 101–19. Powell, K. 2003. “Learning Together: Practice, Pleasure and Identity in a Taiko Drumming World.” PhD diss., Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Robinson, M. 2010. “From the Band Room to the General Music Classroom:  Why Instrumentalists Choose to Teach General Music.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 185: 33–48. Ruthman, S. A. 2006. “Negotiating Learning and Teaching in a Music Technology Lab: Curricular, Pedagogical, and Ecological Issues.” PhD diss., Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan. Prendergast, M., P. Gouzouasis, C. Leggo, and R. Irwin. 2009. A Haiku Suite: The Importance of Music Making in the Lives of Secondary School Students. Music Education Research 11 (3): 303–17. Schmidt-Jones, C. 2012. “An Open Education Resource Supports a Diversity of Inquiry-Based Learning.” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 13 (1): 1–16. Schwandt, T. A. 2001. Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications.

Concepts, Goals, and Characteristics  39 Seale, C. 1999. Quality in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Shin, H. 2011. “Enabling Young Composers through the Vermont MIDI Project: Composition, Verbalization and Communication.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Silvey, P. E. 2005. “Learning to Perform Benjamin Britten’s Rejoice in the Lamb: The Perspectives of Three High School Choral Singers.” Journal of Research in Music Education 53: 102–19. Solomonson, G. T. 2011. “Segue: Entering into a Legacy.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Stake, R. E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stake, R. 2010. Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work. New York: Guilford Press. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stueber, K. (2008). “Empathy.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta. Stanford, CA:  Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/ empathy. Thibeault, M.D. 2007. “Music Making Lives: Score and Setting in the Musical Experiences of High School Students.” PhD diss., Stanford University, CA. Tobin, J., Y. Hsueh, and M. Karasawa. 2009. Preschool in Three Cultures Revisited: China, Japan, and the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tsugawa, S. 2009. “Senior Adult Music Learning, Motivation, and Meaning Construction in Two New Horizons Ensembles.” PhD diss., Arizona State University. Van Manen, M. 1990. Researching Lived Experience. Albany: The State University of New York. Veblen, K. K. 1994. “The Teacher’s Role in the Transmission of Irish Traditional Music.” International Journal of Music Education 24 (2): 1–30. Vidich, A. J., and S. M. Lyman. 2003. Qualitative methods: Their History in Sociology and Anthropology. In The Landscape of Qualitative Research:  Theories and Issues, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 55–129. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wasser, J., and L. Bresler. 1996. “Working in the Interpretive Zone:  Conceptualizing Collaboration in Qualitative Research Teams.” Educational Researcher 25 (5): 5–15. White, P. 2012. “Thinking-in-Music-With-Music:  Students’ Musical Understanding and Learning in Two Interactive Online Music General Education Courses.” PhD diss., Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan. Wiggins, J. 2011. “Feeling It Is How I Understand It: Found Poetry as Analysis.” International Journal of Education and the Arts 12 (LAI 3). http://www.ijea.org/v12lai3/. Zaretti, J. L. “Multicultural Music Education:  An Ethnography of Process in Teaching and Learning.” Masters thesis, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, 1998.

Chapter 3

History of Qua l i tat i v e Research in A me ri c a n Music Educ at i on COLLEEN M. CONWAY AND CHAD WEST

Just as music and education can be traced back across the centuries ultimately to the crude and custom-driven habits of primitive societies, qualitative inquiry has its roots in the intuitive and survivalist behavior of early peoples. For ages we have operated on hunches and emotions, increasingly using those that brought us safety and satisfaction. Gradually we saw the wisdom of what we already were doing by observing, questioning, keeping records and interpreting, respecting the experience and rumination of elders. Gradually we formed rules for study and names for our sciences. Music educators, too, increasingly drew from philosophers and social scientists to codify research problems. (Bresler and Stake, 1992, 76)

This chapter is intended to serve as a historical backdrop for qualitative research in American music education research publications.1 After a brief discussion of the history of qualitative research within general education, we explore the following questions: How has qualitative research evolved in music education? and What were the experiences of early qualitative researchers in music education? We begin to answer the first question with a presentation and discussion of what we call “qualitative sightings” in the 1992 Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning and the 2002 New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning. In preparation for answering the second question, we interviewed several early qualitative researchers in the music education field. Insights from the interviews are presented within the following

History of Qualitative Music Research  41 subheadings: (a) experiences of early qualitative journal article authors, (b) planning and implementation of University of Illinois Qualitative Research Conferences in 1994 and 1996, and (c) experiences of University of Illinois Qualitative Research Conference speakers and participants.

3.1  General History of Qualitative Research in Education and Music Education Merriam (2009) suggests that qualitative research in education derives from the work of anthropologists and sociologists asking research questions about “people’s lives, the social and cultural contexts in which they lived, the ways in which they understood their worlds, and so on” (6). She quotes Bogdan and Biklen (2007) and traces qualitative research in education to Chicago sociologists in the 1920s and 1930s: In addition, especially in the life histories Chicago School sociologists produced, the importance of seeing the world from the perspective of those who were seldom listened to—the criminal, the vagrant, the immigrant—was emphasized. While not using the phrase, they knew they were “giving voice” to points of view of people marginalized in the society. (Bodgan and Biklin, 2007, 10)

Wing (1993) points out that music education researchers have also argued the need for representing the “voice” of music teachers, and music students through qualitative research. Merriam suggests that research in professions such as education, law, and medicine has traditionally included a focus on understanding specific cases representing a phenomenon. She targets two seminal research publications from the mid-twentieth century as contributing to the emergence of qualitative research in education. The first is Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) book Discovery of Grounded Theory:  Strategies for Qualitative Research, and the other is Guba’s (1978), monograph Toward a Methodology of Naturalistic Inquiry in Educational Evaluation. Guba and colleagues (i.e., Guba and Lincoln 1981; and more recently Denzin and Lincoln, 2000, 2005, 2011)  continue to serve as key resources for qualitative researchers. Within music education, Bresler and Stake (1992) suggest that in addition to roots within education, philosophy, anthropology, and sociology, music education can look to biographical methods used in musicology and ethnomusicology. They suggest: “While sociology focuses on interpretive biography (italics theirs)—the creation of literary, narrative accounts and representations of lived experience (Denzin, 1989)—the traditional use of biographies in music centers around life-events, especially family, patrons, and mentoring, a written account or history of an individual” (78).

42    COLLEEN M. CONWAY AND CHAD WEST

3.2  Qualitative Sightings in 1992 and 2002 Handbooks We present what we are calling “sightings” of qualitative research in both the Handbook of Research in Music Education (Colwell 1992) and the New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (Colwell and Richardson 2002) in order as they appear in the Handbooks. There were only 13 qualitative dissertations in music education before 1992. Since the Handbooks are meant to report on published research in the field, it is helpful to know that up until 1990 (most likely the last publication date represented in the 1992 Handbook) there were five qualitative studies published in the Journal of Research in Music Education (JRME) and no studies in the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education (CRME). The Journal of Music Teacher Education (JMTE) began in 1990.

3.2.1  Handbook of Research in Music Education (Colwell 1992) The term “qualitative research” first appears in the 1992 Handbook in Reimer’s “Toward a Philosophical Foundation for Music Education Research.” Reimer suggested that qualitative research has “risen” in response to the “decline in the credibility of positivism” (29). He cited Eisner (1979) as well as Eisner and Peshkin (1990) and provided a paragraph defining qualitative research. His paragraph concluded: It is not just the simple matter that qualitative research provides another useful methodology, as sometimes assumed by music education researchers. It is that qualitative approaches construe human reality as being very different from the reality assumed by traditional science, raising the issue as to whether reality must continue to be conceived as unidimensional or whether it is possible for it to be multidimensional. (29)

His chapter went on to document the “paradigm wars” within qualitative and quantitative research in other fields and Reimer cautioned music education researchers to not continue this trend, as it did not appear to be useful in other fields. One chapter of the 55 chapters in the 1992 Handbook is devoted completely to qualitative research. Both authors of that chapter, Bresler and Stake, held faculty appointments within education, whereas the large majority of authors in the 1992 Handbook held faculty appointments within music education. Bresler and Stake presented their chapter according to the following sections: roots of qualitative methodology, characteristics of qualitative research, qualitative research in music education, and methods and criteria. They included discussion of 16 qualitative studies (including dissertations) within American music education at the time; most of which are described in various chapters in parts 3 and 4 of this Handbook.

History of Qualitative Music Research  43 In the chapter titled Descriptive Research:  Techniques and Procedures, Casey (1992) mentioned the terms, “naturalistic” (120) and “ethnographic” (121). He considered what he called “the newer postpositivist [italics his] paradigm” [sic] in his section on “observational research” (120). He described this postpositivist qualitative research as an approach that music educators should consider, as it may “hold great promise especially for observational research in music education” (120). Music education researchers today define “postpositivist” in very different ways from this 1992 usage. Casey also mentioned researchers Delorenzo (1989) and Krueger (1987), both of whom were interviewed as part of the preparation of this Handbook chapter. Their insights are reported later in this chapter. In the Abeles (1992) chapter meant to be an overview of all types of music education research, there was one short paragraph titled “ethnographic procedures,” which began, Recently there has been growing interest among music educators in a research method primarily used by anthropologists and ethnomusicologists. The method is identified by several different labels, including ethnography, qualitative research, naturalistic research, and field research. (232)

There was one other short paragraph, later in the chapter, called “Interpreting Ethnographic Research,” which mentioned Krueger (1987) again and suggested that it is difficult to generalize in ethnographic studies. The reader may wish to consult ­chapter 6 in this Handbook for an extended discussion of the history of the use of the term generalizability within qualitative research in music education. The next mention of qualitative research in the 1992 Handbook did not appear until the Research on Music in Early Childhood chapter about 400 pages later. Scott-Kasner opened the qualitative section of her chapter by quoting Borg and Gall: “Though often viewed with suspicion by traditional, trained researchers, qualitative research has increasingly gained a place in educational settings (Borg and Gall 1989)” (634). She went on to suggest its value in studying young children and presented research within the headings of “ethnographic research,” “naturalistic research,” and “case study.” These studies are presented and discussed in the Early Childhood chapter (­chapter 19) of this Handbook. The final mention of qualitative research in the 1992 Handbook occurred in the chapter “Music Teacher Education” (Verrastro and Leglar 1992) and presented findings from the teacher education studies by Krueger (1987) and Schleuter (1991) studies mentioned several times previously (685).

3.2.2  The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (Colwell and Richardson, 2002) Assuming that most 2002 Handbook authors had access only to studies with publication dates up to 2000, it is helpful to consider the changes in Handbook sightings over 10 years in relation to published qualitative research. From 1990–2000 there were eight

44    COLLEEN M. CONWAY AND CHAD WEST qualitative studies that appeared in the JRME and 30 qualitative studies in the CRME. However, as CRME during these years was often several years behind in dissemination, it is possible that not all these studies were available to Handbook authors. The CRME also published 17 articles during this time period that discussed qualitative design, data collection, or analysis but were not studies. Three qualitative studies appeared in the JMTE from 1990–2000. There were 38 qualitative dissertations in music education that appeared during the time period 1992–2002. As was the case in the 1992 Handbook, the first mention of qualitative research in the 2002 Handbook occurred within a philosophy chapter. In a section focusing on “Educational Research in Context” within the chapter titled “Philosophical Perspectives on Research,” Elliott (2002) wrote: Coincidentally, humanistic and postmodern scholars argued persuasively for more inclusive and socially sensitive ways of investigating educational issues. Indeed, the strict “cognitive” focus of much research in the 1960s and 1970s caused scholars (aware of postmodern thinking) to emphasize the paucity of research on human subjectivity, personal identity formation and gender issues. As part of the emphasis on the “whole person,” educational research broadened to include Action Research, Ethnography, Narrative Inquiry, Critical Theory, Feminist Inquiry, and Postmodernism. (87)

Considering how qualitative research had been used in music education at the time, Elliott (like Reimer in the 1992 Handbook) referred to the paradigm debates and stated: “. . . contemporary research in education and music education includes a wide variety of complementary and competing forms of inquiry” (88). Elliott devoted a complete section of his chapter to describing “Interpretivism” (92– 93), but no music education studies were presented as exemplars. In the final mention of qualitative research in Elliott’s chapter he suggested “arts-informed” or “artistic scholarship” (99) may be in the future for music education research. Table 3.1 is a list of other qualitative “sightings” in the 2002 Handbook. In a section of the Flinders and Richardson chapter titled “Exemplars of Qualitative Research in Music Education” the authors discussed two case studies, one “participant observation” study, one action research study, one ethnography, and one study using “verbal protocol analysis or “think alouds.” Overall, the sense in the 2002 chapter is that there were still few examples of qualitative studies to be presented in the Handbook. Since 2002, case study [chapter 7], ethnography [­chapter 8] and action research [­chapter 11] all emerged as common designs in music education (note that each has a complete chapter in this Handbook) while “participant observation” and “verbal protocol analysis” are now used more to describe a data collection procedure rather than to describe a design. It is somewhat surprising that the 2002 Handbook did not include more qualitative studies. The primary focus was still on introducing the concepts of qualitative research. Looking ahead, from 2001–2011 there were 24 qualitative studies published in the JRME, 52 in the CRME, and 18 in the JMTE, while there were 94 qualitative dissertations in music education, suggesting a trend towards more qualitative research.

History of Qualitative Music Research  45 Table 3.1  Discussions of qualitative research in the 2002 handbook Author

Topic

Hanley and Montgomery

Curriculum

Jordan-DeCarbo and Nelson

Early Childhood Music Education

Sink

Behavioral Research on Direct Music Instruction

Szego

Ethnography

Leglar and Collay

Teacher Education

Pembrook and Craig

Teaching as a Profession

Nierman, Zeichner and Hobbel Rideout and Feldman Hookey

Teacher Education

Heller and O’Connor

Sighting

Music Student Teaching Professional Development Maintaining Quality in Research and Reporting

Bartel and Radocy Trends in Data Acquisition and Knowledge Development Flinders and Contemporary Richardson Issues in Qualitative Research and Music Education

Authors described how qualitative work might support curriculum work, and discussed several qualitative curriculum studies as examples. Authors discussed the importance as well as the challenge of qualitative research. They mentioned that observation is a common strategy. They also provided references to sources that assist the qualitative researcher in early childhood settings. “Qualitative techniques may complement, extend, and corroborate quantitative approaches for assessing the relative effectiveness of observed teacher-student interactions” (323). “Although there are exceptions, music educators’ ethnographies also tend to be characterized by enumerative rigor and an economy of cultural contextualization” (718). “Music education researchers have been slow to adopt qualitative methods and even slower to turn these methods to the study of their own practice” (859). The authors encouraged teacher educators to examine their own teaching through qualitative approaches. Authors devoted the first section of their chapter to studies that “focus on an insider, personal, narrative, experiential account of teaching as a profession” (786). However, none of the studies cited are music education studies, but rather are all drawn from general teacher education. “There is a need for more case studies describing the ‘how to’ of music teacher education from a broad perspective” (833). Authors discussed action research as a suggested strategy in student teaching. Discussed the need for teacher research as well as a focus on reflexive modes of research. Authors outlined three “types of research” in the following way: “. . . historical (mostly qualitative); descriptive (qualitative or quantitative), and experimental (mostly quantitative)” (1090). Identifies trends in data collection and argues that qualitative techniques have arisen as an alternative to the reductive nature of quantitative research and as a means toward explaining complex human constructs. Authors began with a historical overview of qualitative research in education. They suggested that the earliest qualitative researchers were prepared for their work in colleges of education and not in schools of music (1168). They also discussed emerging changes in the use of the term “qualitative research” (1168–69).

46    COLLEEN M. CONWAY AND CHAD WEST

3.3 Interviewee Selection and Interview Process 3.3.1  Journal of Research in Music Education We began our consideration of who to interview in music education with an examination of the earliest published qualitative research within the JRME. This examination uncovered the following qualitative studies: Krueger, 1987; McGowan, 1988; DeLorenzo, 1989; Metz, 1989; and Schleuter, 1991. The first interview was held with Patti Krueger in the summer of 2011. I  (Colleen) then interviewed both Lisa DeLorenzo and Lois Schleuter shortly afterwards. In the context of these interviews it was mentioned that Rudy Radocy (who was JRME Editor at the time of these early publications) had been particularly helpful to some of these early authors. Rudy was interviewed next. I was unable to find John J.  McGowan but did eventually find Elayne Metz (now Elayne Achilles) and I interviewed her in fall 2011. All interviews were conducted over the phone. I provided each interviewee with the Table of Contents for the Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research in Music Education to give them some context for the work. I began each interview with specific questions about the published study in the JRME. I asked each researcher what led to the particular topic and research design. I also asked them to talk about what preparation they had for the use of qualitative research. I then asked them to speak about the JRME review process. Several were able to recall specific suggestions and comments from reviewers. Finally, I asked them to recall the reaction from the music education profession once the work was published. With Rudy Radocy, we also discussed his role as JRME Editor at the time and his memory regarding acceptance of qualitative research. Rudy also had represented the JRME at the CRME Conferences (discussed in the next section of this chapter).

3.3.2  Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education In examining the Bulletin, it became clear that the University of Illinois Qualitative Research Conferences in 1994 and 1996 were seminal events for qualitative research within music education; thus, we decided to interview conference planners, guest speakers, and conference participants. Four issues of the Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education (122, 123, 130, 131) were devoted to reporting Conference proceedings. Manuscripts in these issues included Conference session papers and reactions to the Conference. Using these manuscripts to develop interview questions, I (Chad) spoke

History of Qualitative Music Research  47 with several of the Conference participants/authors (Liora Bresler, Eve Harwood, Cliff Madsen, Peter Webster, and Ed Asmus) regarding their articles, their memories of the Conference, and their experiences as qualitative researchers since then.

3.4 Experiences of Early Qualitative Journal Article Authors 3.4.1 Strong Connections to Colleges of Education All of the early JRME authors had strong connections to College of Education faculty. Many of them continued to have strong College of Education connections throughout their careers. Krueger’s (1987) work was the result of her dissertation in the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin where general education professor Michael Apple was a key figure in shaping Krueger’s work. Lisa DeLorenzo (1989) stated: “I was really lucky that Teachers College supported my project, because I believe a lot of doctoral institutions would have preferred quantitative research.” Elaine Achiless (Metz 1989)  was doing Ed.D.  dissertation work in a College of Education as well as a School of Music (half and half) and this early JRME article was a result of that work. She spent much of the rest of her career studying general education topics and working outside of music. Lois Schleuter (1991) did her doctoral work in the College of Education at Kent State. There were no music faculty on the committee and only the advisor and one committee member had a background in qualitative research. Her advisor was very interested in qualitative research and urged her to do a qualitative study. Flinders and Richardson (2002) contended that much of the qualitative research information we have in music education comes from Colleges of Education, and these interviews certainly support that statement.

3.4.2  Journal Review Process When Krueger submitted to the JRME, the reviewers asked her to further verify generalizability, validity, and reliability. She noted, “I was asked to discuss ethnography using ideas and language that came from a more accepted experimental research framework.” After her study was published in the JRME, it was introduced in the Music Educators Journal. Krueger reflected, “ I hoped that there would be others waiting in the wings to see that ethnography and qualitative research would carry on in music education.” Schleuter (1991) said she found it difficult to pare down her 300+ page dissertation into a journal article, but Rudy Radocy allowed her to exceed the normal page limit.

48    COLLEEN M. CONWAY AND CHAD WEST “Thank goodness for Rudy. If it had not been for him, I don’t think it would have gotten in.” “One of the reviewers said ‘reject, because an N of three is totally inappropriate.’ ” Her response was, “These are three case studies—an appropriate N for a case study [N is no longer used in within case study research] is one. Therefore, I have three times as much information as I need. I really didn’t think I was going to get away with it, but that person said, ‘OK, publish it.’ ” The third reviewer refused to accept any definition of qualitative research that she provided, even though the definitions were heavily cited. Radocy did not remember any particular effort on his part to help qualitative research move ahead in the JRME, but three of the four interviewees mentioned how helpful he had been in the process. All four authors (Krueger, Delorenzo, Achilles, and Schleuter) had their dissertation articles published in the JRME, but none of them submitted future manuscripts to the JRME, instead sending to UPDATE, JMTE, MEJ, CRME, and other journals. Krueger said: “In retrospect, I made an unconscious decision to go to other journals. There were no obvious barriers, but the kinds of questions that were asked and the explanations one was asked to give at the time deterred me from submitting further works to the journal.”

3.4.3 Changing Use of Terminology It was clear in speaking with these early authors that the terms used to describe research have changed over the years. DeLorenzo reported that, at the time, she simply called her research “qualitative” whereas today, readers would expect a more concise categorization (e.g., case study, phenomenology, ethnographic, narrative). Schleuter’s 1991 paper stated, “. . . the use of qualitative and ethnographic research has emerged as an insightful way to obtain these findings about teachers and their craft” (47). When asked if she wrote that because at the time she perceived qualitative and ethnographic to be exclusive of one another, she stated, “I probably was thinking about my target audience, statistical researchers, and that most people in music education who were reading the JRME would not be as familiar with the term, ‘qualitative.’ I may have used the term, ‘ethnographic’ as a means to relate qualitative research to the ethnographic research of those times.” Scheulter said she used the term “subjects” to describe what later qualitative researchers might call “participants.” At the time, she did not recall anyone questioning her use of that term as being associated with quantitative research. Similarly, she does not recall any dispute regarding her use of the term “results,” whereas later qualitative researchers would tend to use “findings.” Both Krueger and Achilles agreed that terms have changed; both had used the term “ethnographic” back then. Achilles commented that more recent qualitative research has begun to better describe the concept of theoretical framework, which was not always addressed in the early qualitative studies.

History of Qualitative Music Research  49

3.5  Planning and Implementation of University of Illinois Qualitative Research Conferences in 1994 and 1996 Many associate Cliff Madsen with the vast body of quantitative research conducted at Florida State University over five decades, and rightly so. However, his contribution to music education research extends also to qualitative studies. Though he conducted quantitative research through the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s to, as he says, survive the tenure and promotion process, he began his career asking qualitative questions. When recalling his earliest qualitative work, Madsen described helping out at a local school in the 1960s: We just asked the teachers, ‘how may we help?’ The teachers asked us to observe the students and themselves. So, that school became an observation magnet for over 10 years. Eventually we started developing things that could be counted. But all of this started from a qualitative perspective—instead of going out and saying to the teacher ‘you should be doing this,’ you say, ‘how may we help you?’ And teachers themselves came up with ways to do that. The whole thing started for me by listening to k-6 teachers tell us what they thought was important.

Similarly, Eve Harwood began her qualitative research in the 1980s when qualitative research in music education was still relatively scarce. It was in the School of Education at the University of Illinois where she, along with contemporaries such as Carol Richardson and Nancy Whitaker, were introduced to qualitative research, since there was no model for such within the School of Music. At the time she was conducting her dissertation, most people referred to qualitative research as “naturalistic” research. She recalls what drew her to this type of inquiry: Back then more women were drawn to qualitative research. It was a narrative form; it used language rather than numbers; it involved fieldwork and prolonged engagement with students. For a variety of those reasons, it appealed to people like me who were teachers who wanted to spend sustained periods of time with children they were teaching and for whom a narrative way of finding truth seemed more powerful and more natural.

3.5.1 Conference Planning and Implementation Eve Harwood recalls how the idea for a conference on qualitative research in music education came about. The idea was conceived over dinner one evening with Liora Bresler,

50    COLLEEN M. CONWAY AND CHAD WEST Eunice Boardman, Nancy Whitaker, and Carol Richardson at the 1993 MENC North Central Conference: I remember Eunice, Liora, and Nancy coming back from having had a meal together. They had been talking to Eunice about the lack of places to disseminate qualitative research in the music education journals as they were at the time. Someone tried to submit a case study and a reviewer came back and said, ‘what is this—an N of 1?’ There were some conversations being had at AERA, but that was prior to a music SIG [Special Interest Group] being formed at AERA, which was where qualitative research subsequently got shared. And Eunice Boardman, who at the time was the editor of the Bulletin, said, ‘you all have been saying that there is no place to [disseminate] your research (and qualitative research was not Eunice’s training either), so we’re going to host a conference and the Bulletin will support it.’ So, that is how it started. I remember that Nancy Whitaker brought each of us a special bar of soap, which was the inauguration of this adventure.

In Eve’s estimation, Illinois was the logical place to host the Conference, because they had in their school of education many experienced qualitative researchers such as Robert Stake, Norman Denzin, and Alan Peshkin. The reasons for holding the Conference were to provide qualitative researchers a place to convene and also to make the case to the wider profession that qualitative inquiry was a legitimate form of research. John Grashel suggested that invitation be extended not only to qualitative researchers, but also to quantitative researchers like himself who wanted to know more about the topic. Eve explained: One person commented that ‘the women were doing all of the work and the men were taking all of the credit,’ but most looked at it as a wise political move. If this is going to become a legitimate respected form of research, then people like Cliff Madsen, Ed Asmus, and John Grashel have to buy in. And they have to be convinced that it is rigorous and systematic in different ways than they are accustomed. I think they did buy in. They spoke positively about this kind of research and that it was good for the field. They learned a lot at the conference and were glad to have come. They certainly were not dismissive. I also think it was wise that we had people like Norm Denzin, Alan Peshkin, and Bob Stake who were very highly respected within the field of education and had long publication records speaking at the beginning. So, we had them at the beginning, then we had lots of presentations predominantly from women who were in music education, and then we had this sort of bookend at the end from the research authorities at the time.

Whereas the 1994 Conference was aimed at educating the music education research community about what qualitative research was, why it was important, and by what standards it should be judged, the 1996 Conference was more geared toward showcasing people in music education without relying so heavily on researchers from general education to make the transition. Elliott Eisner and Liora Bresler were both keynote speakers at the 1996 Conference.

History of Qualitative Music Research  51

3.5.2 Experiences of University of Illinois Qualitative Research Conference Speakers and Participants Eve Harwood recalled that there was some defensiveness from the quantitative researchers regarding what they saw as denigrating or belittling quantitative research. They wanted to make the case that quantitative research had “come a long way from just running two batches of tests, running a few simple correlations and saying ‘this one is better than that one.’ ” The quantitative world also was developing much more complex measures, more profound questions and had more to offer than just simply counting things. Peter Webster recalls that he left the 1994 Conference “rejecting the notion that quantitative research was irrelevant in today’s pluralistic and context-specific society” but that he “has since come to understand that that is not what most qualitative researchers believe.” Ed Asmus recalls cautioning the profession to not simply move toward qualitative research as though it were easier: “I see qualitative [research] as much harder because you have to always be on your toes to assure that what you are doing is accurate and truly representative of the underlying things that are going on in human interactions.” When asked about his response to the Conference, Cliff Madsen replied, “If there is an enemy out there, it is the misuse of numbers much more than lack of generalization.” Peter Webster recalls that after the 1994 Conference and subsequent AERA workshops, he began to understand that research is research. When you start coding things, you start counting things—we naturally gravitate to numbers. Similarly, in quantitative work we are constantly interpreting what these things mean, and we are telling little side stories of outliers, so we often get into the qualitative massaging of some of this quantitative data. When you get down to it and try to make sense of something, you naturally are going to use both systems, it seems to me. There is a fallacy in the minds of some qualitative researchers who think they are going to do qualitative research so that they don’t have to deal with numbers. I think you really do deal with some kind of numerical representation. You are looking at quantity. You are looking at tendencies, and you are making decisions about the magnitude of one thing or another.

3.5.3 How the Profession has Evolved Since the Conferences The 1994 Conference was a landmark meeting for Peter Webster. He subsequently attended American Educational Research Association (AERA) workshops on qualitative research and began exploring it further. In 1994 I was a real neophyte in understanding how to look at something like trustworthiness or how to look at something like voice and how to deal with being clear as a researcher where your biases are. After the 1994 conference I understood inherently the value of it; I just had lots of questions about how these things would be

52    COLLEEN M. CONWAY AND CHAD WEST written. Now I have come to a more nuanced understanding of how one deals with the mechanics of doing a good qualitative study. I’ve also become better as a reviewer when looking at qualitative research and understanding what is good and what is not. I think I have become an advocate of qualitative work because my standards have risen.

Eve Harwood noted that dissertations today “do not have to dedicate a whole chapter on defining case study and explaining why it is appropriate for this study. You just say that it is a case study or an ethnography, etc.” While lengthy discussions about method are no longer warranted, attention to methodological rigor is still important. She feels that since the Conferences the profession has lost some rigor in qualitative methodology. Qualitative research has gone from being dubious or not respected to now being so respected that a lot of people want to claim that they are doing it who aren’t, in fact. So, you get studies that collect open-ended responses on a survey and refer to that as qualitative data. What I see now are people who are missing prolonged engagement in the field. Three one-hour telephone conversations is not prolonged engagement in the field. A day is not prolonged engagement in the field. Triangulation is not achieved by one focus group, one interview, and a two-hour visit. People are missing being immersed in another environment in order to make meaning as a participant makes meaning. My reservation is that we may have gone too far in making it fashionable and acceptable and lost what was really important in those early conferences which was to say, ‘if you don’t have statistical reliability, validity, and generalizability, then what do you have as criteria for judging the quality?’ And we have those criteria. Prolonged engagement in the field and prolonged engagement with the data, and multiple levels of data analysis and triangulation and member checking—those things now get lip service, but when I look at what somebody actually says they did with member checking, it is often just, ‘we ran a transcript past somebody.’ Well, they agreed that was what they said, but that is not the same as asking, ‘was what you said and what we wrote the most important thing you had to tell us?’ for instance.

When asked how she thinks the profession has changed regarding journal acceptance of qualitative research, Liora Bresler noted that music seems to be behind the visual arts and that the profession is still slow to value publishing in the international journals as much as in American journals such as the JRME and CRME. Eve Harwood noted that although the JRME is “still pretty quantitative” there are more journals that now welcome qualitative research. Peter Webster, who currently serves on the JRME review board, was adamant that the relative lack of qualitative research in the JRME is not due to any overt bias, but notes that, “There aren’t that many people on the board whose expertise is specifically in qualitative research.” When you look at publications that accept large numbers of qualitative research, you see that the European journals are often more willing to publish qualitative work than some of the US journals. Some of the best qualitative work is not done in North America.

History of Qualitative Music Research  53

3.5.4  Predictions Regarding Future Directions for Qualitative Research in Music Education When asked where she sees qualitative research heading in the future, Eve Harwood said that she views narrative inquiry as being in the same place now as qualitative research was in 1994. Liora Bresler believed that we will see more mixing of qualitative and quantitative techniques within the same studies. Cliff Madsen agreed: When we interviewed little children about their perceptions, it provided a richness of findings we just cannot get quantitatively. There are things that can be counted and things that ought not be counted. Mixed models are going to become more and more prevalent.

Peter Webster described how we have not yet come to a point in our field where we think of different methods as tools for pragmatically approaching problems. I really do not believe that we can build a profession by looking at qualitative evidence only. I really believe that we need to create ways where we can blend these things in ways that lead us to know where effectiveness lies. We’re not going to move very far without that kind of marriage and that is why I think we have to get beyond the idea that you go to this school if you want to do qualitative work and go to this school if you want to do quantitative work.

3.6 Conclusion While qualitative research has advanced in music education since the 1980s, there remain areas where clarity, definition, and argument are still needed. In the 1980s, in an attempt to define, justify, and defend qualitative research, authors argued that qualitative research was the epistemological antithesis of quantitative research and that the two could not and should not be combined. Has this worldview changed in the profession now that qualitative research is more accepted in our journals? Has qualitative research become so mainstream that standards for rigor have been relaxed? Whereas in the 1980s it was sufficient to label this type of inquiry as simply “qualitative,” authors now are compelled to further classify their study. However, has our profession adequately defined such classifications as phenomenology, narrative inquiry, arts-based education research, grounded theory, case study, etc.? If so, do these classifications describe designs, lenses, data collection strategies, representations of findings, or some combination of all of these? What constitutes “data” in qualitative research? The remaining chapters in this Handbook are aimed at addressing these questions and serve as a guidepost for reference as well as discussion within our profession regarding qualitative research in music education.

54    COLLEEN M. CONWAY AND CHAD WEST

Note 1. We wish to thank Matt Clauhs and Jared Rawlings for their help on drafts of this chapter.

References Abeles, H. F. 1992. “A Guide to Interpreting Research in Music Education.” In Handbook of Research in Music Education," edited by R. Colwell, 227–46. New York: Schirmer Books. Bartel, L. R., and R. Radocy. 2002. “Trends in Data Acquisition and Knowledge Development.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 1108–27. New York: Oxford University Press. Bogdan, R. C., and S. K. Biklen. 2007. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. Boston: Pearson. Borg, W. R., and Gall, M. D. 1989. Educational Research. 5th ed. New York: Longman. Bresler, L., and R. E. Stake. 1992. “Qualitative Research Methodology in Music Education.” In Handbook of Research in Music Education, edited by R. Colwell, 75–90. New York: Schirmer Books. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 1994. Special issue:  Qualitative Methodologies in Music Education Research Conference. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 122. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 1995. Special issue:  Qualitative Methodologies in Music Education Research Conference. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 123. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 1996. Special issue:  Qualitative Methodologies in Music Education Research Conference II. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 130. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 1997. Special issue:  Qualitative Methodologies in Music Education Research Conference II. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 131. Casey, D. E. 1992. “Descriptive Research: Techniques and Procedures.” In Handbook of Research in Music Education, edited by R. Colwell, 115–34. New York: Schirmer Books. Colwell, R., ed. 1992. The Handbook of Research on Music Education. New York: Schirmer. Colwell, R., and C. P. Richardson, eds. 2002. The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning. New York: Schirmer. DeLorenzo, L. C. 1989. “A Field Study of Sixth-Grade Students’ Creative Music Problem-Solving.” Journal of Research in Music Education 37 (3): 188–200. Denzin, N. 1989. Interpretive Biography. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2005. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2011. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Eisner, E. W. 1979. The Educational Imagination. New York: Macmillan. Eisner, E. W., and A. Peshkin, eds. 1990. Qualitative Inquiry in Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

History of Qualitative Music Research  55 Elliott, D. 2002. “Philosophical Perspectives on Research.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 85–103. New York: Oxford University Press. Flinders, D.J., and C. P. Richardson. 2002. “Contemporary issues in qualitative research and music education.” In The New Handbook of Research of Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 1159–76. New York: Oxford University Press. Glaser, B. G., and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine. Guba, E. 1978. Toward A  Methodology of Naturalistic Inquiry In Educational Evaluation. CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation, 8. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California. Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1981. Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation Results Through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hanley, B., and J. Montgomery. 2002. “Contemporary Curriculum Practices and Their Theoretical Bases.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 113–43. New York: Oxford University Press. Heller, J. J., and E. J. P. O’Connor. 2002. “Maintaining Quality in Research and Reporting.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 1089–1107. New York: Oxford University Press. Hookey, M. 2002. “Professional Development.” The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 887–902. New York: Oxford University Press. Jordan, J., Nelson, J. A. 2002. “Music and Early childhood education.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 210–242. New York: Oxford University Press. Krueger, P. 1987. “Ethnographic Research Methodology in Music Education.” Journal of Research in Music Education 35 (2): 69–77. Leglar, M., and M. Collay. 2002. Research by Teachers on Teacher Education. In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 855–73. New York: Oxford University Press. Mark, M. 2008. A Concise History of American Music Education. New  York:  Rowman and Littlefield Education. McGowan, J. J. 1988. “A Descriptive Study of an Arts-in-Education Project” Journal of Research in Music Education 36 (1): 47–57. Merriam, S. M. 2009. Qualitative Research:  A  Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Metz, E. 1989. “Movement as a Musical Response among Preschool Children” Journal of Research in Music Education 37 (1): 48–60. Nierman, G. E., K. Zeichner, and N. Hobbel. 2002. “Changing Concepts of Teacher Education.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 818–39. New York: Oxford University Press. Pembrook, R., and C. Craig. 2002. “Teaching as a Profession.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 786–817. New York: Oxford University Press. Raths, J. 2002. “Fuzzy Teacher Education.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 757–758. New  York:  Oxford University Press. Reimer,B.1992.“TowardaPhilosophicalFoundationforMusicEducationResearch.”InHandbook of Research in Music Education, edited by R. Colwell, 21–37. New York: Schirmer Book.

56    COLLEEN M. CONWAY AND CHAD WEST Rideout, R., and A. Feldman. 2002. “Research in Music Student Teaching.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 874–86. New York: Oxford University Press. Schleuter, L. 1991. “Student Teachers’ Preactive and Postactive Curricular Thinking.” Journal of Research in Music Education 39 (1): 48–65. Scott, Kasner, C. 1992. “Research on Music in Early Childhood.” In Handbook of Research in Music Education, edited by R. Colwell, 633–50. New York: Schirmer Books. Sink, P. 2002. “Behavioral Research on Direct Music Instruction.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 315–26. New York: Oxford University Press. Szego, C. K. 2002. “Music Transmission and Learning: A Conspectus of Ethnographic Research in Ethnomusicology and Music Education.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 707–29. New York: Oxford University Press. Thiessen, D., and J. R. Barrett. 2002. “Reform-Minded Music Teachers: A More Comprehensive Image of Teaching for Music Teacher Education.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 759–85. New York: Oxford University Press. Verrastro, R., and Leglar, M. 1992. “Music Teacher Education.” In Handbook of Research in Music Education, edited by R. Colwell, 676–96. New York: Schirmer Books. Wing, L. 1993. “Teachers in the Study of Music Teacher Education:  Finding Voices.” The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning 4 (1): 5–12. (Reprinted with permission in Visions of Research in Music Education, 16 (4), Autumn 2010, retrieved from http://www-­usr. rider.edu/~vrme/.)

Chapter 4

E pistemol o g y a nd Qualitative Re se a rc h i n Music Educ at i on randall everett allsup

The twentieth-century witnessed a profound epistemological turn in the field of social science research, particularly with regard to education and schooling. This paradigm shift—the so-called “interpretive turn”—is revealed in the gradual legitimation of qualitative research. Understanding this turn and how theories and beliefs about knowledge and the nature of what is known (e.g., epistemology) shape practices in classrooms and scholarly settings is of paramount importance for music education researchers. This chapter will define prevailing epistemological fields of thought as they relate to the questions researchers ask and the methods they use. I will tell a story of changing educational landscapes, shifting perspectives on learning, and new research methodologies (notice the use of first-person; notice I did not say the story; notice the proposition that storytelling is a legitimate method of inquiry). The movement from a detached and “scientific” view of knowledge to paradigms that celebrate a diversity of viewpoints, even uncertainty in findings, announces new possibilities for twenty-first-century research in music and music education. A brief word about my own methodology. One of the points I hope to make in this chapter is that beliefs about knowledge and mind must be congruent with the questions we ask and the methods of investigation we choose to employ. I will end by asserting that a system of values is likewise implicated in all forms of research, whether we acknowledge this assertion as true or not. I approach this account of epistemology and qualitative research as an embodied, culturally situated researcher. I will attempt to give readers an account that is rigorous and disciplined, while embracing a non-neutral subject position, one that is open, contingent, even fractured. Like many scholars and artists before me, I accept that the way we think is a highly complex and contradictory process. I am suspicious, for example, of research findings that are conclusive, or studies of learning that have rosy endings. Nor do I believe in a unified theory of mind, or

58   randall everett allsup forms of universal knowledge. To emphasize this claim, and to remain methodologically consistent with how I understand contemporary views of epistemology, the reader will find stories within my story, imaginary breaks that illustrate a particular point, and parenthetical asides that call attention to the subjective nature of knowledge and its non-linear origins. Foregoing a notion of Truth with a capital “T” for truths with a small “t” and an “s,” I hope to exemplify the very purpose of qualitative research as the study and contemplation of human reality in all its diversity and richness. Isaac, in constructing the findings chapter of his doctoral dissertation, felt conflicted. His action research case study didn’t really go the way he wanted it to. Some learning events could be seen as an unequivocal success, but many other events were failures—at least in his eyes. What should he write about? What quotes should he include? What field notes should he leave out? Torn by the perception that he needed an unambiguous conclusion, he felt ethically compromised. “Has anyone ever reached an unambiguous conclusion in a classroom of thirty students?” he asked himself. “Shouldn’t my findings correspond to what I believe is real about teaching, what is real about the mind?”

4.1 Changing Minds, Changing Times Once upon a time, knowledge was seen as secure and permanent. For Plato and his followers, the particulars of life (say, a chair, a horse, or an ordinary man) were everyday manifestations of permanent concepts (Plato 2005). Knowledge-making was a normative activity that attempted to evaluate the correspondence between what is and what should be. A chair should correspond to its ideal form. A horse should look and act like a horse. A man should act in correspondence with the ideals that govern manhood. While few people today believe that forms and concepts exist independently of human construction, (especially around constructs like gender), social convention gives knowledge the appearance of universality. The more a society agrees that four legs and a back make a chair (and a horse for that matter) the easier it is to create a shared body of knowledge and pass it on to others. But technological innovations, changing human values, and the increasingly multiple locations from which to see and examine the world have all cast uncertainty upon even the securest of categories. We know that chairs do not need legs and backs, and a horse can be understood as a pet in one context and food in another. The concept of manhood has undergone deconstruction and reconstruction across centuries. If epistemology is a theory of mind, then it is increasingly understood as a theory of changing minds, a plural and unstable positionality. Applying knowledge-making to human contexts and human concerns is fraught with ambiguities and contradictions. Regarding education, we know that children do not learn in identical ways, regardless of the standardization of their learning method (Tyler 1949) or the developmental phase to which they are labeled (Piaget and Inhelder 1969). We know that a classroom of 30 children do not “see” Picasso’s Guernica in exactly the same way (Eisner 2002); we know that certain musical instruments have gendered

Epistemology  59 associations and that these associations cause problems for some children (Taylor 2009); we know that classical music is beautiful to some, but oppressive to others (Kingsbury 1998). These are some of the particulars, with their attendant contradictions, to which qualitative research is drawn. It is respect for the social and cultural dimensions of learning, and not merely the cognitive or universal, which expands and complicates a contemporary theory of knowledge.

4.1.1  Beliefs about Knowledge Shape Research In this chapter we are talking about epistemology, research, and the environments of learning—specifically about changing notions of what counts as knowledge, how it is understood, and how it is explicated. To pose a research question in response to an educational problem is to operate from a particular belief system about knowledge and the mind, one that may or may not be articulated by the investigator. A music education researcher who wishes to study the effects of audiation (see Gordon 1997) on the performance outcome of an eighth-grade choir owes her intellectual inheritance to early twentieth-century behaviorists like E. L. Thorndike, B. F. Skinner, and John Watson. It is to view knowledge as caused behavior as determined by antecedent conditions (Thorndike 1932; Skinner 1953; Watson 1930). Disciplinary fields are likewise shaped by particular belief systems, favoring certain methods of operation and investigation over others. Not long ago transcription was the hallmark of ethnomusicology. “Transcription told us what we could know about music and how we could know it. Music was objectified, collected, and recorded in order to . . . enable analysis and comparison” (Titon 1997, 87). We could peer into the musical mind of people who are vastly different from us, this theory goes, to extrapolate claims about who these people are and what they believe in (Merriam 1964). A researcher who looks at the decision-making processes of young composers (cf. Webster 2002; Burnard and Younker 2004) sees knowledge as constructed by the individual and her community (Greene 2005). This researcher would be in epistemological agreement with the basic tenets of constructivism, as famously articulated in Dewey’s How We Think (1910). In the constructivist theory of mind, students learn to observe and experiment “for the sake (i) of finding out what sort of perplexity confronts them; (ii) of inferring hypothetical explanations for the puzzling features that observation reveals; and (iii) of testing the ideas thus suggested” (196). The learner is a knowledge-maker, constantly readjusting the internal model that has given meaning and structure to the regularities in her life, which in turn provides the starting ground for further hypothesis-testing when past achievements meet new uncertainties (Dewey 1896). Radical conceptions of mind and knowledge seek to capture the fractured and contingent aspects of lived experiences and their location within non-neutral settings (Lather 1986). Looking beyond classrooms and sub-cultures, and restless with traditional research paradigms that create linear or “tidy” concepts of reality, contemporary researchers are apt to consider the wider institutional structures and ideologies that

60   randall everett allsup shape young minds (Miller 2005). Writes Maxine Greene (1994), “Some of the restiveness has been a response to the apparent uselessness of research in overcoming ‘savage inequalities’ (Kozol 1991) that have plagued the schools and raised obstacles to achievement for so long. Some have been a response to a sense of powerlessness when it comes to the sufferings and violations of children and young people . . . [a good deal] is due to the separation of research or positive inquiry from moral considerations or the ethical perplexities troubling so many Americans today” (424). Why, this cry goes out, are so many music researchers content to study intonation and nonverbal conducting gestures when a whole host of social problems are affecting all aspects of young adulthood? We are blinded by objectivity, and by neutrality, the story goes. Because all research is in point of fact non-neutral, and thus shaped by the gendered, racial, and political life-world of the researcher, no account—no finding, no interpretation—can be considered definitive, much less true (Lather 1993). Research that is content to produce objective findings that can be generalizable across genders, ethnicities, and cultures, tells a falsehood about the changing human mind, its interconnection with others, and the role that culture plays in shaping individual narratives. As noted, a theory of knowledge can be explicitly arrived at or intuitively felt, but is manifestly reflected in the shape of how and what we teach, as well as the conditioning environments of learning and our methods of instruction. This means that as researcher, teacher, or learner, we are never apart from an epistemological framework. A theory of knowledge is in part a theory of education, since education, which begins at birth, is the developmental effort to increase the power and sensibility of the socially constructed human mind. Education is larger than mere schooling, and encompasses all the conditions of knowledge-making throughout life. It is therefore of paramount importance to emphasize that an explicit or implicit theory of knowledge is implicated in all aspects of the research we design, from the problems we take notice of to the conclusions we arrive at. Mr. Ortega uses a published diagnostic exam to determine who gets to play in band and what instrument they should start on. He believes that this test can predict musical readiness and talent. This is good for everyone, he reasons. Tests can help kids find out what they are good at.

4.1.2  The Quest for Certainty Epistemological frames are always evolving. Even Plato knew that the conditions of knowledge-making change. His search for objective knowledge was in part a reaction to rapid change, a quest for certainty in an uncertain world. Dewey ([1929] 2008) would later famously critique this positionality as misguided. “The quest for certainty is a quest for a peace which is assured, an object which is unqualified by risk and the shadow of fear which action casts. For it is not uncertainty per se which men [sic] dislike, but the fact

Epistemology  61 that uncertainty involves us in peril . . . Quest for complete certainty can be fulfilled in pure knowing alone. Such is the verdict of our most enduring philosophic tradition” (7). The Western “enlightened” tradition of finding solace in reason and objectivity that Dewey refers to in the quote above has been called into question by the aims of qualitative research, a mostly twentieth-century invention. Today’s qualitative teacher-researcher might very well ask, what good is pure knowledge, what good are externally verified t-scores and isolated experimental variables when my music classroom never looks the same way twice? The uncertainty, risk, subjectivity, and change that Dewey speaks of—these are the conditions of schooling, out of which little that is immutable or “pure” can be found. To suggest that a music classroom in rural Oklahoma will encounter the same conditions and consequences as an urban school in Oakland is false assurance. Worse, objective measures of assessment too often blame the teacher and students for deficiencies when compared across mean scores, rather than looking at broader social phenomena. Consider the epistemological framework that currently rates New York City schools A, B, C, D, or F.1 Qualitative research is designed for changing times (acknowledging that all eras of history have faced rapid change). As suggested in ­chapter 2, qualitative research methods are constantly evolving to meet the changing conditions of learning and teaching. Researchers must choose among multiple methods for the best way of answering the questions that emerge from the problem they wish to investigate. For example, there were no social networking sites only a decade ago. A music education researcher today who wishes to study music-making and music-sharing in online communities will need to invent or reconstruct new ways of examining the questions that emerge from this social phenomenon. This hypothetical researcher might also wish to examine her assumptions about how knowledge or information is disseminated in such a setting, how learning takes place, and whether the epistemological frame she brings to the study is appropriate or needs mending. At the conclusion of this chapter, we will return to this idea, looking closely at the ways in which our beliefs about education and knowledge shape research design and analysis. I move now to contextualize the changes that have taken place over the last century in North America regarding epistemological paradigms in social science research. As explicative, I point to the career of psychologist Jerome Bruner, a seminal thinker in the field of education and a role model for a life of scholarship and inquiry. In this story within a story of education and ideas, Bruner lived through and actively shaped many of the changes that are discussed within this handbook. Just as importantly, Bruner has publicly amended many of his ideas about knowledge and education, famously moving from his spiral curriculum in the 1960s to a nuanced account of culture in the 1980s and 1990s, ending his career with a renewed passion for narrative research. This arc, I contend, is a good illustration of the shifting epistemological paradigms of the mid-twentieth century and early twenty-first. I point to Bruner as a first-hand observer and primary source (don’t forget my role in this story as interpreter of his role), a public scholar whose writings on knowledge and the mind will serve to illuminate these turns.

62   randall everett allsup

4.2 An Epistemological Case Study: Jerome Bruner Few living education researchers have spent more time thinking about the mind and how we come to knowledge than Jerome Bruner. As one of the United States’ major theorists and researchers, Bruner moved from a focus on the individual mind as the primary location of research interest to concern for the ways in which culture shapes and motivates how and what is learned. His mid-century foray into structuralism, a major intellectual paradigm that will be surveyed below, was a radical departure from the predominant school of behaviorist research, which narrowed purposeful or intended actions in favor of “caused” behavior. Decades later, in reaction to changing views on multiculturalism and education, Bruner expanded his earlier work to include more emphasis on culture and qualitative ways of knowing. In Making Stories (2002), he again readjusts his previous thinking and accepts a multifarious vision of knowledge, one where narratives complicate a unified theory of mind. The following section, “Scientific thought, positivism, and behaviorism,” describes the predominant epistemological framework that Bruner inherited as an early-career researcher in the 1950s, a time when qualitative research was located in the backwaters of anthropology and sociology.

4.2.1 Scientific Thought, Positivism, and Behaviorism The Age of Enlightenment owes its name to a turning away from the dark, a principled move from myths and shadows and toward the bright light of reason. In this grand story of secular humanism, science replaced God sometime in the eighteenth century, and the result was social progress, technological innovation, and newer ever-escalating forms of knowledge based on observation, trial, and experiment. In the Western worlds, the scientific method became shorthand for rational thought. Paraphrasing a faculty discussion at Harvard University about the meaning of knowledge, Bruner ([1962] 1979) describes the aims of scientific thought: The intent of the scientist is to create rational structures and general laws that, in the mathematical sense, predict the observations one would be forced to make if one were without the general laws. To the degree that the rational structures of science are governed by principles of strict logical implication, to the degree that prediction becomes more and more complete, leading eventually to the derivation of possible observations that one might not have made but for the existence of the general theory. . . science [then] increases the unity of our experiences in nature. This is the hallmark of the way of knowing called science (74).

From the work of scientists both before and after Bruner came unified intellectual fields of general consensus called foundational knowledge, e.g., justifiable systems of belief

Epistemology  63 governed by commensurability upon which entire frameworks of thought and research could depend. From this view, rational structures or general laws, constructed and reconstructed over centuries, have come to shape all aspects of human existence, even as these structures are often perceived to exist independently of lived experience. For music educators, foundational knowledge takes the form of Western common practice harmony, historical logic (Bach begat Haydn, Haydn begat Beethoven, Beethoven begat Brahms, etc.), notions of “mainstream” curricula or “mainstream” research, the sequential application of learning in lesson books, and the derivation of music into discrete elements. Without foundational knowledge, the argument goes, each generation would be buffeted by change, prey to conjecture or coincidence. Foundational knowledge—as elemental, as derivative, as unified—cuts across time, context, and culture. As Bruner noted mid-century, foundational knowledge is arrived at through direct observation of the physical world, a primary doctrine of the umbrella concept referred to as positivism. For the architect of positivism August Comte (1858), the most trustworthy (e.g., “valid”) form of knowledge is that which is found in the description of sensory materials. Research into the facts of the world are confined to the “positively given,” which has released—ostensibly—humankind from the shackles of superstition and inefficiency. Yet, “to engage effectively in the search for wisdom that led to such understanding, a person had to be able to transcend the lived world of transiency and imperfection. He (almost without exception ‘he’) had to move beyond opinion, impulse, experience and desire . . . With such a model in mind, the person consulting a personal vantage point or preoccupation (or gender, social class, or race) can only be thought to be perpetually prey to illusion” (Greene 1994, 427). Ms. Fairfax uses the same set of method books for all the learners in her piano studio. To remain in her studio, you must pass each exercise before going on to the next. She holds all her students to the same exacting standard, regardless of circumstance, insuring consistent musical quality. Her no-excuses teaching method has been eternally validated by the number of awards her piano students have won. For the positivist, our mental states are inherently subjective, driven to ignore facts, or make excuses in the face of them. The data-driven No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was a positivist effort to replace “the soft bigotry of low expectations” (George W. Bush) with a no-excuses curriculum, one that replaced the feelings and subjectivities (and judgment) of the teacher with assessment data in the form of cross-comparative standardized tests.2 Pure data, in this view, keeps teachers from feeling sorry for their students, teachers who may be inclined to blame poor school performance on social forces like segregation, ethnicity, or poverty. It has been argued that much of secondary ensemble-based music education shares with positivism a data-driven no-excuses epistemology, where contests and competition make no excuses for the particularities of musical experiences and taste, or the varied desires of individuals (Allsup and Benedict 2008). Derivational structures, likewise, drive primary music curricula, conceiving of all musics everywhere as reducible to the elementals of pitch, duration, timbre, texture, and dynamics. By the mid-twentieth century, the logic of positivism reached its apex in the radical work of North American behaviorists like E. L. Thorndike, B. F. Skinner, and John

64   randall everett allsup Watson. Behaviorism as a sub-theory of positivism holds that human or animal psychology is to be entirely concerned with the examination of objectively observable external behavior and nothing else. In a nod to the earlier writings of Compte, Watson writes “the behaviorist began his own formation of the problems of psychology [mind, knowledge] by sweeping aside all medieval conceptions. He dropped from his scientific vocabulary all subjective terms such as sensation, perception, image, desire, purpose, and even thinking and emotion, as they were subjectively defined” (Watson 1930, 5–6; Anderson 2005, 8–9). Extrapolating theories of mind through the isolation of highly controlled variables, learning was reduced to stimulus and response. Teaching was reduced to reinforcement. Chiding the discipline of cognitive psychology for being “champions of reductionism” (175), Bruner (1979) criticized what he saw as a theory of mind that was preoccupied with small things. The modest successes [of cognitive behaviorism] have all been, in a special way, in vitro, treating chunks of behavior out of the controlling contexts in which they ordinarily occur, even though the contexts have a massive influence over the chunks. The more rigorously isolated from context and the more tightly controlled the conditions of experiment, the more precise and the more modest the results have been . . . This brave and bold approach doubtless worked in physics, where the connection between controlled experiment and nature had become clear” (170).

According to this critique, the behaviorist/quantitative approach fails to address richer notions of mind. What of the larger “controlling contexts” that shape the individual chunks of human experience? Bruner was less dissatisfied with the scientific method of observation, trial, and experiment than he was of the epistemological frame that precluded behaviorists from asking better questions. A different epistemological framework was needed, one that could nudge the science of knowledge closer to qualitative accounts of human experience.

4.2.2 Structuralism and Educational Research In reducing the effects of learning to ever-smaller design constructs, often through quantitative methods, a logical question arose. What if a behavioral psychologist’s tightly controlled experimental variables were not actually independent of each other? What if the variables were implicated in a larger cultural system? What if the so-called isolates were in fact “part of a structure, a structure whose existence was in the head or mind of the subject, like his language and its rules” (Bruner 1979, 173, emphasis added)? Calling upon the work of linguist Noam Chomsky (1968) and anthropologists like Claude Lévi-Strauss (1963), Bruner hypothesized that a reaction to a stimulus or a reaction to any aspect of one’s environment is never isolated. Instead, reaction—or more accurately human experience—is always structure dependent. In other words, “the significance of any feature is determined by its position in a structure” (Claude Lévi-Strauss 1963, 183).

Epistemology  65 In this view, the individual mind is implanted with internalized references and rules that are coded by language, culture, context, and emotion. Thus, even the smallest reaction to a variable is never entirely predictable and requires interpretation. Whether we are a cognitive psychologist or an everyday interlocutor, to find out the meaning of a wink or a grin requires an interpretation of the cultural conventions that give meaning to the act (Geertz 1973). A wink can be conspiratorial in one setting or flirtatious in another. A grin can be malicious or spry. Cultural structures taint even the loneliest utterance with multiple meanings. For educational researchers, this was a critical advance: the doctrine of structuralism effectively opened the door to alternative ways of doing and knowing. In this chapter, I have narrowed my survey of structuralism to its impact on education. It is important to note that structuralism in educational psychology was adopted from larger, more complex disciplinary fields like semiotics (Peirce 1931–1936), linguistics (Bloomfield 1914), and anthropology (Lévi-Strauss 1963). For progressive leaders in the field of education research, structuralism was viewed in relief as a radical departure from behaviorism. Finding the stimulus/response paradigm old-fashioned, they moved to this newer theory of knowledge in which “abiding structures” give form and function to persons, cultures, and domains of inquiry. “Underlying a discipline’s ‘way of thought,’ there is a set of connected, varyingly implicit, generative propositions” (Bruner 1966, 154). For example, generative propositions in math and physics include universal theorems and rules of association and distribution upon which people (say) build bridges or design homes (Bruner [1960] 1996). In music, deep structures include rules for voice leading, harmonic progressions, the tempered scale, or acoustics. According to this theory, musical genres and styles may differ on a surface level just as bridges and homes differ across neighborhoods and nation-states, but they all adhere to universal internal structures or essential elements (Elliott 1995, 43–45). Such a concept of derivative knowledge (not breaking with the Western tradition of foundational knowledge) allowed educational researchers to ask more dynamic questions about the ways in which persons and cultures interact, mathematically, musically, or otherwise. “The different activities of a society are interconnected in such a way that if you know something about the technological response of a society to an environment [to its structural elements], you will be able to make some shrewd guesses about its myths or about the things it values” (Bruner [1960] 1996, 154). Ms. Garrett’s high school choir programs works from a diverse repertoire, annually featuring folk arrangements, canonic classical work, show tunes, and gospel songs in end-ofyear concerts. Garrett believes that you can learn the same fundamental elements of music regardless of genre or style. “Music is a universal language,” she tells her students, “though it is found in many different forms. The basics of musicianship come first, then a singer can sing anything.” Anticipating of the work of later theorists, it is important to state that future critics will take a hard aim at this proposition (Allsup in press-a; Butler 1992). Post-structuralists will argue that these structures are neither universal nor politically neutral. Nor are they

66   randall everett allsup basic, or transferable. Worse, what Bruner identifies as a deep disciplinary structure can be equally understood as various forms of prejudice disguised in universal terms (Lyotard 1979; Miller 2005). For example, the deep structural complexity of Western classical music can often operate as an ideology, not a benign unifying structure, one that effectively keeps non-Western musics and youth music off limits in schools and Schools of Music (Nettl 1995). However, before returning to this critique in the section below, it is important to emphasize that structuralism was a progressive stance for two reasons. First, it brought mid-century psychology closer to the humanities, and to acts of interpretation. Secondly, it resignaled interest in generative concepts of mind and human intentionality. Regarding the practice of public schooling, this was a profound epistemological turn by troubling commonly held concepts of teaching and learning that were based on stimulus and response type settings. Instead of drill-and-kill and rote memorization, curricular emphasis was placed on holistic concepts and reflective thinking (see, for example, the Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project of 1970). Bruner’s spiral curriculum became the most famous educational manifestation of this new theory of knowledge. The premise begins with the idea that all “intellectual activity anywhere is the same, whether at the frontier of knowledge or in a third-grade classroom. What a scientist does at his desk or in his laboratory, what a literary critic does in reading a poem, are of the same order as what anybody else does when he is engaged in like activities—if he is to achieve understanding” (Bruner 1960/1996, 14, emphasis added). Thus, “to understand something is to sense the simpler structure that underlies a range of instances” (Bruner 1966, 106). By asking young mathematicians to think like “real” mathematicians and young musicians to think like “real” musicians, students could grasp profound concepts at an age far earlier than common wisdom previously imagined. The basic concepts of a discipline, according to this theory, are necessarily interrelated, so that understanding the place and purpose of music in human society means exploring the relationships of (say) duration, form, and pitch in the construction of a song—any song. Even more radically, “the foundations of any subject may be taught to anybody at any age in some [intellectually honest] form” (Bruner 1960, 12). In evoking the concept of a spiral, each time a learner returns to a basic concept, the knowledge acquired grows in complexity and interest. Through a relentless focus on the fundamentals of aural skills training, Dr. Bryce believes that he is “teaching for transfer.” By understanding the specifics of a larger general rule—in this case through instances of chord recognition and sightsinging—the music majors in his charge will become better musicians; e.g., they will play better in tune, improvise what they hear in their head, and conduct better from scores. Dr. Bryce believes there is no such thing as a good musician without a foundation in aural skills. As author of this historical survey of knowledge and the mind, I step outside my role as documentarian to suggest that the structuralist doctrine of the 1950s and 1960s is alive and well in contemporary music education practice, even as alternative epistemological conceptions—post-structural or postmodern conceptions that we will soon explore—have blossomed meanwhile. I would argue that most formally trained

Epistemology  67 musicians, the classical and jazz musicians who graduate from today’s conservatories and Schools of Music, are the product of decades of step-by-step instruction, all based on the commonsense “ideology” of structuralism. Delving ever deeper into the sonic fundamentals of our art form, we may too easily accept the notion that all music is reducible to its elements—a Western art construct that is not shared universally (Frith 2003). To subscribe to this theory of mind, I  contend, is to delimit curricular and research possibilities. It is a tidy view of learning; one that Bruner came to suspect was inadequate as well.

4.2.3  First-Person Singular: Qualitative Research Emerges Notice for a moment the construction of this chapter. Notice the ways in which I resist the voice of grand narrator, the voice of objectivity and disinterested analysis. Notice the non-linear pauses for critique. Notice the italicized interruptions, the indented fictions that attempt to illuminate a particular truth (Barone 2000). Notice the use of gender-inclusive language. Notice above all, the unapologetic use of first-person singular, the “I” that automatically qualifies any statement or claim as contingent. Not long ago, researchers in music education were expected to refer to themselves in the third person singular. “This researcher sought to explore the effects of . . .” Or, “this survey was designed by the researcher to investigate . . .” As a kind of Truth claim, third-person references in research writing signaled that the trouble of subjectivity could be effectively stanched by adopting the outward appearance of an unemotional objective observer— the white-coated social scientist who assures readers that research design and findings are valid, and (especially) unpolluted by a particular “point of view.” Chapter 15 of this volume will look at what counts as validity or trustworthiness in qualitative research and how the declaration of one’s positionality is an acknowledgement of one’s partiality (meaning both the partiality of what can be observed and then communicated as a finding, and the partiality of inherent bias). The point I call attention to is the qualitative embrace of what Mikhail Bakhtin ([1975] 1986) famously called the heteroglossia of language and lived experience, the multiple, contradictory, and interrelated flux of discourses and discursive practices that constitute the individual and make language and communication incapable of neutrality. Subject and subjectivity are the defining terms of qualitative research, viewed here as . . . a situated activity that locates the observers in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008, 4)

68   randall everett allsup Culture constitutes the observer. Culture shapes the observed. Any correspondence between a phenomenon and its interpretation is just that—an interpretation. A clear epistemological trend began with a view of knowledge that stressed its absolute, permanent character. The result has been a clear focus on normative approaches to identifying the needs and abilities of learners through standards and measures of change. The alternative form is a focus on the social and contextual and acknowledges issues of temporality, relativity, and situation dependence—from a static, passive view of knowledge toward a more adaptive and active one. (Gadsden 2008, 41)

This is the epistemological turn that required qualitative methods of trial, observation, and analysis. It is a turn away from abstract theories of derivative structures and their effect on the individual mind. A turn from the laboratory inside toward the “natural world”—the schools, the playgrounds, the garages, and sidewalks—outside.

4.2.4 Cultural Views of Mind Culture is commonly thought of as the shared practices, laws, customs, institutions, and artifacts that give shape to the social behaviors of a particular nation or group of people. But culture shapes minds as well as behaviors; it is more than an overlay upon the constraints of biological life. Rather, culture “provides us with the toolkit by which we construct not only our worlds but our very conceptions of our selves and our powers” (Bruner 1996, x). Culture is the medium through which theories of knowledge are made. “It is a way of construing the world, the universe, society, and men and women. It is, at the same time, a matrix of meaning, a framework for understanding, and a plan for action. It defines desirable goals, appropriate means, and the broader values to be honored in human action. By so doing . . . culture is a force in human action, a sculptor of society, a major influence on human events” (Salzman 2008, 3). Culture, thus, is “constitutive of mind. By virtue of this actualization in culture, meaning achieves a form that is public and communal rather than private and autistic” (Bruner 1990, 33). This notion was a sea change for social science, moving educational research away from an individualistic conception of mind toward visions of learning that are situated and nongeneralizable. “Some years after I first became actively engaged with education, I set down what seemed to me some reasonable conclusions in The Process of Education. It seems to me in retrospect, some three decades later, that I was then much too preoccupied with solo, intrapsychic processes of knowing and how these might be assisted by appropriate pedagogies” (Bruner 1996, xi). Bruner doesn’t say exactly what precipitated his turn, but the 1980s and 1990s were witness to growing demographic changes within and outside the research university. Second- and third-wave feminism, the politics of racial identity, ACT UP and gay rights, organized conservative pushback—these events and others made the process of education highly political, non-neutral, and definitively post-structural. “A theory of education that was to serve all could no longer take for granted the supporting assistance of a benign, even neutral culture” (xiii). The how-to

Epistemology  69 teaching plans that were built on foundational or derivative knowledge like Bruner’s spiral curriculum or the Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project (Thomas, 1970) had to concern themselves with new questions in the shaping of the multicultural mind, like Why this and not that?—For whom is this appropriate and why?—and, Who is being heard and who is being silenced? A new insistence on the plurality of circumstance and the particularity of individual ways of knowing made it more difficult than ever to subscribe to the idea that all human experiences are tied together by deep and abiding structures. Recall Bruner’s (1962) structuralist position, “to understand something is to sense the simpler structure that underlies a range of instances” (106). Rather than speak of transfer between simple truths or elements, today there is a much closer examination of the manner in which certain domains of knowledge came to claim dominance, how they legitimize or privilege certain ways knowing, and how especially (and importantly for researchers) they are wrapped in a “master narrative,” the logic of historical truth that effectively silences discussions on value (Lyotard 1979). For example, as long as nineteenth-century Western classical art music and its complex structural elements are the norm against which other musics are measured, the value that youth musics or folk musics serve will remain unseen or unheard, or in the case of research, unlooked for. A debate is taking place in Jarrett’s state. Do so-called “popular musicians” have the appropriate musical skills and knowledge base to teach music in public schools? Should popular musicians be allowed to apply for state teaching certification? What training would be expected of them? What kind of “pre-clinical” teaching practicum could they be placed in? What remediation would be required? Jarrett is skeptical of this notion of remediation, sensing that such a framework privileges one cultural practice over another. Skepticism, uncertainty, and deconstruction are the starting points for a postmodern or post-structural theory of knowledge.3 The core of postmodernism is the doubt that any method or theory, discourse or genre, tradition or novelty, has a universal and general claim as the “right” or the privileged form of authoritative knowledge. Postmodernism suspects all truth claims of masking and serving particular interests in local, political, and cultural struggles. But it does not automatically reject conventional methods of knowing and telling as false or archaic. Rather, it opens those standard methods to inquiry and introduces new methods, which are also, then, subject to critique (Richardson 2000, 928).

This is the interpretive turn in education research, where the conventions of hypothesis, trial, and experiment take on new cultural or qualitative dimensions. Talk of rationality and reason, the computational brain of inputs and outputs, gives way to notions of mind that are contextually situated, full of feelings and desire, sometimes contradictory and fractured (Damásio 1994; Harding 1986). For Bruner and others, methods of research and inquiry that take culture into account must now open up. To accept the notion that knowledge is constructed and reconstructed in public with others, that reality is an interpreted experience and not objectively verifiable, gives scholarly inquiry more perspectives from which to see, hear, listen, observe, and reflect.

70   randall everett allsup The rest of this handbook will deal with the various research paradigms that have flourished in this post-positivist landscape. Case study research, as surveyed in ­chapter 7, will explore knowledge as context-governed and context-bound. Qualitative analysis in teacher research, as described in c­ hapter 13, will be understood as framed by the beliefs that govern learning in particular education environments. I move now to briefly survey a recent development in education research where the practical/personal knowledge of the teacher-researcher is highlighted through first-person accounts (for a fuller account, see ­chapter 10, “Narrative Inquiry and the Uses of Narrative in Music Education Research”).

4.2.5 Narrative Trends in Education Research As I  close this overview of the major turning points in research, epistemology, and education in the twentieth and early twenty-first century, I  take note of the emerging role of storytelling as a way of getting at mind, truth, and subjectivity. The social construction of ourselves as we interact with and alongside others is the starting point for narrative research (Barrett and Stauffer, 2009). Pluralistic notions of mind and knowledge-making—conflicting, unfolding, relational, unstable—gesture toward the very situatedness of life and the limits to which observation can be put (Clandinin and Connelly 2000). “Our mental states,” writes Bruner (1996), “seem not to be bound even by the canon of non-contradiction: we love and hate simultaneously and are often not sure whether this is really a contradiction. And the measures we formulate for the physical world seem to fit poorly to those that characterize our subjectivity: subjective time and space do not neatly correspond with Newtonian clocks and meter sticks” (161). In writing about the function of autobiography in narrative research, Janet Miller writes “many of us grow up with Western cultural norms that reinforced notions of an ‘I’ that was an always ‘accessible self,’ one completely open to observation, rational analysis, and even ‘correction’ by self and others rather than an ‘I’ that is performative, that comes into provisional being through social construction” (51–52). What does it mean to accept the provisional nature of being and knowing, and to embrace this positionality as an educational researcher? What does it mean to remember intimately the feelings of an event, though not its details; to tell a story of learning that has no rosy ending, or even sequential logic? What does this mean as it relates to issues of truth, subjectivity, what is known and what is knowable? As author of this chapter, I think of my own internal confusions and contradictions regarding the research I have chosen to conduct, and how these inherent contradictions lead me to ask particular questions in particular ways. For example, I have been deeply shaped by my experiences in high school band, a long-ago place of extrinsic musical success and fellowship, but a space I had trouble recreating for others (Allsup 1997). Recalling the formative contradictions that Bruner describes above, band was a diversity-affirming and a diversity-phobic place; a mono-cultural and multi-cultural environment—one that introduced me to music I could not find on my own, but had no room for the music I listened to at home or in the

Epistemology  71 car (Allsup 2003). In my research some decades later, I explore the contradictions that come with examining a phenomenon that has revealed itself as simultaneously transformational and limiting (Allsup in press-b; Allsup and Benedict 2008). As “temptations to reconsider the obvious,” stories can subvert the normative nature of “typical” educational experiences (Bruner 2002, 10–11). Stories are likewise invitations to inquiry and interpretation. Looking at the world as if it could be otherwise, new positions are staked imaginatively. Questions arise. Common wisdom is challenged. Band creates community—maybe, but not inherently. Who feels represented? Whose voice is heard? Who gets left out? What role does pedagogy play in inhibiting or enhancing community? Facts give way to multiple meanings and multiple conditions. My high school band won multiple state competitions. But what was experienced along the way? What was learned, what wasn’t learned? What was the official curriculum? What was the hidden curriculum? Research informed by way of reflexive acts—the circular folding-back process whereby assumptions and claims are examined and reexamined often through narrative processes—can pry open those categories that resist examination the most, categories through which conventional wisdom has silenced or devalued alternative educational practices. Winning speaks for itself. The ends justify the means. Seeing is believing. When narrative accounts are understood as inquiry into multi-contextual ways of knowing the world, they assist us in all stages of research. As invitations to uncertainty, we make the qualitative turn toward greater complexity, richness, and diversity. Saewon teaches general music in a multicultural urban environment. Her high school students become highly engaged when they are afforded the opportunity to talk about the music they like. Saewon is often surprised by how unpredictable this exercise can be. Stories of friendship, loss, dislocation, and pleasure remind her that music is never heard the same way twice. These narratives are often accompanied by personal breakthroughs, turning points in life that are given form and structure through the art of storytelling. She reminds herself that as constructions (some might say fictions), these musical autobiographies are revelations of mind and culture. There are many truths to attend to, and she is always left with new questions, new fascinations.

4.3 Implications for Qualitative Research Understanding the place of epistemology in music education research begins by examining our beliefs about teaching and the nature of learning. We were teachers before we were researchers. We were learners before we were teachers. It is therefore critical to remind ourselves that the research questions we ask, the problems we locate to study, and the conclusions we arrive at are epistemological expressions of what we believe is true or justifiable based on our past experiences as teachers and learners.

72   randall everett allsup As an exercise, consider the following claims. What would I be committing myself to if I believe they are true?

• • • • • • • •

Intonation is pure. All children are different. Music is reducible to its elements. Excellence is measurable. Culture affects musical preference. Fictions reveal truth. Musical auditions are predictors of teaching ability. There is one right way to play jazz.

The point of this exercise is to reinforce the following admonition:  the relationship between one’s epistemological view of education must be consistent with the design of one’s research. If through my experiences as a teacher I have come to the justifiable belief that all children are unique and endowed with the right to express their uniqueness through music, then I am likely to consider them as co-participants or co-inquirers in the study I design, and not subjects to observe behind mirrored glass. If through my experiences as a learner, I have come to believe that audition results are predictors of future teaching success, then I am committing myself to an epistemological framework that is built upon a linear construct of causal relationships. Being aware of one’s epistemological stance matters because some research designs are incommensurable with particular beliefs about education. Likewise, the epistemological stance that one has adopted—whether consciously arrived at or not—effectively limits the methodological approaches that are available for investigating a problem. I cannot believe in case study design and the generalizability of knowledge all at once. I cannot believe in elemental or derivative knowledge and at the same time examine the generative meaning-making processes of a culturally diverse music classroom. This awareness makes clear my final point:  that all theories of knowledge are implicated in a system of values. It is for this reason that music education researchers are morally obliged to examine their beliefs about the human mind, how and where growth occurs, and the purposes to which an education in music is designed by one for the sake of another. Consider once again the list of claims above. What values would I be committing myself to if I believe they are true? How are these values expressed in the research I design? A researcher who believes that all children deserve a voice in the construction of their music classroom is exhibiting a very different set of values from the researcher who videotapes the intonation challenges of third-graders when they sing alone in front of others. The researcher who matches music education audition scores to success in student teaching practicums is looking very differently at education from the researcher who studies the autobiographies of music teacher aspirants. It was this awareness of the relationship between a vision of mind, a research domain, and an expression of human values that propelled Jerome Bruner through seventy years

Epistemology  73 of active and ever-changing scholarship. His career portrait suggests that it is our values that drive innovation, not the other way around. Consider the scholars in our field whose vision of learning was guided by their epistemological values, whose research was animated by a larger public good—Eunice Boardman, Marilyn Zimmerman, and James Mursell are just a few. Concerned as we are with the minds of the children we study and the young lives we hope to improve, we are now moved to ask: What do students deserve, and how does my study help them? Who benefits from the results of my work? How can my values point to new lines of inquiry?

Notes 1. New York City public schools are rated with grades A–F on the basis of four factors derived from numerical data about each “cohort” (grade level) in the school. This data includes metrics about (i) student progress, (ii) student performance, (iii) school environment, and (iv) ability in closing the achievement gap. (Educator Guide: New York City Progress Report High School November 28, 2011). 2. “George W. Bush’s speech delivered at the NAACP’s 91st annual convention.” Washington Post, July 10, 2000. 3. The umbrella term “postmodern” describes the break with enlightened humanism that took place in ideas and the arts in the 1970s, under which various disciplines and doctrines like poststructuralism, post-humanism, feminism, queer theory, and critical race theory adhere.

References Allsup, R. E. In press-a. “The Compositional Turn in Music Education: From Closed Forms to Open Texts.” In Composing Our Future: Preparing Music Educators to Teach Composition, edited by Michele Kaschub and Janice Smith. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Allsup, R. E. In press-b. The Moral Ends of Band. Theory into Practice. Allsup, R. E. 1997. “From Herscher to Harlem: A Subjective Account.” Music Educators Journal, 83 (5): 33–36. Allsup, R. E. 2003. “Mutual Learning and Democratic Action in Instrumental Music Education.” Journal of Research in Music Education 51 (1): 24–37. Allsup, R. E. and C. Benedict. 2008. “The Problems of Band: An Inquiry into the Future of Instrumental Music Education.” Philosophy of Music Education Review 16 (2): 156–73. Anderson, J. R. 2005. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. 6th ed. New  York:  Worth Publishers. Bakhtin, M. M. (1975) 1986. The Dialogic Imagination:  Four Essays. Translated by Kenneth Brostrom. Austin: University of Texas Press Slavic Series. Barone, T. 2000. Aesthetics, Politics and Educational Inquiry:  Essays and Examples. New York: Peter Lang. Barrett, M. S., and S. L. Stauffer, eds. 2009. Narrative Inquiry in Music Education: Troubling Certainty. New York: Springer.

74   randall everett allsup Bloomfield, L. 1914. An Introduction to the Study of Knowledge. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Burnard, P., and A. Younker. 2004. “Problem-Solving and Creativity: Insights from Students’ Individual Composition Pathways.” International Journal of Music Education 22: 59–76. Butler, J. 1992. “Contingent Foundations. Feminism and the Question of ‘Postmodernism.’ ” In Feminists Theorize the Political, edited by Judith Butler and Joan Scott, 3–21. New York: Routledge. Bruner, J. (1960) 1996. The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. 1966. Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. 1979. On Knowing:  Essays for the Left Hand. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. 1996. The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. 2002. Making Stories: Law, Literature, Life. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Chomsky, N. 1968. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Clandinin, D. J., and F. W. Connelly. 2000. Narrative Inquiry. Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Comte, A. 1858. The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte. New York: Calvin Blanchard. Damásio, A. 1994. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam Publishers. Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2008. The Landscape of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dewey, J. 1910. How We Think. New York: D. C. Heath and Co., Publishers. Dewey, J. (1929) 2008. The Quest for Certainty. Vol. 4 of Later Works, 1925-1953, edited by Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J. 1896. “The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology.” The Psychological Review 3 (4): 357–70. Eisner, E. 2002. The Arts and the Creation of Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Elliott, D. J. 1995. Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education. New York: Oxford University Press. Frith, S. 2003. Music and Everyday Life. In The Cultural Study of Music:  A  Critical Introduction, edited by Martin Clayton, Trevor Herbert, and Richard Middleton, 92–101. New York: Routledge. Gadsden, V. L. 2008. The Arts and Education:  Knowledge Generation, Pedagogy, and the Discourse of Learning. American Educational Research Association 32: 29–60. Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Greene, M. 1994. “Epistemology and Educational Research: The Influence of Recent Approaches to Knowledge.” Review of Research in Education 20: 423–64. Greene, M. 2005. A Constructivist Perspective on Teaching and Learning in the Arts. Constructivism:  Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. 2nd ed. 110–29. New  York:  Teachers College Press. Gordon, E. E. 1997. Learning Sequence in Music: Skill, Content and Patterns: A Music Learning Theory. Chicago, IL: GIA. Harding, S. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kingsbury, H. 1998. Music, Talent and Performance:  A  Conservatory Cultural System. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Kozol, J. 1991. Savage Inequities. New York: Crown Publishers.

Epistemology  75 Lather, P 1986. “Issues of Validity in Openly Ideological Research: Between a Rock and a Soft Place.” Interchange 17 (4): 65–84. Lather, P. 1993. “Fertile Obsession:  Validity After Poststructuralism.” Sociological Quarterly 34 (4): 673–93. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1963. Structural Anthropology. Translated by Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf. New York: Basic Books. Lyotard, J. 1979. The Postmodern Condition:  A  Report on Knowledge. Translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Merriam, A. P. 1964. The Anthropology of Music. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Miller, J. L. 2005. Sounds of Silence Breaking:  Women, Autobiography, Curriculum. New York: Peter Lang. Nettl, B. 1995. Heartland Excursions:  Ethnomusicological Reflections on Schools of Music. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. P.L. 107–110 § 115. Stat. 1425. Peirce, C. S. 1931–36. The Collected Papers. 6 vols., edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Plato, Protagoras and Meno. 2005. Translated by Adam Beresford. London: Penguin Classics. Piaget, J., and B. Inhelder. 1969. The Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic. Richardson, L. 2000. “Writing: A Method of Inquiry. ” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., edited by Norman K. Denzen and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 923–48. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Salzman, P. C. 2008. Culture and Conflict in the Middle East. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books. Skinner, B. F. 1953. Science and Human Behavior. New York: Free Press. Taylor, D. M. 2009. “Support Structures Contributing to Instrumental Choice and Achievement Among Texas All-State Male Flutists.” Bulletin for the Council for Research in Music Education 179: 45–60. Thomas, R. 1970. MMCP Synthesis:  A  Structure for Music Education. Bardonia, NY:  Media Materials. Thorndike, E. L. 1932. The Fundamentals of Learning. New York: Teachers College Press. Titon, J. T. 1997. “Knowing Fieldwork.” In Shadows in the Field: New Perspectives for Fieldwork in Ethnomusicology, edited by Gregory F. Barz and Timothy J. Cooley, 87–100. New York: Oxford University Press. Tyler, R. W. 1949. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago:  University of Chicago Press. Watson, J. B. 1930. Behaviorism. New York: Norton Publishers. Webster, P. R. 2002. “Creative Thinking in Music: Advancing a Model.” In Creativity and Music Education:  Research to Practice, edited by Timothy Sullivan and Lee Willingham, 1–18. Edmonton: Canadian Music Educators’ Association.

Chapter 5

Paradigm s an d T h e ori e s Framing Qualitative Research in Music Education john w. scheib

Rather than testing hypotheses, qualitative researchers often seek to produce “descriptions and explanations of particular phenomena” (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995, 25). Qualitative inquiry begins with a topic of concern out of which the researcher poses what Malinowski (1984) refers to as “foreshadowed problems” (see Hammersley and Atkinson 1995; Stake 2000). From these foreshadowed problem(s), the researcher develops questions to guide his/her research. These questions further inform and guide the study and evolve throughout the course of the research. Due to this evolution, there are often no clear and set stages to traverse in carrying our research (Stake 2000). The researcher needs to have a plan of action, design, strategy, and methods to carry out the research, but many of the different stages (e.g., data generation, write-up, question posing, hypothesizing) overlap. Stake (2000) remarks, “Issue development continues to the end of the study; write-up begins with preliminary observations” (445). Several scholars address the dichotomy of the open-ended yet prescribed procedures of qualitative research as improvisation (Graue and Walsh 1998; Janesick 2000). Janesick (2000) likens qualitative research to improvisatory dance—structured yet free-form. Graue and Walsh (1998) describe qualitative research design being similar to music improvisation; to improvise you first need well-developed skills and a good plan, then you can concentrate on the song (fieldwork) without focusing on the technique. Theory can play an important part in providing structure to this improvisation by serving as both a guide and ballast (Ravitch and Riggan 2012). Likening qualitative research to a fine cloth, Creswell (2007) identifies the theoretical framework as the “loom on which fabric is woven” (35). The use of theory in qualitative research also

Paradigms and Theories  77 provides lenses to help focus the investigator and bring into focus (or magnify) the researcher’s intent for the reader. However, confusion appears to permeate understandings on the use and role of theory in qualitative research—even the very definition of theoretical framework. In their text, Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research, Ravitch and Riggan (2012) assert:  “. . . there is considerable confusion and even disagreement about both the content and role of conceptual frameworks in social science research. The ambiguity around the substance, form, and terminology of conceptual frameworks . . . leads to an array of terms—theoretical framework, conceptual framework, conceptual model, theory, and literature review—being used imprecisely or even interchangeably, as well as to amorphous expectations and directives for the conceptual framing of empirical research” (135). In making a distinction between conceptual frameworks and theoretical frameworks, they define the former to be more inclusive and holistic than the latter, with the conceptual encapsulating the theoretical and being comprised of three separate but related parts: (1) Personal interests—“curiosities, biases, and ideological commitments . . . theories of action . . . and epistemological assumptions” (10) (2) Topical research—“work (most often empirical) that has focused on the subject” (11) (3) Theoretical frameworks—“formal theories; those that emerge from and have been explored using empirical work” (12) Equally perplexed, Anfara and Mertz (2006) perused the canon of leading textbooks in qualitative research methods and found similarly divergent ideas and directives regarding the role and place of theory in qualitative research. Their analysis yielded three somewhat distinct understandings of theory and theoretical frameworks: (1) Theory has little (or no) role in qualitative research. (2) Theory relates primarily to methodology/epistemology (e.g., paradigm, orientation). (3) Theory relates to “empirical or quasi-empirical theory of social and/or psychological processes . . . that can be applied to the understanding of phenomena.” (xxvii) Although Ravitch and Riggan (2012) provide a distinction between conceptual frameworks and theoretical frameworks, there are similarities in how the latter has been defined and often used in qualitative research. What they refer to as personal interests appears to be somewhat synonymous with Anfara and Mertz’s (2006) description of theory relating to methodology and/or epistemology. As well, Ravitch and Riggan’s (2012) description and definition of theoretical framework appears to be more congruent with Anfara and Mertz’s (2006) third level of theory as an empirical/quasi-empirical model. In a review of qualitative research published in the Journal of Music Teacher Education

78   john w. scheib (JMTE) and what has been determined as the eminent music education research journals published in the United States (see Lane 2011), the Journal of Research in Music Education (JRME) and the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education (CRME), the predominance of studies identified as utilizing a theoretical or conceptual framework can similarly be grouped into either theory defined as methodologically/ epistemologically—or empirically/quasi-empirically based. This chapter further explores these two conceptions through examining widely used qualitative research method texts as well as qualitative studies completed in the United States and published in music education research journals. Because of the confusion and ambiguity that surrounds scholarly discussions on the role, use, and definitions of theoretical frameworks in qualitative research, and perhaps quite fitting for a discussion of theoretical frameworks, I use as a theoretical frame for this chapter a model based on the somewhat congruent arguments provided by Anfara and Mertz (2006) as well as Ravitch and Raggan (2012). The purpose of this chapter is not only to try to clear away the silt from the murky waters surrounding understandings of what constitutes a theoretical framework, but also, equally important, to provide readers with potentially useful theories, frameworks, and applications toward helping them in their own scholarly pursuits. Toward these efforts (and also due to the nature of such a piece on both published research and the theories that framed them), a somewhat lengthy list of sources is included at the end of the chapter, referencing all that has been discussed. I also provide several direct quotes in hopes of giving the reader a better sense of the particular perspective and to further frame sections of this chapter. It is important to note that due to space limitations I will primarily only engage in a pragmatic (and perhaps utilitarian) discussion, leaving debates and commentary of a more philosophical and/or epistemological nature to others.

5.1  Paradigms and Orientations “A research design describes a flexible set of guidelines that connect theoretical paradigms first to strategies of inquiry and second to methods for collecting empirical material” (Denzin and Lincoln 2000a, 22). “[A paradigm is] a filter or grid through which the world is understood. It is not a theory or set of rules governing thought so much as an orientation of mind that determines how one thinks about the world” (Kohl 1992, 117). Qualitative research is an interpretive endeavor. As such, the researcher’s worldview shapes the entire investigation—the design of the study, research questions, data generation, and findings. Identifying and disclosing this worldview is therefore critical to sufficiently presenting, understanding, and contextualizing the research for both the investigator and the consumer. An individual’s worldview can be referred to as a paradigm. Denzin and Lincoln (2000a) state a paradigm takes into account ethics,

Paradigms and Theories  79 epistemology, ontology, and methodology. Ethical questions center on moral principles, epistemological questions investigate how a person knows what they know, ontological questions focus on the nature of being, and methodological questions ask how best to gain understandings about the world. In addition to qualitative methods materials authored or edited by Denzin and Lincoln (e.g., 2000a, 2000b, 2011), often-cited sources for those framing their research by identifying a theoretical lens centered more exclusively in the domains of methodological, epistemological, ontological, or philosophical realms also include those by Creswell (2003, 2007) and Patton (2002). Denzin and Lincoln (2000a) outline the research process in five phases, the second considering the ontological, epistemological, and methodological questions the researcher should examine in understanding and identifying his/her beliefs that shape not only the researcher but also the research itself. To this they warn, “Each interpretive paradigm makes particular demands on the researcher, including the questions he or she asks and the interpretations the researcher brings to them” (19) and identify four general interpretive paradigms: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist-interpretive, critical, and feminist-poststructural. Similarly, Creswell identifies the four worldviews of postpositivism, constructivism, advocacy/participatory, and pragmatism (2003, 2007), as well as five interpretive communities: postmodern perspectives, feminist theories, critical theory and critical race theory, queer theory, and disability theories (2007). Patton (2002) provides an even more comprehensive list of no less than 16 of the most common theoretical traditions (which he also refers to as conceptual frameworks): ethnography, autoethnography, reality testing (positivist and realist approaches), constructionism/constructivism, phenomenology, heuristic inquiry, ethnomethodology, symbolic interaction, semiotics, hermeneutics, narratology/narrative analysis, ecological psychology, systems theory, chaos theory (nonlinear dynamics), grounded theory, and orientational (feminist inquiry, critical theory, queer theory, among others). Although these sources (and others) are well-known and substantive works commonly consulted in qualitative research methods instruction, only a handful of music education qualitative researchers appear to exclusively rely on this methodological/ epistemological understanding when disclosing a theoretical or conceptual framework in their studies—most either do not explicitly mention a theoretical framework or provide what Anfara and Mertz (2002) would identify as an empirically based theory of social/psychological processes (and what Ravitch and Riggan (2012) would classify as a theoretical framework). To avoid inadvertent confusion between what Creswell (2003, 2007), Denzin and Lincoln (2000a, 2000b, 2011), and Patton (2002) describe as theoretical frameworks, and those provided by Ravitch and Riggan (2012) (which is more consistent with Anfara and Mertz’s (2002) empirical-based model), for the purposes of this chapter the term paradigm might better differentiate the former interpretation from the latter, even considering this term as well holds a considerable amount of debate as to its working definition in qualitative research (see Lincoln and Guba 2000).

80   john w. scheib

5.1.1 Phenomenology Among music education qualitative research studies reviewed for this chapter that state a theoretical framework relating more to a paradigm, the most commonly utilized appears to be phenomenology, with Patton (2002) cited as the source. Patton defines phenomenological approaches as focusing on “exploring how human beings make sense of experience and transform experience into consciousness, both individually and as shared meaning” (104). Hourigan (2009) framed his study of preservice music teachers working with special needs children utilizing a phenomenological approach to data generation through immersing himself, as researcher, along with seven participants in a long-term field experience. Through journals, interviews, observations, and regular discussions, he sought to capture their constructed perceptions, both individually and collectively, as well as gauge their growth and evolution of understandings as they collaborated and interacted with each other and the special needs children. In an earlier phenomenological study, Hourigan was also part of a team of investigators who examined the phenomena of preservice brass and woodwind instrument technique course delivery from the perspective of four early career instrumental music teachers and the researchers, themselves, as instructors of the techniques courses (Conway et  al. 2007). Data were generated through observations, individual and group interviews, surveys, and self-study logs completed by the teacher-researchers. Designed, in part, to serve as a program evaluation, the phenomenological design helped yield profound insight into the perceived roles these courses played in teacher preparation. Combining a phenomenological approach further framed by heuristic inquiry, Conway engaged in two additional co-investigator studies (see Conway and Holcomb 2008; Conway and Hodgman 2008). A type of phenomenological exploration, heuristics more deliberately highlights the researcher’s role as active participant and focus of study in the investigation (Patton 2002). This heuristic frame helped structure and guide amplified inquiry into the needs of mentors (Conway and Holcomb 2008) and the experience of leading a collaborative intergenerational performance project (Conway and Hodgman 2008).

5.1.2  Theoretical Models from Methodological Perspectives An example of moving a methodological/epistemological framework toward a more concrete theoretical/conceptual model can be found in Gromko’s (1996) study of children’s understandings of compositional techniques. Utilizing interpretive interactionism, a methodological approach based on a synthesis of symbolic interactionism, hermeneutics, and ethnography (Denzin 1989), Gromko further operationalized the study by incorporating concepts found in the related literature, including tasks by

Paradigms and Theories  81 Bamberger (1991) and providing a theoretical foundation steeped in the theories of Piaget, Bruner, and Howard Gardner. Conway (1999) also framed her development of teaching cases using a post-positivist symbolic interactionist paradigm. Without utilizing an empirically based theoretical construct, the aim was to remain more reflexive in her inquiry toward focusing on building rather than supporting theory. Dobbs (2010) completed an introspective study returning to a discourse analysis and critical examination of her doctoral dissertation in order to uncover the study’s limitations. Further shaping the investigation through the theoretical lens of speech act theory (see Austin 1962), Dobbs was able to reach deeper levels of analysis by focusing more intently on illocutionary acts (those that, in themselves, solicit intended action or effect). In studying the combined development and community of preservice music teachers and music teacher educators, Conway and others (2010) provided a conceptual framework that focused on material mostly gleaned from literature that discussed concepts related to communities of learning. Without overtly citing a specific theory to frame their study (and also using the term conceptual rather than theoretical likely to further illustrate the point), the framework could be categorized as an orientation (but perhaps more similar to Ravitch and Raggan’s topical research component of their three-legged conceptual framework design); however, the stated conceptual framework provided the study with an appropriate foundation for enhanced clarity and direction. One could argue the implicit theoretical underpinnings of the study ventures into the realm of social constructionism, which can be either theoretical or empirical (Graue and Walsh 1998). The former (without the latter) might allow for a more open frame providing increased flexibility toward building theory, the latter more narrowly focusing the study with additional opportunity to engage in theory testing. For example, Kruse and Taylor (2012) cited social constructivism as a foundational element in the design of their study of preservice teachers involved in a mentored research experience in order to highlight the need for this level of reflexivity. Carter (2013) framed his investigation into the identity formation of four African American gay college band students through the multiple lenses of poststructural theory, critical race theory, and critical theory. The study was further structured through the use of a form of participative inquiry prescribed by Kemmis and Wilkinson (1998).

5.2  Beyond Methodology and Epistemology “. . . formal theory emerges from empirical work, and empirical research is frequently used to test or apply formal theory” (Ravitch and Riggan 2012, 13). Returning to the earlier discussion involving the different and often confusing conceptions, descriptions, definitions, and explanations surrounding what constitutes

82   john w. scheib theory in a purported theoretical framework, a rift appears among qualitative research scholars, notably those that author method texts for purposes of guiding investigators in designing their research. Up until this point I have focused on understandings of and music education research utilizing theory as paradigm, with foundations in “the methodology the researcher chooses to use and the epistemologies underlying that methodology” (Anfara and Mertz 2006, xix). In the context of forming a more comprehensive conceptual framework, these “ideological commitments” and “epistemological assumptions” have also been referred to as personal interests, separate from a theoretical framework (Ravitch and Riggan 2012, 10). Theory, as presented through the ensuing discussion, becomes more specific and directly related to the topic under investigation—a more focused frame, or lens, to guide both the researcher and reader. Theoretical frameworks providing this more tapered perspective are as plentiful as they are varied, coming not only from the field of social science research but also from many others particularly relevant to music education, including (but certainly not limited to) sociology, psychology, and anthropology. A wide variety of teaching/learning theories are found among qualitative studies published in music education research journals reviewed for this chapter, including theories centered on reflective thinking, shared understandings, reasoned action, mutual learning and democratic action, constructivism and constructionism, gender association, and multiple intelligences. In addition and pertaining to studies involving preservice and inservice music teachers, theories related to career phases, professional roles, intellectual development, knowledge construction, and appropriate practice are also prominent. As Anfara and Mertz (2006) proclaim, “it is, indeed, this diversity and richness of theoretical frameworks that allow us to see in new and different ways what seems to be ordinary and familiar” (xxvii).

5.2.1  The Music Makers In examining the musical lives and understandings of children, studies often provided theoretical frameworks based not entirely on any one empirical theory but rather frames formed from ideas gleaned from several. For example, Richardson (1996) and Whitaker (1996) employed frameworks informed by protocol analysis in examining the critical thinking of both seasoned and neophyte musicians, and Allsup (2003) and Wiggins (1999/2000) explored the shared experience of music learning through the theoretical perspectives of several renowned theorists (e.g., John Dewey, Paulo Freire, Maxine Greene, Mikhail Bakhtin). As well, Wayman (2004) combined Gardner’s (1983) Theory of Multiple Intelligences and Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) Theory of Reasoned Action to frame an inquiry into the perceptions of middle school students enrolled in a general music class, and Beegle (2010) utilized constructivist learning theory in designing improvisational tasks for fifth grade students, acknowledging the works of Bruner, Dewey, Montessori, Piaget, and Vygotsky (and others) as being influential. In a phenomenological inquiry into the perceptions of high school students regarding gender stereotypes and instrument choice, Conway’s (2000) theoretical framework

Paradigms and Theories  83 was also informed by several related theories pertaining to the social construction of gender, citing works by Green (1997), Shepard and Hess (1975), and Tibbetts (1975), in particular. Also investigating gender differences in the musical lives of high school students, Abramo (2011) used understandings from social constructionism and pointedly referred to West and Zimmerman’s (1987) argument in that gender identity is formed by the individuals in their day-to-day routines and actions—they do gender.

5.2.2 Learning to Be a Teacher Studies that centered on preservice music teachers transitioning to professionals appeared to be framed a bit more concretely than studies focusing on music teaching/ learning. Several investigators more pointedly referred to specific theories that shaped their inquiry. Among them, theoretical frameworks were found notably steeped in the works of Belenky and others (1986/1997), Carper (1970), Dewey (1933), Feiman-Nemser (1983), Fuller (1969), Fuller and Bown (1975), Schwab (1969, 1971, 1973, 1983), Shulman (1987), and Perry (1999). Barrett and Rasmussen (1996) utilized Schwab’s (1983) four commonplaces of the curriculum (teacher, learners, subject matter, and milieu) to frame an investigation into preservice teachers’ perceptions of teaching music to third grade general music students through the use of video cases. Further investigating how apprentice teachers comprehend teaching elementary general music students, Campbell (1999) developed a multi-level framework in his ethnographical exploration of 43 music education students involved in fieldwork. Campbell also utilized ideas from Schwab (1969, 1971, 1973), using his theories of educational experiences as interactions, further categorized into content, pedagogical, and practical domains (Schulman 1987). Teacher development in this study was framed by both teacher concerns as presented by Fuller and Bown (1975) and Feiman-Nemser (1983), and Dewey’s (1933) model of effective reflective thinking in practice. Fuller’s teacher concerns model (Fuller 1969; Fuller and Bown 1975) was also prevalent in other studies that examined the professional development of preservice teachers (see Paul 1998; Berg and Miksza 2010; Miksza and Berg 2013). Fuller’s model consists of three levels, moving from concerns centered on the teacher his/herself, to the task of teaching, and finally to the students and the impact of instruction. In addition to utilizing this model, Paul (1998) also incorporated Carper’s (1970) four categories of professional role development, which provided another layer and added dimension toward investigating the participants’ sense of ownership of occupational title and identity, commitment to professional tasks and knowledge, institutional position and reference group identification, and recognition of social position. Theoretical models of knowledge and intellectual development have also been useful in framing studies that sought to view and gauge the transformations that preservice teachers undergo on their journey from pupil to professional. In a study of student teachers reflecting on the value and usefulness of curricular and co-curricular experiences in

84   john w. scheib preparing them to be teachers, a colleague and I used Perry’s (1999) ethical and intellectual development model as a theoretical framework to gauge if their perceptions were influenced by their intellectual development (Hourigan and Scheib 2009). Perry identified nine linear sequential intellectual positions through which undergraduate students at Harvard University progressed from dualistic, through multiplistic, to relativistic thinking. Although Perry’s model is frequently cited in the music education research literature, ours was found to be the only study that incorporated it as a theoretical framework (Palmer 2012); however, Kerchner (2006) earlier utilized a related theoretical frame provided by Belenky and others (1986/1997) that was developed through interviewing women (in opposition to Perry’s model, which was based on research involving predominantly male students). This women-specific theoretical model provides five developmental perspectives, specific to the ways in which women acquire knowledge. The first perspective, silence, describes women who feel disconnected from knowledge, believing they have no independent voice. The second perspective, received knowledge, is somewhat similar to Perry’s dualistic position where truths are absolute and transmitted by authority. At the third level, the subjective knower recognizes herself as an authority and source of knowledge. Procedural knowers at the fourth level tend to focus on evaluating the accuracy and merit of truths through dialogue and critique. The final constructed knowledge perspective describes the knower as realizing that knowledge and truth are ultimately mutable, constructed in part through experience and bound by context.

5.2.3 Professional Lives Moving from the development of preservice teachers to studies focusing on the professional lives and instructional strategies of inservice music teachers, concrete and specific theoretical frameworks were equally (if not increasingly) found to shape investigations. Included among these were theories centered on occupational roles and related stress (Beehr 1987; Kahn et al. 1964), career stages of the teacher (Steffy et al. 2000), teacher knowledge construction (Clandinin and Connelly 1995; Louden 1991; Noddings 1999; Shulman and Shulman 2004; Zeichner and Liston 1987), preference for and suitability of work environment (Boyd et al. 2005; Young et al. 1997), and developmentally appropriate practice (Bredekamp and Copple 1997). I found a useful theoretical framework in studying the professional lives of teachers in the area of role theory (Parsons 1954) and occupational role stress (Beehr 1987; Kahn et al. 1964). In a collective case study of four music teachers and the combined experience they shared, I used the lens of role theory to focus my investigation of music teacher job (dis)satisfaction (Scheib 2003). In particular, six role stressors (role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload, underutilization of skills, resource inadequacy, non-participation) provided the framework to explore sources of discontent as well as the underlying foundational psychological manifestations. As a theoretical framework, these six role stressors also guided the development of interview questions, helped focus observations, and aided in the coding and analysis of interview and field note transcripts.

Paradigms and Theories  85 The Life Cycle of the Career Teacher model (Steffy et al. 2000) was used as a theoretical frame in studies examining perceptions of both experienced teachers (Conway 2008) as well as student teachers and first-year teachers (Conway, C. Micheel-Mays, and L. Micheel-Mays 2005); the former investigated perceptions of professional development throughout one’s career, the latter compared perceptions between early career stages and the model itself. This life cycle model is comprised of six progressive and sequential phases (novice, apprentice, professional, expert, distinguished, emeritus), each with distinct characteristics, focusing on the process of professional growth along the continuum (Steffy et al. 2000). In studies exploring teacher knowledge construction, Barrett (2007) developed a conceptual framework based on theories and research findings gleaned from an extensive review of literature, building notably on ideas of knowledge landscapes (Clandinin and Connelly 1995) and latitudinal knowledge (Noddings 1999) to frame her investigation into the construction and utilization of interdisciplinary knowledge. Stegman (2007) also developed a conceptual framework to aid in her analysis of transcriptions of interviews and reflective dialogue between student teachers and their cooperating teachers. Primarily informed by the works of Zeichner and Liston (1987) and Louden (1991), four areas of reflection (technical, clinical, personal, critical) were used to frame her study. In her investigation of why newly inducted music teachers opted to (or opted not to) seek employment in urban school districts, Bruenger (2010) developed interview questions and data comparison criteria to help guide analysis through developing a theoretical framework based on employment inducement studies found in the literature, notably referencing findings related to issues of work environment suitability (Young et al. 1997) and proximity (Boyd et al. 2005). In a related commentary, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)’s position statement on Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP), comprised of five key areas of practice (see http://www.naeyc.org/DAP), provided the external codes to categorize data generated in an ethnographic exploration of three kindergarten general music classrooms (see Miranda 2004).

5.3 Absence of Theory? Glaser and Strauss (1967) are credited with the first use of grounded theory in their research on dying (Charmaz 2000). They coined the term grounded theory as the “discovery of theory from data systematically obtained from social research” (Glaser and Strauss 1967, 2). Glaser and Strauss’s use of grounded theory was innovative because it contested the belief that qualitative research was merely descriptive and could not build theory (Charmaz 1995). By coding and looking for thematic strands, grounded theorists build theory based on data. However, many argue that the researcher can never really go into a study without a preconceived theoretical base, whether it be explicit or not. To emphasize this point, Graue and Walsh (1998) assert, “Our view, however, is that the

86   john w. scheib notion has been vulgarized in daily practice into a naïve empiricism, as though each researcher goes into the field without theory and there in the amassed data discovers theory, like a jewel hidden in the rubble. . . . Should theory be grounded? Eventually, it should be well grounded, but theory does not grow on trees, waiting to be plucked by the careful observer. It does not leap out of one’s data record. It is constructed, and it has its origins in many places” (28). An absence of a clearly stated and/or defined theoretical framework is not uncommon among qualitative research studies published in music education journals in the United States. Some authors rather deliberately proclaim this is due to their desire to remain reflexive and less prescriptive in their approach, and some remind that the methodology/paradigm requires theory to play a lesser or more non-existent role (see Conway’s [2003] discussion of narrative inquiry). In many other studies, various theoretical constructs and/or paradigms are discussed in the context of the literature review, indicating the formation of a lens (or lenses) that can profoundly shape and influence research questions, methods, and analysis (e.g., Bergee, Eason, and Johnson 2010; Carlow 2006; Conkling 2003; Dammers 2010; Mills 2010). Although involving research that was conducted outside the United States, in her study centered on the area of social justice Griffin (2011) more overtly describes this approach as theoretical threads leading to inquiry. Establishing a clear representation of the structure, framework, and theoretical lens(s) through which the study is bound (even loosely) is important. Likened to a road map, it helps guide the researcher and reader on course toward arriving at a destination—even if, by design, the destination is unknown at the onset. As Graue and Walsh (1998) argue, “One cannot not have theory. Everyone has views about how the world and some of its various parts work. The researcher needs to make these views explicit” (28). Clearly identifying and deliberately providing the theories that inform one’s work is also important toward simply disclosing particular perspectives and inherent biases. One does not need to be vacant of theory in order to build it; processes of assessing, supporting, and building theory can coexist.

5.4 A Call for Clarity “. . . theory cannot simply emerge from or reflect data, because interpretation and analysis is always conducted within some preexisting conceptual framework brought to the task by the analyst” (Henwood and Pidgeon 2003, 134). In considering all that has been discussed, in particular the often incongruent and ambiguous descriptions, explanations, definitions, and use of the term “theoretical framework” and what constitutes theory within a framework, I propose considering as a default model clearly identifying the broader conceptual framework in our work as qualitative researchers, consistent with Ravitch and Riggan’s (2012) description, which prescribes the researcher more comprehensively identifying both paradigm/orientation

Paradigms and Theories  87 (personal interests) as well as empirical/quasi-empirical theory (theoretical framework), in addition to findings from empirical research located in the literature (topical research). At present, relatively few qualitative research studies published in music education in the United States provide such a comprehensive and clearly defined structure (at least in the published versions of these studies). In addition to this more holistic approach, this conceptual model provides the researcher with a framework, in itself, to guide research design, leaving less room for the investigator to inadvertently side-step important elements of and questions pertaining to the research. As well, this framework might better align the efforts and findings of qualitative research to other research published in and outside the field of music education. I contend that as more uniformly contextualized information is identified, disclosed, and discussed within a given study (especially within this context), the greater chance the inherently profound thoughtfulness and rigor of the inquiry will be better recognized. This enhanced level of clarity and uniformity might in turn not only help research journal editorial review committees in their work reviewing qualitative studies submitted for publication consideration, but also potentially help attract new audiences to the field of qualitative research in music education. Using the framework-as-lens metaphor, a more comprehensive conceptual framework could be likened to a multifocal progressive prescription lens, smoothly transitioning from various focal lengths, enhancing vision at a variety of distances, moving from wide (e.g., theory related to methodology/epistemology [Anfara and Mertz 2006]; personal interests [Ravitch and Riggan  2012]) to more narrow (e.g., empirical/ quasi-empirical theories of social/psychological processes [Anfara and Mertz 2006]; theoretical framework [Ravitch and Riggan 2012]) fields of view, and further shaped and constructed throughout to provide relief from any other correctible cause for blurred vision (e.g., topical research [Ravitch and Riggan 2012]). All parts of the lens are designed to seamlessly function together toward providing clear vision at all angles and distances.

5.5 Finding Theory In addition to and in support of many of the theoretical frameworks discussed in this chapter, social and cultural theories steeped in social constructionism, Vygotskian models (e.g., activity theory), post-Piagetian perspectives, and systems theory have been found to be useful in studying children and their worlds (Graue and Walsh 1998). Resulting from a review of the literature in the area of music teacher identity construction and the professional lives of teachers, Pellegrino (2009) suggests theoretical frameworks informed by the sociocultural works of Gee (1996, 2000/2001), Rogoff (1995), and Wenger (1998), and the life narratives and histories of Ayers (1989), Goodson (1980/1981; 2008), and Goodson and Sikes (2001) could be useful in studying preservice and inservice music teachers. Further widening our view, Yin (1994) provides a coherent categorization of the common theories often found in

88   john w. scheib social science research—which Anfara and Mertz (2006, xviii) help clarify with the following concise descriptions: 1. Individual theories focus on the individual’s development, cognitive behavior, personality, learning, and interpersonal interactions. 2. Organizational theories focus on bureaucracies, institutions, organizational structures and functions, and effectiveness or excellence in organizational performance. 3. Group theories deal with family issues, work teams, employer-employee relations, and interpersonal networks. 4. Social theories focus on group behavior, cultural institutions, urban development, and marketplace functions. As I alluded to earlier, theories abound that could potentially be useful to informing or framing qualitative research in music education. As I mentor novice qualitative researchers over the years I have found it particularly helpful to recommend they continually investigate how other disciplines outside of music education have pursued the crux of their research topic, looking for theories that may help explain the phenomena, context, or problem, or help move them in other directions previously not considered. As a community of scholars (and particularly among those of us relatively new to scholarly inquiry), we tend to restrict our understandings to theories and theoretical constructs from those used within the limited sphere of our discipline and others closely aligned. The best piece of advice I was given when I myself was an apprentice researcher was to broaden my perspective through reading and engaging in coursework outside this sphere—particularly in areas that I believed might hold valuable (and possibly alternative) insight related to my preliminary thoughts on the core issues under investigation.

References Abramo, J. M. 2011. “Gender Differences of Popular Music Production in Secondary Schools.” Journal of Research in Music Education 59 (1): 21–43. Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Allsup, R. E. 2003. “Mutual Learning and Democratic Action in Instrumental Music Education.” Journal of Research in Music Education 51 (1): 24–37. Anfara, V. A., and N. T. Mertz. 2006. Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Austin, J. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press. Ayers, W. 1989. The Good Preschool Teacher: Six Teachers Reflect on Their Lives. New York: Teachers College Press.

Paradigms and Theories  89 Barrett, J. R. 2007. “Music Teachers’ Lateral Knowledge.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 174: 7–23. Barrett, J. R. and N. S. Rasmussen. 1996. What Observation Reveals:  Videotaped Cases as Windows to Preservice Teachers’ Beliefs about Music Teaching and Learning. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 130: 75–88. Beegle, A. C. 2010. “A Classroom-Based Study of Small-Group Planned Improvisation with Fifth-Grade Children.” Journal of Research in Music Education 58 (3): 219–39. Beehr, T. A. 1987. “The Themes of Social Psychological Stress in Work Organizations: From Roles to Goals.” In Occupational Stress and Organizational Effectiveness, edited by A. W. Riley and S. J. Zaccara, 71–101. New York: Praeger. Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., and J. Tarule. 1986/1997. Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic Books. Berg, M. H., and P. Miksza. 2010. “An Investigation of Preservice Music Teacher Development and Concerns.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 20 (1): 39–55. Bergee, M. J., B. J. A. Eason, and C. M. Johnson. 2010. “Galvanizing Factors of Communities Applying to Become One of the ‘Best 100 Communities for Music Education.’ ” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 186: 27–42. Boyd, D., H. Lankford, S. Loeb, and J. Wyckoff. 2005. “The Draw of Home: How Teachers’ Preferences for Proximity Disadvantage Urban Schools.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24 (1): 113–32. Bredekamp, S., and C. Copple, eds. 1997. Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Bruenger, S. D. 2010. Why Select New Music Teachers Chose to, or Chose Not to, Apply to Teach in an Urban School District. Journal of Music Teacher Education 19 (2): 25–40. Campbell, M. R. 1999. Learning to Teach Music: A Collaborative Ethnography. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 139: 12–36. Carlow, R. 2006. “Diva Irina: An English Language Learner in High School Choir.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 170: 63–77. Carper, J. 1970. “The Elements of Identification with an Occupation.” In Sociological Work, edited by H. S. Becker, 177–88. Chicago: Aldine Publications. Carter, B. A. 2013. “‘Nothing Better Or Worse Than Being Black, Gay, and in the Band’: A Qualitative Examination of Gay Undergraduates Participating in Historically Black College or University Marching Bands.” Journal of Research in Music Education 61 (1): 26–43. Charmaz, K. 1995. “Grounded Theory.” In Rethinking Methods in Psychology, edited by J. A. Smith, R. Harre, and L. V. Langenhove, 27–49. London: Sage Publications. Charmaz, K. 2000. “Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 509–35. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Conkling, S.W. 2003. “Uncovering Preservice Music Teachers’ Reflective Thinking: Making Sense of Learning to Teach.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 155: 11–23. Conway, C. M. 1999. “The Development of Teaching Cases for Instrumental Music Methods Courses.” Journal of Research in Music Education 47 (4): 343–356. Conway, C. M. 2000. “Gender and Musical Instrument Choice:  A  Phenomenological Investigation.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 146: 1–17. Conway, C. M. 2003. “Story and Narrative Inquiry in Music Teacher Education Research.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 12 (2): 29–39.

90   john w. scheib Conway, C. M. 2008. “Experienced Music Teacher Perceptions of Professional Development throughout Their Careers.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 176: 7–18. Conway, C. M., J. Eros, R. Hourigan, and A. M. Stanley. 2007. “Perceptions of Beginning Teachers Regarding Brass and Woodwind Instrument Techniques Classes in Preservice Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 173: 39–54. Conway, C. M., J. Eros, K. Pellegrino, and C. West. 2010. “The Role of Graduate And Undergraduate Interactions in the Development of Preservice Music Teachers and Music Teacher Educators: A Self-Study in Music Teacher Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 183: 49–64. Conway, C. M., and T. M. Hodgman. 2008. “College and Community Choir Member Experiences in a Collaborative Intergenerational Performance Project.” Journal of Research in Music Education 56 (3): 220–37. Conway, C. M., and A. Holcomb. 2008. “Perceptions of Experienced Music Teachers Regarding Their Work as Music Mentors.” Journal of Research in Music Education 56 (1): 55–67. Conway, C. M., C. Micheel-Mays, and L. Micheel-Mays. 2005. “A Narrative Study of Student Teaching and the First Year of Teaching: Common Issues and Struggles.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 165: 65–77. Creswell, J. W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dammers, J. 2010. “A Case Study of the Creation of a Technology-Based Music Course.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 186: 55–65. Denzin, N. K. 1989. Interpretive Interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2000a. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 1–28. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln, eds. 2000b. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2011. The SAGE handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dewey, J. 1933. How We Think:  A  Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston: D.C. Heath. Dobbs, T. 2010. “Talking to Myself: Re-framing Music Classroom Discourse.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 183: 7–24. Feiman-Nemser, S. 1983. “Learning to Teach.” In Handbook of teaching and policy, edited by L.S. Shulman and G. Sykes, 150–70. New York: Longman. Fuller, F. F. 1969. “Concerns of Teachers:  A  Development Conceptualization.” American Educational Research Journal 6 (2): 207–26. Fuller, F. F., and O. H. Bown. 1975. “Becoming a Teacher.” In 74th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, edited by K. Ryan, 25–52. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gee, J. P. 1996. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourse. 2nd ed. London: Taylor and Francis. Gee, J. P. 2000/2001. “Identity as an Analytic Lens for Research in Education.” Review of Research in Education 25: 99–125.

Paradigms and Theories  91 Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine. Goodson, I. F. 1980/1981. “Life Histories and the Study of Schooling.” Interchange 11 (4): 62–76. Goodson, I. F. 2008. Investigating the Teacher’s Life and Work. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense. Goodson, I. F., and P. Sikes. 2001. Life History Research in Educational Settings:  Learning from Lives (Doing Qualitative Research in Educational Settings). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Graue, M. E., and D. J. Walsh. 1998. Studying Children in Context: Theories, Methods, and Ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Green, L. 1997. Music, Gender, Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Griffin, S. M. 2011. “Reflection on the Social Justice Behind Children’s Tales of in- and out-of-School Music Experiences.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 188: 77–92. Gromko, J. E. 1996. “In a Child’s Voice: An Interpretive Interaction with Young Composers.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 128: 37–58. Hammersley, M., and P. Atkinson. 1995. Ethnography:  Principles in Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Henwood, K., and N. Pidgeon. 2003. “Grounded Theory in Psychological Research.” In Qualitative Research in Psychology:  Expanding Perspectives in Methodology and Design, edited by P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, and L. Yardley, 131–55. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hourigan, R. M. 2009. “Preservice Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Fieldwork Experiences in a Special Needs Classroom.” Journal of Research in Music Education 57 (2): 152–68. Hourigan, R. M., and J. W. Scheib. 2009. “Inside and outside the Undergraduate Music Education Curriculum.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 18 (2): 48–61. Janesick, V. J. 2000. “The Choreography of Qualitative Research Design.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 379–99. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kahn, R. L., D. M. Wolfe, R. P. Quinn, and J. D. Snoek. 1964. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley. Kemmis, S., and M. Wilkinson. 1998. “Participatory Action Research and the Study of Practice.” In Action Research in Practice: Partnership for Social Justice in Education, edited by B. Atweh, S. Kemmis, and P. Weeks, 21–36. New York: Routledge. Kerchner, J. L. 2006. “Collegiate Metamorphosis:  Tracking the Cognitive and Social Transformation of Female Music Education Students.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 169: 7–24. Kohl, H. 1992. From Archetype to Zeitgeist:  A  Compendium of Definitions of Intriguing and Important Words Used to Discuss Ideas in the Humanities, Literature and the Arts, and The Social Sciences. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Kruse, N. B., and D. M. Taylor. 2012. “Preservice Music Teachers’ Perceptions of a Mentored Research Experience: A Study within a Study.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 22 (1): 35–49. Lane, J. 2011. “A Descriptive Analysis of Qualitative Research Published in Two Eminent Music Education Research Journals.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 188: 65–76. Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 2000. “Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 163–88. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

92   john w. scheib Louden, W. 1991. Understanding Teaching:  Continuity and Change in Teachers’ Knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. Malinowski, B. 1984. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Miksza, P., and M. H. Berg. 2013. “A Longitudinal Study Of Preservice Music Teacher Development: Application and Advancement of The Fuller and Bown Teacher-Concerns Model.” Journal of Research in Music Education 61 (1): 44–62. Mills, M. 2010. “Being a Musician: Musical Identity and the Adolescent Singer.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 186: 43–54. Miranda, M. L. 2004. “The Implications of Developmentally Appropriate Practice for the Kindergarten General Music Classroom.” Journal of Research in Music Education 52 (1): 43–63. Palmer, C. M. 2012. “Intellectual Development of Preservice and Novice Music Educators:  A  Review of Two Models and Their Use in the Literature.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 22 (1): 50–62. Parsons, T. 1954. Essays in Sociological Theory. Rev. ed. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Paul, S. J. 1998. “The Effects of Peer Teaching Experiences on the Professional Teacher Role Development of Undergraduate Instrumental Music Education Majors.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 137: 73–92. Pellegrino, K. 2009. “Connections between Performer and Teacher Identities in Music Teachers:  Setting an Agenda for Research.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 19 (1): 39–55. Perry, W. G. 1999. Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Orig. pub. 1968/1970, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.) Ravitch, S. M., and M. Riggan. 2012. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Richardson, C. R. 1996. “A Theoretical Model of the Connoisseur’s Musical Thought.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 128: 15–24. Rogoff, B. 1995. “Observing Sociocultural Activity on Three Planes: Participatory Appropriation, Guided Participation, and Apprenticeship.” In Sociocultural Studies of Mind, edited by J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, and A. Alvarez, 139–64. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Scheib, J. W. 2003. “Role Stress in the Professional Life of the School Music Teacher: A Collective Case Study.” Journal of Research in Music Education 51 (2): 124–136. Schwab, J. J. 1969. “The Practical: A Language for Curriculum.” School Review 78: 1–23. Schwab, J. J. 1973. “The Practical 3: Translation into Curriculum.” School Review 81: 501–522. Schwab, J. J. 1983. “The Practical 4: Something for Curriculum Professors to Do.” Curriculum Inquiry 75 (3): 239–65. Shepard, W. O., and D. T. Hess. 1975. “Attitudes in Four Age Groups Toward Sex Role Division in Adult Occupations and Activities.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 6: 27–39. Shulman, L. 1987. “Knowledge and Teaching:  Foundations of the New Reform.” Harvard Educational Review 57 (1): 1–22. Shulman, L. S., and J. H. Shulman. 2004. “How and What Teachers Learn: A Shifting Perspective.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 36 (2): 257–71. Stake, R. E. 2000. “Case Studies.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 435–54. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Paradigms and Theories  93 Steffy, B. E., M. P. Wolfe, S. H. Pasch, and B. J. Enz. 2000. Life Cycle of the Career Teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Stegman, S. F. 2007. “An Exploration of Reflective Dialogue between Student Teachers in Music and Their Cooperating Teachers.” Journal of Research in Music Education 55 (1): 65–82. Tibbetts, S. L. 1975. “Sex-Role Stereotyping in The Lower Grades: Part of the Solution.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 6: 255–61. Wayman, V. E. 2004. “An Exploratory Investigation of Three Middle School General Music Students’ Beliefs about Music Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 160: 26–37. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. West, C., and D. H. Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing Gender.” Gender and Society 1 (2): 125–51. Whitaker, N. L. 1996. “A Theoretical Model of the Musical Problem Solving and Decision Making of Performers, Arrangers, Conductors, and Composers.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 128: 1–14. Wiggins, J. H. 1999/2000. The Nature of Shared Musical Understanding and Its Role in Empowering Independent Musical Thinking. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 143: 65–90. Yin, R.K. 1994. Case Study Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Young, I. P., A. W. Place, J. S. Rinehart, J. C. Jury, and D. F. Baits. 1997. “Teacher Recruitment: A Test of the Similarity-Attraction Hypothesis for Race and Sex.” Educational Administration Quarterly 33 (1): 86–106. Zeichner, K. M., and D. P. Liston. 1987. Teaching Student Teachers to Reflect. Harvard Educational Review 57 (1): 23–48.

Chapter 6

Changing t h e C onvers at i on Considering Quality in Music Education Qualitative Research mitchell robinson

The validity of experimental methods and quantitative measurement, appropriately used, was never in doubt. Now, qualitative methods have ascended to a level of parallel respectability. That ascendance was not without struggle and sometimes acrimonious debate and, to be sure, there are still backwaters where the debate lingers, but among serious methodologists and practitioners, the debate is, for all practical purposes, over.” (Patton, 2002, 265)

The establishment of criteria for quality in qualitative research in music education has existed as a problematic issue within our profession for many years. The range of opinions and beliefs concerning “goodness” criteria for qualitative research is vast, and encompasses multiple belief systems, paradigm orientations, and research stances. The purpose of this chapter is to briefly review the conversation in our profession with respect to establishing and modifying evaluative criteria in qualitative research over the past several decades, to provide alternative approaches to considering issues of evaluation in qualitative inquiry in music education, and to extend the conversation as we consider our future as a research community.

Considering Quality in Qualitative Research  95

6.1  Reviewing the Conversation As in our sister discipline of general education, scholars in music education have approached the issue of evaluative criteria when conducting qualitative research in multiple ways. The choice of what terms to use when discussing evaluative criteria reveals much about our professional conversation when it comes to these matters.

6.1.1 Words Matter The words we use to describe our actions and intentions as researchers are powerful tools. These words do more than provide information about content and structure; they offer clues as to our beliefs about the profession, our research, and our view of the world. The conversation regarding qualitative inquiry—and among inquirers—in music education is characterized by fascinating literary turns and plot twists along the way, denoting our growth as scholars, and perhaps our self-esteem as a scholarly community. The earliest examples of qualitative publications in music education professional journals are characterized by a notable brevity of methodological description. For example, a 1981 case study of a chromesthetic by Haack and Radocy (86–87) in the Journal of Research in Music Education includes only the following methodological information: “four interviews and testing sessions (were) conducted during the period 1974–79. Consistency of response to identical stimuli throughout the period was sought and documented as a means of internal validity. This was accomplished by means of structured interviews and testing sessions wherein responses were recorded via audio tape and data assessment forms for comparative analyses over time.” Other early examples of qualitative work in music education scholarship are characterized by the use of quantitative evaluative terminology, such as validity, reliability, and generalizability. Reviewers and readers were comfortable with these terms, understood their meaning from their own experiences and knowledge base, and were able to apply them to what was a new and sometimes confusing approach to research. Authors of this period may have felt that using these terms was part of the “game” of doing publishable research, or may have learned these terms in their own research classes as graduate students. The following plaintive passage from the general education literature in an article by Finlay is especially pertinent, and expresses the ambivalence of many qualitative music education scholars regarding this issue: I sometimes worry that our preoccupation with evaluation criteria simply reflects our insecurities about the scientific status of our work as qualitative researchers. Does the mission to find and use appropriate criteria pander to the positivists? Aren’t we just playing their game? Can’t we be valued on our own terms? But then I see the other side of the argument. The reality is that we work in a competitive world where quantitative experimental methodology forms the bedrock of the dominant positivist paradigm. We have to play the ‘science game’ if we have a hope of competing.

96   mitchell robinson It comes down to politics and PR. After all, there are many people out there who still need to be convinced: funding bodies, ethics committees, sceptical supervisors and examiners, to say nothing of the qualitative researchers themselves who have a stake in seeing high quality studies being disseminated. So it is with mixed feelings that I write this paper on ‘criteria’, recognising it is both a game and a serious undertaking. . . . (Finlay 2006, 321)

Even when qualitative evaluation strategies were employed, they were often applied in rather quantitative ways. For example, Baldridge (1984) used ethnographic observation strategies to make “qualitative comparisons” (81) between teacher-reported classroom behaviors and those teachers’ responses to survey items in a study of listening activities in the elementary general music classroom, and then used a “Pearson intercorrelation” formula (81) to determine the statistical relationship between the two criteria. Krueger’s (1987) article in the JRME represents an important milestone for qualitative work in our discipline, advancing a more secure and sophisticated approach to describing the methodological traditions of the qualitative enterprise. Written as a sort of ethnographic “primer,” this article offers a clear explanation of qualitative data collection, analysis, and evaluation strategies and techniques, while still framing the discussion with decidedly positivist terminology. Indeed, the headings for this discussion are parallel to their counterparts in quantitative design (i.e., reliability, validity, generalizability), perhaps in an attempt to assuage the “critics” Krueger refers to in the article. For instance, in the “reliability” section of the article, Krueger acknowledged that critics of “field research” argued that “external reliability” was a major concern with this form of scholarship, and suggested the following strategies for addressing these concerns, after Le Compte and Goetz (1982): “(1) identification and description of the researcher’s role; (2) description and background of the subjects; (3) descriptions of settings in which observations take place; (4) identification of methods for data collection and analysis; and (5) explanation and outline of the theoretical framework guiding the study.” (Krueger, 1987, 73) Perhaps more notable, and even provocative for its time, was Krueger’s assertion that “validity,” rather than being a liability of qualitative inquiry, was “a major strength of qualitative research, since the flexibility of data collection and interviews allows the researcher to examine the knowledge and meanings construed by the participant” (73–74). In any event, these positivist terms were an awkward and unsatisfactory “fit” for the paradigm and frameworks being used in these studies, and researchers began to suggest new sets of criteria. The eminent qualitative scholars Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed four criteria for what they termed “naturalistic” research, and due to the significance of their contribution to this discussion, I have summarized these criteria, and the primary techniques used for each, below in some detail.

Considering Quality in Qualitative Research  97 • Credibility: Involves establishing that results of qualitative research are credible or believable from the perspective of the participant in the research. Since the purpose of qualitative research is to describe or understand the phenomena of interest from the participant’s eyes, the participants are the only ones who can legitimately judge the credibility of the results. (Techniques: member checks; prolonged engagement in the field; data triangulation.) • Transferability: Refers to the degree to which the results of qualitative research can be generalized or transferred to other contexts or settings. Transferability is primarily the responsibility of the one doing the generalizing. Can be enhanced by doing a thorough job of describing the research context and the assumptions that were central to the research. The person who wishes to “transfer” the results to a different context is then responsible for making the judgment of how sensible the transfer is. (Techniques: thick description of setting and/or participants.) • Dependability: The traditional view of reliability is based on the assumption of replicability or repeatability, concerned with whether we would obtain the same results if we could observe the same thing twice. But this is impossible—by definition if we are measuring twice, we are measuring two different things. Dependability, on the other hand, emphasizes the need for the researcher to account for the ever-changing context within which research occurs. The researcher is responsible for describing the changes that occur in the setting and how these changes affected the way the research approached the study. (Techniques: audit trail; researcher’s documentation of data, methods and decisions; researcher triangulation.) • Confirmability: Each researcher brings a unique perspective to the study. Confirmability refers to the degree to which the results could be confirmed or corroborated by others. There are a number of strategies for enhancing confirmability. The researcher can document the procedures for checking and rechecking the data throughout the study. Another researcher can take a “devil’s advocate” role with respect to the results, and this process can be documented. The researcher can actively search for and describe negative instances that contradict prior observations. And, after the study, one can conduct a data audit that examines the data collection and analysis procedures and makes judgments about the potential for bias or distortion. (Techniques: audit trail and reflexivity.) While the above set of criteria was clearly structured as “parallel terms” to traditional quantitative notions of internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity, they provided an important and useful bridge for qualitative scholars. Later, Guba and Lincoln (1989) added a fifth set of criteria to their list, “authenticity,” that was unique to constructivist assumptions and could be used to evaluate the quality of the research beyond the methodological dimensions. By 1989, a discernible shift in both language use and methodological descriptiveness in our professional literature can be noticed. DeLorenzo’s article on sixth-grade students’ creative music problem-solving processes includes the following methodological statement: “The following steps were taken to ensure consistency and credibility in data

98   mitchell robinson collection and analysis (191). Note the use of alternative terms (i.e., consistency rather than reliability, and credibility rather than validity), a signal that paradigm-specific language was beginning to find acceptance in our professional literature—albeit sparingly. DeLorenzo’s article is also noticeably more descriptive in terms of the protocols followed throughout the research process, including nearly two pages of information on participants (“sample,” 192), an audit trail (“procedures,” 192), and data collection techniques. Schleuter’s 1991 study on student teachers’ pre-active and post-active curricular thinking represents another important evolutionary step in the language and thinking surrounding qualitative research in music education; in this case, regarding the notion of “generalizability” in the qualitative paradigm. The author cites Shulman’s definitions of two forms of “generalizability”:  across-people, “not appropriate for ethnographic research” (48), and across-situations, which was deemed pertinent to the study at hand. While still appropriating largely positivist terminology, the contribution here was to prod our collective thinking in respect to a basic tenet of research in music education— that in order for results to be meaningful, they must be applicable broadly; to other students, schools, or populations. Schleuter goes on to suggest that rather than being concerned with the ability to widely generalize the results of the findings, a primary goal of ethnographic work was to construct new understandings from observing the actions and behaviors of participants, and that these understandings were, by definition, subjective rather than objective. She includes a warning regarding generalizing the results of the study: “generalizability of these findings should be made only to situations most like the ones described in this study” (58). Creswell (2007, 20–22) provides another set of guidelines for qualitative authors, consisting of techniques and strategies for ensuring the “goodness” of one’s study design and write-up. While not in the form of evaluative criteria per se, these suggestions are offered as helpful reminders to those engaged in qualitative work: • Employ rigorous data collection, using multiple forms of data, summarized and presented in various ways (tables, charts, graphs). • Frame the study with a qualitative approach, acknowledging evolving design, multiple truths, the researcher as primary data collection instrument, and a strong focus on the voice(s) of participant(s). • Use a tradition of inquiry, demonstrating a full and complete knowledge of the design’s history and philosophical foundations. • Begin with a single focus, starting with a single idea or problem, not a relationship among variables or comparisons of groups. • Include detailed methods, using established and multiple data collection, analysis, and verification procedures. • Write persuasively, so that the reader is drawn into the research setting, scene, or situation. • Analyze data in multiple levels, moving from particular to general layers of abstraction. • Writing should be clear, engaging, and full of unexpected ideas.

Considering Quality in Qualitative Research  99

6.1.2  The Narrative “Turn” At this point the conversation is still functioning as though firmly rooted in a scientific world, and the discussion is being conducted using the terms and tools of the academician. This traditional approach to research has been dominated in large part by a modern, positivist viewpoint—a viewpoint that may have been useful for the “business” of doing research (gaining acceptance from reviewers, having pieces approved for publication, obtaining promotion and tenure), but was still somewhat at odds with the very nature of the questions being asked and the forms of knowledge being sought. The “narrative turn” in qualitative inquiry reflects an awareness among those in the broader scholarly community that our goals can be more expansive, and our gaze can be lifted. The narrative turn moves away from a singular, monolithic conception of social science toward a pluralism that promotes multiple forms of representation and research; away from facts and toward meanings; away from master narratives and toward local stories; away from idolizing categorical thought and abstracted theory and toward embracing the values of irony, emotionality, and activism; away from assuming the stance of the disinterested spectator and toward assuming the posture of a feeling, embodied, and vulnerable observer; away from writing essays and toward telling stories. (Bochner 2001, 134–35)

A study by Wiggins (1994) shows a further development of qualitative evaluation strategies and terminology. With children’s compositional problem-solving strategies as the focus of her study, the author devotes nearly four pages of the manuscript to a detailed discussion of the research process, paying special attention to issues of “participant selection” (including the identification of two “target children”), data collection and sources, and an elegant explication of her “role as researcher.” In terms of evaluative criteria, Wiggins provides information on data and participant triangulation techniques and provisions for establishing credibility based on suggestions from Lincoln and Guba (1985), including “prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and negative case analysis” (237). Wiggins’ article is one of the first music education research publications to adopt completely the qualitative terminology that many scholars now accept as common, and to use it comfortably and fluently to describe the uniqueness of the qualitative research process. Her thick descriptions of classroom activities, copious use of students’ music notation examples, snippets of dialogue, and the weaving in of interpretive musings throughout the discussion paint a vivid picture of both her classroom and the research process, and welcome the reader into the setting in which the study was conducted. Like Schleuter, Wiggins warns that, “it would be inappropriate to draw broad generalizations to the field or to imply that these findings have implications outside the realm of my own classroom” (250). However, she continues: “Whether other children in other class settings would use similar strategies in solving compositional problems remains to

100   mitchell robinson be seen. I hope, however, that this discussion of findings as they relate to my own music classroom might help others gain insight into their situations.” We see here the recognition that “generalizability,” or credibility as Wiggins employs the term, is about giving the reader enough information to make her or his own decisions regarding what and what not to believe, and that the knowledge gained here was primarily local—with the recognition that it may have implications for others in similar situations. An article by Della Pietra and Campbell (1995) shows a further solidification of qualitative evaluation strategies at work. In a study exploring the influence of improvisation training in a college music methods course, the authors demonstrate a fluency and comfort with the tools of qualitative inquiry through their use of techniques and terms such as “think-aloud protocols,” “data and investigator triangulation,” and “informants.” As in Wiggins’ writing, this article draws the reader into the “classroom culture” established through the research activities, and allows the audience to compare and contrast their own experiences with those of the participants.

6.1.3 A New Vocabulary As alternative approaches to constructing evaluative criteria continued to emerge, researchers became bolder in asserting new metaphorical and conceptual foundations for establishing evaluative criteria. Polkinghorne (1983) emphasized the artistic possibilities inherent in narrative work. He suggests that qualities such as vividness, accuracy, richness, and elegance (Polkinghorne 1984) are useful criteria for judging the trustworthiness of phenomenological interpretation: “Is the research vivid in the sense that it generates a sense of reality and draws the reader in? Are readers able to recognise the phenomenon from their own experience or from imagining the situation vicariously? In terms of richness, can readers enter the account emotionally? Finally, has the phenomenon been described in a graceful, clear, poignant way?” (Finlay 2008, 12). In art education, Eisner further crystallizes this dialectical turn in both our evaluative terminology and our very orientation to the research enterprise: “Educational research is now a species of scientific inquiry using the language of propositions . . . The realities of the classroom are an array of qualities for which meanings are construed and will always present more than propositional language can capture. We need a language capable of conveying qualities” (1984, 447). Eisner argues for our adoption of the language of criticism and metaphor, and to turn toward the humanities for frameworks of reference and language. As Eisner’s notions of educational connoisseurship and criticism begin to coalesce into a viable research mode, he predicts the emergence of a new dialogue regarding our evaluative “moves” as researchers: Over time, descriptive language becomes less mechanical, more incisive and increasingly literary or poetic as students try to get at the essence of what is

Considering Quality in Qualitative Research  101 occurring . . . [This] requires . . . not only sensitivity to the emerging qualities of classroom life, but also a set of ideas, theories and models that enable one to distinguish the significant from the trivial.” (1985c, 221)

Richardson (1992) also proffers an offering of literary, rather than solely scientific, dimensions for our consideration in evaluating qualitative study: substantive contribution; aesthetic merit; reflexivity; impact; and expression of a reality. Advocating for the use of poetry and other literary forms in scholarly writing, Richardson suggests that, “increasingly ethnographers desire to write ethnography which is both scientific—in the sense of being true to a world known through the empirical senses—and literary—in the sense of expressing what one has learned through evocative writing techniques and form. More and more ways of representing ethnographic work emerge” (1992, 253). Finlay leaves us with the following thought: Qualitative criteria offer a way for researchers to move beyond accounting for their evidence in terms of scientific criteria. Instead, the criteria direct us to address the special qualities of qualitative research and to explore the broader impact and social relevance of a particular project. Criteria also help us explore both strengths and weaknesses. For instance, a particular piece of research may be poorly evidenced or lack rigour, but it might still have value in its power and relevance. Alternatively, a particularly rigorous study, while lacking literary force, may carry its validation through its claims to ‘science’. The challenge lies in selecting the criteria which best suits the research being conducted.

The next section of this chapter will engage in a discussion of alternative criteria for judging our work as qualitative music education scholars.

6.2 Alternative Approaches to Establishing and Selecting Evaluative Criteria in Qualitative Inquiry in Music Education In considering approaches to evaluative criteria in qualitative music education, we are reminded of similar challenges in the related disciplines of historical musicology and ethnomusicology. Efforts to make value judgments on music’s worth, quality, and “goodness” across genres and styles are fraught with peril and doomed to failure. There is not a single set of evaluative criteria, for instance, for judging the merit of a Renaissance motet against that of a Western African drumming performance. Each genre is distinguished by its emphasis on specific musical elements, qualities, and techniques, not to mention each genre’s situatedness in widely different communities of musical, social, and cultural practices.

102   mitchell robinson

6.2.1 Choosing Our Words In an effort to stimulate this conversation, I provide the following discussion based on Patton’s (2002) alternative criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. As Patton points out, the goal of this discussion is both illustrative and pragmatic: With what perspectives and by what criteria will our work be judged by those who encounter and engage it? By understanding the criteria that others bring to bear on our work, we can anticipate their reactions and help them position our intentions and criteria in relation to their expectations and criteria, a dialogue I find that I spend a great deal of time engaged in. (Patton 2002, 7)

Patton advances five alternative sets of criteria for judging quality and credibility of qualitative research based on the major stages of development in qualitative inquiry, as suggested by Denzin and Lincoln (2000):

• • • • •

Traditional scientific research criteria; Social construction and constructivist criteria; Artistic and evocative criteria; Critical change criteria; and Pragmatic utilitarianism.

In the following section, I will flesh out the specific evaluative techniques, strategies, and stances employed within each of the above sets of criteria and qualitative approaches, informing the discussion with brief examples from a seminal study from the music education research literature that is situated within each approach. Due to space constraints, only short snippets from each study can be included in the text below; for further information, I encourage the reader to find each of the cited articles to read in their entirety.

6.2.1.1  Traditional Scientific Research Criteria Given the preponderance of quantitative research in our history as a scholarly discipline, some authors have chosen to adopt the terms and stances of the scientific paradigm in their qualitative work, while conducting their inquiries using ethnographic techniques, such as interviews and observations, as data collection strategies. Their goals here are accuracy, objectivity, and minimizing observer bias, all of which reference the priorities placed on the strictures of traditional scientific inquiry. In “Prediction of Performer Attentiveness Based on Rehearsal Activity and Teacher Behavior,” Yarbrough and Price (1981) provide an excellent example of this approach to data collection and analysis. The purpose of this descriptive study was to examine the attentiveness of student musicians in relation to their teachers’ rehearsal techniques and behaviors. The authors collected the data by observation and video recordings of subject responses, and coded the data through time-sampling the recordings into 5and 10-second intervals. The video recordings were taken by two “media technicians (who) . . . surrounded the group during the recorded rehearsals,” and “two trained

Considering Quality in Qualitative Research  103 observers” (211) who reviewed the video tapes for instances of student off-task behaviors and teacher eye contact. The procedures outlined here confirm the tenets of this approach as conveyed by Patton: Those working within this tradition will emphasize rigorous and systematic data collection procedures, for example, cross-checking and cross-validating sources during fieldwork. In analysis it means, whenever possible, using multiple coders and calculating inter-coder consistency to establish the validity and reliability of pattern and theme analysis. (2002, 266–67)

Rigorous reporting procedures and mandates in the health care industry have also influenced our colleagues in music therapy to adopt the language and protocols found in medical research to the smaller sample sizes and client-focused settings common in the field of music therapy research, forging a unique hybrid of small-scale design analyzed through a scientific and statistical lens.

6.2.1.2  Social Construction and Constructivist Criteria Following Lincoln and Guba, constructivists and interpretivists have forged a new lexicon of terms to explain their approaches to conducting research in naturalistic settings. Rather than relying on words like “validity” and “reliability” to describe their data, constructivist researchers talk about the “credibility” of their findings, acknowledge the subjectivity of their results, and employ triangulation strategies to represent multiple perspectives from stakeholders. In “Painting a Big Soup: Teaching and Learning in a Second Grade General Music Classroom,” Wiggins and Bodoin (1998) looked at the ways in which students and teachers in an elementary music classroom made meaning and reflected on their mutual learning. In keeping with their social constructivist approach to research, the authors made use of strategies such as data triangulation, negative case analysis, and member checks to analyze the data and represent the beliefs and understandings of both students and teachers. The attention to detail, and rich, thick descriptions of teaching-learning interactions woven throughout the narrative are indicative of the constructivist’s perspective: They view the social world (as opposed to the physical world) as socially, politically and psychologically constructed, as are human understandings and explanations of the physical world. They triangulate to capture and report multiple perspectives rather than seek a singular truth. Constructivists embrace subjectivity as a pathway deeper into understanding the human dimensions of the world in general as well as whatever specific phenomena they are examining. (Patton 2002, 8)

6.2.1.3  Artistic and Evocative Criteria Exploring the boundaries between the arts and sciences has long been at the core of the creative experience. The acceptance of research that blurs these boundaries has

104   mitchell robinson faced rather more scrutiny in the academic community. Patton asserts that artistic criteria are legitimate evaluative tools for assessing the quality of research, a suggestion that should find an appreciative audience in the qualitative music education community. According to Patton, “Artistic criteria focus on aesthetics, creativity, interpretive vitality, and expressive voice. Case studies become literary works. Poetry or performance art may be used to enhance the audience’s direct experience of the essence that emerges from analysis. Artistically-oriented qualitative analysts seek to engage those receiving the work, to connect with them, move them, provoke and stimulate. Creative nonfiction and fictional forms of representation blur the boundaries between what is ‘real’ and what has been created to represent the essence of a reality, at least as it is perceived, without a literal presentation of that perceived reality” (10). In “Second Chair: An Autoethnodrama,” Saldaña offers a deft, heartbreaking, and poignant glimpse into the world of the high school band experience. The author casts the play as “a metaphor for the feelings of lesser status experienced by the marginalized individual in a competitive mainstream society” (2008, 277), and uses his own experiences as a high school clarinetist to explore issues of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Saldaña uses the metaphor of “first chair-second chair” status to represent issues of discrimination and marginalization, framing these concepts in a context that is easily understandable to his audience of music teacher educators: The autoethnodramatic format provides me with a forum for sharing messages of personal and vital importance to fellow artists and educators. If musicians can understand the feelings accorded to someone of ‘second chair’ status, they can hopefully understand the feelings of the marginalized individual in a competitive mainstream society:  “. . . it’s always feeling and sometimes being treated as lesser than, second best, like playing a cheap-ass plastic Bundy when you’d rather be playing an ebony wood Selmer with a glass mouthpiece.” (2008, 13)

Patton suggests that artistic criteria include being provocative, connecting with and moving one’s audience, expressing your message in a distinct “voice,” and conveying a “true,” “authentic,” or “real” sense of purpose to the reader. In my review of Saldaña’s autoethnodrama, I wrote the following: Comparing the strength and depth of my recollected feelings to my relatively subdued response to merely reading the play makes me wonder if the very power of the actual performance is indeed a form of arts-based trustworthiness for the value of ethnodrama as narrative inquiry. As a music teacher educator, I wonder if we might ‘transform’ the typical Introduction to Music Education class assignment of writing one’s musical autobiography by having students perform these stories as autoethnodramas? How much more powerful and transformative would these stories become if they were dramatized, and shared with one’s classmates? (Robinson 2008, 207)

Considering Quality in Qualitative Research  105

6.2.1.4  Critical Change Criteria One of the hallmarks of the traditional research design process is the neutral, detached stance the researcher is expected to take in respect to the subjects or sample population, and the sense of objectivity maintained throughout the research process. In direct contract to this position, “Critical theorists set out to use research to critique society, raise consciousness, and change the balance of power in favor of those less powerful” (Patton 2002, 11). Critical scholars such as Patti Lather (critical feminist theory), Paulo Freire (pedagogy of the oppressed), and Tom Barone (emancipatory educational storysharing) have broken new ground in educational research, proposing activist strategies designed to redress injustices and improve social and learning conditions for marginalized populations. Koza (2002), in “A Realm without Angels: MENC’s Partnerships with Disney and Other Major Corporations,” turns her attention to the relationship between the Music Educators National Conference (MENC) (now the National Association for Music Education) and the Walt Disney Company, as well as MENC’s relationship with other major corporations, and the implications that these partnerships may have on school funding and other issues. As Patton tells us, “Those engaged in qualitative inquiry as a form of critical analysis aimed at social and political change eschew any pretense of open-mindedness or objectivity; they take an activist stance” (2002, 11). Koza begins the article with what is sometimes referred to as a “bias dump,” or what LeCompte and Preissle (1993) term as “coming clean”: My interest in partnerships between the MENC and major corporations such as Disney dates back to 1996 when I was invited to attend a free premiere screening of the movie, Mr. Holland’s Opus. . . . I did not like the film much even though I agreed with its message that public schools and public school music should be adequately funded, and I  was sorry that MENC had entered into a partnership to promote it. . . . I soon discovered that the film itself was but one small part of a much larger story about MENC’s deepening involvement in educational/business partnerships. (Koza 2002, 72)

The rest of the article reads much like a well-researched investigative report, focusing on the relationship between financial incentives, tax breaks, and other special considerations given to major corporations, collectively known as “corporate welfare” (Koza 2002, 73), and the damage caused by these concessions to the financial infrastructure of the public schools—and, by extension, to public school music programs. The author examines public tax records, corporate financial reports, and studies conducted by business/industry watchdog groups, and uses this information to provide a richly detailed case study of one company’s corporate practices and the complicated impact that these practices have on the finances of public education. Koza’s work here is an excellent example of what Patton defines as the most important goal of this form of inquiry: “While the term ‘critical’ gets used in many different ways and contexts in relation to research and theory, what it almost always connotes is an interest in and commitment to social change” (2002, 12).

106   mitchell robinson

6.2.1.5  Pragmatic Utilitarianism There is a long-standing tradition of using qualitative methods in the field of educational program evaluation, where the techniques of the ethnographer are applied to gathering data regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of teaching methods, pedagogical approaches, and teachers. As Patton states: “The focus is on answering concrete questions using practical methods and straightforward analysis while appreciating that those who use evaluations apply both ‘truth tests’—are the findings accurate and valid?—and ‘utility tests’—are the findings relevant and useful?” (2002, 12). Conway (2002), in “Perceptions of Beginning Teachers, Their Mentors and Administrators Regarding Preservice Music Teacher Preparation,” used multiple forms of data (i.e., questionnaires, individual and focus group interviews, classroom observations, teacher journals, researcher’s log) from various stakeholders to present a portrait of the strengths, weaknesses and challenges inherent in the music teacher preparation curriculum at “Big Ten University,” or “BTU” (21). The author triangulated the data by seeking information from the beginning teachers, their assigned mentors, and the building administrators responsible for evaluating these novice educators. By turning the reflective lens to her own institution’s program, Conway addressed both local and professional goals:  “I sought to improve the preservice music teacher education program at BTU for the students and faculty involved in that program. In addition, I attempted to gather information about preservice music teacher education that might have relevance for preservice preparation programs that are similar to the one provided by BTU” (4). The pragmatic criteria used to evaluate this form of scholarship allow the researcher to “engage in straightforward qualitative inquiry answering concrete questions aimed at largely descriptive answers, e.g. what do participants in programs report as strengths and weaknesses, without locating the inquiry within some major philosophical, ontological, or epistemological tradition. Grassroots practitioners have concrete questions and information needs that can be answered in straightforward ways through qualitative inquiry and they judge the answers pragmatically by their utility, relevance, and applicability” (Patton 2002, 12).

6.3 Continuing the Conversation 6.3.1 Listening to Other Voices In her Senior Researcher Award acceptance speech in 1996, Cornelia Yarbrough suggests, “The goal of all research in music should be a product that contributes to knowledge about music and musical behavior” (190). It is our challenge and our responsibility as scholars to recognize if our goal for a specific research project is “knowing that,” “knowing of,” or “knowing more.”

Considering Quality in Qualitative Research  107 Perhaps we need to concern ourselves not just with the goals of our research, but with its potential impact on teaching and learning. The disconnect between theory and practice is a consistent and long-maligned theme in educational research. According to Bresler, applied research is concerned primarily “with the improvement of practice and of materials,” while basic research is “concerned with deep understanding and the generation of theory” (1996, 6). Eisner (1985a, 255–68) asks the question even more bluntly: “can educational research inform educational practice?” His answer: “We study education through social science disciplines which were originally meant for rat maze learning . . . We have built a technology of educational practice . . . of commando raids on the classroom . . . So often what is educationally significant, but difficult to measure, is replaced with that which is insignificant, but easy to measure” (Eisner 1985b, 12). To illustrate his point, Eisner notes that 10 studies in the 1981 American Educational Research Journal reported on a range of experimental treatments, with a “median exposure time per student” of a little more than an hour. “Data were collected during these brief visits and processed back at the research ‘laboratory’, then decently buried in obscure journals” (in Swanwick 1996, 18). Bresler (1996) posits the following: “Central to any disciplined inquiry is the issue of trustworthy criteria. Some criteria are important to all research, quantitative and qualitative, whereas others are more specific to a particular paradigm, or to applied or basic orientations. In consideration of merit, it seems that the most important criterion for any research is that it is about something important to researchers as well as readers.”

6.3.2 Changing the Conversation In many ways, our conversation has been stuck—stuck in a false debate between notions of realism and relativism. As Kerlinger (1979) said, “the procedures of science are objective, not the scientists. Scientists, like all men and women are opinionated, dogmatic, ideological. . .that is the very reason for insisting on procedural objectivity; to get the whole business outside of ourselves” (264). With the growing knowledge that the empiricists’ dualism of subject and object was impossible, much energy has been expended in the past several decades on first working around this duality in ways that would allow for claims of “knowing reality,” and then with creating elaborate sets of knowledge points—or criteria—that would serve to judge claims of truth or empirical quality. While this realist approach may have “worked” so long as we adopted the traditional tools and processes of the scientific method, these criteria have proven to be an awkward fit for those of us engaged in more relativist forms of inquiry. Many scholars have struggled with a “quasi-foundationalist” approach (Smith and Deemer 2000, 880), functioning in a nether-world of conundrums. “Any elaboration of criteria must take place within the context of . . . ontological realism on the one side and, on the other, their realization that they are obligated to accept a constructivist epistemology” (880). For these authors, the challenge has been to try to fit the “square peg”

108   mitchell robinson of work informed by a postmodern worldview into the “round hole” of positivist criteria and publishing requirements designed to accommodate traditional research products. Even when we are “successful” at reconciling these contradictory belief systems, we are left to wonder if the end result is worth the bargain. Music education research journal editors and review board members also struggle with this issue in the context of their responsibilities as “gatekeepers” in the publication arena. Using one set of guidelines or criteria to make judgments about the merits of two submissions, one carried out as an experimental study with a sample size of 200, and the other conducted as an ethnographic case study of a single informant, would seem a dubious proposition at best. At many of our institutions the differences between quantitative and qualitative research are recognized by the existence of separate review boards and evaluative criteria. As research teachers and advisors we would not presume to guide these two projects in the same way, and yet our professional publications have resisted the establishment of specific sets of criteria for particular methodological approaches. In a 1987 article in the American Educational Research Journal, Smith made the following observation: The policy of the AERJ editors to encourage the submission of qualitative research will be welcomed by qualitative researchers of all types. Such a policy can only mean that editors will use different criteria to judge and select such studies from those they use for experiments and surveys. Editors should also understand that different ideologies exist within the discipline of qualitative research. To send a manuscript submitted by an interpretivist to a systematist (or vice versa) is more likely to provoke unresolvable methodological debate than meaningful criticism or fair editorial recommendations. The editors must become ethnographers of the culture of qualitative research. Then reviews can be fairly solicited and properly understood. (Smith 1987, 182)

Perhaps as we listen to the many different voices that have contributed to our discussions about criteria, it is time we change the conversation from one that emphasizes discovery and finding, to one that stresses constructing and making (Smith and Deemer 2000). Rather than spending our time as scholars, advisors, reviewers, and editors attempting to judge work with a “one size fits all” set of guidelines, we need to better acquaint ourselves with the options at our disposal. Denzin (1997) suggests that we have entered the era of the “new ethnography,” and that “the stories ethnographers will tell to each other will change, and the criteria for reading stories will also change” (87). I will close the chapter by asking the reader to consider the following questions, and suggest that our answers should provoke further conversation with our colleagues, especially those with whom we disagree: • Is it our goal to know a specific thing (i.e., the effect of one variable upon another, or the relationship between two or more musical or education constructs), or to

Considering Quality in Qualitative Research  109

• • • •

explore a group, a phenomenon, a happening, or an occurrence so as to further our understanding of what is happening in these settings? Is it our goal to measure the effectiveness of a particular teaching method or approach against another, or to know more about the choices and beliefs of a group of teachers, students, or community members? Is it our goal to test a hypothesis of a predicted interaction, or to work towards change when we perceive inequity, unfairness, or a lack of justice? Is it the goal of “all” research to produce a product or measure a behavior, or sometimes simply to begin a conversation? Is it our task to provide an answer, or to provoke a thought?

To paraphrase Gombrich (2000), artists do not paint what they can see, they see what they can paint. Perhaps in respect to research in music education, we do not sing what we can hear, we hear what we can sing.

References Baldridge, W. R. II. 1984. “A Systematic Investigation Of Listening Activities in the Elementary General Music Classroom.” Journal of Research in Music Education 32: 2, 79–93. Bochner, A. P. 2001. “Narrative’s Virtues.” Qualitative Inquiry 7: 131–57. Bresler, L. 1996. “Basic and Applied Qualitative Research in Music Education.” Research Studies in Music Education 6: 1, 5–17. Conway, C. 2002. “Perceptions of Beginning Teachers, Their Mentors, and Administrators Regarding Preservice Music Teacher Preparation.” Journal of Research in Music Education 50: 1, 20–36. Creswell, J. W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Della Pietra, C. J., and P. S. Campbell. 1995. “An Ethnography of Improvisation Training in a Music Methods Course.” Journal of Research in Music Education 43: 2, 112–26. DeLorenzo, L. C. 1989. A Field Study of Sixth-Grade Students’ Creative Music Problem-Solving Processes. Journal of Research in Music Education 37: 3, 188–200. Denzin, N. K. 1997. Interpretive Ethnography:  Ethnographic Practices for the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. 2000. “Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 1–28. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Eisner, E. W. 1984. “Can Educational Research Inform Educational Practice?” In Phi Delta Kappan 65: 447. Eisner, E. W. 1985a. The Art of Educational Evaluation. London and Philadelphia:  The Falmer Press. Eisner, E. W. 1985b. “Creative Education in American Schools Today.” Educational Horizons 63: 12. Finlay, L. 2008. An Introduction to Phenomenology. Available for download at:  http://www. lindafinlay.co.uk/publications.htm.

110   mitchell robinson Finlay, L. 2006. “Rigour, Ethical Integrity or Artistry? Reflexively Reviewing Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Research.” British Journal of Occupational Therapy 69: 7, 319–26. Gombrich, E. H. 2000. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. 11th ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Haack, P. A. and R. E. Radocy. 1981. “A Case Study of a Chromesthetic.” Journal of Research in Music Education 29: 2, 85–90. Kerlinger, F. 1979. “Behavioral Research.” New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Koza, J. E. 2002. “A Realm without Angels: MENC’s Partnerships with Disney and Other Major Corporations.” Philosophy of Music Education Review 10: 2, 72–79. Krueger, P. J. 1987. “Ethnographic Research Methodology in Music Education.” Journal of Research in Music Education 35: 2, 69–77. LeCompte, M.D., and J. P. Goetz. 1982. “Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research.” Review of Educational Research 52: 1, 31–60. LeCompte, M. D., and J. Preissle. 1993. Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc. Lincoln, Y., and E. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Patton, M. Q. 2002. Two Decades of Developments in Qualitative Inquiry:  A  Personal, Experiential Perspective. Qualitative Social Work 1: 261–83. Polkinghorne, D. E. 1983. Methodology for the Human Sciences. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Polkinghorne, D. E. 1984. Further extensions of methodological diversity for counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31: 4, 416–429. Richardson, L. 1992. “The Consequences of Poetic Representation.” In Investigating Subjectivity, edited by C. Ellis and M. Flaherty, 125–37. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Robinson, M. 2008. “From Competition to Collaboration: Lessons from the ‘Second Chair.’ ” Research Studies in Music Education 30: 2, 202–08. Saldaña, J. 2008. “Second Chair: An Autoethnodrama.” Research Studies in Music Education 30: 2, 177–191. Schleuter, L. 1991. Student Teachers’ Preactive and Postactive Curricular Thinking. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39: 1, 46–63. Smith, J. K., and D. K. Deemer. 2000. The Problem of Criteria in the Age of Relativism. In Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 877–96. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Smith, M. L. 1987. Publishing Qualitative Research. American Educational Research Journal 24: 2, 173–83. Swanwick, K. 1996. Theory, Data and Educational Relevance. Research Studies in Music Education, 6, 18–26. Wiggins, J. 1994. “Children’s Strategies for Solving Compositional Problems with Peers.” Journal of Research in Music Education 42: 3, 232–52. Wiggins, J., and K. Bodoin. 1998. “Painting a Big soup:  Teaching and Learning in a Second-Grade General Music Classroom.” Journal of Research in Music Education 46: 2, 281–30. Yarbrough, C. 1996. “The Future of Scholarly Inquiry in Music Education: 1996 Senior Researcher Award Acceptance Address.” Journal of Research in Music Education 44: 3 190–203. Yarbrough, C., and H. E. Price. 1981. Prediction of Performer Attentiveness Based on Rehearsal Activity and Teacher Behavior. Journal of Research in Music Education 29: 3, 209–17.

pa rt  i i

VA R IETY IN QUALITATIVE A P P ROACHES IN MUSIC EDUCATION

Chapter 7

Case Study i n Mu si c Edu cati on janet r. barrett

Case studies are frequently employed in music education research, in education at large, and across the social sciences, and for good reason. A scan of scholarly journals confirms their widespread use, which is further substantiated in content analyses of qualitative articles and dissertations (Kantorski and Stegman 2006; Lane 2011). The ubiquity of case study as a form of inquiry can be attributed to many factors, related to the adaptability of its design and process, compatibility with educational research, transparency for readers, and pedagogical utility in research education. Accompanying their widespread use is widespread criticism as well. Case studies are often critiqued for lack of methodological rigor, irregularity in design, and limited utility. VanWynsberghe and Khan, for example, pose the challenge: “Why is [case study] so regularly invoked in educational and other social science research and yet so irregularly, randomly, and poorly defined?” (2007, 80). Merriam observes that case studies in education have come to serve as a “catch-all” category for studies that cannot easily be identified as another type (1998, 18). The purpose of this chapter is to a) address divergent definitions of case study; b) represent key dimensions of case studies drawn from these definitions in a diagram; c) relate this diagram to common criticisms and misconceptions surrounding case studies; d) apply resulting analytical insights to select case studies drawn from music education journals; and e) propose avenues for improving the overall impact and utility of case studies within music education.

7.1 On the Prevalence of Case Study in Music Education It may be useful to elaborate further on the appeal and prevalence of case studies in music education. One primary reason is their affinity to related fields within the social

114   janet r. barrett sciences. The roots of case study lie in the fields of anthropology, sociology, and psychology, which have historically informed education as an especially synthetic field. In turn, music education research is a hybrid of an arts discipline infused with modes of inquiry freely adapted from the social sciences. Accordingly, case studies lend themselves to central issues of teaching and learning, schools and subject matters. Their highly contextual nature lends itself well to educational settings, in which there is likely to be considerable entanglement of phenomenon and context (Yin 2009, 18). The focus of the case is infinitely variable—a person, an event, a program, a group, or multiple entities—depending upon how the researcher defines, or binds, the territory of what is to be studied. Cases can be single or multiple, oriented toward a single holistic unity, or pointed toward various embedded instances within a context (Yin 2009). They can be oriented in historical frames as well as grounded in contemporary issues. The researcher’s process of defining and articulating a bounded system worthy of study is what Ragin calls “casing” (1992, 218). The process affords flexibility of focus in broadly defining the phenomenon of interest; as researchers subsequently draw boundaries more closely, the scope of the case comes into sharp view. The leeway afforded in the selection and binding of the case tailors the case study to the myriad musical issues related to persons, programs, processes, and contexts. Of special interest in this chapter is the capacity of case studies to convey the particularity and complexity that attends a phenomenon of interest. Aspects of the lived experience of music teaching and learning are often too nuanced, contextualized, and interdependent to be reduced to discrete variables. The dynamic intersections of subject matter, learners, teacher, and educational milieu are vital to our professional understanding; case study reports can aptly convey the multifaceted ecologies of life in music classrooms. Multiplicity is another hallmark. Case studies lend themselves to multiple scholarly orientations such as ethnography, phenomenology, social constructivism, and critical perspectives, where the types of questions and the stances toward inquiry are steeped in interdependent networks of thought and practice. The case study approach (if indeed, there is any uniformity of approach, a question to be addressed later) employs multiple methods of data collection, drawing generously from related traditions within qualitative research. Fieldwork, observation, interviews, document analysis, and other items of material culture are commonly utilized. A layperson who seldom reads research accounts has an implicit sense that a case study involves keen scrutiny of a topic requiring careful investigation, lasting duration, and clear purpose. This transparency of intent broadens their appeal. Case study reports, which build on narrative, literary, and other authorial conventions, allow for broad readership. Compared to some other forms of inquiry, case studies generally pose fewer barriers to reading and interpretation. Rich description, for example, allows the reader to come close to lived situations, feel their pulse and tensions, and weigh how they might extend to other settings and situations. Verisimilitude, when achieved, extends the immediacy, impact, and practical significance of cases. Pedagogical applications to research education are of considerable interest. For those who teach qualitative research methods, case studies provide meaningful and

Case Study in Music Education  115 manageable frameworks for students taking their first forays into systematic interpretive inquiry. Case studies can be delimited in such a way (by making thoughtful decisions about binding the case, the duration of the study, availability of participants for purposeful sampling, etc.) to allow novice qualitative researchers to experience all of the phases of conducting a qualitative study in a relatively concise and timely fashion. Conducting a condensed version of a case study as a collective exercise in a methods class has proven fruitful in teaching qualitative analysis and interpretation (J. Barrett 2007), in addition to the common practice of conducting individual pilot projects within the supportive structures of a research methods course.

7.2 Divergent Conceptions of Case Study Definitions matter in that they often encapsulate the essential components of a methodological design or approach. In case study research, such definitions abound. Many influential texts address this proliferation, addressed by VanWynsberghe and Khan: “The past three decades of scholarship on case study research have produced more than 25 different definitions of case study, each with its own particular emphasis and direction for research” (VanWynsberghe and Khan 2007, 81). Repeatedly, the question emerges: Is case study a method, an approach, or a research design? To address this persistent dilemma, I have chosen key examples for commentary, drawing from commonly cited methodologists associated with case study, such as Robert E. Stake, Robert K. Yin, and Sharan B. Merriam, as well as scholars who are less frequently cited in music education (Helen Simons, Gary Thomas, Rob VanWynsberghe, and Samia Khan) but whose thinking is germane. Each of these researchers emphasizes or accentuates various components of case study; when studied together, key attributes and their relationships emerge. Stake’s definition is one of the most frequently cited: Case study is the study of the particularity and complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity within important circumstances. (1995, xi)

Here, Stake emphasizes both the focal center, the single case, and its concomitant circumstances or context. The implied purpose is understanding through multidimensional elaboration of the specific features of the case and their interrelations, the “particularity and complexity.” Stake elaborates that in education and social sciences, researchers concentrate on persons and programs to understand them “for both their uniqueness and commonality” (1). Many researchers, however, looking for guidance in constructing and carrying out a case study have been puzzled by this oft-quoted passage from Stake’s later writing:

116   janet r. barrett Case study is not a methodological choice but a choice of what is to be studied . . . By whatever methods, we choose to study the case. We could study it analytically or holistically, entirely by repeated measures or hermeneutically, organically or culturally, and by mixed methods—but we concentrate, at least for the time being, on the case. (Stake 2005, 443)

This passage unambiguously centers on the subject of interest for the case study while conveying both broad possibility and considerable ambiguity regarding the design and conduct of the study. Robert K. Yin, also known for his series of texts on case study research, emphasizes rigor in design, while also embracing the complementary nature of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Yin forwards a two-pronged definition that moves into the methodological. The first installment of the definition aligns with Stake’s, stressing the interactions of the focal subject of the case and its naturalistic setting: A case study is an empirical inquiry that • Investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when • The boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident. (Yin 2009, 18) In the second part of the definition, Yin addresses methodological aspects of design to guide the logical conduct of the study: The case study inquiry • Copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be many more variables of interest than data points, and as one result • Relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion, and as another result • Benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis. (Yin, 2009, 18) This further elaboration of the case study emphasizes the process of conducting the case study by drawing attention to multiple variables, sources of evidence, need for triangulation, and use of theoretical constructs to inform data generation and analysis. Merriam (1998) points out these distinctions in her discussion of Stake and Yin’s definitions, bridging both emphases while also drawing attention to the final outcome of inquiry: Case studies can be defined in terms of the process of conducting the inquiry, the bounded system or unit of analysis selected for study, or the product, the end report of a case investigation. (43)

Case Study in Music Education  117 An especially productive conception of the case study is forwarded by Thomas, who recasts the way the unit of analysis is considered while simultaneously giving weight to the analytical frame that gives a case shape and purpose. Thomas suggests that a case study comprises two elements:

1. A “practical, historical unity,” which I shall call the subject of the case study, and 2. An analytical or theoretical frame, which I  shall call the object of the study. (2011b, 513)

The subject of the case study (by which he means the focal center, rather than participants) maps onto previous delineations of the bounded case in context. Thomas gives equal balance, however, to the object. His concept of the analytical or theoretical frame is well worth pursuing, as the underdevelopment of this frame fuels many criticisms of case studies, and often plagues work in music education particularly. As he explains, cases are always instances of a larger class; they are cases of something. Potential explanations or thinking tools (here drawing from Bourdieu), drawn from theory or developed to scaffold the emerging constructs, are constructed to illuminate the phenomenon of interest. The object is the “analytical focus that crystallizes, thickens, or develops as the study proceeds” (2011a, 514). In Thomas’s view, a clear articulation of the object, even in its dramatic unfolding, is essential in grounding the assumptions that relate to the selection of the case and justify its purposes, as well as in the process of relating the findings to larger issues that arise from the study of the case. Thus—and this is a crucial distinction for those who maintain that case studies are not generalizable—the particularistic nature of case studies can extend to instances of the phenomenon beyond the case itself. Thomas combines these two elements in the following definition: Case studies are analyses of persons, events, decisions, periods, projects, policies, or other systems that are studied holistically by one or more methods. The case that is the subject of the inquiry will be an instance of a class or phenomena that provides an analytical frame—an object—within which the study is conducted and which the case illuminates and explicates. (Thomas 2011b, 513)

Thomas’s critique of underdeveloped or undertheorized studies goes to the heart of the matter, addressing the problem of extendability, or use of the case study findings outside the direct case itself, head-on: The ostensible looseness of the case study as a form of inquiry and the conspicuous primacy given to the case (the subject) is perhaps a reason for inexperienced social inquirers, especially students, to neglect to establish any kind of object (literally and technically) for their inquiries. Identifying only a subject, they fail to seek to explain anything, providing instead, therefore, a simple description in place of a piece of research. For the study to constitute research, there has to be something to be

118   janet r. barrett explained (an object) and something potentially to offer explanation (the analysis of the circumstances of the subject). (513)

One final excerpt will draw attention to a final element of case study research, that of the purpose of the inquiry, taken to mean the broad uses to which the case study can be put (rather than the specific purpose statement within the study itself). Simons’s definition aligns with many dimensions already noted, but goes beyond the description of the inquiry as product, process, subject, or object, to articulate powerful outcomes: Case study is an in-depth exploration from multiple perspectives of the complexity and uniqueness of a particular project, policy, institution, programme or system in a “real life” context. It is research-based, inclusive of different methods and is evidence-led. The primary purpose is to generate an in-depth understanding of a specific topic (as in a thesis), programme, policy, institution, or system to generate knowledge and/or inform policy development, professional practice and civil or community action. (2009, 21)

Each research methodologist emphasizes various components of case studies. Notably, however, the definitions do not, as a whole, restrict the researcher to a fixed set of methodological procedures, analytic moves, or representational forms. These remain openended and flexible. Thus, learning to conduct, guide, or evaluate case studies in music education depends on keen decisions for selecting and binding the case (the subject), articulating its conceptual or analytical frameworks (the object), employing appropriate and multiple strategies for data generation, addressing clear purposes, and providing a detailed report of the case that is particularistic and complex. The actual strategies for data generation and analysis, however, may be borrowed from other qualitative forms of inquiry, as may the analytical techniques used to draw meanings from the data, and the verification strategies (Creswell, 2007) employed to lend credence to the findings. Reading multiple research texts and examples has led me to conclude that there is little that is fixed in case studies regarding data collection, analysis, and validation beyond the guidelines and heuristics that guide most qualitative inquiries. Thus, in this chapter, I will not articulate a method for case study, since the procedures and criteria for conducting a case study overlap or mirror other designs. I have drawn from these conceptual definitions to represent these components in the diagram that follows (Figure 7.1). This diagram attempts a synthesis of the definitions discussed above and their corresponding emphases. It conveys the interdependent nature of the case itself as a bounded system in context (Stake, Yin, Merriam), in complementary balance with the object of the case, the phenomenon situated within an analytical frame (Thomas). The use of the arrow between the subject and object is especially important to denote the dynamic nature of the theoretical frame as it intersects with the bounded system delineating the case. Ragin notes the interdependence of “ideas and evidence” (1992, 218) as each implicates the other. The extended purposes of the case (Simons) are addressed through the particularized and detailed presentation of the case (Merriam) to illuminate and explain

Case Study in Music Education  119 CASE STUDY PURPOSE SUBJECT A bounded system (person, program) in Context

How (part 1)

How (part 2)

OBJECT Phenomenon situated in analytical or theoretical frame or pointing towards theory

to inform practice, policy development, research, civic action through the particularized and complex PRESENTATION of the case within an analytical framework

MULTIPLE SOURCES OF DATA Drawing from a wide variety of data generation and collection methods (observations, interviews, material culture, documents) VARIED PROCEDURES FOR ANALYSIS & VERIFICATION Multiple processes including constant comparison, within case and across case analysis, other inductive methods; use of verification strategies

Figure  7.1  Dimensions of a Case  Study

the phenomenon. The processes of data generation and collection, analysis and interpretation, are more open-ended and variable, allowing researchers to structure the design and conduct of a study in ways that meet other criteria for qualitative research processes. In the final research report, these dimensions are communicated through the skillful, scholarly, and occasionally artful, presentation of the study.

7.3 Misunderstandings and Criticisms Researchers conducting or learning to conduct qualitative research often encounter predictable criticisms that make up what Flyvbjerg calls the “conventional view, or orthodoxy, of the case study” (2011, 302). He takes on the paradox that case studies seem to be ubiquitous but generally held in very low esteem within academe. Flyvbjerg presents five misunderstandings about case study that, when confronted, could ameliorate this status problem (Table 7.1): In this section, I will trace and comment upon Flyvbjerg’s analysis. The first misconception—stemming from the valuation of general theoretical knowledge over concrete case knowledge—is critical for educational researchers to address explicitly. At heart, explains Flyvbjerg, is a fundamental misalignment in epistemic underpinnings.

120   janet r. barrett Table 7.1  Five Misunderstandings about Case Study (Flyvbjerg 2011) Misunderstanding No. 1 Misunderstanding No. 2 Misunderstanding No. 3

Misunderstanding No. 4 Misunderstanding No. 5

General, theoretical knowledge is more valuable than concrete case knowledge. One cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case; therefore, the case study cannot contribute to scientific development. The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses; that is, in the first stage of a total research process, while other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building. The case study contains a bias toward verification, that is, a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions. It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the basis of specific case studies.

(Flyvbjerg 2011, 302)

General, rule-bound knowledge systems, a hallmark of disciplined inquiry in the natural sciences, facilitate explanation and prediction. In contrast, research on the nature of human learning emphasizes concrete context-dependent knowledge, which when constructed allows learners to progress from novice to more expert levels of understanding. Case studies, then, are central to the development of expertise founded on the nuanced and refined examination of concrete cases. As an example of this epistemological contrast, Flyvbjerg cites Donald Campbell, probably the most well-known methodologist in social science, who initially dismissed context-based studies as having little to contribute to context-independent and predictive theory. Later, he came to revise his view that naturalistic observation, “noisy, fallible, and biased though it be” (1975, 179), is valuable in social inquiry. Music education looks to case studies for multiple accounts of concrete, context-based knowledge, crucial in forming collective expertise and professional knowledge to inform teaching and learning. Flyvbjerg’s second misconception raises the thorny question of generalizability, a frequently sounded alarm when it comes to the applicability and overall significance of case studies. Many efforts in qualitative research have been devoted to either rejecting the possibility of generalization as fundamentally incommensurable with idiographic inquiry (“based on the particular individual”) when placed at odds with nomothetic research (“based on laws”),1 or reconceptualizing different types of generalization in order to find reasonable justifications for case studies to point beyond the particular. Flyvbjerg’s position is that in certain instances case study findings can be useful in “testing theory in a ‘soft sense,’ that is for testing propositions and hypotheses” (2011, 305). One instance in particular is in falsification, wherein carefully documented observations can result in the revision or rejection of theoretical propositions. Aligning with the reconceptualists, many researchers distinguish other types of generalizability from more positivist or “scientific” assumptions, such as Yin’s concept of analytic generalization, which “depend(s) on using a study’s theoretical framework to establish a logic that might be applicable to other situations” enabling researchers to claim that findings “are

Case Study in Music Education  121 generalizable to theoretical propositions and not to populations or universes” (2012, 18). A related reconceptualization is transferability, involving “generalizations from one case to another (similar) case” (Onwuegbuzie and Leech 2010, 883). The issue of generalizability has considerable import for researchers in music education. Taking the latter notion of transferability first, this implies that researchers describe the particularities of their cases and contexts to such a degree that readers can determine the extent to which findings from the case study can be deemed relevant to settings outside the case. Transferability, then, rests on the thick description of the case and its complexities. The other aspect of transferability has to do with the reader’s capacities to extend the findings to other instances and settings. In other words, the responsibility for transferability rests with both the researcher and the reader. Analytic generalizability has much to do with the framework of concepts, assertions, and assumptions that undergird the case and the way this framework is expanded, revised, streamlined, and made more complex and tangible as a result of the analysis. Literature reviews, for example, often provide a scaffolding of related constructs that are used by the researcher in building a more nuanced conception of the case. These a priori concepts, however, need not constrict the case; instead, they inform data generation, analysis, and interpretation. When the theoretical frame of the case is subsequently redrawn, then, the insights that permit new understandings inform the use, interpretation, and even the extendability of the findings to new studies or situations. Thus, in analytic generalization, the principles—in their redrawn form—carry across from the case to situations outside the case, not the specific instances. Flyvbjerg’s third misconception relates to both the intended use of case studies in theory building and generation and also their relationships to other forms of inquiry. Case studies are sometimes viewed as initial steps within an overall line of inquiry in order to generate hypotheses that can subsequently be examined through other approaches. Flyvbjerg counters that case studies are useful in examining all sorts of knowledge dependent upon the researcher’s information-oriented selection of the case. For example, extreme or deviant cases are warranted to test the “limits of existing theories and to develop new concepts, variables, and theories” related to these extreme cases. Maximum variation cases can demonstrate the “significance of various circumstances” for cases “that are very different on one dimension.” Critical cases are those that have “strategic importance in relation to the general problem.” They describe instances in which more typical positive instances occur, as well as “least likely” or negative cases. Finally, Flyvbjerg mentions paradigmatic cases, purposefully chosen because they are likely to contribute to the development of “a metaphor or establish a school for the domain that the case concerns” (2011, 307). Of course, researchers may not be able to determine a priori how the case will fall into a categorical type, and in fact, there may be overlap. Flyvbjerg’s fourth misconception is tied intrinsically to the researcher’s position, stemming from concern that researchers will show bias as preconceived notions crowd out alternate observations and explanations. Claims to rigor are suspect when the researcher’s observations, professional experience, and immersion in related literature inhibit perception and critical thought rather than enabling them. Yet subjectivity is

122   janet r. barrett also seen as positive rather than detrimental. Since the researcher serves as the instrument, this entanglement is not only necessary but also unavoidable. Again, Flyvbjerg claims that through observation, interviewing, document analysis, and other methods, researchers often question their prior assumptions and revise them as new data are generated through fieldwork. He maintains that the case study contains no greater bias toward verification of the researcher’s preconceived notions than other methods of inquiry. On the contrary, experience indicates that the case study contains a greater bias toward falsification of preconceived notions than toward verification. (2011, 311)

A particularly useful account of the interplay of observation and interpretation in a music teaching and learning setting can be found in M. Barrett and Mills (2009), who describe how they subjected their data generation methods and findings to critical analysis while jointly conducting an ethnographic case study of an English cathedral choir school. Finally, the fifth misunderstanding has to do with the reporting of the findings of case studies related to the difficulty of summarizing and developing theory on the basis of their conduct. Case studies are replete with data and interpretation in order to fulfill their primary goal of particularizing and complexifying the case under scrutiny. Dense case material cannot be easily reduced to a tidy set of principles, executive summaries, or tight conclusions. The solution, recommends Flyvbjerg, is to keep case studies open, rather than closing them up. This requires that the researcher present the complex, multidimensional narrative of the case without reverting to facile encapsulations and superficial overviews. “Something essential may be lost by summarizing,” he cautions (2011, 312). At the same time, researchers may link the findings of the study to one or more theoretical orientations while leaving the readers to decide on the goodness of fit from their perspectives. In this way, the “case study . . . can contribute to the cumulative development of knowledge . . . in using the principles and propositions” (313) that lead to analytical generalization or transferability. Other conceptual and methodological problems mentioned in the literature include insufficient framing of the study (lack of conceptual structure); lack of transparency in conducting the study; insufficient analysis or interpretation of data; failure to address alternate explanations; shallow rather than detailed description; and ambiguity such that it is difficult to build a line of inquiry stemming from the substantive contributions of a case. Much methodological rigor rests on the explicit “trail” of decisions, which Stake suggests as a first line of defense against common critiques of case studies as: subjective, arbitrary, nonrepresentative, and inconclusive. Which is probably true, but the study is not thus invalidated. The counter to these charges, if strong efforts to produce a valid study have occurred, is a good description of the methodological and conceptual reasoning that took place, including efforts at verification and disconfirmation. (1988, 273)

Case Study in Music Education  123 Methodological rigor is often the clarion call for improving the quality of research; Stake’s admonition rings loudly for those conducting, reviewing, guiding, or teaching qualitative research. Such rigor is the warrant on which validity rests. In addition to this foundation, case studies in music education must attend to additional criteria. They fall short of our expectations when researchers fail to portray the case in its fullness, or when the findings stitch together a patchwork quilt of data that does not sum up to a coherent whole. They also miss the mark when researchers stop short of reintegrating the study’s findings into the fabric of what is already known about the topic under study.

7.4  Frameworks for Analysis of Case Studies Critical analysis of research efforts is essential for many purposes: to guide the conduct of researchers’ efforts toward the submission of publishable reports; to influence peer review and useful professional commentary; and to expand the professional capacity of a field or discipline. Many useful heuristics for the evaluation of qualitative research can be adapted to evaluate case study research. One particularly useful approach involves “big-tent” criteria for determining quality including worthy topic, rich rigor, sincerity, credibility, resonance, significant contribution, ethical considerations, and meaningful coherence (Tracy 2010). Yin (2009) argues that designating a study as exemplary involves considerations that go far beyond faithful adherence to methodological procedures and criteria. In order to contribute to research efforts in sustainable, lasting, and valid ways, he offers five characteristics tailored specifically to case study, that they “be significant, be complete, consider alternative perspectives, display sufficient evidence, and be composed in an engaging manner” (185–90). Perhaps one of the most central attributes of a case study is its utility, its descriptive, analytical, or critical power to inform practice, policy, research, civic action, or professional discourse. In order to argue for case study as a valid and worthwhile form of activity, we must be able to articulate what case studies are good for, in addition to being able to identity good examples. Peshkin wrote: “the proof of research conducted by whatever means resides in the pudding of its outcomes” (1993, 23). Thomas puts it plainly: “What the case study is especially good for is getting a rich picture and gaining analytical insights from it” (2011, 23). After reading methodological literature and numerous critiques of case study research, I launched into the central task of identifying compelling and informative case studies for examination. I sought case studies that went beyond taken-for-granted assumptions, searching for levels of particularity that penetrated beneath and beyond common discourse and common sense. I  also searched for case studies that would exemplify complex relationships within theoretical concepts, illustrating intricate and sometimes contradictory tensions in musical experience. To select examples,

124   janet r. barrett I examined case studies in prominent English-language journals of music education from the past ten years, including the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, the Journal of Research in Music Education, Music Education Research, Research Studies in Music Education, and the Journal of Music Teacher Education. The studies described in the section that follows are not intended to be representative of a certain typology of case studies nor are they intended as a review of literature. The findings or topical focus of the studies were of less importance in selection than their utility in illustrating the overall architecture of case studies and the interplay between subject, object, and purpose inherent in the research report. I drew heavily on my reading of methodological literature to select four studies for discussion. Two of the studies (Carlow 2006; Matsunobu 2011) provide particularly complex and intricate “close up” pictures of participants’ experience; two of the studies (Haston and Russell 2012; Langston and M. Barrett 2008) illustrate the usefulness of case studies in expanding theoretical frames toward a “big picture” view. Before discussion of each study, I provide the researcher(s)’ abstracts for an encapsulated overview of the purpose, the central phenomenon, identification of the case, methodological processes, and key findings. Following the abstract, I discuss the case study in light of the dimensions outlined in Figure 7.1, concentrating on the subject, object, purpose, and presentation of each project.

7.5 Examining Select Case Studies in Music Education 7.5.1  Diva Irina: An English Language Learner in High School Choir (Carlow 2006) This article is based on a yearlong collective case study (2003–2004) that examined the perceptions of five English Language Learner (ELL) high school students enrolled in the same choral class. The article includes a short narrative essay, which highlights the experience of one of the student participants in the larger study. The premise of the research was based on what I  perceived as a tension between the socio-cultural institution of traditional American high school choral programs and ELL students’ previous and current experiences with singing. The primary research question was “What are the musical experiences of immigrant students who sing in high school choir?” Data included student and teacher surveys, focus groups, in-depth interviews, student journals, classroom and performance observations, and video analysis. Data were analyzed using the NVIVO system, which provided an efficient means for open-coding, analysis, and interpretation. Findings implied that some discourse norms in secondary choral classes can be viewed as culturally incongruent with ELL students’ previous musical experiences. (63)

Case Study in Music Education  125 A worn truism in teaching is “get to know your students.” In ensemble contexts that constitute the predominant settings for music teaching and learning in US secondary schools, teachers are challenged to live up to this adage in an increasingly diverse, postmodern milieu. Carlow’s case study of Irina Choi, a student whose Russian and Korean heritage goes largely unacknowledged within her high school choir, calls the intersections of cultural identity and musical participation into question. Irina is in no way representative of high school choristers; she is likely not representative of immigrant students either. Her typicality is not the point; rather, her “outlier-ness” (Thomas 2011b, 5) is the provocative bridge to the object of the study—the musical experiences of immigrant students. The explanatory power of this study comes from identifying the tensions of Irina’s musical experience in context. Carlow’s “casing” stems from her decision to seek out a school setting with a “significant population of immigrant students” (66) and to explore the experiences of the students within the setting of a non-auditioned choir. The case subject was bound by Carlow’s interaction with students over a 10-month period, although in many ways the boundaries were drawn larger since a significant source of insight was Irina’s description of her previous musical experience in Russia and Kazakhstan. Neither was the study bound to place as Carlow observed Irina in settings outside choir—most specifically an International Club talent show at the school where Irina appeared as a diva of Russian popular music. Carlow opens the study with a telling juxtaposition of Irina observed in two contexts—as a vibrant, assured solo performer in the talent show, and as a disgruntled soprano melting into anonymity and indifference in the third row of fourth-period choir. The evocative presentation of the case hinges on Carlow’s skill in presenting Irina in her own voice through a narrative essay, which draws the reader into the uncertain landscape of identity that Irina travels as she contrasts her visceral engagement in Russian music with what she feels are the stultifying rituals, expectations, and repertoires of the high school chorus. As an adolescent English Language Learner, Irina must “crack the code” of choir to discover what and who is valued; as she does so, she retreats further into disengagement as she waits out the completion of her elective year of choir. From the perspective of case study, the subject of the case is Irina as the central participant as well as the displaced and mismatched contexts for musical experience in the choral classroom and in her current and remembered Russian realms. In the introduction of the study and through the thematic discussion, Carlow interweaves data with a theoretical framework that draws from research on musical identity, multicultural perspectives, English Language Learners, and social justice. The narrative portrayal of Irina is therefore explained in part by relevant literature at the same time it is problematized and left open. The researcher calls to attention the complex tasks teachers face in discerning students’ musical backgrounds and mediating the culture shock of ELL students in particular. In broader fashion, she critiques the tiered hierarchy of ensembles in secondary schools, and the programmatic decisions about repertoire that can distance students as well as draw them closer to the music they perform. This case study, through its particularized account of Irina’s experience in her high school choir, informs curriculum and instruction for immigrant students like Irina.

126   janet r. barrett

7.5.2  Spirituality as a Universal Experience of Music: A Case Study of North Americans’ Approaches to Japanese Music (Matsunobu 2011) Ethnomusicologists and music educators are in broad agreement that what makes each cultural expression of music unique are differences, not commonalities, and that these should be understood in culturally sensitive ways. Relevant to the debate was the emphasis on the socio-cultural context of music making over the traditional “sound-only” approach. In this study, North American practitioners of shakuhachi music provided a different angle on the view of music as culture-specific. What made these practitioners interested in shakuhachi playing were not so much cultural aspects of Japanese music as universal aspects of human experience identified in Japanese music, such as the feeling of being part of nature and the revitalization of humans’ organic sensitivities. For them, the cultural served as a hindrance to accessing the underlying spirituality of Japanese music. From their perspective, the opposite of the sound-only approach was not necessarily posited as a sociocultural approach but as a spiritual or physical approach that transcended cultural boundaries. (273)

The symbiotic nature of musical experience with cultural context is an ongoing source of inquiry for music educators, ethnomusicologists, and other social science researchers. Matsunobu’s case study of three North American non-native players who immersed themselves in studying classical (honkyoku) repertoire via the idiosyncratic nature of a particular type of shakuhachi, the ji-nashi, probes the deep realms of musical experience for the performer. In this case study, drawn from a larger ethnographic investigation of 12 practitioners over a two-year period, Matsunobu examines how cultural context influences musical experience, and from fine-grained accounts gleaned from observations and interviews, how cultural context may also hinder understanding. The heart of this study is the phenomenological experience of music as a cultural universal. The subject of the case is compelling in that the three participants selected for the study are examined in context, but this context is unusual. Counter to expectations that context should mean cultural context, these non-native players engaged in learning honkyoku in both North American and Japanese settings, including workshops, tours, classes, individual practice, etc. Thus the boundedness of the case encompasses the experiences of the music for the three individuals regardless of physical setting or specific musical traditions. The overlap of the case’s subject with the object is also notable in that the theoretical framework was informed by five dimensions of spiritual awareness the researcher drew from another source, but as the study progressed, the theoretical frame shifted as the analysis oriented toward transcultural meanings of the experience for the players. The fluid alignment of subject and object in this study is illuminated through Matsunobu’s description that the players underwent “depth without detour” (279), that is, musical grounding—the rooted experience of sound through sound— without the mediation or interference of cultural knowledge. Matsunobu relates the

Case Study in Music Education  127 musical pursuits of the shakuhachi players to the quest for spirituality as a “universal longing and a quest for meaning in life” (284). The presentation of this case is dependent upon the researcher’s fidelity to the phenomenological aspects of musical engagement encountered by the participants. In organizing themes to illustrate the central phenomenon—culture as a hindrance to spirituality—Matsunobu moves fluidly back and forth from discussing honkyoku practices, conveying the universality of simplicity, and articulating the ways that energy moves through the instrument, players’ breath, and earth interwoven with interview excerpts from Liam, Andrew, and Pamela, the three players. Without the benefit of actual sound (which would convey ineffable qualities that text cannot), the researcher expresses the subtleties and textures that carry the significance of this transcultural musical pursuit. The purposeful import of the case comes from Matsunobu’s invitation for researchers to investigate how the drive to study this form of music stems from the players’ “willingness to explore the shared realm of human music experience, namely spirituality, rather than culture-specific dimensions of music” (284). In light of the industriousness with which music education researchers are investigating culturally specific dimensions of music learning and teaching, Matsunobu’s study widens the aperture of inquiry. The implications for teaching and learning are similarly promising as he questions the pedagogical assumptions that attend (and possibly compromise) the impact of the musical experience for students.

7.5.3  Turning into Teachers: Influences of Authentic Context Learning Experiences on Occupational Identity Development of Preservice Music Teachers (Haston and Russell 2012) The purpose of this study was to examine the occupational identity development of undergraduate music education majors as they participated in a yearlong authentic context learning (ACL) experience situated within a professional development school (PDS). Five undergraduate music education majors enrolled in either a string pedagogy class or an instrumental methods class were required to teach in the band or string projects at the PDS. The authors utilized a multiple case study method and collected data from interviews, observations, and participant written reflections. The transformation of data included transcribing interviews and indexing student reflections. The authors identified four emergent themes: the development of general pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of self, performer/teacher symbiotic outcomes, and professional perspectives. The impact of the perceived positive or negative ACL experiences as well as interactions with peers was mediated by either adaptive or maladaptive participant responses to ACL experiences. Participants’ descriptions fit the framework of an extended apprenticeship of what the authors labeled a critical apprenticeship of observation. Based on these findings, they developed a conceptual diagram in order to describe the impact of the ACL experiences on teacher occupational identity development. (369)

128   janet r. barrett Haston and Russell’s case study contributes to a growing body of research on music teacher identity development. Their study rests on a conceptual foundation built first upon primary socialization, the development of robust and persistent images of music teaching formed through the “apprenticeship of observation” during primary and secondary school experience, and the catalytic power of preservice teacher education (secondary socialization) to excavate and transform these images into deeper understandings of what teachers actually do, how they think, how teaching feels, and what animates their work. In this instance, the conceptual framework derived from the literature is substantial, which allowed the researchers to situate the study in a particular view of this socialization process related to occupational identity: “the process by which a person learns to adopt, develop, and display the actions and role behaviors typical of and unique to a particular profession” (Merton, as cited in Isbell, 2006, 30). The researchers describe the bounded system as the “ACL experiences (band and string projects) that were bound together in place (the same magnet school) and bounded in time (the same academic year” (373). Within the system, the participation of five undergraduate music education majors in teaching within the professional development school setting was the focus, and perhaps given the nature of the socialization process, one might say further entanglement of person and context occurred as they reflected on the contemporary experiences against the background of the undergraduates’ primary socialization as well. A noteworthy aspect of this case study was the fluidity with which the object of the study was used and transformed. Haston and Russell used the conceptual framework derived from their literature review deductively as they coded interview transcripts. In a subsequent inductive analysis of individual data, the emergent themes (general pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of self, symbiotic outcomes, and professional perspectives) were then incorporated into a conceptual diagram that included findings and insights from the case with a priori findings from the literature, which they titled “conceptualized macro/micro diagram of student occupational identity development loop” (20). The representation of the study’s findings in this diagram conveys both complexity and clarity. Identity development is delineated into constituent aspects, arranged to show relationships, and offers concrete pathways for further research or pedagogical development in music teacher education. The components of case presentation and purpose are more closely linked in this revised, dynamic theoretical framework.

7.5.4  Capitalizing on Community Music: A Case Study of the Manifestation of Social Capital in a Community Choir (Langston and M. Barrett 2008) There is an extensive literature on social capital and its generation and use in communities, but less is known about the ways in which social capital is manifested in community music settings. The literature suggests that social capital is evidenced

Case Study in Music Education  129 through a range of “indicators,” including trust, community and civic involvement, and networks. This article reports the findings of a research project that examined the manifestation of social capital in a community choir in regional Tasmania. The study employed multiple data-generation methods including survey, field notes, and artifact-elicited, semi-structured interviews in a qualitative interpretive case study design. An analysis of narrative approach was used to interrogate data generated with the 27 members (the Tutti) of the “Milton” Community Choir, and to identify those social capital indicators present. Through analyses of these data, findings suggest that the social capital indicators identified in the literature, specifically those of shared norms and values, trust, civic and community involvement, networks, knowledge resources, and contact with families and friends are present in the community choir. Further a previously unemphasized social capital indicator, that of fellowship, is identified as a key component in fostering group cohesion and social capital development in the community choir. (2008, 118)

Langston and M.  Barrett (2008) reviewed theories of social capital in their qualitative interpretive case study of the “Milton” Community Choir. The first researcher— Langston—held a twenty-year history with the group as its conductor, and thus Thomas might identity the selection of choir members as a local knowledge case (2011b, 514), in which the researcher’s familiarity with the group opens up avenues of intimate and informed analysis based on long-term relationships and shared history. The researchers provide a strong theoretical framework to outline three forms of social capital (bonding, bridging, and linking, 119) before addressing eight indicators of social capital, constituting the initial conceptual structure (participant, interaction, and civic involvement; networks and connections; families and friends; reciprocity and obligations; trust; norms and values; learning; and membership of faith-based organizations, 120). Verification strategies included prolonged engagement, triangulation of participant data, and member checking, along with consideration of researcher reflexivity prompted by critical analysis and interactions between the two researchers. The subject of the case is the choir and the 27 singers within, who are bounded by their joint history and membership. The object of the case is the manifestation of these indicators of social capital in the general service of documenting community. This case study is particularly strong in its articulation of the factors of social capital evidenced in the accounts of the choir members. The data lead to the expansion of the theoretical framework with the inclusion of an additional indicator, fellowship. Discussion of each indicator balances insights from literature, excerpts from interviews, and interpretive insights. Langston and Barrett’s work, with its clear explication of the theoretical frame that guided the study, and the revised frame or object that crystallizes through analysis and interpretation, also leads directly to larger purposes. The researchers imply that the results of the study could be extended to choirs with a similar mission and history, and, as well, could be pointed toward the use of the theoretical framework to guide public policy on the impact of aging on citizens’ lives. In addition, the revised structure points to additional research on the impact of musical experience in adult community groups.

130   janet r. barrett

7.6  Promising Avenues for Case Study in Music Education In the four studies selected as examples, key distinctions emerge, although each treats the subject, object, purpose, and presentation of the case with care. Two of the studies, Carlow and Matsunobu, provide a rich description of individual or musical experience with sufficient vividness that readers can gauge the extendability and correspondence of the case to other situations and instances. These two studies, due to their emphasis on particularization of the subject of the case, open up case-to-case transfer. The other two studies, Haston and Russell and Langston and M. Barrett, forward the object of the case in salient ways. Here, the theoretical propositions and their interrelationships— the complexity of the object—are more prominent than detailed narrative portrayals. The extended purposes of these studies lend themselves, because of their propositional clarity, to guiding practice, policy, and further research by building on the theoretical structure the researchers have articulated. For all of the reasons outlined at the beginning of this chapter, case study research has a firm foothold in music education. Yet for its prevalence, the uneven quality of case study reports calls our attention to the need for more rigor in design and analysis, attention to the analytic path used to draw inferences from the data, and especially the more sophisticated interplay between cases and theoretical frameworks. Additional avenues for development include articulating typologies for categorizing various kinds of case studies and their utility; addressing how lines of inquiry can be developed through a series of case studies; and examining how case studies can be used in complementary ways with other research designs and strategies. Case studies in music education are well-suited to examine central questions of music teaching and learning. Researchers must know why a case study is a good fit; here, we come back to Thomas’s statement: “What the case study is especially good for is getting a rich picture and gaining analytical insights from it” (2011, 23). Case studies allow us to branch out in exploratory ways to map areas of inquiry that are underdeveloped or unexamined. They also allow us to fill in more robust and integrated knowledge about areas of inquiry that need further explication and explanation, such as those aspects of music teaching and learning that are especially complex and intertwined. Paying attention to the dynamic tensions between subject and object, and the ways that these dynamic tensions are brought to light through compelling presentations of the case will make case study research more powerful and informative within the field.2

Notes 1. Terms used by the German philosopher Wilhelm Windelband, as cited in Thomas, 2011a. 2. I wish to thank Julie Bannerman for her invaluable assistance in preparing this chapter.

Case Study in Music Education  131

References Barrett, Janet R. 2007. “The Researcher as Instrument: Learning to Conduct Qualitative Research through Analyzing and Interpreting a Choral Rehearsal.” Music Education Research 9, no. 3: 417–33. Barrett, Margaret S., and Janet Mills. 2009. “The Inter-Reflexive Possibilities of Dual Observations:  An Account from and through Experience.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 22, no. 4: 417–29. Campbell, Donald T. 1975. “ ‘Degrees of Freedom’ and the Case Study.” Comparative Political Studies 8, no. 2: 178–93. Carlow, Regina. 2006. “Diva Irina: An English Language Learner in High School Choir.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 170: 63–77. Creswell, John W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design:  Choosing among Five Traditions. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2011. “Case Study.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 301–16. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Haston, Warren, and Joshua A. Russell. 2011. “Turning into Teachers: Influences of Authentic Context Learning Experiences on Occupational Identity Development of Preservice Music Teachers.” Journal of Research in Music Education 59: 1–24. Isbell, Daniel S. 2006. Socialization and Occupational Identity among Preservice Music Teachers Enrolled in Traditional Baccalaureate Degree Programs (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3239420). Kantorski, Vincent J., and Sandra Frey Stegman. 2006. “A Content Analysis of Qualitative Research Dissertations in Music Education, 1998–2002.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 168: 63–73. Lane, Jeremy. 2011. “A Descriptive Analysis of Qualitative Research Published in Two Eminent Music Education Research Journals.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 188: 65–76. Langston, Thomas W., and Margaret S. Barrett. 2008. “Capitalizing on Community Music: A Case Study of the Manifestation of Social Capital in a Community Choir.” Research Studies in Music Education 30, no. 2: 118–38. Matsonobu, Koji. 2011. “Spirituality as a Universal Experience of Music: A Case Study of North Americans’ Approaches to Japanese Music.” Journal of Research in Music Education 59, no. 3: 273–89. Merriam, Sharan B. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., and Nancy L. Leech. 2010. “Generalization Practices in Qualitative Research: A Mixed Methods Case Study.” Quality & Quantity 44, no. 5: 881–92. Peshkin, Alan. 1993. “The Goodness of Qualitative Research.” Educational Researcher 22, no. 2: 23–29. Ragin, Charles C. “ ‘Casing’ and the Process of Social Inquiry.” In What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, edited by Charles C. Ragin and Howard S. Becker, 217–26. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Simons, Helen. Case Study Research in Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2009. Stake, Robert E. 1988. “Case Study Methods in Educational Research: Seeking Sweet Water.” In Complementary Methods for Research in Education, edited by Richard M. Jaeger, 253–78. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

132   janet r. barrett Stake, Robert E. The Art of Case Study Research. 1995. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stake, Robert E. “Qualitative Case Studies.” 2005. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 443–66. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Thomas, Gary. 2011a. How to Do Your Case Study:  A  Guide for Students and Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Thomas, Gary. 2011b. “A Typology for the Case Study in Social Science Following a Review of Definition, Discourse, and Structure.” Qualitative Inquiry 17, no. 6: 511–21. Tracy, Sarah J. 2010. “Qualitative Quality: Eight ‘Big Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 16, no. 10: 837–51. VanWynsberghe, Rob, and Samia Khan. 2007. “Redefining Case Study.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 6, no. 2: 80–94. Yin, Robert K. 2012. Applications of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications. Yin, Robert K. 2009. Case Study Research:  Design and Methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Chapter 8

D oi ng Ethno g ra ph y i n Music Educ at i on patti j. krueger

Ethnography is a relatively recent form of inquiry in music education research in the United States (Szego 2002). Though ethnography is now more frequently found in mainstream music education literature, such was not the case before the 1980s. Taylor (1987) writes that at the time, four research methodologies were most widely used in music education:  experimental, descriptive, philosophical, and historical. When well-designed, these were often accepted as most valid and reliable for exploring questions relating to music learning and teaching. During the mid-1980s, new research in music, arts, and aesthetic education began to reflect the importance of studying education in relation to its specific and natural context, recognizing the complexities of everyday interaction in schools and the internal dynamics of institutions. Since that time, several researchers have explored how qualitative methodologies such as ethnography are useful when applied to questions in music classrooms and other music education settings (Roulston 2006, Bresler and Stake 2006, Bresler 1995). The following chapter is an exploration of doing ethnography in schools and in music education research. The chapter defines and describes ethnographic methodologies in education, and discusses the potential for ethnographic methods to contribute information and insights in music education research. The first section is partly drawn from Krueger (1987),1 an article introducing ethnographic methodology to researchers in music education. The original article provided an early model for crafting ethnographic studies in music education research. Some of the most detailed descriptions of ethnography in education can be found in the literature of the 1970s and early 1980s as this field of study emerged, so I draw generously on this literature and also note some of the most frequently cited resources since that time. Finally, the chapter looks at several examples of how ethnography is used in music education literature from the 1980s to the present, and explores the benefits and contributions of ethnography for music education research.

134   patti j. krueger

8.1 Through a Different Lens: Doing Ethnography Ethnography is a methodological approach that describes, analyzes, and helps one understand a particular culture (Popkewitz 1981). Centered in the qualitative research tradition, ethnography allows the researcher to investigate contextual questions beyond the reach of methodological approaches in which particular variables are isolated. Willis (1977) notes: Quantitative studies often consider only the most easily observed and empirically verifiable characteristics of the environment. Qualitative studies usually attempt more fully to consider both observed characteristics and specific qualities perceived as personal forms of meaning (2).

Willis suggests that the quantitative tradition, in attempting to obtain verifiable data to be quantitatively tabulated, often misses the more interpretive aspects of a social setting, such as qualities and dynamics in the environment or culture of a given school. An ethnographic approach may provide a complementary study, since it allows a view of social interaction occurring within a natural setting. An experimental approach to educational research often assumes that there are precisely defined variables prior to any evaluation attempt (Fox 1969). The research question then becomes one of choosing which variable to manipulate, examine, or test while controlling all others. In contrast, the problem in ethnography is one of looking into the effects of a particular setting as a whole upon the meanings and interpretations of a particular population and culture, with the intent of disturbing the natural setting as little as possible. In a thorough resource on this methodology, Spradley (1980) defines ethnography as the process of describing and understanding another culture “from a native’s point of view” (3). He outlines three sources of understanding that ethnographers look for: cultural behavior, or what people do; cultural knowledge, or what people know; and cultural artifacts, or what people make and use (5). Spradley distinguishes the ethnographic process as attempting to describe and understand, rather than seeking to find something (26). Through participant observation, Spradley outlines how the researcher is able to explore the dynamics of a particular culture. Ethnography, then, is useful for looking into questions about educational and classroom practice (Popkewitz and Wehlage 1977). This research approach has long been used by anthropologists and sociologists to help understand schooling, since its focus is on the natural flow of events (Tabachnick 1981). Ethnography is often used as a method for research in the field of ethnomusicology, for exploring music of a particular people, place, or culture. In music education, ethnography often focuses on issues related to teaching and learning music (Bresler 1995). A variety of data collection techniques

Ethnography in Music Education  135 such as observations, interviews, materials analysis, and occasionally surveys are implemented and compared over an extended period of time. The purpose of data collection in ethnography is to identify and understand patterns of conduct that guide participants’ day-to-day practice, as well as to explore structures that shape that practice. Popkewitz and Tabachnick (1981) provide an excellent collected resource on the process of school ethnography. Educational ethnography evolved from sociology, psychology, and anthropology, and may include single- or multiple-setting case studies developed with a specific process in mind. Spindler (1982) describes this intent: Ethnography of schooling refers to educational and enculturative processes that are related to schools and intentional schooling, though this concept leaves room for studies of playgrounds, play groups, peer groups, patterns of violence in schools, and other aspects of school-related life. . . . Native views of reality held by participants make ideas, behavior, and communication sensible to oneself and to others. Therefore a major part of the ethnographic task is to understand what sociocultural knowledge participants bring to and generate in the social setting being studied (2–7).

Spindler’s text (1982) provides a rich collection of insights into the methodology of school ethnography. An ethnographic methodology has particular advantages for understanding the work of teachers and students. Ethnography permits a closeness to the people, events, and natural practice within the context being studied. Through observation, listening, interviews, and other data collection, the researcher has access not only to what people report about their perceptions, but also to how those understandings actually guide their work. Ethnographic method allows the researcher to take note of unanticipated and unintended consequences of actions, and to observe why events seem to happen in a particular manner. Ethnographic study of naturally occurring situations allows the researcher to consider different types of motivation for actions, such as the goals and beliefs an individual brings to a situation, the needs created by the situation, or pressures originating from outside of a school or classroom setting being studied. The investigator can then consider the dynamics of all of these causes (Romberg and Stephens 1983).

8.1.1 Data Collection and Analysis Many questions posed by educational research require a method of data gathering that allows for the investigation of ideas, attitudes, beliefs, and actions in the context of a school or classroom setting. Observations, conversations, and interviews with participants about school experiences may allow the researcher to understand and link beliefs and attitudes to actions. For instance, the evolving musical orientation of kindergarten students might be most comprehensively studied through ongoing classroom observation, listening, field notes, and interviews of student and teacher participants

136   patti j. krueger throughout the year. An ethnographic methodology, involving an in-depth study of a limited number of subjects in their natural setting, may be an appropriate research approach to certain educational problems and questions since it allows for exploration of understandings, meanings, and actions of participants. Ethnographic methodology includes the use of participant observation and journals, in-depth structured and non-structured interviewing, document analysis, and a variety of other research strategies that allow the investigator to obtain firsthand knowledge about the problem in question. Data collection may involve an extended period of time in the setting by the researchers to understand the culture of the participants being observed. Filstead (1970) notes that these data collection methods allow the researcher to “get close to the data,” developing the analytical, conceptual, and categorical components of explanation from the data itself (6). An ethnography evolves from the progression of data collected by the researchers; data becomes the primary source for the evolution and core of an ethnographic study (Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw 1995). In ethnography, data collection is often closely intertwined with analysis, and issues that shape a study often emerge during data collection and analysis rather than prior to it. Understanding of a particular culture evolves through observation, listening, note-taking, interviews, document analysis, and finding patterns and meaning in all of this emerging data. The lens or framework through which the ethnographer begins the study may evolve and change in the process of data collection, observation, and analysis. Ethnographers are strongly encouraged to describe their initial and evolving theories and assumptions in detail for the reader, since these influence the evolution of analysis and transferability of a study. Documenting methods for data collection, describing relationships with those studied, and sharing data and analysis with participants for their feedback is important for ascertaining accountability and validity (Szeko 2002). Analysis takes on a cyclical pattern of returning to the data to examine and compare with new insights as the study progresses.

8.1.2  Theoretical Framework Most research methods involve the study of questions and problems, but an ethnographer approaches problems with a unique orientation. Researchers using an ethnographic methodology approach the actions and events to be studied with certain orienting guidelines, and from a particular world view (Romberg 1981). The theoretical framework and assumptions of ethnography provide an orientation within which the researcher attempts to interpret events and actions. This makes it important for the researcher to clearly outline literature framing the study and assumptions being made for the reader’s understanding. Tabachnick (1981) argues that the researcher’s chosen orientation, unlike the operational categories of conventional empirical research, is “open to change and development as a result of encountering the action of being studied” (84). This is a direct result of the purposes one brings to a field study. The researcher cannot determine in advance how a theoretical framework will apply to the particular

Ethnography in Music Education  137 event being studied. Furthermore, the researcher may alter the framework due to events observed during the study. For example, preschoolers being studied may organize sound in creative ways unanticipated by an observing researcher. When recognized, these observed innovations may create new theories to examine. Creswell (1998) summarizes that an ethnographer’s framework shapes the initial questions and observations of a study, and the researcher may later alter this lens during data collection and analysis. Wilcox (1982) also outlines the importance of developing and utilizing orienting categories that arise from a particular theoretical perspective. Wilcox emphasizes the use of theory as a background and framework for study, and she urges the researcher to clearly outline one’s general set of assumptions in order to generalize from a particular study. At the same time, she suggests that investigators attempt to set aside other preconceptions and to constantly inquire critically into those assumptions made. In doing so, the ethnographer may understand the beliefs, values, and actions of the people being studied, and abstract the meaning of what is being observed. These findings can then be analyzed with guiding theoretical frameworks in mind. An example in music education might be found in Kennedy’s (2004) study on a particular culture of boys with changing voices. The data collected in this study supported previously documented patterns of male voice changes, but also newly revealed the uniqueness of each boy’s experience and the impact of mentoring on the voice change process. Wilcox (1982) further urges researchers to understand the relationship between the particular setting and the larger societal context. For example, school participants typically operate under external constraints. Although there is an important element of creativity in classroom interaction, there are also limits to the extent that definitions of a classroom situation can be negotiated or changed. As relations in schools play out, the participants learn and perpetuate many aspects of their roles. But the social and political environment outside the classroom may be considered critically important for understanding classroom life, such as the values taught by adults to children in a particular community (Willis 1977). By portraying as neutral a particular orientation or specific way of thinking, schools may implicitly define a particular set of cultural values and norms as being acceptable. Accordingly, ethnographic research should be guided by clearly stated orienting and theoretical frameworks generated from related research and experience. The constraints and influences of context cannot be ignored, and these become a part of the basis for new interpretation. The descriptive data generated by a study then becomes the ultimate source of this new interpretation. Several assumptions involved in the definition of an ethnographic research problem and in the choice of this methodology are important to recognize. The first assumption of ethnography is the belief that a predetermined hypothesis should be avoided in the investigation. Researchers should attempt to remain sensitive and open to the ways in which the subjects, rather than the researchers, make sense of and give meaning to experiences (Spradley 1979). A  study may use an orienting framework drawn from related literature, but researchers should remain open to generating new theories that may emerge through data collection and analysis, and to the possibility of discarding the initial theories. A second assumption of ethnography identifies the subjects themselves

138   patti j. krueger as important sources of data; both their actions and statements about their beliefs and actions are considered important. Intentions of those being studied are significant, and circumstances alone do not determine their actions. A third assumption considers social and institutional conditions that enhance, shape, or limit actions and events taking place. Describing and noting how these dynamics influence the participants may become an important part of the data collection. Based upon these assumptions, educational ethnography maintains the importance of examining intended and unintended actions and outcomes in an attempt to understand what actually happens in schools, music classrooms, and other settings studied.

8.1.3  Quality in Ethnographic Studies Clearly defining the role of the investigators becomes significant in ethnography, as the researchers’ presence may contribute to the dynamics in many ways. As a non-participant observer, the researcher works to be as unobtrusive as possible and attempts to minimize influence on the participants, trying to understand their world, beliefs, actions, and culture. Nonetheless, defining and acknowledging the observers’ presence, views, and the theoretical lens remain significant factors in any ethnographic research. An observer’s presence alone may influence the behavior of individuals or a group of students in a particular setting. Researchers become part of the context, and neutrality is not possible. In some ethnographic studies, investigators may also serve as participant observers in the culture being studied (Spradley 1980). A music teacher in a classroom or setting, for example, may be both a participant and an investigator. As data collectors, participant observers study their subjects’ views, and work to remain conscious of the effect that their own presence, biases, values, and assumptions have on the interpretations, dynamics, and other participants that they seek to understand. Recognizing and documenting the effects of one’s presence, then, remains important for both participant observers and non-participant observers alike; the researcher must describe roles clearly so that the reader can understand the influences of both non-participant and participant observers. Detailed descriptions of a study’s subjects and setting are equally important for the reader’s understanding. Since a sample may include only one or two participants or situations, the detail of the description carries significant weight in one’s ability to generalize from the study, as well as in establishing the reliability of the study. Descriptive detail in observations can also bring insights during later stages of analysis and allow for verification and further insights by the reader. Ethnographic research, even of small case studies, can have great power to illuminate the teaching-learning process. Critics of field research often argue that reliability of qualitative methodology, or its dependability and ability to be replicated, is limited by the uniqueness of each case examined. However, LeCompte and Goetz (1982) identify certain methods that can be used to increase the reliability of a qualitative study. They note five factors to

Ethnography in Music Education  139 be included in a report of qualitative research that contribute to external reliability:  (1)  identifying and describing the researcher’s role; (2)  description and background of the subjects; (3) descriptions of settings in which observations take place; (4) identifying methods for data collection and analysis; and (5) explaining and outlining the theoretical framework guiding the study. All of these factors must be clearly defined in order for an ethnographic study to be reliable, valid, transferrable, and generalizable. The reader must be able to clearly interpret descriptions of the researcher’s role, the subjects or sample, the setting, methods for data collection, and literature and framework guiding the study in order to draw conclusions specific to another situation or study. LeCompte and Schensul (2010) further assert that a variety of different data sources and several ways of collecting data are necessary for reliability and validity of ethnographic research. Validity and credibility of research are concerned with the accuracy of the findings drawn from a study. LeCompte and Goetz (1982) claim that validity can be a major strength of qualitative and particularly ethnographic research, since the flexibility of data collection and the power of observations, conversations, and interviews allow the researcher to examine the knowledge and meanings created by the participants. Wehlage (1981) stresses the strength of internal validity in field study, since problems are examined within the context of their natural settings. Bolster (1983) discusses this strength: As [qualitative researchers] systematically define the properties of the classroom, observe events in it, and listen to people talk about them, patterns of the events and the interrelationships among them will begin to emerge . . . The eventual critical description is validated in two ways: referentially—the explanatory generalizations must be consistent with repeated patterns of events recorded in the observational data; and situationally—the explanatory framework must be consistent with the meanings teachers and students draw from and impose upon the classroom situation (304–05).

Filstead (1970) notes that validity becomes a serious problem in research when previously drawn assumptions and explanations are strictly imposed upon reality through a pre-defined research design. He supports the notion that when researchers employ a more fluid methodology and process, the problem of validity is considerably lessened. Filstead also suggests that many questions in education are most validly studied in the context of their natural settings. Other methods that researchers implement to increase validity and credibility in ethnography include comparing and cross referencing interviews, observations, and materials through triangulation, and having representative participants read and respond to drafts of a study for verification and validation. Creswell (1998) draws on Hammersley and Atkinson (1995) and discusses triangulation of ethnographic data, which he defines as testing and comparing one source of information and data against another. Triangulation, or collecting data from a variety of sources and using ongoing comparisons throughout various stages of data

140   patti j. krueger collection and analysis, helps a researcher maintain consistency and accuracy of data. Creswell (1998, 2005) urges ethnographers to interpret data in collaboration with their subjects, and Spindler (1982) encourages investigators to pay attention to participants’ points of view through ongoing observations and interviews. Berg (2007) outlines similar ethnographic field strategies and methods to enable quality design. Other resources noted in the literature that describe ethnographic methods include LeCompte and Schensul (1999, 2010), Patton (2002), and Bogden and Biklin (2007). What kind of generalizability should ethnographic research strive for? Field studies are intended to interpret, explain, and produce understanding of the actions being investigated, and in that sense, the researcher is concerned with making generalizable or transferrable conclusions. Again, researchers should take care to clearly describe and ensure that the sample chosen is representative of the population to which one wishes to generalize or transfer conclusions. Romberg (1981) writes that the investigator defines a theoretical framework intending to lead to interpretive generalizations. Once these generalizations are reached, they apply not only to the schools studied, but are likely to apply to other schools as well. Through clear descriptions and theoretical frameworks, an ethnographer can show the reader how to relate the original descriptions and interpretations from a particular context to wider social context. Wehlage (1981) outlines two levels of generalization made possible through ethnographic research. Readers make some generalizations by their own analogies; detailed descriptions are first made by the researcher, leaving the reader to form generalizations. The researcher may also generalize about the structures and frameworks discovered in a particular context. Wehlage notes that research can and should generalize from the expectations, norms, and perceptions that shape and influence the action of people in schools. Other education and school researchers apply these generalizations in their approach to analysis. For example, through an ethnography of a high school, Cusick (1973) identifies some of the structural characteristics of schools that shape the meanings and experiences of students. Cusick claims that these characteristics are shared by many schools, and that accordingly, conclusions may be generalized or transferred to such schools. Ethnographic research may attempt to uncover what it is about the context and structure of schools that limits, influences, and shapes the actions and beliefs of people in school settings and classrooms. An ethnographic study of schools, then, may provide clear descriptions of the meanings of school and classroom life. When examined in context, researchers may generalize about the relationships between specific features of a setting and the experience of participants by building upon a theoretical framework. All of these factors greatly contribute to the quality of an ethnographic study. Keeping these design factors in mind, how has ethnography been implemented in music education? What can we learn through applying ethnographic research in music education?

Ethnography in Music Education  141

8.2 A Sampling of Ethnographic Studies in Music Education Ethnography first appeared in US music education PhD dissertations in the mid-1980s. In a study of the musical experiences of elementary school children, Zimmerman (1982) provides an ethnographic model for examining the school music culture of elementary students in a particular school. Zimmerman’s study explored musical attitudes and behaviors of students and their music teacher within the school setting. Data collection included participant observation of music classes, interviews of students and the music teacher, informal conversations, material analysis of photographs, documents, and classroom tape recordings. Zimmerman’s analysis focused on types of activities and literature, teaching methods and style, use of space in the school, and dynamics between students as well as with the music teacher. The study’s rich ethnographic descriptions revealed new insights into the musical experiences of children in an elementary school setting. Zimmerman concluded that ethnography is a valuable method for inquiry into music education classrooms since it allows for the discovery of unanticipated questions and the observation of a wide variety of events. In a study of music student teachers, Krueger (1985) provides another early example of ethnography in music education. This study on the socialization of music student teachers in public school music classrooms sought to understand what influenced music student teacher perspectives amidst clashing cultures of university and public school settings. Inquiry focused on how two student teachers made sense of their world, their students, and their practice. Many influences contributed, including those that were hidden to the music student teachers themselves. Ethnographic inquiry and framework drew on the work of Berlak and Berlak (1981), Lacey (1977), and on other research from outside of music education. The study explored beginning music teachers’ actions, beliefs, and perspectives during the process of student teaching, including the effects of expectations, pressures, institutional assumptions, and school rules on student teachers’ actions and perceptions. Ethnographic data collection included observational records and tape recordings, document analysis, formal and informal interviews with participants, and personal journals written by the subjects throughout student teaching. Analysis revealed that cooperating teacher practices and institutional traditions, organization, and constraints within the school setting highly influenced evolving student teacher perspectives. Student teachers demonstrated a tendency to perceive classroom situations and pedagogy as given, inflexible, and unalterable. Student teaching experiences significantly modified student teacher perspectives and actions toward increasing acceptance of school organization and practices already in place. Student teachers struggled to navigate the reality of their classrooms, and often sacrificed their ideal curriculum for what they perceived to be expected. Ethnographic methods brought inquiry into the many dynamics of the student teachers’ evolving perceptions and practices, and how these affected their emerging commitment to music teaching as a career.

142   patti j. krueger Since the 1980s, ethnography gradually appears more frequently in American music education research (Bresler and Stake 2006), and is used to explore a variety of questions and issues of music teaching and learning. Lane (2011) reports that ethnographic studies appear significantly more often in two eminent research journals, CRME and JRME since the year 2000, possibly indicating an acceptance of qualitative practices in music education and an increase in those doing ethnographic research. Examining dynamics, practices, and meanings in a particular culture or natural setting through ethnography can be beneficial in complementing other types of research methods, as well as in addressing particular research problems and questions. The following examples of ethnographic studies in music education research literature provide insight into a wide range of questions that might be considered through ethnographic inquiry. The field of ethnomusicology brings examples of ethnography into the realm of music education research (Manes 2009). Music educators with a strong background in ethnomusicology contribute varied examples of how ethnography might be used to explore the music of children and other groups. As an innovative and rich example of ethnography in music education, Campbell (1998) explored how music is significant, valued, and personally meaningful in the lives of children, and what music means to them based on their expressed thoughts and musical behaviors in school and at play. Campbell described children’s uses of music at play in a particular American elementary school setting, and engaged in conversation to discover children’s understandings, values, and ideas about music. Children in the study sample spanned a variety of economic, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds and engaged in different cultural and social experiences and contexts, all of which contributed to their musical ideas and behaviors. Other ethnographic studies of music education vary widely. Feay-Shaw (2001) examined a fifth-grade musical production’s rehearsal process and performance through ethnographic methodology. The study’s framework drew on middle and high school musical research including issues of rehearsal schedules, repertoire, musical development in students, and demands of productions on teachers and students. Data collection included observations, video analysis, conversations, and interviews of student and teacher participants. Significant themes emerged from the data of this study including personal and social growth, musical growth, and theatrical development of students. Analysis also considered value to the music program and school curriculum, and the amount of time devoted to a creating a musical production. Kennedy (2004) described and interpreted a particular culture of boys with changing voices at the American Boychoir School. Data collection included interviews, observation, participant observation, and exploration of materials such as musical scores, concert programs, and school handbooks. The study’s framework drew on voice change research, and analysis focused on references to the voice change process. Evidence from the data supported previously documented patterns of male voice change processes in the literature, but also newly highlighted the uniqueness of each boy’s experience and a need for individual mentoring throughout the voice change process. Lum and Campbell (2007) explored the musical behaviors and culture of children at an American elementary school, with the aim of understanding the nature and context

Ethnography in Music Education  143 of rhythmic and melodic expressions made and heard by children. The study examined music of both children and adults within the school setting. The time, location, and intent of many spontaneous and planned musical activities all contributed significantly to the children’s experiences, including rhythmic and melodic play and the way teachers used music to support learning. This study vividly portrayed and gave focus to music that occurs in everyday life of children within their school. In a later ethnographic study, Soto, Lum, and Campbell (2009) documented the process of a year-long public elementary school and university music education student collaboration within a rural community. The project was immersed in a Mexican American migrant community where Spanish was often the primary language for elementary students in their homes. Music education students participated in teaching and training experiences within the context of public elementary school music classrooms. Through an ethnographic framework, observations, structured and unstructured interviews, and materials provided data to explore the benefits and challenges of the collaborative project in a remote community. The research team included participant observers who taught within the partnership program. The study revealed benefits and challenges that might be of interest and significant for similar university/school partnerships. Several studies use ethnographic techniques to examine music improvisational influences, processes, techniques, and learning. Della Pietra and Campbell (1995) looked at how two music education students developed an understanding of improvisation, with a focus on ways to integrate improvisation into a music teacher education curriculum. Goodrich (2008) examined elements of historic jazz culture in a high school jazz band. Ethnographic observations and interviews explored the role of a director and students in learning jazz through traditional methods. Data collection included observations of sectionals and rehearsals, audio and video recordings, formal interviews, informal conversations, and collection of artifacts. Analysis revealed sharing vocabulary, listening to style, and implementing improvisation during the rehearsal process as significant in sharing jazz culture. In another ethnography, Beegle (2010) examined and described two classes of fifth-graders’ music improvisations and interactions within an elementary school music classroom. Data collection included audio and video observations, classroom observations, and interviews of students following a viewing of their own performances on video. Findings included children’s planning, strategies, roles, and evaluation of their performances. In some studies in music education, researchers combined ethnography with other research methodologies and strategies for data collection and analysis. Allsup (2003) combined philosophical and action research data collection methodologies with ethnographic participant observation (exploring the participants’ culture and point of view) to look at questions of mutual learning, group compositional process, and democratic practices in a high school instrumental music classroom. Carlow (2006) used ethnographic case studies and narrative inquiry to examine the perceptions, culture, and experiences of English language learners in a high school choral music classroom. Data included student and teacher surveys, focus groups, student journals and narratives, ethnographic interviews and observations, and video analysis. Carlow examined

144   patti j. krueger musical experiences and perceptions of the participants as well as customs of the classroom, music department, families, and the school. Sindberg (2007) used a collective case study, employing ethnographic and phenomenological strategies to examine Comprehensive Musicianship through Performance and its effect on student learning in middle school and high school ensemble settings. Data collection in this study included ethnographic observations, interviews, writing prompts, e-mail, teaching plans, and teacher journals. In each of these studies, a combination of strategies explored a particular research question through multiple methodologies. Ethnographic methods and ethnography appear only sparingly in US music education PhD dissertations since their first appearances in the mid-1980s, though these methods are found more consistently amidst Canadian and other foreign music education dissertations. In one example of ethnography, Bartolome (2010) explored the culture and social structures of the Seattle Girls’ Choir, with particular attention to the values and behaviors of the choir members. Data collection focused on the aims, process, and outcomes of rehearsals, performances, and events, and explored the value of musical engagement in the lives of the choir members. The study portrayed the choir’s culture as nurturing young women participants musically, personally, and socially. In another example, Snead (2010) investigated the musical lives of adolescents in and out of an American suburban high school through an ethnography. Findings revealed a divide between the musical lives of students in and out of school, and recommended that teachers honor their students’ musical knowledge and interests, including students as collaborators in developing music curriculum.

8.3 Summary As depicted by many of these studies, ethnography offers benefits as a methodological approach for exploring particular questions, problems, or dynamics in music teaching and learning. Flinders and Richardson (2006) propose further ethnographic case studies on the significance to students of music in and out of schools and what this might mean to teachers and music programs. They also suggest that ethnographic study may provide new insights into the impact of various school enrichment programs such as artists-in-residence and school/community partnerships. These and a myriad of other issues and questions in music education may be explored through ethnography, such as the dynamics within music classrooms, the beliefs, values, and understandings of music students and teachers, the influence of societal trends on music classroom culture and curriculum creation, and the effects and process of music teacher education. Recent resources that guide ethnographic methods include Berg (2007), Bogden and Biklin (2007), and LeCompte and Schensul (2010). New research designs are currently evolving from ethnography in sociology and other subject areas, and these and other new emerging forms may contribute to and further shape future directions in music education research. Autoethnography, for example,

Ethnography in Music Education  145 closely related to personal narrative and autobiography, is a researcher’s study of one’s own experience within a culture or group (Patton 2002). This differs from ethnography, which is a study by researchers of a different culture, group, or context other than one’s own. Autoethnographic methods include journaling, poetry, dialogue, performances, and other forms that explore personal experiences within a cultural or group context. Autoethnography has not thus far been readily found in US music education research (Roulston 2006); virtual ethnography (ethnography conducted online and exploring online cultures) and ethnography of place are also new, evolving forms of ethnography that are currently found outside of music education. In conclusion, ethnography is now an important part of mainstream research literature in music education. I  hope that this chapter can assist the music education researcher in constructing ethnographic studies based on clearly defined theoretical frameworks and detailed descriptions of sample, settings, data collection, and analysis that are important to the quality of ethnographic research. Music education ethnographers are contributing significantly to music education research, opening the way for further inquiry into understanding the culture of music classrooms, teachers, and students. Ethnographic inquiry in music education can consider the effects of situational and surrounding influences on practice, and allow for observation within the natural settings of music classrooms and communities. By describing events in detail and examining the relationship of events, music educators and researchers may further interpret and understand the meaning and significance of classroom, cultural, and community dynamics. Ethnographic research may provide new insights into inquiry in the music classroom, community, and music education.

Note 1. The material in this chapter draws heavily on previously published material from Journal of Research in Music Education 35 (1987): 69, National Association for Music Education (formerly MENC). Adapted and reprinted with permission.

References Allsup, R. E. 2003. “Mutual Learning and Democratic Action in Instrumental Music Education.” Journal of Research in Music Education 51(1): 24–37. Bartolome, S. J. 2010. “Girl Choir Culture: An Ethnography of the Seattle Girls’ Choir.” PhD diss., University of Washington, Seattle. Beegle, A. 2010. “A Classroom-Based Study of Small-Group Planned Improvisation with Fifth-Grade Children.” Journal of Research in Music Education 58(3): 219–39. Berg, B.L. 2007. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston:  Allyn and Bacon. Berlak, A. and H. Berlak. 1981. Dilemmas of Schooling:  Teaching and Social Change. New York: Methuen.

146   patti j. krueger Bogdan, R. C. and S. K. Biklen. 2007. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bolster, A. S. 1983. “Toward a More Effective Model of Research on Teaching.” Harvard Educational Review 53(3): 294–308. Bresler, L. and R. E. Stake. 2006. “Qualitative Research Methodology in Music Education.” In MENC Handbook of Research Methodologies, edited by R. Colwell, 270–311. New York: Oxford University Press. Bresler, L. 1995. “Ethnography, Phenomenology and Action Research in Music Education.” The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 6(3): 4–16. Campbell, P. 1998. Songs in Their Heads. New York: Oxford University Press. Carlow, R. 2006. “Diva Irina: An English Language Learner in High School Choir.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 170: 63–77. Creswell, J. W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. 2005. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Cusick, P. 1973. Inside High School. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Della Pietra, C. J., and P.S. Campbell. 1995. “An Ethnography of Improvisation Training in a Music Methods Course.” Journal of Research in Music Education, 43(2): 112–26. Emerson, R. M., R. I. Fretz, and L. L. Shaw. 1995. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Feay-Shaw, S. 2001. “The View through the Lunchroom Window:  An Ethnography of a Fifth-Grade Musical.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 150: 37–51. Filstead W. J., ed. 1970. Qualitative Methodology. Chicago: Markham. Flinders, D. J., and C. P. Richardson. 2006. “Contemporary Issues in Qualitative Research and Music Education.” In MENC Handbook of Research Methodologies, edited by R. Colwell, 312–42. New York: Oxford University Press. Fox, D. J. 1969. The Research Process in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Goodrich, A. 2008. “Utilizing Elements of the Historic Jazz Culture in a High School Setting.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 175: 11–30. Hammersley, M., and P. Atkinson. 1995. Ethnography:  Principles in Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Kennedy, M. C. 2004. “‘It’s a Metamorphosis’:  Guiding the Voice Change at the American Boychoir School.” Journal of Research in Music Education 52(3): 264–80. Krueger, P. J. 1985. “Influences of the Hidden Curriculum upon the Perspectives of Music Student Teachers: An Ethnography.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, Madison. Krueger, P. J. 1987. “Ethnographic Research Methodology in Music Education.” Journal of Research in Music Education 35(2): 69–77. Lacey, C. 1977. The Socialization of Teachers. London: Methuen. Lane, J. 2011. “A Descriptive Analysis of Qualitative Research Published in Two Eminent Music Education Research Journals.” Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education: 188: 65–76. LeCompte, M. D., and J. P. Goetz. 1982. “Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research.” Review of Educational Research 52(1): 31–60. LeCompte, M.D., and J. L. Schensul. 1999. Designing and Conducting Ethnographic Research: Ethnographer’s Toolkit. Vol. 1. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. LeCompte, M. D., and J. L. Schensul. 2010. Designing and Conducting Ethnographic Research: An Introduction. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.

Ethnography in Music Education  147 Lum, C.H. and P.S. Campbell. 2007. “The Sonic Surrounds of an Elementary School.” Journal of Research in Music Education 55(1): 31–47. Manes, S. I. 2009. “The Pedagogical Process of a Japanese-American Shamisen Teacher.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 182: 41–50. Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Popkewitz, T. 1981. “The Study of Schooling: Paradigms and Field-Based Methodologies in Educational Research and Evaluation.” In The Study of Schooling, edited by T. Popkewitz and R. Tabachnick, 1–26. New York: Praeger. Popkewitz, T., and R. Tabachnick, eds. 1981. The Study of Schooling. New York: Praeger. Popkewitz, T., and G. Wehlage. 1977. “Schooling as Work:  An Approach to Research and Evaluation.” Teachers College Record 79 (1): 69–86. Romberg, T. A. 1981. Field-Based Inquiry and the Development of a Mathematical Methodology for the Study of Schooling. In The Study of Schooling, edited by T. S. Popkewitz and B. R. Tabacknick, 183–210. New York: Praeger. Romberg, T. A., and W. M. Stephens. 1983. “Alternative Research Methodologies for the Study of Mathematics Learning and Teaching.” Paper presented at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Roulston, K. 2006. “Mapping the Possibilities of Qualitative Research in Music Education: A Primer.” Music Education Research 4(2): 153–73. Sindberg, L. 2007. “Comprehensive Musicianship through Performance (CMP) in Lived Experience of Students.” Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education 174: 25–43. Snead, T. E. 2010. “Dichotomous Musical Worlds:  Interactions between the Musical Lives of Adolescents and School Music-Learning Culture.” PhD diss., Georgia State University, Atlanta. Soto, A. C., C. Lum, and P. S. Campbell. 2009. “A University-School Music Partnership for Music Education Majors in a Culturally Distinctive Community.” Journal of Research in Music Education 56(4): 338–56. Spindler, G, ed. 1982. “Introduction.” In Doing the Ethnography of Schooling, edited by G. Spindler, 1–13. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Spradley, J. P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Spradley, J. P. 1980. Participant Observer. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Szeko, C. K. 2002. “Music Transmission and Learning.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. Richardson, 707–29. New York: Oxford. Tabachnick, B. R. 1981. “Teacher Education as a Set of Dynamic Social Events.” In Studying Teaching and Learning: Trends in Soviet and American Research, edited by R. B. Tabachnick, T. S. Popkewitz, and B. B. Szekely, 76–86. New York: Praeger. Taylor, J. 1987. “Forum.” Journal of Research in Music Education 35(2): 68. Wehlage, G. 1981. “The Purpose of Generalization in Field-Study Research.” In The Study of Schooling, edited by T.S. Popkewitz and B. R. Tabachnick, 211–26. New York: Praeger. Wilcox, K. 1982. Ethnography as a Methodology and Its Application to the Study of Schooling: A Review. In Doing the Ethnography of Schooling, edited by G. Spindler, 456–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Willis, P. 1977. Learning to Labour. New York: Columbia University Press. Zimmerman, J. R. 1982. “The Musical Experiences of Two Groups of Children in one Elementary School: An Ethnographic Study.” PhD diss., Ohio State University, Columbus.

Chapter 9

Phenomenol o g i c a l Research i n Mu si c Edu cat i on ryan m. hourigan and scott n. edgar

Phenomenology is the essence of qualitative exploration. Understanding the consciousness of the participant as part of a phenomenon can be seen in many theoretical and conceptual constructs making up the body of qualitative research. In education research, phenomenological examinations are crucial to understanding the critical relationships between all stakeholders. Van Manen (1990) states: “It encourages a certain attentive awareness to the details and seemingly trivial dimensions of our everyday educational lives” (8). The purpose of this chapter is to show the potential uses of phenomenology in music education research, to identify models of phenomenological inquiry for future use in music education, and to examine how the phenomenological lens can be used to interpret the lived experience of a person as well as the lived experience of a researcher evaluating a phenomenon. In addition, an examination of the philosophy versus the methodology of phenomenology will be discussed to clarify current and future uses of this framework.

9.1 The Foundations of Phenomenology: Epistemology, Methodology, and Analysis Phenomenology is a philosophical discipline that studies the structures of human consciousness from the first-person point of view. This philosophical discipline came to be known in the early twentieth century by the works of Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, and others. The foundations of phenomenological research can be traced to Edmund Husserl’s

Phenomenological Research  149 writings in reaction to the positivist argument that thoughts coming from meditations are not rational and should be ignored. Husserl (1977) believed the fundamental flaw of the objective sciences was the inability of positivist thinkers to recognize the subjective world as it is lived and the understandings that may come from examining the human experience. He stated: “. . . the positive sciences, after three centuries of brilliant development, are now feeling themselves greatly hampered by securities in their foundations, in their fundamental concepts and methods” (46). Husserl believed the entire idea of an absolute in science is questionable. He further explained that immersing ourselves into a phenomenon leads us to a fuller understanding beyond that which positive science could provide. Revealing the internal thoughts, conversations, and interactions of all involved in an examination will lead others to a clearer idea of the intent of all parties involved, including the researcher. Husserl was interested in going beyond exposing the lived experience and intentionality of a person from the first-person point of view. In addition, he believed that revealing researcher intent allowed for others to begin to understand the Ego (realization of our senses) of a scientist and therefore, for the findings of a researcher to be more credible. The life experience of the researcher or the subjects studied is always changing and subjective. Husserl called this subjectivity transcendental subjectivity. The human lived experience is not something that is concrete and stable that can be measured through an objective lens. According to Husserl, phenomenology (or the understandings of the Ego and meditations of the Ego) is the “final sense” of science. This final sense or understanding of the internal conversation that happens between the objective and subjective world is defined as transcendental phenomenology. Recent explorations of phenomenology can be traced through Husserl to Merleau-Ponty, Van Manen, and Moustakas. Unlike Husserl, Merleau-Ponty (1994) did not agree that phenomenology was the final stage of understanding in the scientific world. He believed the human experience was the first step in the understanding of a phenomenon. He stated: The whole universe of science is built upon the world as directly experienced, and if we want to subject science itself to scrutiny, and arrive at a precise assessment of its meaning and scope, we must begin by reawakening the basic experience of the world. (Merleau-Ponty, viii)

Both Husserl and Merleau-Ponty agreed that the study of human consciousness, as it exists in the lived experience, is at the heart of credible scientific inquiry. The most important philosophical position of these two philosophers in regards to research is that we can only know what we experience. It is by paying attention to our consciousness (and our senses that are channeled through our consciousness) that we can understand our world. Phenomenological research is the attempt to study the essence or nature of the lived experience through the eyes of human existence. Van Manen (1990) describes phenomenology as the study of the human being in his or her humanness. He states the

150    ryan m. hourigan and scott n. edgar phenomenological point of view is to “always question the way we experience the world, to want to know the world in which we live as human beings” (5). Patton (2002) similarly states phenomenology is the study of “. . . [M]‌eaning, structure, and essence of the lived experience of this phenomenon for this person or group of people” (132). It is through phenomenology that researchers attempt to extract meaning by interpreting these experiences (106). The focus of understanding the human experience is the explication of phenomenon as they become apparent to the consciousness of a person or persons. Van Manen (1990) explains that “consciousness is the only access humans have to the world” (9); therefore, phenomenologists are interested in the meaning that can be constructed from the combining of objects of nature and objects of consciousness (Moustakas 1994, 27). Moustakas states: “What appears in consciousness is an absolute reality while what appears in the world is a product of learning” (27). Therefore knowledge can be gained about the world by understanding this relationship through thick self-reflection, as well as description of the events and relationships. Moustakas explains that “The challenge facing the human science researcher is to describe things in themselves, to permit what is before one to enter consciousness and to be understood in its meanings and essences in the light of intuition and self-reflection” (27).

9.1.1  Phenomenological Analysis As you will see later in this chapter, the word “phenomenological” or “phenomenology” is used in a multitude of studies in qualitative education and music education research. In fact, many scholars consider all qualitative research to be phenomenological in nature. Merriam (2009) explains: “Phenomenology is a school of philosophical thought that underpins all of qualitative research” (15). In music education, Bresler and Stake (1992) explain, “Qualitative researchers tend to be phenomenological in their orientation. Most maintain that knowledge is a human construction” (76). This leads to many inconsistent uses of the term in qualitative research, as some researchers refer to the philosophical essence of phenomenology, while others use phenomenology as a method. A true phenomenological study is concerned with the essence or structure of the experience or phenomenon and uses phenomenological analytical processes to determine this structure, all with the understandings that come with exploring the researcher’s own perspective and bias in the process. Van Manen (1990) describes the phenomenological analytical process as a form of phenomenological reflection. He states, “The purpose of phenomenological reflection is to try to grasp the essential meaning of something” (77). However, before a researcher can truly understand a phenomenon, he or she must come to terms with “prejudices, viewpoints or assumptions regarding the phenomenon under investigation (Patton 2002, 485). This process is called the epoche. “Epoche requires that looking precede judgment and that judgment of what is ‘real’ or ‘most real’ be suspended until all the evidence is in . . . epoche is an ongoing analytical process rather than a single fixed event” (Patton 2002, 485). This usually

Phenomenological Research  151 takes the form of self-journaling and including these viewpoints within the report to put the researcher’s perspective out front for the reader to understand. With epoche in mind, the researcher conducts theme analysis of data sources. According to Van Manen, theme analysis involves “. . . the process of recovering the theme or themes that are embodied and dramatized in the evolving meanings and imagery of the work” (78). These themes must be grouped and reduced to show a complete picture. “Phenomenological reduction is the process of continually returning to the essence of the experience to derive the inner structure or meaning in and of itself ” (Merriam 2009, 26). After the data is coded and bracketed (grouping codes together) the researcher begins to horizontalize the data. This involves organizing the data into what Patton calls meaningful clusters. Repetitive and irrelevant themes are eliminated. Horizontalization is the process of laying out all the data for examination and treating the data as having equal weight; that is, all pieces of data have equal value at the initial data analysis stage. These themes are then organized into “clusters” (Merriam 2009, 26) with the end goal of understanding these themes as the “structures of experience” (Van Manen 79). During the phenomenological reduction and horizontalization of data the researcher must keep in mind the perspective or intention from which the data is realized. There are two terms associated with this process: noema and noesis. Noema is a phenomenological term used to describe “. . . the perceptual meaning or the perceived as such; in recollection, the remembered as such; in judging, the judged as such” (Husserl 1931, 258). In other words, the nomea is the perceived phenomenon through the eyes of the participants (including the researcher). Noesis is another phenomenological term used to describe the “. . . mind and spirit, and awaken us to the meaning or sense of whatever is in perception, memory, judgment, thinking, and feeling” (249)—in other words, the ‘perfect self-evidence’ or the actual experience.” Patton explains that in each perceived phenomenon there is a nomea and a noesis. Researchers must portray both the perceived experience and the actual experience from the outside perspective of the participants. Patton states: “Phenomenological analysis then involves a ‘structural description’ that contains the ‘bones’ of the experience” (486). In sum, Moustakas (1994) explains the analytical process in the following steps; “a) reduce the numerous significant statements to meaning units or themes; b) analyze the context in which the individuals experienced the meaning units or themes; c) reflect on personal experiences you have had with the phenomenon; and d) write a detailed analysis of the ‘essence’ of the experience for the participants” (153).

9.2  Phenomenological Inquiry in General and Music Education Phenomenological inquiry in education has received more research attention internationally than it has in the United States. International journals frequently publish

152    ryan m. hourigan and scott n. edgar qualitative research articles using phenomenological methodology (Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, International Journal of Inclusive Education, and Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies). Studies have also appeared in American journals but were conducted internationally (New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Finland, and England). Due to the scope of this Handbook, only studies conducted in the United States resulting in articles appearing in American journals during the past five years will be included in this review. A search for “phenomenology” and “education” on Education Research Information Center (ERIC) resulted in over 1,500 articles. After filtering studies to include American inquiries during the past five years, three themes of inquiry in education using phenomenology emerged: a) teacher induction/professional development and b) technology in the classroom. Selected studies were chosen exemplifying these areas of study. Instead of surveying a large number of studies to show a breadth of different uses of phenomenology (which there are many), the authors have decided to concentrate on a few studies to provide an overview of research, with specific attention to aspects of phenomenology that were made explicit.

9.2.1 Teacher Education The lived experience of teachers (preservice and inservice) has been a popular area of study (Goodnough 2011; Hart and Swars 2009). For example, Hart and Swars (2009) were concerned by the lack of the preservice teachers’ voices when evaluating math education curricula, especially when considering how much upper-level mathematics coursework was necessary in mathematic teacher education programs. Using phenomenological inquiry, the researchers utilized interviews and observations to examine students’ perceptions of the math education program. The students described incongruence between the math courses, what they expected to teach in their future classrooms, and perceptions of effective classroom practices. The differences between what was taught in teacher education programs and professional development activities and what was being used in the classroom is of paramount concern; phenomenological inquiry was an appropriate method to explore this issue. Exploring the phenomenon of necessary content knowledge through the lived experience of those teaching could have profound effects on preservice education, teacher induction, and professional development. These researchers focused on both the nomea and noesis of this setting. Through extensive observation and interviews, perceptions and reality could be discussed. This study captures both the philosophical and methodological ideals of phenomenology. However, from an analysis perspective, there was little discussion of epoche, phenomenological reduction, and horizontalization of data. Using Van Manen’s (1999) philosophical phenomenological framework, Goodnough (2011) explored the lived experience of ten teachers before, during, and after

Phenomenological Research  153 implementing action research in their classrooms. Using three semi-structured interviews, teachers revealed that action research had a positive effect on their teacher identity, their teaching practices, and perceiving their school in a broader educational context. The teachers were interviewed before conducting their action research study, one year after their study, and an additional two to four years after their study. Each interview lasted 60–90 minutes. The singular use of the interview as a data source did limit this study from fully exploring the phenomenon of action research as professional development: a researcher must be careful of claims that come from only one data source. Furthermore, this form of data collection only captures the nomea or perceptions of the participants. Phenomenology was an appropriate philosophical fit in uncovering the issues of the effectiveness of professional development and building meaning from the perspective of the teachers involved in the process. There was little discussion about phenomenological methodology or analysis. These studies, based in the dynamics of personal learning and growth, are good examples of the kind of topic that could lend itself well to phenomenology both philosophically and methodologically.

9.2.2 Technology Ever-changing technological advances will always be a part of education. Recently, qualitative researchers utilizing the philosophical and methodological underpinnings of phenomenology have explored technology and social networking (Corwin and Cintron 2011), and teacher’s value of technology (Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glaxewski, Newby, and Ertmer 2010). Hermeneutical phenomenology “interprets described experience of individuals to understand the phenomenon” (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. 2010, 1323). Using hermeneutical phenomenology (van Manen 1999), Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. (2010) investigated the value beliefs at the basis of teachers’ uses of technology. Teachers have varying beliefs as to the value of new technology in the classroom greatly affecting the implementation of technology. Through the design of a multiple case study (implementing interviews, observations, and electronic portfolios), technology was valued and used for professional and student needs—all focused on benefiting student learning. Technological applications such as attendance taking and grading were less well-received. This study provided detailed description of both the philosophical and methodological groundings of hermeneutic phenomenology. The discussion of how phenomenology influenced the multiple case study design was specifically strong. Building social networks for new college students is an important aspect for their potential success and acclimation to college life. The use of online social networking could help the process of transitioning from high school to college. Corwin and Cintron (2011) used phenomenology as an analytical method to study how social networks are composed among students. The researchers attempted to explain this phenomenon using interviews and observations at multiple campuses, facilitating

154    ryan m. hourigan and scott n. edgar both nomea and noesis. Findings suggested friendship and security were major influential factors in the comfort of college freshmen. Social networks included old friends, new friends, acquaintances, and all students. Online social networking was the strongest manner for staying connected with old friends. The phenomenological analysis included recording biases and categorizing responses as suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1998). A  detailed discussion of how the researchers achieved epoche is included. The use of phenomenology in general education research discussed here represents some of the topics that could be addressed. The use of varied data collection and analysis strategies used within the methodology of phenomenology represents the diverse applications phenomenological research can have.

9.3  Phenomenology as a Frame of Inquiry in Music Education Studies involving phenomenology in music education can be grouped into the following themes: a) underrepresented populations; b) professional development; and c) blended studies. The next section of this chapter will explore these studies and their impact on music education. All American studies utilizing a philosophical or methodological phenomenological lens were included regardless of publication data. Randles (2012) offers an additional review of studies using phenomenology as a research lens. He suggests, “the majority of phenomenological studies focus on meaning as it relates to identity—perceptions of individuals about themselves, others, acts, society, culture, and of course the business of music teaching and learning” (18).

9.3.1 Underrepresented Populations Students from underrepresented populations have been examined using phenomenology within the following populations:  a) students with special needs (Hourigan 2009; Jellison and Flowers 1991); b) students from multicultural settings (Drake 2010; Southcott and Joseph 2010); and c) adult learners (Reed 2008; Thornton 2010). These studies are presented historically. One of the earliest phenomenological studies conducted in music education addressed students with disabilities (Jellison and Flowers 1991). The researchers do not use the term “phenomenology,” however, this investigation of the lived experiences of students with disabilities represents the earliest study in music education suggesting a phenomenological philosophical orientation, which the researchers describe as “naturalistic inquiry.” One key finding was the similarities in responses from the two groups

Phenomenological Research  155 (students with and without disabilities) regarding how they respond to music. This early study laid the groundwork for research to be conducted in music education looking at the lived experiences of participants. Adult learners have different needs than children and adolescents. Understanding the lived experiences of adult music-makers and learners is especially important for music education, and phenomenology is conducive to explore this topic. Using narrative inquiry, closely informed by phenomenology, Reed (2008) looked to determine the role music plays in meaning-making. Nine adult music makers in a community band, aged 72 to 93, participated in both personal and focus group interviews. Findings suggest performing may lead to good health, foster community, and facilitate knowledge of self. The data collection was the most salient part of this study informed by phenomenology. There was little discussion of phenomenological data analysis or philosophy. Hourigan (2009) continued this vein of research, exploring preservice music teachers’ perceptions of working with students with special needs. This phenomenological investigation utilized a qualitative particularistic case study design to explore preservice music teachers’ experiences working with music students with special needs and he labeled phenomenology as his theoretical framework (Husserl 1970). Preparation for teaching diverse populations, including students with special needs, is a problematic area for both teacher educators and preservice teachers. Journals, participant interviews, and observations were used as data. This triangulation of data collection helped strengthen this study to provide both nomea and noesis. Hourigan’s experience as a researcher participant allowed him to account for the lived experience of all participants. His discussion of epoche and his role in analysis strengthened his use of phenomenology. Findings suggest orientation to working with students with special needs was beneficial for the preservice teachers, and the act of participating in the study (observation, journaling, and discussion) was beneficial. Students from multicultural settings have also received attention in phenomenological research. One area of music receiving little music education research attention is hip hop. Due to this underrepresentation, Drake (2010) explored, through a phenomenological philosophical lens, the lived experience of youth in a hip hop culture (Moustakas 1994). The guiding research question was: “What is the meaning of hip hop as described by the lived experience of adolescents?” Interviews of eight high school participants were the singular source of data. Findings suggest that hip hop is more than just music, but a lifestyle, and understanding of this culture is important to teaching and building relationships with students who identify with this culture. The limited data set prevented discussion on the reality of what was happening in the hip hop lives of the students. Further, there was little discussion on how phenomenology informed data analysis. The philosophical discussion of how phenomenology was used as a lens was strong. Thornton (2010) explored a similar phenomenon: adult music engagement of those not currently participating in music-making that is an extension of traditional music curricular offerings. The three participants were an avid listener, a church praise team member, and a bluegrass musician. Using individual interviews, participants discussed their musical life histories, the importance of their current musical lives, what meaning

156    ryan m. hourigan and scott n. edgar they attach to their music-making, and how their musical engagement changed over the course of their lives. Phenomenological analysis was achieved by joining participant and researcher interpretation to construct accurate perspectives. Themes that emerged were that music connected participants to humanity, it gave them a sense of fulfillment, and it was profound that participants could choose to be involved. Phenomenology philosophy informed data collection and analysis.

9.3.2  Professional Development Just as in general education, phenomenology has been used to explore music education professional development (Bower 2008; Conway 2000; Conway 2003; Conway 2008; Conway Eros, Hourigan, and Stanley 2007; Conway and Hodgman 2008; Conway and Holcomb 2008; Pellegrino 2010; Lippitt Kazee 2010; Nichols 2005). Conway (2000) represents the earliest example of phenomenology in this category. Due to the potential in-depth data collection of the teachers’ experience, coupled with observation, phenomenology can be used to explore music teacher practice and the realities of music education in schools. Conway (2000) utilized a phenomenological interview design informed by Seidman to explore instrumental music students’ perspectives of instrument gender stereotypes. The use of in-depth interviews provided perspectives that instrument stereotypes do exist and student instrument choice is influenced by gender stereotypes. Phenomenology solely informed data collection. Conway (2003) did not explicitly call her investigation of district mentoring programs phenomenology, however, the findings represent the phenomenon and lived experience of beginning teachers, mentors, and administrators in the mentor/mentee relationship. Conway utilized interviews, focus groups, and an investigator’s log to develop a holistic perspective of this phenomenon. Findings suggest there was little consistency in mentoring programs across contexts and the content of mentoring practices included administrative duties, classroom management, parent interaction, policy, and building issues. Her use of diverse data collection, researcher journaling, and varied perspectives represent phenomenological methodology. Homeschooling and music education is an area that has received little research attention. Nichols (2005) explored the music education curriculum choices of three home-schooled families. Using interviews and observations findings suggest the lived experiences of these families is very different in terms of what they teach their children about music. The parents’ fundamental philosophy of education, their belief in the value of music education, and their own prior experiences in music learning and performance affected their curriculum. Data collection and the theoretical framework were both influenced by a phenomenological philosophy. Conway, Eros, Hourigan, and Stanley (2007) explored the perceptions of beginning teachers regarding their brass and woodwind technique classes in undergraduate teacher preparation. Observations, interviews, focus groups, and self-study researcher logs comprised the data set. The diversity of data sets aided in providing a holistic perspective of

Phenomenological Research  157 the beginning teacher allowing for both nomea and noesis to be discussed. Findings suggest that there is a great deal of diversity in how these courses are taught across contexts, instrument proficiency is difficult, priority should be given to broad teaching strategies, and a realization that different ages of P–12 students require different types of instrument instruction. Notebooks, handouts, and resources are some of the most valuable elements of instrument technique courses. Utilizing a phenomenological framework, this study represents an example of how data collection can be phenomenology. Using case study methodology informed by heuristic phenomenology, Conway and Holcomb (2008) explored preparation and experiences of 11 music mentors. Data sources included interviews with mentors, research logs, and notecards from participant interactions. Findings suggest that mentors themselves need mentors, time constraints are challenging, communication with mentees is difficult, technology can be a positive variable, and it is difficult to provide support to mentees in a non-evaluative role. The importance of the heuristic approach is that the researcher, as professional development facilitator for mentors could be involved from the inside so that she could reflect as participant and researcher. This study was closely informed philosophically by phenomenology. A heuristic phenomenological framework also informed data collection and analysis. Continuing to draw from heuristic phenomenology, Conway and Hodgman (2008) explored the experiences of college and community choir members performing collaboratively. Hodgman conducted a concert combining two of his ensembles: one college and one community. Using focus group interviews, journals, individual interviews, and a teacher-research log, findings included that this concert fostered a heightened performance experience, improved understanding of each other, and no signs of age barriers. It was stressed that preparation for collaboration was critical. Due to the heuristic inquiry drawing on the personal experience and insight of the researcher, Hodgman was a participant-researcher, as well as facilitator for the experience. Beyond the choice to include the conductor as researcher, the use of phenomenology was philosophical and had little influence on data analysis. Conway (2008) explored the professional development perceptions of experienced music teachers over the course of their career. The lived experiences of the participants are especially relevant, as it explores how their perceptions and experienced have changes. Within a phenomenological interview design, data sets included interviews with thirteen mid-career teachers, interviews with six veteran teachers, a focus group with four of the veteran teachers, and an investigator’s log. The sole use of interview limited discussion to nomea. Findings suggest informal interactions with other music teachers are some of the most valuable forms of professional development, and that professional development needs for music teachers change over the course of their career. Phenomenology also informed data collection, as Conway used phenomenological interviews (Seidman 2006). Phenomenological interviewing combines life history with in-depth interviewing (Seidman 2006). The first interview establishes the context of the participants’ experience. The second interview allows participants to reconstruct the details of their experience within

158    ryan m. hourigan and scott n. edgar the context in which it occurs. And the third encourages the participants to reflect on the meanings their experiences holds for them . . . In the first interview, the interviewer’s task is to put the participant’s experience in context by asking him or her to tell as much as possible about him or herself in light of the topic up to the present time . . . The purpose of the second interview is to concentrate on the concrete details of the participants’ present lived experience in the topic area of study . . . In the third interview, we ask participants to reflect on the meaning of their experience. (17–18)

Bower (2008) utilized an action research methodology within a phenomenological perspective to explore the researcher’s transformation in using technology to compose in a fourth- and fifth-grade choral classroom. The use of self-reflection, journaling, and student interview allowed the researcher/teacher to adopt a constructivist approach to his classroom. The self-study/action research approach was a unique interpretation of phenomenology, but was able to describe the lived experiences of both the teacher and students. The findings suggest teachers are able to transform their classroom by using technology to compose. The use of researcher reflection and the role of the researcher in the data analysis were greatly influenced by phenomenological methodology. Southcott and Joseph (2010) utilized interpretive phenomenological analysis to explore undergraduate preservice teacher education students’ perspectives of multicultural music and how this affects their understanding of cultural diversity in school music. Interpretive phenomenological analysis “employs a phenomenological, idiographic approach that attempts to explore personal experience in a participant’s personal and social life-world” (14). Within this analysis technique, the interpretive role of the researcher is stressed. Using primarily semi-structured interviews, participants’ perspectives—though not necessarily the reality of practice—was explored. Findings suggest students were aware of the importance of multicultural music in schools, preservice teachers should be exposed to multicultural musical settings in field experiences, and artist-in-school programs are one way to expose students to multicultural music. Phenomenology most closely informed data analysis. Lippitt Kazee (2010) explored teachers’ perspectives of teaching musicianship. Three music teachers were interviewed and observed to see how they implemented musicianship in an assessment driven academic climate. This allowed for both nomea and noesis. The rich description of the settings, teachers, and teaching practices suggest phenomenology was conducive to explore music teacher practices. Participants believe expressive qualities in music are important and this was evident through their teaching practices. This study utilized phenomenology primarily as a philosophical lens through which to view the data.

9.3.3  Blended Studies Phenomenology is often combined with other theoretical frameworks or research methodologies. Examples in music education include heuristic phenomenology (Conway and Holcomb 2008; Conway and Hodgman 2008), phenomenological case

Phenomenological Research  159 study (Amoriello 2010; Mirabal 2008; Pellegrino 2010; Sindberg 2007), narrative phenomenology (Reed 2008), hermeneutic phenomenology (Ruthmann 2006), and as part of a mixed method study (Nolan 2008). As discussed earlier, heuristic phenomenology is beneficial in that the researcher is able to analyze the phenomenon from the inside (an emic perspective), as Hodgman did as conductor (Conway and Hodgman 2008), and Conway did as professional development facilitator (Conway and Holcomb 2008). Case study has also been an approach blended with phenomenology. Sindberg (2007) explored teachers’ and students’ lived experience of music education based on comprehensive musicianship. Designed as a collective case study, observations, interviews, writing prompts, e-mail correspondence, teaching plans, and teacher journals revealed both teachers and students found this model beneficial and found it went beyond the technical elements of the music. She also drew upon some ethnographic research techniques, as she was a participant observer. Using a phenomenological case study methodology, Pellegrino (2010), examined the meanings and values of music-making and how it intersects with teaching. Using background surveys, individual interviews, classroom observations, focus group interviews, researcher self-interview, and researcher’s journals, music-making was connected to formation of teacher identity and well-being. Music-making further reminded participants why they valued playing, helped make them better teachers, helped them be more compassionate to their students, helped inspire both them and their students, helped to address classroom management, helped gain credibility with students, and modeled performance. The use of case study and phenomenology allowed Pellegrino to explore both detailed profiles of the participants and the broad scope of music-making in the lives of string teachers. Phenomenology provided a philosophical lens and method for data collection and analysis. Aspects of phenomenology that impacted the study were: (a) data collection design of conversational interviews, videotaping teachers while music-making in the classroom with their students, music-making in the focus group interview, and researcher’s self-interviews; (b) analysis process (Moustakas 1994); and (c) the focus of describing the phenomenon of the lived experience of four string teachers’ music-making (past, present inside and outside of the classroom, as well as in their imagined futures). Aspects of case study, such as the unit of analysis, were also defined and cited. Amoriello (2010) also conducted a phenomenological case study utilizing interviews, research journals, focus group interviews, and observations to explore the phenomenon and lived experience of undergraduate music majors and piano proficiency. Mirabal (2008) similarly utilized a phenomenological case study to explore primary public school students’ perspectives on performing sacred songs. The underrepresented student perspective was observed through a discourse curriculum where the researcher observed discussions based on the research topic. Findings suggest children are interested in performing sacred songs as long as religion is not indoctrinated. Because of the importance for phenomenology to account for varied perspectives, nomea and noesis, and researcher perspective, case study is especially conducive to blend with phenomenology.

160    ryan m. hourigan and scott n. edgar Reed (2008) was able to explore a phenomenon through telling the stories of older performing musicians using narrative phenomenology. Using hermeneutic phenomenology (van Manen 1999), Ruthmann (2006) explored the lived experiences of sixth-graders in a music technology lab. The use of hermeneutics allowed Ruthmann to explore the students’ knowledge and to adequately interpret the phenomenon being observed. This view allowed for the study to be completely “other-oriented” and focused on the students (etic perspective). Mixing qualitative and quantitative data is increasing in frequency in music education literature (See Conway and Fitzpatrick in this Handbook). Nolan (2008) used phenomenology (Moustakas 1994) to inform the qualitative portion of her mixed method study exploring the role of parents in instrumental music education. She utilized thick description to describe the parents’ role. Findings suggest parents are influential in children’s participation and retention in instrumental music education programs. Data analysis and collection were influenced by phenomenology and were described in detail in this study. Phenomenology, when combined with other frameworks and methodologies, can provide different ways of exploring a phenomenon. The examples used above represent the potential uses of phenomenology within music education. It is important for researchers in music to understand that meaning cannot always be found from the perspective of an outsider. In order to understand a situation, relations, scenario, or phenomenon, a researcher must include as many perspectives as possible. Phenomenology is one means to accomplish this goal.

9.3.4 Suggestions for Future Use of Phenomenology in Music Education At the heart of the phenomenological lens is the attempt to observe a phenomenon through the eyes of the person(s) who are truly living within the structure of the experience. Within music education, this framework lends itself to be a useful tool of inquiry into phenomena where these experiences are unique and useful to our understanding within the field. Beginning inservice teachers, experienced music teachers, and underrepresented students are all groups for which a qualitative perspective of the participants is vital to the overall understanding; therefore, it is important for our field to continue with these strands of research. The use of the analytical processes involved with phenomenology can be used in other forms of qualitative research. For example, case study, grounded theory, hermeneutics, all have a need to examine the data from the nomea/noesis perspective. In addition, as qualitative researchers, we should all come to terms with our own biases (as Husserl suggests) in order to clarify data and offer a clear picture to the reader. Phenomenological research in both general and music education have provided insight into the lived experiences of the participants. Because the focus of qualitative inquiry is on the particular and is rarely meant for generalizability, further use of

Phenomenological Research  161 phenomenology in diverse settings is recommended. The stories of the participants outlined in this review offer the thick description that phenomenological researchers strive for. Thoughtful research design questioning, “what are your experiences in terms of the phenomenon and what contexts or situations have typically influenced or affected your experiences with the phenomenon?” (Creswell 2007, 61) could continue to provide rich, thick description of the lives of stakeholders in all aspects of music education.

References Amoriello, L. 2010. “Teaching Undergraduate Class Piano: A Study of Perspectives from Self, Students, and Colleagues.” EdD diss., Teachers College, Columbia University. Bower, D.N. 2008. “Constructivism in Music Education Technology: Creating an Environment for Choral Composition in the Fourth and Fifth Grades.” PhD diss., New York University. Bresler, L., and R. E. Stake. 1992. “Qualitative Research Methodology in Music Education.” In The Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell, 75–90. New York: Schirmer. Conway, C. M. 2000. “Gender and Musical Instrument Choice.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 146: 1–17. Conway, C. M. 2003. “An Examination of District-Sponsored Beginning Music Teacher Mentor Practices.” Journal of Research in Music Education 51: 6–23. Conway, C. M. 2008. “Experienced Music Teacher Perceptions of Professional Development throughout Their Careers.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 176: 7–18. Conway, C. M., J. Eros, R. Hourigan, and A. M. Stanley. 2007. “Perceptions of Beginning Teachers Regarding Brass and Woodwind Technique Classes in Preservice Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 173: 39–51. Conway, C. M., and T. M. Hodgman. 2008. “College and Community Choir Member Experiences in a Collaborative Intergenerational Performance Project.” Journal of Research in Music Education 56 no. 3: 220–37. Conway, C. M., and A. Holcomb. 2008. “Perceptions of Experienced Music Teachers Regarding Their Work as Music Mentors.” Journal of Research in Music Education 56 no. 1: 55–67. Corwin, J. R., and R. Cintron. 2011. Social Networking Phenomena in the First-Year Experience. Journal of College Teaching and Learning 18: 25–37. Creswell, J. W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Drake, C. Y. 2010. “Phenomenological Study into the Lived Experiences of Youth in the Hip Hop Culture”. PhD diss., Capella University. Goodnaugh, K. 2011. “Examining the Long-Term Impact of Collaborative Action Research on Teacher Identity and Practice: The Perceptions of K–12 Teachers.” Educational Action Research 19: 73–86. Hart, L. C., and S. L. Swars. 2009. “The Lived Experiences of Elementary Prospective Teachers in Mathematics Content Coursework.” Teacher Development 13: 159–72. Hourigan, R. M. 2009. “Preservice Music Teachers’ Perceptions of a Fieldwork Experience in a Special Needs Classroom.” Journal of Research in Music Education 57 no. 2: 152–68.

162    ryan m. hourigan and scott n. edgar Husserl, E. 1970. Cartesian Meditations. Translated by D. Cairns. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff (Original work published 1933). Husserl, E. 1931. Ideas. Translated by W. R. Boyce Gibson. London: George Allen and Unwin. Jellison, J. A., and P. J. Flowers 1991. “Talking about Music:  Interviews with Disabled Phenomenology of Perception Phenomenology of Perception and Nondisabled Children.” Journal of Research in Music Education 39: 322–33. Lippitt Kazee, S. 2010. “The Extent to Which Expressive Qualities Are Valued by K-12 Public School Music Teachers, and the Impact of Those Values on Educational Leadership Practices and Policy Initiatives.” PhD diss., University of South Carolina. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1945. Phenomenology of Perception. Delhi, India: Gallimard Press. Merriam, S. B. 2009. Qualitative Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mirabal, L. B. 2008. “Singing Sacred Songs in Public Schools: Perspectives of Primary School Students.” EdD diss., Teachers College, Columbia University. Moustakas, C. E. 1994. Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications. Nichols, J. 2005. “Music Education and Homeschooling: A Preliminary Inquiry.” A Bulletin of Council for Research in Music Education 166: 27–42. Nolan, M. R. 2008. “Parent Involvement in Instrumental Music: A Parent’s Perspective.” PhD diss., University of Phoenix. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., K. D. Glazewski, T. J. Newby, and P. A. Ertmer. 2010. “Teacher Values and Beliefs Associated with Using Technology: Addressing Professional and Student Needs.” Computers and Education 55: 1321–35. Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pellegrino, K. 2010. “The Meanings and Values of Music-Making in the Lives of String Teachers: Exploring the Intersections of Music-Making and Teaching.” PhD diss. University of Michigan. Randles, C. 2012. “Phenomenology: A Review of Literature.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 30, 11–21. Reed, S. M. 2008. Sentimental Journey: The Role of Music in the Meaning-Making Processes of Older Performing Musicians. PhD diss., Pennsylvania State University. Ruthmann, S. A. 2006. Negotiating Learning and Teaching in a Music Technology Lab: Curricular, Pedagogical, and Ecological Issues. PhD diss., Rochester, Michigan: Oakland University. Seidman, I. 2006. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Sindberg, L. 2007. Comprehensive Musicianship through Performance (CMP) in the Lived Experiences of Students. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 174: 25–43. Southcott, J., and D. Joseph. 2010. Engaging, Exploring, and Experiencing Multicultural Music in Australian Music Teacher Education: The Changing Landscape of Multicultural Music Education. Journal of Music Teacher Education 20 no. 1: 8–26. Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Thornton, D. H. 2010. “Adult Music Engagement: Perspectives from Three Musically Engaged Cases.” PhD diss., Pennsylvania State University. Van Manen, M. 1999. Researching Lived Experience. New York: SUNY Press.

Chapter 10

Narrative In qu i ry a nd t he Uses of Na rrat i v e in M u sic Edu c at i on Researc h sandra l. stauffer 1

During the 1980s, eminent psychologist Jerome Bruner described two distinct yet complementary modes of cognition that humans use to order experience and construct reality—the paradigmatic or logico-scientific mode, and the narrative mode. “A good story and a well-formed argument are different natural kinds,” Bruner argued, and each “way of knowing” functions differently, is structured differently, and aims at fundamentally different ways of “convincing” (1986, 11). The paradigmatic or logico-scientific mode of thinking employs categorization, relies on formal description, and makes use of observation and hypothesis testing to generate arguments that aim to “convince one of their truth” (1986, 11–13). The narrative mode of thinking has to do with “how we come to endow experience with meaning,” with “epiphanies of the ordinary,” and with “human or human-like intention and action and the vicissitudes and consequences that mark their course” (1986, 12–13). Narratives aim at meaning rather than truth and convince through lifelikeness or verisimilitude. Drawing upon his own study of “how people tell the stories of their lives,” Bruner described narrative as a way to make sense of lived time and a means self-making (1987/2004, 700). “A life as led is inseparable from a life as told” (1987/2004, 708), Bruner claimed, and the study of narratives provides an opportunity to understand the human condition. Bruner stands as a key figure in the community of narrative scholarship. Yet at the time of his 1980 writings, narrative work was already well underway in disciplines as diverse as psychology, anthropology, sociology, literary theory, and historiography. Since then, scholars in these disciplines and others have continued to take what has been called “the narrative turn”—a move toward narrative as scholarship and narrative in scholarship (Pinnegar and Daynes, 2007). The result has been a proliferation of ways

164   sandra l. stauffer of using narrative in research, as well as rather healthy debates about what narrative inquiry is and even what constitutes a narrative. Consider an example from the one-man play “Second Chair” published in Research Studies in Music Education. (setting: two metal folding chairs with metal music stands in front of each one; the music stands hold all necessary props for the production; first chair appears shiny and pristine; second chair appears worn, rusty, and beaten) (pre-show music: various selections composed by W. Francis McBeth (The Feast of Trumpets, Praises, Caccia, Flourishes); lights rise; JOHNNY enters at the beginning of Flourishes, looks longingly at first chair, then sits in second chair and looks occasionally toward the empty first chair; music fades out; he speaks to the audience) JOHNNY: In high school band, Tammi Jo thought she was so special. She played an ebony wood Selmer clarinet with a glass mouthpiece, while all I had was this cheap-ass plastic Bundy. Her family was typically middle-class and she was the only child, thus receiving all of the attention and all of the spoils. My family was transitioning from lower class to middle, but that was kind of hard with so many children to take care of. In our junior year, I was second chair; and Tammy Jo was first chair  (brief pause) And I think you know where this story is going.   (Saldaña 2008, 179, italics in the original)

Do you? Do you know where this story is going? What it is that you “know,” and how do you know it? Are you curious enough to want to read more of Johnny’s story? Why? Saldaña, the author, describes this piece as an autoethnodrama. But is it narrative? Although storytelling is an ancient and even venerated human practice, narrative is a relatively recent addition to the panoply of approaches within the larger domain of qualitative scholarship. The disciplinary roots of narrative stretch into phenomenology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, literature, and the arts, and are intertwined in diverse ways, making narrative scholarship a complex, multidisciplinary, polyvocal, and evolving mode of inquiry (Barrett and Stauffer 2009, 2012; Clandinin and Rosiek 2007; Holstein and Gubrim 2012; Reissman 2008; Squire, Andrews, and Tomboukou 2008). One purpose of this chapter is to summarize current definitions of narrative and narrative inquiry, and to describe narrative scholarship from perspectives that may be useful to music education researchers. Another purpose of this chapter is to point to markers or characteristics of narrative inquiry and to provide examples that illustrate those markers. Wherever possible, these examples are drawn from the music education literature. Reading the music education literature only, however, affords insufficient grounding for engaging in narrative scholarship, not because extant music studies are flawed (though quality does vary), but because there is much to be learned from our colleagues in other disciplines who have been about the practice of narrative inquiry longer and who have taken different positions, drawn on different sources, asked different questions, and made use of different

Narrative Inquiry  165 processes. Thinking through various disciplinary approaches may open multiple possibilities for music education researchers and can help to clarify thinking about what constitutes narrative inquiry. As suggested above, variants of narrative inquiry within the larger domain of qualitative research are quite easily found, to the extent that “it is easier to identify complexities and multiplicities in the field of narrative inquiry than it is to identify commonalities” (Chase 2011, 429). Yet, both commonalities and distinctions do exist in this rather messy state of affairs, and these commonalities and distinctions raise two sets of questions. One set of questions has to do with the fundamental assumptions of narrative inquiry. Every research tradition—every means or method—is fraught with problems of definitions, process, bias, truth claims, quality criteria, ethics, and more, whether researchers choose to articulate them or not. Narrative inquiry is no different. Given the variants of narrative research one might encounter, questions range from philosophical matters having to do with reality, knowledge, and self, to practical problems of procedure, interpretation, and representation. All the more reason, then, to heed the counsel of those who advise considering one’s own ontological and epistemological commitments before beginning narrative work and throughout the inquiry process (Clandinin and Murphy 2009). The second set of questions has to do with the potential uses of narrative and narrative inquiry in music education. For what reasons would a researcher choose narrative inquiry? What purposes can narrative inquiry serve in music education scholarship? When and how might narrative modes of research be used or useful? And why should narrative matter? In other words, “Why narrative? Why now?” (Bowman, 2006, 5).

10.1  Pathways to Narrative What is narrative? What is narrative inquiry? The answers to these questions may seem simple: A narrative is a story one tells of one’s lived experience—of sitting (or not) in “second chair” in band, for example. Narrative inquiry, then, might appear to be simply a matter of getting someone’s story, writing it up, and putting some explanatory text around it. Done. But not so fast. What counts as a narrative? The story you told to a friend about what happened during yesterday’s class? The story you might tell about reading this chapter? A novel? A text message exchange? Does music, a dance, or an artwork count as narrative? As part of a narrative? Why was a particular story told in the first place? Would the teller change the story depending when or to whom the story was told? Does that matter? Is it ethical to “get” stories and write them up? Why would one do that? And what, exactly, is under investigation in narrative inquiry? The story itself? The person who told the story? The act of telling? The incident to which the story refers? The purpose of the teller and the telling? The teller’s psychological state? The culture in which the story is situated? The social practices or oral conventions of narrating that both enable and constrain the story, the telling, and the teller? What makes a particular narrative of interest to a researcher? Are the researcher’s interests the only interests that matter?

166   sandra l. stauffer These questions (and more) matter to narrative researchers, and all of them may be answered somewhat differently, depending on one’s approach to narrative and purposes for choosing narrative as a research mode. In music education those who have engaged in narrative scholarship have generally taken one of three pathways into their studies. The first pathway follows the writing and thinking of Jerome Bruner and dates to his work in the 1980s. In Actual Minds, Possible Worlds (1986) and articles written at about the same time, Bruner described narrative as a way of knowing and a distinctly human achievement. This view became important in psychology and in other social science disciplines. A second pathway derives from the work of D. Jean Clandinin and F. Michael Connelly. Their book, Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research (2000), followed their previous writings about personal experience methods and marked a distinct path in narrative inquiry that has been influential in teacher education research and curriculum studies. A third pathway to narrative in music education research has followed the writing and thinking of Tom Barone. Barone’s Touching Eternity:  The Enduring Outcomes of Teaching (2001) and other works pointed to the power of what he has called critical storytelling in educational research. A brief examination of these three pathways follows.

10.1.1  Jerome Bruner and Narrative Knowing As noted above, Bruner outlined narrative as a distinct way of human knowing, a “form of thought” or “mode of cognitive functioning” (1987/2004, 691; 1986, 11). Narrative, Bruner posits, is a means by which “we go about constructing and representing the rich and messy domain of human interaction(s),” a way in which we organize “our memory of human happenings” (1991, 4). Bruner’s distinction between paradigmatic and narrative modes of thinking and knowing underpin these claims. Rather than position the paradigmatic and narrative modes as dichotomous, Bruner suggests that they are two “distinct ways of ordering experience” that are “complementary” and “irreducible to each other.” Each way of knowing represents the world differently, is constructed in different ways, and has different aims (1986, 11). Bruner describes the paradigmatic or logico-scientific mode as logical thought using formal systems of description and explanation aimed at certainty or truth through “good theory, tight analysis, logical proof, sound argument, and empirical discovery guided by reasoned hypothesis” (13). In the logico-scientific mode, the mind is an instrument of reason. In contrast, narrative forms of thought have to do with ways in which we make sense of lived time, deal with the ambiguities of daily life, and construct our conceptions of selves. These two ideas—narrative as a means of making sense of experience and narrative as a means of constructing our selves—are fundamental in the Brunerian perspective. A central concern for narrative scholars on the Brunerian pathway is how narrative “operates as an instrument of the mind in the construction of reality” (1991, 6), or “how we come to endow experience with meaning” (1986, 12).

Narrative Inquiry  167 Throughout more than three decades of writing about narrative, Bruner puzzles over two complex and intertwined matters crucial to his perspective: narrative as a means of self-making, and narrative in and as culture. “A self is probably the most impressive work of art we ever produce, surely the most intricate,” he writes, “For we create not just one self-making story but many of them . . . it is not just who and what we are that what we want to get straight but who and what we might have been” as well as who and what we wish to be (2002, 14). Bruner suggests that self-making through storying is “our principal means for establishing our uniqueness, . . . we distinguish ourselves from others by comparing our accounts of ourselves with the accounts that others give us of themselves” (2002, 66). He describes this human capacity for narrative as a cognitive achievement, an “interpretive feat” that we acquire in the course of living (1987, 693). “Has anybody ever found it necessary to teach a young child what a story is,” Bruner asks, “or how to understand it?” (2010, 45, italics in the original). Stories are not context free, however, but situated in and continuous with cultural worlds. If “self-making is a narrative art,” as Bruner suggests, then it is often “guided by unspoken, implicit cultural models of what selfhood should be, might be—and, of course, shouldn’t be” (2002, 65). Like selves, cultures are made and remade through narrative. Drawing on anthropologist Clifford Geertz and others, Bruner posits that culture comes about in part through “a local capacity for accruing stories of happenings of the past into some sort of diachronic structure that permits continuity into the present” (1991, p.19–20). Cultures as large as societies and as small as families “rely upon narrative conventions to maintain their coherence” and to “pass on their norms to successive generations,” often through canonical forms and figures, linguistic conventions, and implicit rules of telling that, while arbitrary (and typically value-laden), allow speakers and listeners to (at least begin to) grasp what one is saying and the other hearing (2010, 45). Yet the small stories—the local, particular, and individual narratives of who we are or what is, was, or might be—are “forever in dialectical tension” with larger cultural and canonical narratives (2002, 13–14). “Life in culture is perpetually open to improvisation,” Bruner suggests, for it is full of “ambiguities and multiple demands,” and while “our narrative capacity . . . may make culturally mediated life possible,” the stories we tell are rarely neutral (2010, 45 and 46). Rather, “in their very nature, [stories] inevitably throw their weight in support of or against what is culturally taken for granted, however subtly” (46). Cultures provide models, presuppositions, and perspectives about selfhood; telling others about one’s self often “depends on what we think they think we ought to be like” (2002, 66, italics in original), and that means trouble. Narrative comes about because of trouble or plight, Bruner suggests, and plight may involve a mismatch of agent, act, purpose, scene, and/or means—a pentad derived from philosopher and rhetorician Kenneth Burke (Bruner, 1986, 2000, 2002; see also Rutten and Soetaert 2012). Consider the inferences of plight in just one short paragraph from Johnny’s narrative that opens this chapter: female and male, middle class and not yet middle class, only child and large family, ebony and plastic clarinets, first chair and second chair—all wrapped up in two characters. Trouble is most certainly brewing, and

168   sandra l. stauffer even more tensions unfold as Johnny’s narrative continues. For Bruner, the purpose of narrative scholarship is to understand how these particular characters and how people in general see and tell about themselves and their lives and to understand how they have made sense of their experiences, including their plights; “to see not what they are about but how the narrators construct themselves” (1987/2000, 702). While Bruner stands as a principal character in this particular story of narrative scholarship, he is not a solitary figure on the pathway. In 1988, Donald Polkinghorne described the value of narrative scholarship in clinical psychology practice. By 1991, the first issue of the Journal of Narrative and Life History (later Narrative Inquiry) appeared, edited by psychologists Allyssa McCabe and Michael Bamberg, and in 1993, psychologists Amia Lieblich and Ruthellen Josselson began a series of edited books entitled The Narrative Study of Lives. At the same tiem, other social scientists also took the narrative turn. During the 1980s Ivor Goodson began a series of life history studies, including studies of teachers and schools (e.g., 1980/1981), and Elliot Mishler began to question the talk that occurred between doctors and patients during medical interviews (1984). The biennial Narrative Matters conference began in 1990. Just a few years later, sociologist Catherine Kohler Reismann published one of the early texts on narrative analysis (1993). Since then, narrative research has proliferated in the social sciences, where scholars have used narrative techniques or narrative data in a wide variety of ways and within multiple kinds of research designs. Yet the Brunerian emphases on self-making and culture often remains. For example, Dan McAdams, who joined Lieblich and Josselson in co-editing the books aligned with the Narrative Study of Lives series, developed a life story interview protocol (McAdams 1993) that he and others have used to examine questions related to identity and self-making in life history narratives. In one study, McAdams and Bowman (2001) interrogate both how highly generative and relatively low non-generative adults narrate important turns in their lives, and how the ways in which they narrate their turning points speak more broadly to the quality of their lives. More specifically, McAdams and Bowman identify redemption and contamination sequences in the narratives of the participants, and they describe how participants use these narrative strategies to make sense of their life transitions. In another study, McAdams and Logan (2006) examine “the stories academics tell about the questions, the ideas, the projects, the collaborations, the insights, and the scholarly pursuits that have animated their intellectual lives” in order to look at the intersections of their creative work and identities (89). In both studies, the life stories of participants are a primary component of the presentation; the details of how the researchers conduct the study as well as literature and theories appear throughout rather than in separately labeled sections, except for a final discussion. While life histories can be extensive, small stories that occur in face-to-face conversation, as well as text messages, e-mails, and social media posts have also captured the attention of narrative researchers, who suggest that these everyday practices are also sites of engagement for identity work (Bamberg 2006; Bamberg and Georgakopoulou 2008; Georgakopoulou 2006). For example, Georgakopoulou

Narrative Inquiry  169 (2013) investigated what kinds of identities students in a London comprehensive school constructed for themselves during in their daily lives, and in particular “how the students’ engagement with new media shaped their identities at school” (60). Data for the study include text message conversations, which appear in the article. Paugh (2012) examined work narratives that occurred during dinnertime conversations of dual-earner middle-class families, particularly the ways in which the dinnertime discourses socialized the children into family life and future work orientations. In both articles, the authors present small-story narratives in the form of short conversations drawn from the data, then surround the data with an analysis of matters such as the lexical choices of the speakers and what the discourses communicate, the positioning and relationships of the tellers, and the tensions among and between these small stories and canonical cultural tales. Researchers in music education have also followed the Brunerian pathway, using narrative data and techniques to investigate questions of self-making and culture in music, often embedding narrative in research designs that that appear similar to multiple case studies, single case studies, and ethnographies. Ferguson (2009), for example, examined the self-views of two preservice music educators, gathering data through conversations with them and observations of their teaching over an academic year. More specifically, Ferguson sought to understand what contributed to the individuals’ self-views—both those of which they were fully aware and those that appeared ambiguous or even invisible to participants—as well as how their self-views were reflected in their narratives and actions. Ferguson structures the presentation similarly to many published case studies: a review of literature section and a methods section; two case presentations of the participants in narrative form; an interpretation section peppered with quotes from the participants that functions as a cross-case analysis; and a final section in which Ferguson challenges music teacher educators to consider the multiple and evolving (or not) nature of preservice teachers’ self-views and the ways in which self-views are connected to experiences, relationships, and personalized meanings (101). Margaret Barrett makes use of narrative in recent articles from her series of studies of young children’s musicing (2009, 2011, 2012). Although Barrett’s approach is a hybrid of all three narrative pathways described in this chapter, her focus is on children’s self-making in and through music (2009), including the ways in which a child constructs “an emergent identity as a musical and sociocultured being” (2011, 403) and the “beginnings of an individual and personal style” in the music-making of children (2012, 66). Narrative descriptions of the children’s musical engagements in the form of their spontaneous songs and musical play appear in all three articles. These musical engagements occur within the small cultures of the children’s families, who participated in the studies and whose voices appear in Barrett’s accounts. Barrett suggests that “invented song and music-making provide narrative forms and structures through which children perform and enact ways of being in their developing identity work” (2011, 420)—a perspective clearly aligned with the Brunerian pathway in narrative scholarship.

170   sandra l. stauffer

10.1.2  Jean Clandinin and Michael Connelly and Narrative Inquiry Clandinin and Connelly’s Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Inquiry marks a different and well-worn pathway to narrative. Clandinin, a student of Connelly at the University of Toronto, later edited the Handbook of Narrative Inquiry (2007) and authored the more recent Engaging in Narrative Inquiry (2013), which updates her approach to narrative scholarship. Clandinin and Connelly’s “Personal Experience Methods” chapter in the first Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994) points to their theoretical grounding, which, while related, is different from that of Bruner. In their 1994 chapter, Clandinin and Connelly define narrative as both phenomenon and method. Narrative names the structured quality of experience to be studied, and it names the patterns of inquiry for its study. To preserve this distinction, we used the reasonably well-established device of calling the phenomenon story and the inquiry narrative. Thus we say that people by nature lead storied lives and tell stories of those lives, whereas narrative researchers describe such lives, collect and tell stories of them, and write narratives of experience. (416)

The connection between experience, story, and meaning is crucial in their approach. More than a decade later, Clandinin and Connelly clarified their definitions in this oftquoted passage: Arguments for the development and use of narrative inquiry come out of a view of human experience in which humans, individually and socially, lead storied lives. People shape their daily lives by stories of who they and others are and they interpret their past in terms of these stories. Story, in the current idiom is a portal through which a person enters the world and by which his or her experience of the world is interpreted and made personally meaningful. . . . Narrative inquiry, the study of experience as story, then, is first and foremost a way of thinking about experience. . . . To use narrative inquiry methodology is to adopt a particular view of experience as phenomena under study. (2006, 477)

The purposes of narrative inquiry, according to Clandinin and Connelly, have to do with understanding how knowledge is narratively composed, embodied, and lived (2000, 124), in other words, to understand how people use story as a means of interpreting experience, how they construct knowledge and meaning from their experiences, and how people live and relive, and tell and retell, their stories. Clandinin and Connelly’s disciplinary roots are in teacher education, teacher knowledge, and curriculum-making. Their approach to narrative is firmly grounded in the writings of John Dewey and a Deweyan ontology and epistemology. “Narrative inquiry is the study of experience,” they write, “and experience, as John Dewey taught, is a

Narrative Inquiry  171 matter of people in relation contextually and personally” (2000, 189). The inseparability of experience and relationship is fundamental in Clandinin and Connelly’s perspective on narrative. Story is a means by which “we come in touch with our experience, come to know what we know of our experience” (418–19). Experience is continuous, and relationship is the “middle ground” where conversation about experiences occurs, often in the form of stories (1994, 425). This Dewey-inspired conception of experience and story are fundamental in Clandinin and Connelly’s perspective on narrative; it distinguishes their position from other narrative pathways and from other kinds of qualitative approaches that, while similar, have different ontological and epistemological underpinnings (see Clandinin and Rosiek 2007; Pinnegar and Hamilton 2011). Their Dewey-inspired conceptions of experience and story also have implications for how researchers conceive of and engage in narrative inquiry. If humans live storied lives, then any story one might tell or hear is not a discrete unit that can be extracted and analyzed, but rather part of a complex, continuous experiential and relational whole that must be considered throughout the research process. Based on Dewey’s theory of experience and his conceptions of situation, interaction, and continuity, Connelly and Clandinin imagine “a metaphorical three-dimensional narrative inquiry space, with temporality along one dimension, the personal and the social along a second dimension, and place along a third dimension” (50); they describe these dimensions as the “three commonplaces” of narrative inquiry (2006, 479). Temporality has to do with the continuity of past, present, and future, and with how any single story exists within temporal history. The sociality commonplace includes both the personal and social conditions. Narrative inquiry focuses neither exclusively on a person’s thoughts and feelings nor on studies of social conditions in which an individual may be treated as “a hegemonic expression of social structure and social process” (2006, 480); rather, narrative inquiry attends to “the personal and social and existential conditions involved for various actors in the situation,” including the researcher, throughout the inquiry process (480). Place, the third commonplace, has to do with “the specific concrete, physical, and topological boundaries of place,” or location, where the inquiry, events, and story (including the telling and hearing) occur (480–81). While Clandinin and Connelly assert the importance of attending to all three commonplaces in any study, they also suggest that researchers also attend to narrative four directions: inward, outward, forward, and backward. Inward has to do with “feelings, hopes, aesthetic reactions, and moral disposition,” outward with existential, social, and environmental conditions, and forward and backward with past, present, and future (2000, 50). They posit these directions as avenues of questioning to be pursued throughout the inquiry, commenting that “to experience an experience—that is, to do research into an experience—is to experience simultaneously in these four ways and to ask questions pointing each way” (50, italics in original). While Clandinin, Connelly, and others following this pathway eschew defining a narrative method, they do outline certain practices or ways of being in the research (see, for example, Clandinin 2006, 2013; Clandinin and Connelly 2000; Clandinin, Pushor, and Orr 2007). Studies begin with a “research puzzle” that is framed and reframed as

172   sandra l. stauffer the study progresses. The researcher begins to think narratively about the phenomenon or experience before entering the field and upon leaving the field. Thinking narratively may include telling one’s own story to oneself, not simply as a matter of being reflective, but as a matter of understanding how the story unfolds and what one’s own experiences of similar phenomena or events means in one’s own life. Once in the field, researchers spend considerable time with participants, described variously as “living alongside” or “being in the midst.” The participants, the researcher, and the participants and researcher together may generate data in various forms as they story and restory, tell and retell, live and relive experiences. Writing progresses gradually and moves between field texts, interim texts, and research texts, all of which are considered “composed” in that all texts are interpretations of experience. Research texts include the voices of both participants and researcher, as the inquiry and the process is part of the experience of both. The entire process is not linear, but rather involves tacking back and forth between the field, writing, field texts, research texts, participant stories, the researcher story, literature, and theory. The final published account, and the process of doing the inquiry, raises questions that invite consideration of matters of social significance and allow for growth and change (See Clandinin and Connelly, 2000; Clandinin, 2013). The narrative inquiry pathway defined by Clandinin and Connelly has been highly influential in education. Narrative researchers have conducted studies of early school leavers (Clandinin, Steeves, and Caine 2013), teacher and student identities (e.g., Clandinin, J.  Huber, M.  Huber, Murphy, Orr, Pearce, and Steeves 2006), curriculum-making (e.g., Huber, Murphy, and Clandinin 2011), and the tensions inherent in stories of (and inquiry into) achievement testing practices and policies (e.g., Clandinin, Murphy, Huber, and Orr 2009). In an extensive series of articles spanning more than a decade, Cheryl Craig has used narrative inquiry to examine the impact of education reform on teachers, students, families, and communities (e.g., 2012a, 2012b, 2010a, 2010b), including the ways in which classrooms have become increasingly contested spaces (2009). In music education, several researchers have followed the narrative pathway outlined by Clandinin and Connelly to inquire about experiences of teaching and learning. For example, in a series of articles from a study of second and third-grade children, Shelly Griffin interrogates how children experience music in school and outside of school as well as the intersections (or lack thereof) of children’s in-school and out-of-school music experiences (2009, 2011b) and the social justice implications behind attending (or not attending) to children’s lived musical realities (2011a). While Griffin’s articles appear in different forms, the children’s perspectives as illustrated in their commentary to and conversations with Griffin provide rather stunning (and not very flattering) views of what children think about their school musical experiences and the meanings they associate with them. Deborah Blair’s (2009) narrative inquiry in a secondary school classroom for students with special needs begins with her own story of becoming a guest music teacher in that context. While Blair includes descriptions of her interactions with the students and their responses to and participation in various musical engagements, the focus of the

Narrative Inquiry  173 study turns to the ways in which the adults, particularly the classroom teacher, create an environment that fosters a sense of belonging and family in the classroom. Blair characterizes the teacher’s practice as a pedagogy of thoughtfulness that provides students who struggle to make and express emotional connections with classroom a place in which risking to learn, to express, to be valued, and to be loved become possible (33). While Blair references Clandinin and Connelly in her description of her methods and narrative intentions, she also describes her approach as informed by arts-based educational research and the writings of Tom Barone, to whom we turn next.

10.1.3 Tom Barone, Literary Nonfiction, and Critical Storytelling The third pathway to narrative within the music education research community follows the work of Tom Barone. Barone’s work is informed by his background in literature and literary theory, and by his long association with Elliot Eisner and arts-based educational research (Barone and Eisner 2006, 2012). In Touching Eternity: The Enduring Outcomes of Teaching (2001) and in various essays and articles, Barone describes his work and that of others as literary or creative nonfiction (Barone 2008) and critical storytelling (Barone 2000a, 2000b). Barone holds up these narrative modes as powerful means of engaging in social science research, including educational inquiry. Following a literary path based on the theoretical work of Mikhail Bakhtin (1975/1981), Roland Barthes (1975, 1977), Wolfgang Iser (1974, 1980, 1993), and others, Barone makes no apologies for the intentions and aims of literary nonfiction and critical storytelling. The purpose of narrativists and the aim of “researcher-storytellers,” he writes, “is not to seek certainty about correct perspectives on educational phenomena but to raise significant questions about prevailing policy and practice that enrich an ongoing conversation” about education (Barone 2007, 466). Pointing to the capacity of novelists such as Charles Dickens (1839/1950; 1854/1955), Sinclair Lewis (1920), and John Updike (1959) to bring social issues to public consciousness, Barone challenges critical storytellers to be similarly rigorous in their investigations and to write in artful, honest, and powerful ways. The purpose of inquiry and of narrative writing from this perspective, Barone suggests, is “to rhetorically persuade [readers] to ask questions about important educational issues” and “to entice the reader into wondering about what has been previously taken for granted” (2001, 162 and 179). The persuasive story is “one with the capacity for promoting a kind of critical reflection that results in a reconstruction of the reader’s value system” (2000c, 214), or, for writers in education, to challenge and change the educational imaginary (Barone 2003). While persuasion and the reconstruction of values may raise the metaphorical eyebrow, Barone (2000a) associates “persuasive” with useful in that reading persuasive texts may reorganize the reader’s experiences of what seems familiar, thereby challenging habitual ways of thinking (145). In other words, the reader’s interaction with the text (and author and characters) becomes “an occasion for conspiracy” in which the reader,

174   sandra l. stauffer though wary and skeptical, may come to see “a social reality that may have gone previously unnoticed,” may engage in questioning and sharing of ideas, and may “plot against inadequate present conditions in favor of an emancipatory social arrangement in the future” (146). The reader, in this literary perspective, is not subservient to the author or the text, but is, rather, a thoughtful and engaged individual who can grapple with dilemmas and ambiguities in the text (and in life) and who can write and speak on her own. For Barone, whose eye is clearly toward education, the aim is to “prick the consciences of readers by inviting a reexamination of the values and interests undergirding certain discourses, practices, and institutional arrangements in today’s schools” (a passage that although written in 1992 certainly resonates in 2013), to make the lives of school people locked within that system evident to each other, and to empower them and embolden transformation. Barone’s early piece, “Ways of Being at Risk: The Case of Billy Charles Barnett” (1989), points to some of the qualities of narrative and critical storytelling that follow the literary pathway. He writes: We are the representatives of two subcultures, meeting at a McDonald’s along an interstate highway in northeastern Tennessee. Sitting across from me is Billy Charles Barnett, a tall lanky boy with dark hair, green eyes, a pug nose, and an infectious grin. He is a member of the rural “disadvantaged,” a fifteen-year-old nominated by the vice-principal as the student least likely to remain in Dusty Hollow Middle School. I am a middle-aged urban academic who, secure in a tenured university position, will never leave school. I am inclined to believe the warnings of others like me—teachers and administrators at Billy Charles’ school—that this teenager from the hills will be “slow” and “hard to talk to.” I am, therefore, surprised to discover almost immediately a keen intelligence and an eagerness to share his knowledge about his world. Even more jolting is a sudden realization of my vast ignorance about the ways of people who live within a two-hour drive of my home and about the fundamentals of a world no longer honored in the dominant culture. Between slurps on a straw, Billy Charles speaks: You don’t know what jugging is? When you go jugging, first you take a jug that bleach comes in. You rinse it out and tighten the lid and get some soft but strong nylon string. Then you need to get a two-inch turtle hook, real strong . . . and a three-or-four-foot line. The best bait is a bluegill, cut in half. You know, you really should use the head part. It’s better than the tail, because turtles always go for the head of the fish first. But you can [also] catch catfish, bass, like this. I caught me a seven-and-a-half pound bass once, jugging. The jug just hangs in the water and nothing can get off the line unless they break it. I can catch a mess of turtles [this way], and then I make turtle soup. Do you know how to make turtle soup? I find myself squirming in my seat. But why should I  be the one feeling inadequate and defensive? No, I didn’t know—until Billy Charles told me— that the market was bearish on coonskins this year, and that I could expect no more than $40 for a flawless one of average size. The topic had simply

Narrative Inquiry  175 never come up in any graduate course on curriculum theory. Moreover, E. D. Hirsch and his co-authors had included no such items in their Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. (Barone 1989, 147)

This passage includes several qualities of narrative taken up from the critical storytelling perspective. First, the power of the story rests, in part, in artful writing. Barone (2000b) describes the structure of the piece as a story-within-a-story-within-an-essay, wherein the central story is that of Billy Charles, the surrounding story provides a glimpse of the author, and the essay addresses implications of the story for educators and for society, including consideration of the ways in which educators and society are implicated in the heartbreak of Billy Charles’s life. The piece is published without headings and references in the text. And yet, the work of rigorous scholarship is clearly evident, a second quality of a well-crafted critical story. We know from the passage above, for example, details about the singular participant (Billy Charles), about the writer (Barone), about the research context (rural northeastern Tennessee), and, in part, about how the inquiry was conducted (through face-to-face conversation in at least one setting). We sense the tensions about to be explored in the essay that follows, including the meeting of “two subcultures,” the paradox of education as experienced and education as studied, and questions about epistemology and whose knowing counts. Third, consistent with the literary theory in which Barone bases his work, we (the readers) are drawn into these tensions (note the words “surprised,” “jolting,” “squirming”) and the ambiguities of the text, and invited to consider, question, and make our own interpretations. A symbiotic relationship exists between the qualities of artful writing, depth of inquiry, and faith in the reader. By the end of the essay, one wonders just who or what is at risk. In music, Jeananne Nichols (2013) uses critical storytelling in a piece that challenges readers to consider the places and experiences of transgender students in music education. Although Nichols draws on both the Brunerian and the Clandinin and Connelly pathways, her narrative account and the approach throughout are consistent with critical storytelling—a purpose Nichols claims in the text. The writing is literary and richly descriptive, with the participant’s story as the centerpiece. She writes: Ryan has always known two things about himself—he is musical and he is unapologetically “Rie.” Friends and family struggle to describe this artistic, free spirit who dresses in short skirts and tight halter tops that reveal both an ornate chest tattoo and an Adam’s apple. Faltering in their explanations, they typically fall back to, “He’s just Ryan.” Ryan loathes the all-too-human practice of categorizing and labeling, but suffers my “how do you identify yourself ” question patiently and answers: I consider myself transgender, but I call myself a cross-dresser because I have never taken hormones. I have never considered SRS (sexual reassignment surgery). It took me a long time to be comfortable in my skin, and now I am. I have always loved the saying, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it,” and that is kind of how I feel.

176   sandra l. stauffer I met Rie in the course of my professional life as a conductor. Rie played the flute in a band I directed, but she was not my student. She projected a funny, fearless persona and I noted her acceptance and popularity with the other band members. I wondered how difficult the gender transition process had been for her, how she navigated the rural, Midwestern school system in her hometown, and if she had been supported by family, friends, and teachers. I was particularly interested in her experiences with school music, so I asked her if she would be willing to tell me her story. (Nichols 2013, 266)

Like Barone, Nichols interweaves artful writing with details of a rigorous research process. We know a great deal about the participant, a bit about the writer, something about the research context, and part of the research process in these three paragraphs. Note, too, the tensions of the transgender experience embodied in the pronoun shift between paragraphs—an intentional device that, Nichols explains later, was determined with Rie, who participated in every phase of the research process, right up to publication. Consistent with the aims of critical storytelling described by Barone, Nichols, along with Rie, positions the narrative not as a singular or essentialized story, but rather as an account that “offers readers the opportunity to test their own convictions, to seek their positionality within the text, to explore their identification with Rie, and to refine their insight into the responses of her peers, her parents, and her teachers” (276).

10.2 Markers, Critiques, Possibilities The three pathways to narrative described in this chapter are not the only story of narrative scholarship that can be told. Others have told it differently and will do so in the future. Healthy debates continue within and between those committed to each pathway about everything from definitions of narrative, to purposes of narrative scholarship, to techniques for data collection, to how to write narrative accounts. The blending and hybridization of perspectives within narrative scholarship adds even more complexity. Those seeking the certainty of a straight-and-narrow research pathway or who are attracted to narrative simply by the romance of telling a story should look elsewhere. While narrative scholarship is, as Chase (2011) suggests, “still a field in the making” (421), Barone (2009) argues that the presence of both commonalities and variegations is “a sign of the maturation of a field of study, one that refuses a tight set of methodological and definitional prescriptions, but that is still being tilled by members of a community of discourse who sense a certain degree of professional affinity” (152). The variegations may be obvious, but what are the commonalities? I offer five below. First, those engaged in narrative are socially situated researchers working within a larger interpretivist community of qualitative scholars. They share with other qualitative researchers and have inherited from them fundamental (though often contested) ontological and epistemological assumptions that are discussed in depth in other chapters in this Handbook (see Allsup, ­chapter 4) and elsewhere. For many, reality is a social

Narrative Inquiry  177 construction that is individually understood and therefore never completely knowable; the politics of meaning, the interplay of local concerns and global conditions, and the tensions arising from them are always in play. A child’s musical self evolves not only in her own backyard but also within larger social frames and cultural conditions; the lives of teachers continue to be complicated by politics and policies made by others for them and about them, but not with them; Rie continues to live her story as a transgender person within a changing social and political discourse about who others think she is or should be. Whatever narrative scholarship is, it falls within this basic interpretive, humanistic framework: the stories that are part of any narrative inquiry are stories of human experiences, stories of when, where, and how people are in the world, stories of self and sense, stories that are contested and contextualized. Those stories and the “sense” made from them are always provisional, always evolving. Second, narrative work occurs with living people, over time, face to face, and usually in the places where narrators or participants are. While this marker may sound typical of qualitative research in general, narrative emphasizes relationship and relationality. While relationality is “not the sole prerogative of narrative inquiry, [it is] a central tenet” (Barrett and Stauffer 2009, 12) that figures into narrative work in two ways. First, stories are relational phenomena—unique to the individual, constructed from her experiences, shared between teller and listener, and told in different ways depending on time and context as well as the relationship between speaker and listener. How you tell the story of your reading of this chapter (if you do) will change depending on who you tell the story to (a confidant, a colleague, an acquaintance, a family member), when you tell it (today, tomorrow, in a month, in a year, after your next study), and where you tell it (in a cab, over dinner, at a conference, in a class). In other words, storying occurs within a speaker-listener relationship located in time and place contexts. Further, once told, the story becomes part of the relationship, a reference point, part of the experiences and the story that the speaker and listener have together. If you tell the story of reading this chapter to the same person a second time, you will not tell it in the same way or for the same reasons. In narrative studies, researchers attend not only to the relationality of participants’ stories, but also to the qualities of their relationships with participants. One-time encounters are flimsy grounds for narrative work, for they afford insufficient time for understanding plight in the Brunerian pathway, insufficient time for developing a collaborative trusting relationship in the Clandinin and Connelly pathway, and insufficient time to grapple with nuances and paradoxes in the Barone pathway. In narrative studies, the researcher is personally engaged in an ongoing relationship of trust with the participants that affords them a space in which stories—including disturbing ones—can be told. In his description of his and a colleague’s research with the Goodhertz family, Bruner describes a moment in an uncomfortable conversation between two family members and notes, “Like anybody invested in keeping an atmosphere congenial I took advantage of the pause that ensued to announce that a new pot of coffee had arrived. I realized only later that I was ‘behaving family’ ” (1990, 126). Later, he notes, “When [my colleague] and I were vaguely invited by Mrs. Goodhertz to have an Italian dinner with

178   sandra l. stauffer them at home, we took it for the semiotic act that it was: we had become real people too, resident selves of the world that is ‘home’ ” (135). Relationality has to do with a third marker of narrative research: that is, the data are narrative, and may include written stories, letters, journals, photographs, artwork, and music, as well as spoken stories. These narrative data are usually not generated through questionnaires, open-ended responses, or even sets of interview questions. Bruner comments that the “recognition that people narrativize their experience of the world and of their own role in it has . . . forced social scientists to reconsider how they use their principle instrument of research—the interview” (115). He notes that while he and his colleague planned questions for their sessions with the Goodhertz family members, sessions sometimes extended for hours and unfolded in a conversational manner without any occasion to use the prompts (125). Similarly, Chase (1995) cautions against interviews that become interrogations. Such an approach is likely to elicit dry and hollow responses aimed at pleasing the researcher rather than narratives of experience. Instead, Chase challenges researchers to create relational and conversational conditions that invite the participants’ stories. Conversation rather than interrogation serves the narrative researcher well. The fourth marker of narrative studies—analysis or, better, interpretation—is a highly contested one within the narrative community. Polkinghorne’s (1995) distinction between narrative analysis and analysis of narratives provides an interesting starting point. In narrative analysis, the researcher re-stories narrative data into a plot, story, or stories consistent with narrative reasoning, whereas analysis of narratives is more consistent with paradigmatic reasoning and results in “descriptions of themes that hold across the stories or in taxonomies of types of stories, characters, or settings” (12). “In other words,” Polkinghorne writes, “analysis of narratives moves from stories to common elements, and narrative analysis from elements to stories” (12). The heart of the debate begins there. Scholars who use narrative within case studies and ethnographies may indeed code data and organize the report in various themes that emerge from the process. In Polkinghorne’s terms, they are conducting “analysis of narratives,” although that term is infrequently used, even in titles of articles and books explaining various procedures. Detractors of analysis of narratives argue that parsing and coding of stories is a reductionist treatment of narrative data that serves the researcher’s interests only and may render the participants’ meanings and even their stories invisible. Such practices are the antithesis of narrative knowing, they argue, and contrary to the relational ethic that underpins narrative inquiry. Rather than parsing and coding, other narrative scholars engage in analysis through reading the data and writing and rewriting narrative texts in a process that deepens and refines understanding with each pass—Polkinghorne’s “narrative analysis.” Matters of voice, plot, and other literary qualities become central in the writing-as-analysis process, which sometimes occurs with the participants instead of apart from them. Detractors of this approach argue that, narrative sensibilities aside, such processes are too intuitive. But St. Pierre counters, “writing is thinking, writing is analysis, writing is

Narrative Inquiry  179 indeed a seductive and tangled method of discovery” (in Richardson and St. Pierre 2005, 967, italics hers). Still other narrative researchers use a combination of these approaches and more, including techniques derived from discourse analysis. Numerous authors provide descriptions of interpretive processes from different positions in the debate, usually using the term narrative analysis (even when outlining what Polkinghorne would describe as analysis of narratives) or sometimes avoiding the word “analysis” altogether (e.g., Clandinin 2013; Daiute and Lightfoot 2004; Gubrium and Holstein 2012; Reissman 1993, 2008; Squire, Andrews, and Tamboukou 2008). Regardless of approach, interpretive processes are neither ready-formed nor linear, but rather invented within the context of each study and comprised of multiple recursive moves between data, work in the field, literature and theory, and writing. These recursive moves are interpretive ones, raising questions of whose interpretations or which interpretations matter. Most stories have multiple meanings, therefore multiple possible interpretations. While one interpretation may be different from another, one interpretation is not necessarily better than another. Cape and Nichols (2012) illustrate this quality of openness to multiple interpretations in an account of the stories of two women who served in military bands in the United States and Canada from World War II through 1961. They present an interpretation in which the women “carve out a place for themselves in a domain not accustomed to women,” thereby “[easing] the way for subsequent generations of female musicians” (29). However, during their recursive moves between participants, fieldwork, data, and writing, the women in their study suggest to Cape and Nichols that while this interpretation is indeed credible, their experience at the time was more of a “grand adventure” that continues to play out in their lives and which they recount with pride (33–34). Cape and Nichols present both interpretations in the published account, refusing to position one over the other. They challenge narrative scholars and their readers to “imagine the possibilities” and to remain “open to ambiguities” of multiple interpretive moves (35). The fifth marker of narrative inquiry has to do with writing, including qualities of writing and the ways in which narrative appears in published accounts. As illustrated by the examples in this chapter, the forms and formats for publishing narrative studies vary extensively. To be clear, there is no standard narrative article, chapter, or dissertation structure. At their most conservative, authors use formats similar to well-worn positivist articles, complete with headings and sections that begin with literature review and end with discussion. However, other structures are also common in the narrative literature, including forms in which storied passages are supported by essay or essay-like writing designed to engaged the reader in questioning. Such accounts include the voices of participants and researcher, as well as connections to the literature and theorizing moves, though not necessarily in any anticipated ordering or imposed structure. The writing in such accounts is literary, metaphoric, artful, but not at the expense of the detail required of scholars. Consider the passages of narrative included in this chapter, which are thick with detail communicated in artful ways. Honing writing ability is crucial. Narrative requires writing design choices—symbolism, plot, foreshadowing,

180   sandra l. stauffer juxtaposition, motif, turning point, dénouement. Narrative accounts include the voice of the author, but not at the expense of the participants’ voices, stories, and meanings. A researcher fully invested in the assumptions of narrative inquiry simply cannot write “my study,” “my data,” or “my participants.” Narrative researchers do not own the people, the data, or the research. Rather, narrative scholars live and study with those who choose to allow researchers to talk with them, listen to them, and hold up their stories for others to hear. Finally, narrative writing places faith in the reader, leaving open spaces for the reader to engage with the text and the story, to wonder and to question. There are no “conclusions,” and often no recommendations. In narrative scholarship, the reader is the author of what comes next. The five markers suggested above are full of internal tensions. Like good stories open to multiple interpretations, the pathways in narrative scholarship are not clearly hewn trails. So, how might narrative inquiry be assessed? Elsewhere, Margaret Barrett and I have written about narrative inquiry as resonant work comprised of four intertwined and inseparable qualities:  respect, responsibility, rigor, and resiliency (Stauffer and Barrett 2009; Barrett and Stauffer 2012). Respect has to do with the relational qualities of the narrative work. Beyond acts of deference and civility, narrative inquirers respect the integrity of narrator-participants as persons with stories and meanings of their own, told in their own languages and gestures that are deeply embedded in their lives and lifeways. Responsibility has to do not only with the procedural concerns and the obligation to demonstrate trustworthiness, but also with conscious and continuous attention to the well-being of the participants, one’s self, and the public good as well as one’s professional community, and to the potential impacts of inquiry throughout the immediate research process and beyond. Rigor in narrative research inheres not only in the attention to details throughout, but in the recursive shifting from fieldwork to literature to writing, and in the researcher’s ability to act reflexively, examining her own values, motivations, and assumptions at every turn. Rigor also has to do with purpose. Narrative inquiry in music education is not mere storytelling; rather narrative inquiry in music education is scholarly engagement with stories of experience as a means of interrogating critical matters in education, in music, in the world. Finally, resiliency has to do with the researcher’s ability to grapple with persistent questions and to be open to new means and meanings in thinking and practice while remaining grounded in the epistemological underpinnings of narrative. Rather than a way of doing, resonant work is as a way of being in narrative research—a conscious ethic enacted and embodied by narrative researchers. I suggest here that narrative accounts might be assessed with a view to the qualities of resonant work as well, and that the power of narrative inquiry lies, in part, in the ability of the researcher to do resonant work. Attending to the qualities of resonant work may help narrative inquirers avoid and address some of the criticisms leveled at narrative scholarship. One criticism is that narrative research and writing is a self-indulgent navel-gazing exercise. This occurs when narrative inquirers lose sight of the participants and become enamored with their own role in the study. Another criticism is that narrative research is an excuse for telling “nice” stories. This occurs when the researcher becomes more entranced by a story than

Narrative Inquiry  181 attentive to the experiences and meanings that stories represents. Another criticism is that narratives are valorizing tales. This occurs when narrative scholars essentialize participants or their stories through some poorly conceived notion of giving them voice without thinking about social and political contexts. Another reservation is that the stories people tell are things of the past, prone to misrememberings and fictionalizations, and therefore inappropriate grounds for scholarship in the first place. Narrative scholarship is not about measuring the accuracy of detail, but rather about the constructing of selves and meanings and lives in a world where ambiguity is the normal state of affairs. Still another criticism is that narrative research suffers from the tyranny of the local—a charge leveled at qualitative research in general. Yet what we know of the larger world we know through the particular instances of our own experiences. What readers gain from the particular stories of Johnny or Billy Charles or Rie or anyone is insight into larger questions and problems of the human condition. Why narrative, why now? Well-wrought critical stories raise questions that provoke readers to dig deep and think again, from a different perspective. Narrative scholarship can empower researchers, readers, and the participant storytellers to question, to think, to act, and to question yet again. The power of narrative inquiry lies in the possibility of troubling certainty, and once troubled, in the possibility of change.

Note 1. Thank you to Jeananne Nichols, University of Illinois, for critical commentary on drafts of this chapter.

References Andrews, M., C. Squire, and M. Tamboukou. 2008. Doing Narrative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bakhtin, M. 1975/1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bamberg, M. 2006. “Stories: Big or Small? Why Do We Care?” Narrative Inquiry 16: 147–55. Bamberg, M. and A. Georgakopoulou. 2008. “Small Stories as a New Perspective in Narrative and Identity Analysis.” Text and Talk 28: 377–96. Barone, T. 1989. “Ways of Being at Risk: The Case of Billy Charles Barnett.” Phi Delta Kappan 71(2), 147–51. Barone, T. 2000a. “Using the Narrative Text as an Occasion for Conspiracy.” In Aesthetics, Politics, and Educational Inquiry:  Essays and Examples, edited by T. Barone, 137–60. New York: Peter Lang. Barone, T. 2000b. “Beyond Theory and Method: A Case of Critical Storytelling.” In Aesthetics, Politics, and Educational Inquiry:  Essays and Examples, edited by T. Barone, 191–200. New York: Peter Lang. Barone, T. 2000c. “A Narrative of Enhanced Professionalism:  Educational Researchers and Popular Storybooks about Schoolpeople.” In Aesthetics, Politics, and Educational Inquiry: Essays and Examples, edited by T. Barone, 201–28. New York: Peter Lang.

182   sandra l. stauffer Barone, T. 2001. Touching Eternity: The Enduring Outcomes of Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. Barone, T. 2003. “Challenging the Educational Imaginary:  Issues of Form, Substance, and Quality in Film-Based Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 9: 202–17. Barone, T. 2007. “A Return to the Gold Standard? Questioning the Future of Narrative Construction as Educational Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 13: 454–70. Barone, T. 2008. “Creative Nonfiction and Social Research.” In Handbook of the Arts in Qualitative Research, edited by J. G. Knowles and A. L. Cole, 105–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Barone, T. 2009. “Commonalities and Variegations:  Notes on the Maturation of the Field of Narrative Research.” The Journal of Educational Research 103:  149–53. DOI: 10.1080/00220670903333189. Barone, T., and E. Eisner. 2006. “Arts-Based Educational Research.” In Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, edited by J. L. Green, G. Camilli, and P. B. Elmore, 95–109. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Barone, T., and E. W. Eisner. 2012. Arts-Based Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Barrett, M. S. 2009. “Sounding Lives in and through Music: A Narrative Inquiry of the ‘Everyday’ Musical Engagement of a Young Child.” Journal of Early Childhood Research 7: 115–34. Barrett, M. S. 2011. “Musical Narratives: A Study of a Young Child’s Identity Work in and through Music-Making.” Psychology of Music 39: 402–23. Barrett, M. S. 2012. “Preparing the Mind for Musical Creativity: Early Music Learning and Engagement.” In Musical Creativity:  Insights from Music Education Research, edited by O. Odena, 51–71. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing. Barrett, M. S., and S. L. Stauffer. 2009. “Narrative Inquiry: From Story to Method.” In Narrative Inquiry in Music Education: Troubling Certainty, edited by M. S. Barrett and S. L. Stauffer, 7–17. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Barrett, M. S., and S. L. Stauffer. 2012. “Resonant Work: Toward an Ethic of Narrative Research.” In Narrative soundings:  An anthology of narrative inquiry in music education, edited by M. S. Barrett and S. L. Stauffer, eds., 1–17. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Barthes, R. 1975. The Pleasure of the Text. Translated by R. Miller. New York: Hill and Wang. Barthes, R. 1977. “The Death of the Author.” In Images, music, text, edited by R. Barthes, 142–48). New York: Hill and Wang. Blair, D. 2009. “Nurturing Music Learners in Mrs. Miller’s ‘Family Room’:  A  Secondary Classroom for Students with Special Needs.” Research Studies in Music Education 31: 20–36. Bowman, W. 2006. “Why Narrative? Why Now?” Research Studies in Music Education 27: 5–20. Bruner, J. 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. 1987/2004. “Life a Narrative.” Social Research 71, 691–710. First published in Social Research 54 (Spring 1987). Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. 1991. “The Narrative Construction of Reality.” Critical Inquiry 18 (1): 1–21. Bruner, J. 2002. Making Stories:  Law, Literature, Life. Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. 2010. “Narrative, Culture, and Mind.” In Telling Stories: Language, Narrative, and Social Life, edited by D. Schiffrin, A. De Fina, and A. Nylund, 45–50. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Narrative Inquiry  183 Cape, J. and Nichols, J. 2012. “Engaging Stories: Constructing Narratives of Women’s Military Band Members.” In Narrative Soundings: An Anthology of Narrative Inquiry in Music Education, edited by M. S. Barrett and S. L. Stauffer, 21–35. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Chase, S. 1995. “Taking Narrative Seriously: Consequences for Method and Theory in Interview Studies.” In, Interpreting Experience: The Narrative Study of Lives,” vol. 3, edited by R. Josselson and A. Lieblich, 1–26. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chase, S. 2011. “Narrative Inquiry:  Still a Field in the Making.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 421–34. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Clandinin, D. J. 2006. “Narrative Inquiry: A Methodology for Studying Lived Experience.” Research Studies in Music Education 27: 44–53. Clandinin, D. J., ed. 2007. Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Clandinin, D. J. 2013. Engaging in Narrative Inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Clandinin, D. J., and F. M. Connelly. 1994. “Personal Experience Methods.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 413–27). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clandinin, D. J., and F. M. Connelly. 2000. Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clandinin, D. J., J. Huber, M. Huber, M.S. Murphy, A. M. Orr, M. Pearce, and P. Steeves,. 2006. Composing Diverse Identities: Narrative Inquires into the Interwoven Lives of Children and Teachers. New York: Routledge. Clandinin, D. J. and M. S. Murphy. 2009. “Comments on Coulter and Smith:  Relational Ontological Commitments in Narrative Research.” Educational Researcher 38: 596–602. Clandinin, D. J., M. S. Murphy, Huber, J. and Orr, A. M. 2009. “Negotiating Narrative Inquires: Living in a Tension-Filled Midst.” The Journal of Educational Research 103 (2): 81–90. Clandinin, D. J., D. Pushor, and A. M. Orr. 2007. “Navigating Sites for Narrative Inquiry.” Journal of Teacher Education 58: 21–35. Clandinin, D. J., and J. Rosiek. 2007. “Mapping a Landscape of Narrative Inquiry: Borderland Spaces and Territories.” In Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a Methodology, edited by J. D. Clandinin, 35–75. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Clandinin, D. J., P. Steeves, and V. Caine. 2013. Composing Lives in Transition: A Narrative Inquiry into the Experiences of Early School Leavers. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group Publishing. Connelly, F. M., and D. J. Clandinin. 2006. “Narrative Inquiry.” In Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, edited by J. L. Green, G. Camilli, and P. B. Elmore, 477–502. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Craig, C. J. 2009. The Contested Classroom Space: A Decade of Lived Educational Policy in Texas Schools. American Educational Research Journal 46: 1034–59. Craig, C. J. 2010a. “Evaluation Gone Awry”:  The Teacher Experience of the Summative Evaluation of a School Reform Initiative. Teaching and Teacher Education 26: 1290–99. Craig, C. J. 2010b. Research on the Boundaries: Narrative Inquiry in the Midst of Organized School Reform. The Journal of Educational Research 103: 123–36. Craig, C. J. 2012a. “Butterfly under a Pin”:  An Emergent Teacher Image amid Mandated Curricular Reform. The Journal of Educational Research 105: 90–101. Craig, C. J. 2012b. “Tensions in Teacher Development and Community:  Variations on a Recurring School Reform Theme.” Teachers College Record 114 (2). Online http://www.tcrecord.org.

184   sandra l. stauffer Daiute, C. and C. Lightfoot, eds. 2004. Studying the Development of Individuals in Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln. 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dickens, C. 1839/1950. The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Dickens, C. 1854/1955. Hard Times for These times. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ferguson, K. 2009. “Filtered through the Lens of Self: Experiences of Two Preservice Music Teachers.” In Narrative Inquiry in Music Education: Troubling Certainty, edited by M. S. Barrett and S. L. Stauffer, 87–106. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Georgakopoulou, A. 2006. “Thinking Big with Small Stories in Narrative and Identity Analysis.” Narrative Inquiry 16: 122–30. Georgakopoulou, A. 2013. “Small Stories and Identities Analysis as a Framework for the Study of Im/politeness-in-Interaction.” Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 9: 55–74. Goodson, I. 1980/1981. “Life histories and the study of schooling.” Interchange 4 (11): 62–76. Griffin, S. M. 2009. “Listening to Children’s Music Perspectives:  in- and out-of-School Thoughts.” Research Studies in Music Education, 31: 161–77. Griffin, S. M. 2011a. The Social Justice behind Children’s Tales of in- and out-of-school Music Experiences. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 188: 72–92. Griffin, S. M. 2011b. “Through the Eyes of children: Telling Insights into Music Experiences.” Visions of Research in Music Education 19. Retrieved from http://www-usr.rider.edu/vrme~/ Holstein, J. A., and J. F. Gubrium, eds. 2012. Varieties of Narrative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Huber, J., Murphy, M. S., and Clandinin, D. J. 2011. Places of Curriculum Making: Narrative Inquiries into Children’s Lives in Motion. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Iser, W. 1974. The Implied Reader. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Iser, W. 1980. “The Reading Process:  A  Phenomenological Approach.” In Reader-Response Criticism:  From Formalism to Post-Structuralism, edited by J. P. Thompkins, 50–69. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Iser, W. 1993. The Fictive and the Imaginary:  Charting Literary Anthropology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lewis, S. 1920. Main Street. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World. McAdams, D. P. 1993. The Stories We Live by:  Personal Myths and the Making of the Self. New York: William Morrow. McAdams, D. P. and Bowman, P. J. 2001. “Narrating Life’s Turning Points: Redemption and Contamination.” In Turns in the Road: Narrative Studies of Lives in Transition, edited by D. P. McAdams, R. Josselson, and A. Lieblich, 3–34. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McAdams, D. P. and Logan, R. L. 2006. “Creative Work, Love, and the Dialectic in Selected Life Stories of Academics.” Identity and Story: Creating Self in Narrative, 89–108. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Mishler, E. G. 1984. The Discourse of Medicine:  Dialectics of Medical Interviews. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Nichols, J. 2013, forthcoming. “Rie’s Story, Ryan’s Journey: Music in the Life of a Transgender Student.” Journal of Research in Music Education 61: 262–79.

Narrative Inquiry  185 Paugh, A. 2012. “Speculating about Work:  Dinnertime Narratives among Dual-Earner American Families.” Text and Talk 32: 615–36. Pinnegar, S., and J. D. Daynes. 2007. Situating Narrative Inquiry. In Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a Methodology, edited by J. D. Clandinin, 3–34. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pinnegar, S. and M. L. Hamilton. 2011, “Narrating the Tensions of Teacher Educator Researcher in Moving Story to Research.” In Narrative Inquiries into Curriculum Making in Teacher Education, Advances in Research on Teaching, vol. 13, edited by J. Kitchen, D. C. Parker, and D. Pushor 43–68. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Polkinghorne, D. E. 1988. Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press. Polkinghorne, D. E. 1995. “Narrative Configuration in Qualitative Analysis.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies 8: 5–23. Reissman, C. K. 1993. Narrative Analysis. Qualitative Research Methods Series. Vol. 30. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Reissman, C. K. 2008. Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Richardson, L., and E. A. St. Pierre. 2005. “Writing: A Method of Inquiry.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 959–78. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rutten, K. and R. Soetaert. 2013. “Narrative and Rhetorical Approaches to Problems of Education. Jerome Bruner and Kenneth Burke Revisited.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 32, 327–43. Saldaña, J. 2008. “Second Chair: An Autoethnodrama.” Research Studies in Music Education, 30 (2): 177–91. Squire, C., M. Andrews, and M. Tomboukou. 2008. “Introduction: What is Narrative Research?” In Doing Narrative Research, edited by M. Andrews, C. Squire, and M. Tamboukou, 1–21. London: Sage Publications. Stauffer, S. L. and M. S. Barrett. 2009. “Narrative Inquiry in Music Education: Toward Resonant Work.” In Narrative Inquiry in Music Education: Troubling Certainty, edited by M. S. Barrett and S. L. Stauffer, 19–29. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Updike, J. 1959. Pigeon Feathers and Other Stories. New York: Fawcett Books.

Chapter 11

Practitione r I nqu i ry janet robbins

11.1 Defining Qualities of Practitioner Inquiry As more teachers become researchers in their schools and classrooms, they explore innovative forms and formats for documenting classroom activities, interrogating conventional assumptions about the research itself, and questioning relationships between researchers and the researched. (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1993, 40)

Teachers who are researching their own practice are part of a “wonderful new breed of artists-in-residence” who are using their classrooms as settings for studying teaching and learning (Hubbard and Power 2003, xiii). They are practicing a form of educational research known as practitioner inquiry that involves systematic and intentional inquiry of their own practice and their students’ learning. Teacher research and action research are two of the more widely known approaches of practitioner inquiry, but the current landscape is now occupied by many versions and variants, such as participatory action research, self-study, and the scholarship of teaching (Cochran-Smith and Donnell 2006; Zeichner and Noffke 2002). This chapter will take an expanded view of practitioner inquiry to include multiple traditions being conducted by P–12 teachers, in-service teachers, teacher candidates, and teacher educators. Given the many genres of practitioner inquiry, it is not surprising that the answer to the question, “What is practitioner inquiry?” is complicated. The terminology alone can lead to boundary blurring: “terms like action research and teacher research have been widely appropriated and have come to mean many things as they are attached to various teacher learning initiatives and various educational purposes” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999a, 282). Despite the differences in the various genres of practitioner inquiry, there are several defining qualities that connect and cut across the multiple traditions.

Practitioner Inquiry  187 At the heart of all the intellectual traditions of practitioner inquiry is the assumption that teachers’ intimate knowledge of teaching provides an important “insider” perspective on teaching and learning. Researching teachers are in a sense negotiating the borders between research and practice in ways that raise questions about “what can be known about teaching, who can know it, how it can be known, and how that knowledge can be used” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993, 40). When teachers’ classrooms become inquiry sites for intentional and systematic inquiry of their own teaching and students’ learning, they become knowers and producers of knowledge rather than consumers of knowledge being worked out somewhere else by someone else. The dialogic relationship of inquiry and practice is another defining quality of practitioner inquiry. Teaching stimulates questions that prompt inquiry, working dialectically like “twins” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle). Research questions driving practitioner inquiry come from teachers’ observations and real-world dilemmas and often start with a feeling of tension or curiosity about students’ points of view (Hubbard and Power 2003). Odell (1987) suggests that a “sense of dissonance or conflict or uncertainty” is often the impetus for research questions (128). Most important, the research questions must come from teachers themselves and emanate from critical reflection on the intersections of theory and practice (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993). Ann Berthoff ’s idea of re-searching practice involves looking and looking again at what happens in the classroom. “We do not need new information; we need to think about the information we have. . . . to interpret what goes on . . . and interpret our interpretations” (1987, 30). Classrooms and rehearsals serve as laboratories for inquiry when teachers become students of teaching (Bullough and Gitlin 1995) who are open to new approaches, curious about students’ learning, and intent on understanding “both the impact and the limitation of what they are doing” (Perl and Wilson 1988, 252). Some practitioner research may look “remarkably similar to traditional forms of empirical or interpretative research,” while others may apply new and innovative data collection techniques (Noffke 2009, 7). Multiple “tools” are often used in some combination. Teacher and student journals, observational notes, anecdotal records, interviews, surveys, audio and video recordings, photographs, students’ work, and classroom artifacts are all of part of the “artist’s toolbox” that Hubbard and Power discuss in their chapter on strategies for data collection (2003). They borrow architectural images from Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier when discussing research design, encouraging consideration of similar principles of “form and function” that are “flexible and imaginative.” If research and teaching are indeed inextricably linked, then it is essential to consider what kinds of ingenious designs allow data collection and analysis to fit as naturally and organically as possible into teachers’ schedules and daily rhythms. Although there are many methodological choices, the research design involves deliberate rather than spontaneous action occurring within a cycle of problem-posing, application, and recasting practice. Data collection and analysis may vary according to theoretical frameworks but are closely tied to specific needs of students and core theories of teaching. “Teacher research doesn’t have to involve hundreds of students, establish control groups and perform complex statistical analyses; nor does it start with a

188   janet robbins hypothesis to test; instead teacher researchers begin with wonderings to pursue (Bissex 1987, 3). In the simplest sense, every lesson can be a form of inquiry, some further discovery, a “quiet form of research” (Britton 1987, 15). Practitioner inquiry is a collaborative enterprise aimed at social change. Knowledge about teaching and learning is constructed collaboratively by school-based teachers, administrators, university researchers, or parents and community activists (Cochran-Smith and Donnell 2006) working in the same school, across sites, in learning communities, and through networks of teachers. Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1993) work with school-university partnerships is an exemplar based on reciprocity and shared decision-making in which school- and university-based teachers move back and forth equitably within each other’s worlds, listening and learning from each other. Finally, practitioner inquiry can be a “path to empowerment” (Kinchloe 1991) when participants are mindful of the personal, professional, and political dimensions and purposes of practitioner inquiry (Noffke 2009). Such purposes reach beyond a “close-up” view of teaching in ways that challenge the status quo and taken-for-granted assumptions about forms of knowledge (Zeichner and Noffe 2002). Practitioner inquiry is aimed at “breaking the silence” and raising the voices of teachers and students at all levels in ways that are emancipatory and transformative (McDonald 1986).

11.2 Connecting to the Roots of Practitioner Inquiry A paradigm shift in the 1980s supported a different view of teacher—as knower, thinker, and re-searcher (Berthoff 1987) who did not necessarily need more findings about best practice produced by university-based researchers, but instead found greater relevance in dialogue with other teachers who would generate theories about teaching grounded in practice (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999). A  number of intellectual traditions and educational projects sparked renewed interest in action research and the emergence of the North American teacher research movement (Zeichner and Noffke 2002; Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999). Eleanor Duckworth’s (1987) notion of teaching as research opened the door for teachers to document their students’ work through observation and inquiry, which positioned them as expert knowers on their own students and classrooms (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1992, 16). Shulman’s work with the Carnegie Foundation was another initiative that supported teachers-as-knowers and as “authorities in their own right” (Leglar and Collay 2002, 856). To engage in excellent teaching, Shulman argued, was indeed a scholarly act (Shulman 2011, 3). Schön was another who changed the conversation in teacher education by extending Dewey’s notion of teachers as reflective practitioners (Leglar and Collay 2002, 859–60). The increased inclusion of inquiry-centered approaches in university methods courses as well as a growing acceptance of graduate-level research that

Practitioner Inquiry  189 used teacher research and action research methodologies provided momentum for the practitioner inquiry movement. All of these efforts to professionalize the teaching force emphasized teachers’ critical role in school change and educational reform. At the center of the reform are the varied traditions of the practitioner inquiry movement. Despite the different histories and purposes of these traditions, it is useful to note that action research, teacher research, self-study, and communities of practice all remain “grounded in a respect for the intellectual work of teaching, and all are concerned about the way professional and cultural discourses can distort teachers’ thinking and practice” (Rosiek and Atkinson 2005, 422).

11.2.1 Action Research Action research is an international movement with a long history and a host of predecessors (Noffke 1994). Many attribute the term “action research” to Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist who viewed action research as a way to “counteract racial prejudice, to reform agricultural practices, and to promote more democratic forms of leadership in the workplace (Zeichner and Noffke 301). Lewin was interested in improving the work of “ordinary people,” and his work at the Research Center for Group Dynamics at MIT in the 1940s represented a “radical new direction for research in psychology” (Somekh and Zeichner 2009, 8). Adelman’s (1993) discussion of the origin of action research is useful in linking Lewinian traditions of “action science” grounded in social psychology with concepts of educational action research (13). Corey was one of the first to use action research in education. He and colleagues at the Horace-Mann-Lincoln Institute of School Experimentation at Columbia University worked cooperatively with teachers and administrators in school districts across the United States in the late 1940s and 1950s (Zeichner and Noffke 2001, 301), advocating for teachers to conduct research on their own practices as one way to address the gap that existed between research and practice. A resurgence of action research in the 1970s and 1980s can be seen in the “teacher-as-research” movement spearheaded by Stenhouse and Elliott in the United Kingdom. The transformative intentions and a commitment to curriculum innovation and reform characterized the movement, and Stenhouse’s “democratizing research as a way to emancipate practitioners and genuinely improve practice” became a widely accepted premise of action research (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999, 16). Like Stenhouse, Elliott (2006) recognized the democratic nature of action research, promoting research in education shaped by practitioner’s practical theory and knowledge as opposed to research on education influenced by “spectator” theory (7). Participatory action research was another variant emerging in Australia as part of a “broad ranging movement toward collaborative curriculum planning” (Noffke 1994). The critical theory framework of participatory action research (Carr and Kemmis 1986) was reflective of Lewin’s emancipatory vision to improve students’ education and resist oppressive conditions in schools (Somekh and Zeichner 2009, 8).

190   janet robbins Despite variations in methodologies across the various iterations of action research, several common characteristics exist. Most notable is its cyclical design. Lewin’s early model of action research consisted of “moments of action” that proceeded in a spiral of steps: planning, action, observation, and reflection or evaluation of the result of the action (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988, 8). Elliott argued that action research was not a “unique research paradigm in terms of data collection methods” (Zeichner and Noffke 2001, 302) but rather a process of phases or cycles. Teachers would first identify a pedagogical aim or ideal; following that, they would gather and interpret evidence to examine the ways their practice was or was not consistent with realizing that aim; finally they would reflect on, develop, and test possible strategies and solutions (Elliott 2006). The overlapping of action and reflection were necessary for a flexible and responsive design aimed at studying change and the “intended and unintended consequences” of innovations and interventions teachers plan and carry out (Cain 2008, 284).

11.2.2 Teacher Research Tracing the roots of the teacher research movement, one finds a discourse dominated by “dissatisfaction with business as usual” and tensions related to the way university-generated research was assumed to encompass everything one needed to know about teaching (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2010). Reclaiming the Classroom (1987) by Goswami and Stillman and Seeing for Ourselves (1987) by Bissex and Bullock are two early publications that raised awareness of the ways teachers were posing and researching questions of practice and challenging the status quo. Many factors led to the emergence of the North American Teacher Research Movement in the 1980s (Zeichner and Noffke 2002, 303). Among those were the pioneering work of writing teacher Nancie Atwell (1989), who developed case studies on the teaching of writing with the Breadloaf Project and Patricia Carini’s documentary review process of children’s learning at the Prospect School and Center in Vermont (Carini 1986). Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s 1993 landmark book, Inside-Outside:  Teacher Research and Knowledge, provides a comprehensive view of the history and scope of teacher research traditions. Of particular interest is their working typology of teacher research that acknowledges varied genres and provides a broader view of the range of work taking place. Their analytical framework recognizes both classroom studies (empirical research) and teachers’ essays on school life (conceptual research) that are more theoretical and philosophical in nature. Vivian Paley’s The Girl with the Brown Crayon (1997) and Sylvia Ashton-Warner’s Teacher (1963) are examples of well-known, first-hand accounts of teachers’ struggles and solutions written by teachers. Teacher research is most often associated with classroom studies characterized by systematic and intentional inquiry. Intentionality “signals teachers’ deliberate and planned (rather than spontaneous) inquiry” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993, 23–24) that embodies a recursive process. Although not as cyclical in design as action research, Cochran-Smith

Practitioner Inquiry  191 and Lytle suggest that teacher research emerged from Lewin’s action research principles as well as Dewey’s vision of teachers as students of learning (9). Like its qualitative ancestor ethnography, data in teacher research come from multiple sources, including teacher journals, student logs, videotaped lessons, simple surveys, and interviews. Studies are often conducted by school-based teachers in collaboration with university-based colleagues and are shaped by teachers in ways that give the work a “distinctly grassroots character” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999, 16). The University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia area schools have a long-standing tradition of collaboration. Many of the teachers present their research at the Teacher Research Day that was established in 1986 as part of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annual Ethnography and Education Forum.

11.2.3 Self-Study Self-study is a form of practitioner inquiry conducted by teacher educators who, like classroom teacher researchers, question their teaching and critically reflect on their practice. The reflective practitioner movement prompted teacher educators to consciously engage in the study of their practice and their students’ learning in order to make sense of their teaching. Self-study is a “means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching” that draws upon Dewey’s concept of reflection; it should be purposeful, seek to solve a problem, and lead to a deeper understanding of students and practices, resulting in a view of new possibilities (Dinkleman 2003, 7). Two developments that influenced the emergence of self-study were the acceptance of qualitative research methods in education and new notions about the relationship between research and practice prompted by the action research movement (Bullough and Pinnegar 2001, 13). Many self-study researchers “moved into the area of self-study through [their] involvement in action research” (Samaras and Freese 2009, 5) and began doing research rather than simply teaching students to engage in research. Self-study emerged in the 1990s and gained momentum through a special interest group that formed within the American Educational Research Association in 1993. “The establishment of S-STEP [Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices] proved to be a significant turning point in creating a community of self-study researchers (Samaras and Freese 2009, 6). In 1996, the first Castle Conference in Castle, England, drew researchers together from around the world; it continues to be a valuable forum for exploring philosophy, methodologies, and self-study practices. Self-study “operates from the post-modern assumption that it is never possible to divorce the self from either the research process or from educational practice” (Cochran-Smith and Donnell 2006, 506). Knowledge production begins with thoughtful reflection on one’s own practice and questions that “arise from concerns about and interest in the self-as-teacher education in context, over time” (Bullough and Pinnegar 2001,15). The focus is not on the self per se, but on the “space between self and the practice engaged in” (Bullough and Pinnegar 2001, 15).

192   janet robbins Research tipping too far toward self and confessional reporting has little chance of generating conversations about broader issues or affecting change. Samaras and Freese (2009) posit that what distinguishes self-study from action research is a focus on who the researcher is more than what the researcher does with a focus on “reframing and reconceptualizing the role of the teacher” (5). Self-study can incorporate a number of qualitative research approaches such as biography, personal history, memory work, reflective portfolios, and narrative inquiry (Samaras and Freese 2009). Narrative accounts resembling essays found in the North American Teacher Research movement as well as the use of story and metaphor are sometimes used to “bring the discipline of teaching to life” (Loughran and Russell 2007, 225). The multiple methodologies and emphases within self-study research make it difficult to pin down a definition, although some argue that it is not possible or even desirable, since self-study’s inclusive nature is an important characteristic (Samaras and Freese 11; Bullough and Pinnegar 2001).

11.2.4 Communities of Practice An outlier among the previously discussed traditions of practitioner inquiry is a movement that involves teachers working in communities of practice. Rather than being characterized by a distinct research methodology, communities of practice draw from multiple approaches and radiate from a collective core. Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002) define communities of practice as “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion for a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Gruenhagen 2009, 145). Often tied to professional development, teacher inquiry groups are sometimes organized and led by P–12 teachers; in other instances they are initiated by administrators, university professors, or external facilitators. Whether the conversations spring up naturally within groups of teachers who share similar backgrounds and experiences or are guided by an external facilitator all teachers must function as “fellow learners rather than experts” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999a, 278). When professional development promotes inquiry and collaborative study of teaching and learning, it has the potential to foster “local teaching movements” that position teachers as leaders in their schools and communities, as well as change agents in the profession. Oral inquiry becomes a way for teachers to study their practice as they engage in conversations about teaching strategies, students’ work, or curriculum materials. Collaborative work goes beyond simply sharing stories when teachers shift from congenial but superficial conversations to dialogue that entails risk-taking and trust (Nelson et al. 2010). Teacher leaders can facilitate this shift by encouraging honest discussion about the complexities of teaching. “Even the act of struggling together at the same time in the same ways can help teachers master new practice” (Lieberman and Mace 2010, 78).

Practitioner Inquiry  193

11.3 A View of Practitioner Inquiry in Music Education Looking back at the literature in music education one finds several “early soundings” that signaled an interest in practitioner inquiry in music education. Pernecky’s article in a 1963 publication of the Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education may have been one of the first in a music education journal to raise consciousness about action research. His instructional piece describes how to conduct action research and outlines issues drawn from the work of action research pioneers Steven Corey and Abraham Schumsky. Another early voice was Paul Haack’s (1968). More than thirty years ago he warned of the wide gulf between research and practice and argued that teaching and research have a significant relationship; both involve problem-posing, formulation of a hypothesis, and a search for solutions. His ideas about the reciprocal nature of research and practice reflect a vision of practitioner inquiry that had yet to emerge in music education. Fast-forward to the first Qualitative Research Methodologies Conference held at the University of Illinois in 1994 for a glimpse of the conversations and presentations about action research and teacher research that were taking place. A subsequent BCRME publication featuring roundtable papers (Hookey, Miller, Robbins, Wiggins 1994/1995) and several keynote addresses by Liora Bresler and Fred Erickson provide further evidence that the qualitative umbrella was opening up to include teacher research and action research alongside phenomenology and ethnography (Bresler 1994/1995). The time had come to create “new structures” that would bridge the gap between research and practice (Reimer 1992). Today the view of practitioner inquiry in music education looks a bit like a crazy quilt with multiple layers and levels of inquiry taking place. Although the methodological boundaries between action research and teacher research are somewhat unclear, the personal and professional dimensions of practitioner inquiry are evident and many iterations of collaboration exist in practitioner inquiry in music education. Some studies are reminiscent of Britton’s “quiet form of research,” with teaching and inquiry living side by side; others are more complex and larger in scope.

11.3.1  Focusing Questions By looking at the focusing questions of studies in music education one begins to gain a sense of “where the action is” (Erikson 1994/1995) and the ways teachers’ inquiry is situated at the intersection of theory and practice. When a teacher asks, “What will happen if I use journals in my middle school instrumental class?” she might also be asking, “What will writing about music reveal about students’ musical knowledge and development?” The following questions and topics are used to frame a view of selected studies in music education.

194   janet robbins Learning from students’ points of view. Several studies used writing to look at student learning in the general music class, tapping into the legacy of so many writing teachers who recognize that writing is a way for students to express ideas and feelings and generate meaning (Berthoff 1987). An investigation by Eichenlaub (1996) involved integrating dialogue journals at the end of music classes with her fourth-grade students over a six-month period. Her analysis of students’ writing revealed what students were learning and struggling with and gave her an up-close view of how children articulate multiple ways of knowing in music. The journals were not only a tool for assessment but also a window on students’ interests that allowed her to see them as individuals. After thirty years of teaching, she found herself assuming a new role as learner in her classroom. Itinerant teacher Heidi Dunkle designed a similar study of fourth-grade students’ writing (Robbins, Burbank, and Dunkle 2006). The primary purpose was to investigate what students were learning and what was important to them; Dunkle was curious about what she would learn from one-on-one communication with students through journal exchanges. Borrowing from Thompson’s “Letters to a Math Teacher” (1990), she invited students to write letters about each music class over a six-week period. Her researcher journal and videotaped lessons provided additional data. The recursive nature of the inquiry was evident as she adjusted writing prompts in response to students’ questions and moved conversations about music and music-making to the center of her teaching. “I learned not only about how my students learn, but also about how I teach and how I influence them in ways I had never imagined” (2006, 65). Reflective writing was the focus of “teacher inquiry” with middle school instrumental students (Reynolds and Beitler 2007). Beitler’s interests in reflective practice became the “cornerstone” of her professional development plan and partnership grant that supported writing across the curriculum. Beitler initiated a two-phase project: the first phase involved integrating reflective writing into her middle school instrumental classes following weekly group lessons. The second phase was dedicated to data analysis and reflecting on the research process through journal writing and conversations with her university-based collaborator. Although it was time-consuming for Beitler to read and reflect on so many students’ reflective responses, she found journaling to be a “fair trade” for what she was learning about students’ needs. Students’ reflections “spurred decisions to review or re-teach” portions of her lessons and reexamine her assumptions about students (62). Unexpected benefits of her study included the collaborative exchange of ideas, which in turn led to reinterpreting and reframing practice. What do students value about participation in music class? Because music is often an elective course, recruiting and retaining students in classes and ensembles is part of the music teacher’s job. It is not surprising that research questions grow out of a curiosity about why students participate and what students might say “in their own words” about their “lived” experience. A study that looked at participation in choir (Conway and Borst 2001) was sparked by the teacher’s (Borst) puzzlement about attrition when choristers from his middle school did not return for choir in 10th grade. This tension led to an investigation of the factors and influences motivating students’ decisions to enroll. Six students and their parents elected to participate in a series of face-to-face and/or phone

Practitioner Inquiry  195 interviews in this collaborative action research study. Seven categories related to students’ perspectives on and reasons for participation in choir emerged, the most prominent being “social aspects,” “personal gain,” and “entertainment.” Borst’s discussion of future plans to implement more opportunities for students to socialize in music class reflects a cyclical action research process of planning, action, and recasting practice. Understanding the phenomenon of social belonging was the focus of Parker’s study with her high school choirs (2010). She wanted to learn more about the factors that comprise students’ approach to ensemble music-making and membership and reflect on her role in supporting students’ sense of belonging at school. Parker used a “purposive” sampling method to select 26 students in her high school choral program for the study, encouraging participation from students who had already manifested a strong sense of belonging during informal conversations. Data included her researcher journal and seven small-group interviews that took place during student lunch periods in the chorus room. Her systematic and intentional design included triangulation and member checking. Excerpts from interviews with students were used to illuminate five themes of social belonging that emerged. “What if ” questions of practice. Several studies emerged from “what if ” questions that prompted teachers to study student engagement and response to specific instructional strategies and curriculum innovation. Hookey’s research is an extension of Bresler’s (1993) ethnographic study of non-specialists’ use of music in the elementary school. The central question of Hookey’s research (1994/1995) was: “What would it mean to have a music specialist work in a consultative manner with classroom teachers?” (39). She describes her shift in role from music teacher to consultant who worked with two generalist teachers to plan and implement music in their classrooms. Together they met for pre-observation planning sessions and follow-up conferencing to reflect upon and analyze videotaped teaching episodes. What stand out in her report are the collaborative process and the storied approach to curriculum planning that unfolded when she (as music specialist) was “linked” to classroom teachers to bring music into the general classroom. Several studies by Miller (2003, 1996, 1994/1995) explored what a collaborative curriculum might look like when music is integrated into whole language classrooms. Miller was curious about the possibilities for “authentic intersections” between music and core curriculum, student learning in music and across disciplines, student enthusiasm and engagement, and the influence of integrated pedagogies on classroom teachers’ perceptions of music. Her willingness to press herself beyond what she already knew and engage in systematic inquiry about what she did not know is reflective of an inquiry stance (Ashburn 1995, 84). All of Miller’s studies used qualitative methods of observations, journaling by collaborating teachers, and videotaping to collect data. Her use of a “critical friend” (Costa and Kallick 1993) points to the important role of collaboration when teachers plan, implement, and research curriculum together. Another focus of several studies involved children’s compositional thinking and the teacher’s role in facilitating composing in the classroom (Wiggins 1999/2000; Wiggins 1995; Wiggins 1994/1995; Wiggins 1994). Wiggins’s dissertation research (1993) was one

196   janet robbins of the first, if not the first, teacher-research dissertations in the United States. Wiggins studied the processes her fifth-grade students used when working together to solve compositional problems. Data were drawn from videotapes of class sessions, as well as audio data from two targeted children who wore lapel microphones and small tape recorders. Additional data included interviews with target children and their parents, researcher field notes, and artifacts from lessons. Wiggins’ close-up view of her students’ compositional decision-making transformed her teaching and thinking about the important role of shared musical understanding in empowering students’ independent musical thinking. Miller’s (2004) study grew out of her interest in discovering ways to incorporate composition into her weekly 30-minute music classes. Questions of implementation were studied with multiple data that included her teacher-research journal of observations, videotaping of the composing process and performances, “member checking” that included student feedback on “critique papers” (self, group, and project) as well as videotaped verbal critique. The research informed her thinking about the possibilities for constructing curriculum that incorporates improvisational and compositional tasks that are developmental, spiral, and individualized in nature. Strand (2003; 2005) was interested in studying how children transfer conceptual learning in music to composing tasks. Her action research involved designing and field-testing a curriculum with eight students, ages 9–12, during a four-week summer enrichment program. Data included written lesson plans, video recordings of lessons, researcher field notes, audio recordings, and students’ composition artifacts. Her discussion of the ways the reflective spiral design involved generating, modeling, and mediating ideas in her teaching illuminates the recursive nature of action research. Strand (2009) also published a narrative analysis and critique of a wide range of action research studies on teaching composition that were taking place internationally. On becoming reflective practitioners. The idea that “reflection is central to the concept of teacher as inquirer” (Leglar and Collay 2002, 860) has prompted a variety of reflective practices in music teacher education. Journals and autobiographical essays are being implemented to jog students’ memories about beliefs about “good” teaching that were formed during their “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie 1975). Students work collaboratively to plan, teach, and reflect on practice in ways that promote the construction of knowledge about teaching. With inquiry approaches moving to the center of methods courses and teaching internships, one finds studies of the ways preservice music teachers are beginning to act and think like researching teachers. Preparing preservice teachers to conduct research was the focus of two studies. Conway (2000) was one of the first to document the application of action research in preservice music teacher preparation. Her recognition of the usefulness of action research in general classrooms prompted her to introduce several action research “lessons” in a three-credit methods course that was required for music education students. Four examples of students’ mock action research studies are discussed. Strand (2006) introduced students to action research methods in a two-semester sequence that

Practitioner Inquiry  197 involved introduction to action research during a general methods course, followed by implementation of projects with cooperating teachers in a subsequent semester. Most of the novice teacher-researchers focused their inquiry on cooperating teachers’ strategies; only one examined the efficacy of an instructional strategy she wanted to try. Strand’s discussion of students’ “fledging attempts” provides insight into the rewards and challenges. Walls and Samuels (2011) used a collaborative action research design to study the use a strategy involving students as collaborators in designing observation instruments to assess teaching. Data included analysis of students’ course assignments, instructor journals, and interviews with students. Through individual and collaborative reflection, both researchers found that students took ownership of and greater interest in observation and recognized important connections between observation instruments and improving practice. Students were empowered “to think as innovators and leaders” as they shifted from “student-type thinking to teacher-type teaching” (33).

11.3.2 Self-Study in Music Teacher Education Although the term “self-study” is rarely used in music education, it is worth noting that some research in music teacher education is moving in the direction of self-study. In the past two decades, scholarship undertaken by music teacher educators has been fueled by the revitalization of the Society for Music Teacher Education and its biennial symposia and accompanying strategic “action groups” (ASPAs). The Instrumental Music Teacher Educators (IMTE) Colloquium and the Mountain Lake Colloquium are two other forums that have prompted conversations and scholarship on music teaching and learning. Five volumes of The Mountain Lake Reader (1997–2010) feature music teacher education scholarship in the form of essays that embody some of the qualities of self-study. A general methods course was the setting for an examination of general music methods students’ “in-flight” decision-making (Robbins 1999). Robbins’s essay opens with her deliberating over course content and requirements in search of ways to help students become more competent in their weekly teaching practicum. The recognition that I had, to a great degree, ignored the thousands of interactive decisions that my preservice teachers were making and missing led to a minor yet significant adjustment in my own plan (26).

A small change of plan to encourage “in-flight” decision-making led to new insights about students’ fear of “letting go” of their plans and losing control of the lesson. Analysis of students’ reflective writing led to a discovery of students’ tensions between planning and teaching and Robbins’ own growing awareness of the ways prescriptive planning models limit rather than liberate her students as artist-teachers. Mills’ (2001) study of a music course for elementary education majors begins with an autobiographical voice that often characterizes self-study. A past experience led her to wonder how she might help her elementary education students begin to see themselves

198   janet robbins as musicians. Students’ reflective writing led to the realization that “something was missing in their backgrounds” (18). . . . I  focused my concern on the following question:  How could I  teach the basic musical skills and concepts necessary for an elementary educator when students rejected themselves as musicians? (19).

Her semester-long journey with elementary preservice teachers as she plotted a new course brings to life the ways she adjusted course outcomes and source materials to include world music repertoire (19), collaborating with students in ways that “forever changed [her] perspective” (20). Another project that moves in the direction of self-study is a collaborative investigation by Cooper and Berger (2004). Theirs is a story of two graduate students studying themselves as researchers and writers. They formed a learning community of two in order to systematically and intentionally connect through a process they describe as “negotiated thought.” Their collaboration included shared texts and time for “critical conversations” that led to growth as researchers and writers. Their interest in “making their own thinking public” (75) looked not only at their present practice but beyond to the kind of graduate classes they aspire to in future teaching. Barrett’s (2007) study of a graduate class makes explicit her “pedagogical moves” as she redesigned a qualitative research methods course (QRME) to include more active engagement with the research process. After teaching QRME only once before, I resolved to tip the balance from my previous emphasis on learning about qualitative research to active engagement in qualitative research (420).

Data for this “pedagogical action research” were drawn from in-class discussions, students’ written assignments, final projects, and end-of-semester reflections. A dual focus on her teaching and her students’ “resultant insights to analyze and interpret qualitative data” (420) is instructional on multiple levels. The narrative account takes the reader inside a sequence of assignments—what Barrett calls “five-movements”—to view graduate students working collaboratively as Barrett witnesses the complexities of teaching qualitative research.

11.3.3 Communities of Practice Within music education, several studies are illustrative of practitioner inquiry taking place in learning communities. A study by Montgomery, deFrece, and Robinson (2007) involved an on-campus collaborative inquiry group made up of five mentor teachers “in partnership with three elementary music education professor-researchers” (231). A primary purpose was to examine the student teaching practicum experience through the

Practitioner Inquiry  199 eyes of the mentor teacher; university researchers also wanted to find an auxiliary model for connecting to and honoring the work of mentor teachers. The collaborative inquiry group became the context for examining the experiences of music mentor teachers as well as the role of collaborative inquiry. Analysis of group conversations, interviews with mentor teachers, and e-mail exchanges revealed the benefits, goals, and tensions experienced by the mentor teachers and also the potential for collaborative inquiry groups to level the playing field for university and mentor teachers engaged in the student teaching process. As the director of an early childhood program in a community music school, Gruenhagen (2008; 2009) studied teachers’ “collaborative conversations” during monthly meetings that took place over one academic year. The primary purpose was to understand the extent to which teachers’ conversations might function as a form of “collaborative professional development.” Gruenhagen’s research presents a “case” of eleven teachers who participated in teacher-centered, collaborative professional development that led to “understanding, articulating, and ultimately altering practice and social relationships” (2008, 281). What distinguishes this research as practitioner inquiry is its reliance on oral inquiry within a “community of practice” that involved all members (including the facilitator) as learners. Stanley (2009) facilitated a collaborative teacher study group (CTSG) for the purpose of creating a “different kind of professional development for teachers” (3). This social constructivist inquiry looked at collaboration on two levels: in the teacher study group and also in the elementary music classroom. Three teachers joined Stanley for weekly meetings that involved looking in on and analyzing video of each other’s lessons in a “non-hierarchical community.” Teachers took turns leading discussion using an analysis protocol to support teachers’ conversations about challenges related to applying student-initiated cooperative learning approaches. Stanley analyzed interviews, video records, and artifacts from the CTSG meetings and her teacher log to “tease out” the ways teachers were affected by the CTSG. Her research supports the democratic values associated with practitioner inquiry and supports teachers’ honest talk about teaching tensions. Several studies of teacher inquiry groups involved supporting inservice teachers’ efforts to conduct research in their classrooms. The Orff SPIEL collaborative (Schulwerk Project: Implementing Eastman’s Levels) was a group of teachers who volunteered to participate in a three-year project designed to support the implementation of what they were learning in the two-week summer Orff Schulwerk courses. Teachers met throughout the school year and during the summer course to share ideas from their classrooms and talk about challenges they faced as they explored new approaches with their students. Teachers also read several texts related to conducting teacher research and subsequently identified questions they wanted to pursue for systematic and intentional inquiry in their own classrooms in year three. Eichenlaub’s research with her 4th grade students (previously discussed) is one published example. A study by Roulston et  al. (2005) involved the development of a collaborative teacher-research group made up of university educators and early-career elementary music teachers. A question for the university-based researchers was “how, and in what ways might a teacher-research community contribute to the professional development of early-career elementary music teachers” (4). A unique aspect of this study involved

200   janet robbins coaching early-career elementary music teachers in the use of action research over the course of one year. Excerpts from interviews with teachers and transcriptions of the collaborative meetings bring early-career teachers’ voices into view as they reflect on the benefits and challenges of conducting action research. The addition of university-based researchers’ reflections on their interactions and roles as members of the teacher-research group creates a polyvocal texture to the descriptions of learning taking place.

11.4 Contemporary Critiques and Challenges Although there are many shared values that unite the various genres of practitioner inquiry, a number of issues and challenges continue to create a divide with traditional forms of research. Cochran-Smith and Donnell (2006) identify several common critiques of practitioner inquiry. The knowledge critique argues that the kind of personal-practical knowledge generated by researching teachers does not contribute to the professional knowledge base on teaching and that the small, single-site samples that characterize practitioner inquiry lack rigor and are not generalizable. The science critique relates to practitioners’ lack of requisite skills and background to conduct research in any objective way in their own classrooms. A counter to the science critique is that teachers bring a different way of knowing to the knowledge base on teaching that “comes through closeness as well as distance, through intuition as well as logic” (Bissex 1987, 3). Practitioner inquiry is not less than but different from traditional research. Teacher inquiry can provide “insight into the particulars of how and why something works and for whom it works within the context of particular classrooms” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993, 15). Not intended to be generalizable, practitioner inquiry findings are often transferable in ways that can provide an important lens on issues taking place at the ground level with a “potential to move outside to influence schools, communities, and new policies of practice” (Schmidt and Robbins 2011, 100). Another critique claims that practitioner inquiry is more like professional development than research and it challenges the idea of equating teachers’ beliefs and experiences with knowledge. Of concern are forms of practitioner inquiry that are too personal (Cochran-Smith and Donnell 2006, 514). One could argue that there is nothing wrong with self-discovery, but practitioner inquiry can and should be much more than that. What is missing from some of the reported studies is a close examination of the impact of practitioner inquiry on personal belief structures and transformation of practices. An examination of the distinct educational purposes of the many versions and variants of practitioner inquiry in music education will be necessary in order to prevent it from becoming “anything and everything” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999, 17).

Practitioner Inquiry  201 Another critique relates to democratic validity—the extent to which the research is done in collaboration with all parties who have a stake in the problem under investigation. Erikson (1994/1995) addresses the complexity of power relationships when “doing collaborative action research” (11). In some instances, action research is directed and carried out by a school-based teacher; in other cases, the university researcher is primarily in charge of posing the questions and conducting the research. These two extremes represent very different relations among knowers and whose knowledge matters. Like Erikson, Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) point out that not all instances of “collaboration” serve the same purposes or are “connected to the same larger social and political agendas” (59). In addition to external critiques, internal obstacles such as school structures also create challenges. Researching teachers need time to observe students, conduct interviews, and gathering supporting artifacts. “Finding the requisite time for such work is of particular relevance to music teachers who invariably work with large numbers of students, often in back-to-back lessons, and commonly coordinate regular performances” (Roulston et al. 2005, 15). Finding time to collaborate is another problem. School schedules typically do not provide time for teachers to meet, talk, and reflect. Too often, music teachers’ packed schedules isolate them from colleagues and limit opportunities for professional interaction and collaboration. Isolation perpetuates images of teaching as a solo enterprise and discourages the kinds of conversations about teaching dilemmas that define teacher inquiry. The work of researching teachers is also challenged when a school culture views uncertainty and critical questions as a sign of weakness or worse, failing. “Going public with questions, seeking help from colleagues, and opening up one’s classroom to others go against the norms of appropriate teaching behavior” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1992, 303). Teachers’ intimate knowledge of the uncertainties about teaching are the very thing that is missing from both our theories and our research (McDonald 1986). Imagine the shift in conversation if teachers were to raise questions rather than grow silent when they recognize uncertainty. “Knowledge about teaching might begin to ripple out in ever widening circles, moving from inside to outside, and create a very different dynamic between teaching and research” (Robbins, Burbank, and Dunkle 2006, 68). Finally, much of the work of P–12 practitioner researchers is only accessible through district-wide networks, newsletters, or at regional conferences and presentations and remains part of a “fugitive literature” (Zeichner and Noffke 2002, 304). To some extent the science critique continues to be a silencing factor that has prevented practitioner inquiry from being widely published or publicly presented in national and international forums. Most of the reported practitioner inquiry in music education is presented or published by university-based teachers, leaving many P–12 teachers’ voices on the fringe.

11.5 On the Move How can practitioner inquiry move the profession forward and how can we move forward in our thinking about research on, for, and of teaching? “The problem is not

202   janet robbins research itself, but who owns it” (Reimer 2009, 261). Reimer discusses the imbalance between research and practice, who conducts research, and whose questions are posed. He also addresses issues of proximity created by researchers who are “close” compared to those who are “removed” from the context of music teaching and learning. Although he warns against moving too far from current practice, he does suggest that “we must move significantly toward redressing the present imbalance” (263).

11.5.1 Taking a New Stance In order for practitioner inquiry to inform and transform practice in music education, it needs to involve more than short-term projects. Inquiry as stance is a concept that reflects the idea of “inquiry as perspectival and conceptual” and is distinct from the “more common notion of inquiry as a time-bounded project or discrete activity within a teacher education course or professional development workshop” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999a, 289). Because practitioner inquiry resides at the intersection of theory and practice, teachers become “theorists” when they reconstruct practice as inquiry across the professional life span. A move in this direction has greater potential to reposition music teachers as learners and leaders in the profession.

11.5.2 Voices, Venues and Visibility If knowledge about teaching is “fluid and socially constructed” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993), then we have a great deal to learn from teachers’ lived experiences. What do teachers know? What challenges do they face? How do they puzzle over pedagogical decisions? What can they tell us about why some children flounder and some flourish? What might we learn from teachers’ knowledge, and how might we include their voices in the conversations about music teaching and learning? “New ways to communicate about research are still very much needed—ones that recognize and value multiple ways of knowing and forms of theorizing and that assume all education work, whether in P–12 classrooms or university research centers, is a form of practice with political implications” (Zeichner and Noffke 2002, 310). New venues and networks in music education are needed to make public the work of researching teachers. Regional and national conferences might include a teacher research day similar to the one established by Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Susan Lytle more than thirty years ago as part of the Ethnography and Education Forum at the University of Pennsylvania. Published accounts of practitioner inquiry are another way to increase the visibility of work taking place. The Practitioner Inquiry Series is one model that includes “rich insider accounts of the complex, day-to-day work of educational practice as well as how practitioners theorize and understand their work from the inside” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2009, x).

Practitioner Inquiry  203

11.5.3 New Roles and Partnerships How might we recast the work of practitioner inquiry within a culture of collaboration as opposed to one dominated by isolation and competition? When teachers learn “in communities” they also recreate “inquiry communities” in their own classrooms. Current initiatives in preservice music teacher education point to movement in this direction already taking place, along with partnerships between mentor and pre-service teachers. Such efforts need to continue in order to create and sustain greater ownership and equity among all stakeholders. Self-study is another dimension of practitioner inquiry worthy of further attention. Teacher educators who study their own practice are in a sense “walking the walk” as reflective practitioners, continually studying their teaching and students in an effort to “create and recreate teacher education as a living educational theory” (Hamilton and Pinnegar 2000, 239). When teacher educators model reflective practices for and with their students they make visible the very uncertainties and complexities of teaching that preservice teachers need to recognize in order to move beyond simple memorization and “enacting” procedures. Reimer (2009) calls for more research training at the undergraduate level, not only involving students in thinking about research issues and techniques but also learning how to conduct research. What would this look like? In addition to final-semester action research projects, preservice teachers could be introduced to inquiry approaches in a number of ways throughout their programs. Possibilities might include working in cohorts to study classrooms and document students’ learning, collaborating on designing lessons and sharing analyses of repertoire, and joining host teachers for online reflections about observations of music teaching and learning. Establishing early habits of working collaboratively in inquiry communities would be one way to prepare teachers for an inquiry stance across the professional life span.

11.5.4 Minding the Gap Practitioner inquiry not only challenges traditional views about the relationship of knowledge and practice and the roles of teachers in educational change, it also promises to bridge the divides that have too long existed between teachers and researchers and address the problem that knowledge about teaching resides “elsewhere” (Boomer 1987, 8). Cochran-Smith and Lytle call for a “renegotiation of the boundaries of research and practice and reconfiguration of relationships inside and outside schools and universities, all in the interest of school and social change” (2009, vii). One way to move forward is for university- and school-based teachers to continue working collaboratively toward change. “The power to liberalize and reinvent notions of teaching, learning, and schooling is located in neither the university nor the school but in the collaborative work of the two” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993, 284).

204   janet robbins Practitioner inquiry has the potential to link teaching and curriculum to wider political and social issues. “When this happens teacher research creates a dissonance, often calling attention to the constraints of the hierarchical arrangements in schools and universities . . .” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999, 22). Such a dissonance can be energizing and necessary for change. In music education we can listen for and look forward to more dissonance created by researching teachers, and regard this as a signal of music educators who are “on the move” and more mindful of the gap between research and practice.

References Ashburn, Elizabeth. 1995. “Teacher-Led Inquiry: A Compelling Direction for the Education of Teachers.” Action in Teacher Education 17 (3): 79–86. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Adelman, Clem. 1993. “Kurt Lewin and the Origins of Action Research.” Educational Action Research 1 (1): 7–24. Atwell, Nancie, ed. 1989. Coming to Know:  Writing to Learn in the Intermediate Grades. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Barrett, Janet. 2007. The Researcher as Instrument: Learning to Conduct Qualitative Research through Analyzing and Interpreting a Choral Rehearsal. Music Education Research 9 (3): 417–33. Berthoff, Ann. 1987. “The Teacher as Researcher.” In Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research as an Agency for Change, edited by Dixie Goswami and Peter Stillman, 28–39. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook. Bissex, Glenda. 1987. “What is a Teacher-Researcher?” In Seeing for Ourselves:  Case-Study Research by Teachers of Writing, edited by Glenda Bissex and Robert Bullock, 3–5. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Bissex, Glenda and Robert Bullock, eds. 1987. Seeing for Ourselves:  Case-Study Research by Teachers of Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Boomer, Garth. 1987. “Addressing the Problem of Elsewhereness: A Case for Action Research in Schools.” In Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research as an Agency for Change, edited by Dixie Goswami and Peter Stillman. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook. Bresler, Liora. 1994/1995. “Teacher Knowledge: A Framework and Discussion.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 123, 26–30. Bresler, Liora. 1995. “Ethnography, Phenomenology and Action Research in Music Education.” Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning 6 (3): 4–16. Britton, James. 1987. “A Quiet Form of Research.” In Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research as an Agency for Change, edited by Dixie Goswami and Peter Stillman, 13–19. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook. Bullough, Robert, and Andrew Gitlin. 1995. Becoming a Student of Teaching: Methodologies for Exploring Self and School Context. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Bullough, Robert, and Stefinee Pinnegar. 2001. “Guidelines for Quality in Autobiographical Forms of Self-Study Research.” Educational Researcher 30 (3): 13–21. Cain, Tim. 2008. “The Characteristics of Action Research in Music Education.” British Journal of Music Education 25 (3): 283–313.

Practitioner Inquiry  205 Carini, Patricia. 1986. Prospect’s Documentary Processes. Bennington, VT: Prospect Center and School. Carr, Wilfred, and Stephen Kemmis.1986. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Kelly Donnell. 2006. “Practitioner Inquiry:  Blurring the Boundaries of Research and Practice.” In Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, edited by Judith Green, Gregory Camilli, and Patricia Elmore, 503–18. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan Lytle. 1993. Inside outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan Lytle. 1999. “The Teacher Research Movement: A Decade Later.” Educational Researcher 28 (7): 15–25. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan Lytle. 1999a. “Relationships of Knowledge and Practice: Teacher Learning in Communities.” Review of Research in Education 24: 249–305. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan Lytle. 2009. Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation. New York: Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan Lytle. 2010. “Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation.” Keynote Address for the 31st Ethnography and Education Forum. University of Pennsylvania. Accessed via iTunes U Collections. Conway, Colleen. 2000. “The Preparation of Teacher-Researchers in Pre-Service Teacher Education.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 9 (2): 22–30. Conway, Colleen, and James Borst. 2001. “Action Research in Music Education.” Update: Application of Research in Music Education 19 (3): 3–8. Costa, Arthur, and Bena Kallick. 1993. “Through the Lens of a Critical Friend.” Educational Leadership 51 (2): 49–51. Cooper, Shelly, and Audrey Berger. 2004. “Negotiated Thought: Joining Individual Voices in Co-Authorship.” Mountain Lake Reader (3): 72–75. Dinkelman, Todd. 2003. “Self-Study in Teacher Education:  A  Means and Ends Tool for Promoting Reflective Teaching.” Journal of Teacher Education. 54 (6): 6–18. Eichenlaub, Rosemary. 1996. “Journaling in Music: A Different Kind of Assessment.” The Orff Echo 28 (20): 36–41. Elliott, John. 2006. “Educational Research as a Form of Democratic Rationality.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 40 (2): 169–85. Erikson, Frederick. 1994/1995. Where the Action Is: Collaborative Action Research in Education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 123: 10–25. Goswami, Dixie, and Peter Stillman, eds. 1987. Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research as an Agency for Change. Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann. Gruenhagen, Lisa Marie. "Investigating Professional Development:  Early Childhood Music Teacher Learning in a Community of Practice." Order No. 3295323, University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music, 2008. http://search.proquest.com/docview/304314947?accoun tid=2837. Gruenhagen, Lisa. 2009. “Developing Professional Knowledge about Music Teaching and Learning through Collaborative Conversations.” In Research Perspectives:  Thought and Practice in Music Education, edited by L. Thompson and M. Campbell, 125–51. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Haack, Paul. 1968. “Teachers Can Be Researchers Can Be Teachers.” Music Educators Journal 54 (7): 81–83.

206   janet robbins Hamilton, Mary Lynn, and Stefinee Pinnegar. 2000. “On the Threshold of a New Century:  Trustworthiness, Integrity and Self-Study in Teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher Education 5 (3): 234–40. Hookey, Mary. 1994/1995. “Music Education as a Collaborative Project: Insights from Teacher Research.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 123: 39–46. Hubbard, Ruth, and Brenda Power. 2003. The Art of Classroom Inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Kemmis, Stephen, and Robin McTaggart, eds. 1988. The Action Research Planner. Victoria: Deakin University Press. Kincheloe, Joe. 1991. Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to Empowerment. London: Falmer Press. Leglar, Mary, and Michelle Collay. 2002. “Research by Teachers on Teacher Education.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. Richardson, 855–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lieberman, Ann, and Désirée Mace. 2010. “Making Practice Public: Teacher Learning in the 21st Century.” Journal of Teacher Education 61 (1): 77. Lortie, Dan. 1975. Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Loughran, John, and Tom Russell. 2007. “Beginning to Understand Teaching as a Discipline.” Studying Teacher Education 3 (2), 217–27. McDonald, Joseph. 1986. “Raising the Teacher’s Voice and the Ironic Role of Theory.” Harvard Educational Review 56 (4), 355–78. Miller, Beth Ann. 1996. “Integrating Elementary General Music:  A  Collaborative Action Research Study.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 130: 100–115. Miller, Beth Ann. 2003. “Integrating Elementary General Music Instruction with a First Grade Whole Language Classroom.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 156: 43–62. Miller, Beth Ann. 2004. “Designing Compositional Tasks for Elementary Music Classrooms.” Research Studies in Music Education 22: 59–71. Mills, Susan. 2001. “The World Music Ensemble:  My Journey with Elementary Preservice Educators.” The Mountain Lake Reader 2: 18–21. Montgomery, Amanda, Robert deFrece, and Kathy Robinson. 2010. “Supporting Elementary Music Mentor Teachers: Learning Through a Collaborative Inquiry Group.” In Collaborative Action for Change:  Selected Proceedings from the 2007 Symposium on Music Teacher Education, edited by Margaret Schmidt, 231–50. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Nelson, Tamara, Angie Deuel, David Slavit, and Anne Kennedy. 2010. “Leading Deep Conversations in Collaborative Inquiry Groups.” The Clearing House 83 (5): 175–79. Noffke, Susan. 1994:  “Action Research:  Towards the Next Generation.” Educational Action Research 2 (1): 9–21. Noffke, Susan. 2009. “Revisiting the Professional, Personal, and Political Dimensions of Action Research.” In The Sage Handbook of Educational Action Research, edited by Susan Noffke and Bridget Somekh, 6–23. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Odell, Lee. 1987. Planning Classroom Research. In Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research as an Agency for Change, edited by Dixie Goswami and Peter Stillman, 128–60. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Paley, Vivian. 1997. The Girl with the Brown Crayon: How Children Use Stories to Shape Their Lives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Practitioner Inquiry  207 Parker, Elizabeth. 2010. “Exploring Student Experiences of Belonging within an Urban High School Choral Ensemble: An Action Research Study.” Music Education Research, 12 (4): 339–52. Perl, Sondra, and Nancy Wilson. 1988. Through Teachers’ Eyes: Portraits of Writing Teachers at Work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Pernecky, Jack. 1963. “Action Research Methodology.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 1: 33–37. Reimer, Bennett. 1992. “An Agenda for Music Teacher Education: Part II.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 1: 5–11. Reimer, Bennett. 2009. Seeking the Significance of Music Education:  Essays and Reflections. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education. Reynolds, Alison, and Nancy Beitler. 2007. “Reflective Practice in a Middle-School Instrumental Setting.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 174: 55–69. Robbins, Janet. 1994/1995. “Levels of Learning in Orff SPIEL.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 123: 47–53. Robbins, Janet. 1999. “Getting Set and Letting Go: Pre-service Teachers’ In-Flight Decision Making.” The Mountain Lake Reader 1: 26–32. Robbins, Janet, Mary Kathryn Burbank, and Heidi Dunkle. 2006. “Teacher Research: Tales from the Field.” The Mountain Lake Reader 4: 60–68. Rosiek, Jerry, and Becky Atkinson. 2005. “Bridging the Divides: The Need for a Pragmatic Semiotics of Teaching Knowledge Research.” Educational Theory 55 (4): 421–42. Roulston, Kathryn, Roy Legette, Monica DeLoach, Celeste Buckhalter-Pittman, Lynne Cory, and Robin Grenier. 2005. “Education:  Mentoring and Community through Research.” Research Studies in Music Education 25: 1–22. Samaras, Anastasia, and Anne Freese. 2009. “Looking Back and Looking Forward.” In Self-Study Research Methodologies for Teacher Educators, edited by Cynthia Lassonde, Sally Galman, and Claire Kosnik, 3–19. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Schmidt, Patrick, and Janet Robbins. 2011. “Looking Backwards to Reach Forward: A Strategic Architecture for Professional Development in Music Education.” Arts Education Policy Review, 112: 95–103. Shulman, Lee. 2011. “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning:  A  Personal Account and Reflection.” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 5 (1):  1–7. http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v5n1.html. Somekh, Bridgette, and Ken Zeichner. 2009:  “Action Research for Educational Reform: Remodeling Action Research Theories and Practices in Local Contexts.” Educational Action Research 17 (1): 5–21. Stanley, Ann Marie. "The Experiences of Elementary Music Teachers in a Collaborative Teacher Study Group." Order No. 3354182, University of Michigan, 2009. http://search.proquest. com/docview/304929031?accountid=2837. Strand, Katherine. 2003. “Nurturing Young Composers: Exploring the Relationship Between Instruction and Transfer in 9-to 12-year Old Students.” ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (PQDT). Strand, Katherine. 2005. “Nurturing Young Composers: Exploring the Relationship Between Instruction and Transfer in 9-12 Year-Old Students.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 165: 17–36. Strand, Katherine. 2006. Learning to Inquire: Teacher Research in Undergraduate Teacher Training. Journal of Music Teacher Education 15 (2), 29–42.

208   janet robbins Strand, Katherine. 2009. A narrative analysis of action research on teaching composition. Music Education Research 11(3), 349–363. Thompson, Anne. 1989. “Letters to a Math Teacher.” In Coming to Know: Writing to Learn in the Intermediate Grades, edited by Nancie Atwell, 87–93. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Walls, Kimberly, and Sue Samuels. 2011. “Collaborative Design in Processes for Authentic Preservice Music Teacher Observations.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 20 (2): 24–39. Warner, Sylvia Ashton. 1963. Teacher. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc. Wenger, Etienne, Richard McDermott, and Williams Snyder. 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Wiggins, Jacqueline. 1993. “The Nature of Children’s Musical Learning in the Context of a Music Classroom.” Dissertation Abstracts International 53/11, 3838. Wiggins, Jacqueline H. 1994. “Children’s Strategies for Solving Compositional Problems with Peers.” Journal of Research in Music Education 42 (3): 232–52. Wiggins, Jacqueline. Winter, 1994/1995, “Teacher-Research in a General Music Classroom: Effects on the Teacher.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 123: 31–35. Wiggins, Jacqueline. 1995. “Building Structural Understanding: Sam’s Story.” Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning 6 (3): 57–75. Wiggins, Jacqueline. 1999/2000. “The Nature of Shared Musical Understanding and Its Role in Empowering Independent Musical Thinking.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 143: 65–90. Zeichner, Ken, and Susan Noffke. 2001. “Practitioner Research.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by V. Richardson, 298–330. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Chapter 12

Mix ed M ethods Re se a rc h in M u sic Edu c at i on kate r. fitzpatrick

Although many studies in music education research utilize singular qualitative or quantitative methods, researchers have been increasingly using a combination of methodological approaches to answer complex research questions. As music teaching and learning is a complex human endeavor, mixed methods researchers in our field attempt to illustrate these complexities with research that is both meaningfully contextual and also sufficiently illustrative of broader trends. Mixed methods researchers value both the tension and the complementarity that often emerges with the mixing of methods as a means to learning more about the subject at hand. According to Creswell (2011), a mixed methods researcher does the following: • Collects and analyzes persuasively and rigorously both qualitative and quantitative data (based on research questions); • Mixes (or integrates or links) the two forms of data concurrently by combining them (or merging them), or sequentially by having one build on the other, and in a way that gives priority to one or two both; • Uses these procedures in a single study or in multiples phases of a program of study; • Frames these procedures within philosophical worldviews and a theoretical lens; and • Combines the procedures into specific research designs that direct the plan for conducting the study. The central premise of such research is that “the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems than either approach alone” (Creswell and Plano Clark 2007). A  full discussion of mixed methods research is beyond the scope of this chapter. Instead, this chapter will begin with a discussion of the emergence of mixed methods research in music education,

210   kate r. fitzpatrick followed by an overview of the basic foundations of mixed methods research. Then, in alignment with the purpose of this book, the final part of the chapter will raise issues for consideration within the qualitative research community regarding the emergence of mixed methods research in music education.

12.1 Mixed Methods Research in Music Education Although the emergence of mixed methods research as a viable alternative to monoistic designs has been relatively recent in music education, it has certainly been more widely utilized within other fields of educational research. For examples, Hart et al. (2009) and Onwuegbuzie and Ross (2010) have found rates of mixed methods publication in educational journals from other fields to range from 24 percent to 33 percent of all published journal articles. Despite its growing presence in other educational fields, published mixed methods research remains rare in the field of music education, perhaps due to the historic dominance of quantitative research within the field of music education and relatively recent emergence of qualitative research (Roulston 2006; Yarbrough 1984, 1996). Also, as stated by Panaiotidi (2005): The enduring dominance of one paradigm is more properly to be seen as a result of social-political influences and/or the immaturity—or more precisely, insufficient maturity—of the discipline. In regard to the current situation, holding to the monistic scheme seems to be extremely counter-productive from epistemological, methodological, and pragmatic points of view. (51)

In 2002, Campbell called for the integration of a variety of research perspectives and methods within the field: Not an aside nor afterthought, our sensitivity to diversity and to individual human perspective will require diligence in the application of suitable statistical analyses of considerable power and also careful attention to a verstehen approach that comprises thick descriptions. The beauty of embracing the study of groups and isolates, of those at the center and the sides of the population graph, and by way of positivist and postmodern approaches, is an enriched understanding of the spectrum of our profession. (199)

However, it is only recently that mixed methods articles have been published in our field (Austin and Berg 2006; Fitzpatrick 2011; Bazan 2011). Historically, of course, music education authors who have primarily utilized one broader methodological framework have also included elements of another method within their studies. For example, many qualitative studies in music education have included questionnaires as a component of their study’s design (Conway, Eros, and Stanley 2008; Conway

Mixed Methods Research  211 et al. 2010; Carlisle 2008), used frequently to collect demographic data or ask initial questions. However, such research is generally not considered to be mixed methods research because the quantitative results are often not included in the presentation of data nor integrated in any form with the qualitative data to form a larger understanding of the phenomenon. Some of the earliest mixed methods publications within the field of music education include those by Austin and Berg (2006), Bazan (2011), and Fitzpatrick (2011). Austin and Berg (2006) investigated music practice among sixth-grade band and orchestra students. Although they utilized the quantitative “Music Practice Inventory” as their primary data collection instrument, they also collected narrative data about students’ practice experiences, which were coded and subsequently compared to the quantitative data in order to enrich the findings. Bazan’s (2011) study, published in the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, presents the results of his 2007 mixed methods dissertation on the teaching and learning strategies of middle school band teachers. His mixed methods design was a two-stage, sequential study that placed emphasis on quantitative data but also collected qualitative data to “provide a deeper perspective.” Fitzpatrick’s (2011) study of secondary urban instrumental teachers utilized a Triangulation Convergence mixed methods design with focus group, survey, and interview/observation phases and appeared in the Journal of Research in Music Education (JRME). Introducing the issue of the journal was a piece written by the editor of the JRME, Wendy Sims (2011), that specifically addressed the publication of mixed methods studies: The guiding principle for this type of research is that when authors synthesize the findings generated from analyses of both type of data, they gain insights that are greater than those that might be obtained from either analysis alone—in other words, the whole is greater than the sum of parts. (227)

In addition to these published studies, there are increasingly more dissertations in the field of music education that utilize a mixed methods approach. Table 12.1 presents a list of the earliest dissertations to emerge in the field of music education, from 2004 to 2010. The growing popularity of such research approaches suggests that mixed methods research is having its “dawn” in the music education field, and this prompts questions that need to be addressed by our research community. To assure that the integrity of qualitative research be maintained within this newest research paradigm, it is important to consider the background, assumptions, purpose, and design of mixed methods research, and thus how these elements can be more successfully utilized within music education research settings. Before proceeding, it is important to note that the field of mixed methods research is still in its “adolescence” (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003). Thus, many of the terms and concepts presented here will change in the coming years; this is an exciting yet bewildering time for mixed methods researchers.

212   kate r. fitzpatrick Table 12.1  Early U.S.-based mixed methods dissertations in the field of music education (to 2010) 2010 2010

2010 2010 2010 2009

2009

2008 2007 2007 2005

2005 2004

Baer, J.

Walden University

The relationship of multiple intelligence instruction to sight singing achievement of middle school choral students Gavin, R.B. Florida State An exploration of potential factors affecting persistence University to degree completion in undergraduate music teacher education students Neokleous, R. Boston University Tracking preservice kindergarten teachers' development of singing skills and confidence: An applied study Rummel, J.R. Boston University Perceptions of jazz improvisation among Pennsylvania music educators Stringham, D. Eastman Improvisation and composition in a high school instrumental music curriculum Hendricks, K. University of Relationships between the sources of self-efficacy and Illinois, changes in competence perceptions of music students Urbana-Champaign during an all-state orchestra event Scruggs, B. Georgia State Learning outcomes in two divergent middle school University string orchestra classroom environments: A comparison of a learner-centered and a teacher-centered approach Fitzpatrick, K. Northwestern A mixed methods portrait of urban instrumental music University teaching Bazan, D. Case Western Teaching and learning strategies used by Reserve student-directed teachers of middle school band Thomas, M.P. Walden University Effects of team teaching in the massed secondary choral setting Saunders, A. The University of The role of motivation in the choral setting: Teacher Utah beliefs and their impact on choral conductor behavior and choral student motivation Dansereau, D. Georgia State The musicality of 3-year-old children within the context University of research-based musical engagement Huang, H. University of Idaho A study of the relationship between music learning and school achievement of sixth-grade students

Note. Dissertations retrieved from the Proquest: Digital Dissertations and Theses database, using the search terms “mixed methods” and “music” or “music education” and the date range 2000–2010.

12.2.  Foundations of Mixed Methods Research 12.2.1  Foundational Paradigms It is often difficult for researchers steeped in either positivist/postpositivist or constructivist paradigms to imagine how mixed methods researchers might orient themselves with regard to epistemology. For qualitative researchers in the field of music education

Mixed Methods Research  213 who have rejected the postpositivist paradigm as being insufficient to illustrate the whole of the music education experience, such questions may be especially relevant. Criticisms of mixed methods research have included the concern that mixed methods research involves the interplay of two paradigms that are incompatible. However, looking at the extant literature in music education journals, one sees quantitative and qualitative data appearing side-by-side, and frequently the two methods address the same topic, albeit in separate articles. According to Brewer and Hunter (2006): There is now virtually no major problem area that is studied exclusively with one method. While the social sciences have remained largely single method in approach at the level of the individual investigator and the individual research project, the sum of individual efforts has resulted in a multimethod approach to problems . . . A major benefit of adapting the multimethod approach is that the approach begins the task of integration from the ground up by calling upon individual social scientists to integrate methods throughout the course of their individual investigations. (10–11)

Mixed methods researchers generally utilize methodological eclecticism (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2011), which contends that “we are free to combine the best methodological tools in answering our research questions” (295). Such an approach is often based on the philosophy of pragmatism. The pragmatist philosophy, based on the work of such authors as Pierce, Mead, James, Dewey, Rorty, Murphy, Patton, and Cherryholmes (Creswell 2003), posits that finding solutions to problems is of greater importance than the method used to solve those problems. Pragmatists adhere to a philosophy of paradigm relativism (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998), which encourages the use of whatever methodological approach works for the particular problem under study. Pragmatism does not claim that any one philosophy of the nature of knowledge and reality is correct, but rather allows for utilization of many techniques and methodologies in the service of solving a problem. The problem, therefore, is of primary importance, and truth is “what works at the time” (Creswell 2003). Thus, pragmatism allows for the utilization of mixed methods to serve the needs of the problem at hand. Besides pragmatism, Teddlie and Tashakkori (2011) suggest that the other most commonly accepted paradigmatic frameworks used in mixed methods research are frameworks associated with the axiological assumption (Mertens 2007) and the dialectical stance, which involves using multiple assumptive frameworks within the same study (Greene 2007; Greene and Caracelli 2003).

12.2.2  Purposes of Mixed Methods Research The decision to utilize a mixed methods research design should be made when the research questions would be “best and most efficiently answered” (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2011) through such a design. Thus, when deciding whether to use a mixed methods design, the research questions are of primary importance, and the method utilized to answer them secondary. There are certainly many cases where a question is best

214   kate r. fitzpatrick and most efficiently answered through a qualitative-only or quantitative-only design rather than through a mixed methods design. When the research question does substantiate the use of mixed methods designs, it is important to consider the purpose of such designs. The main purpose for the utilization of multiple methods is to recognize that all methods have limitations. Through the use of at least two different methods within a single study, it is hoped that the weaknesses of each might be reduced by the strengths of the other. This strategy is titled “between-methods triangulation” (Denzin 1978). Such triangulation attempts to prevent any problems stemming from the use of a single method, wherein “any inherent weakness stemming from the paradigm used will prevail regardless of the specific research design used within that paradigm” (Onwuegbuzie 2000). It is important to clarify the meaning of the word “triangulation” with regard to mixed methods studies. As Woolley (2009) points out: Triangulation is a term that has been used in a variety of ways, including in the sense of using mixed methods to produce a fuller account. Unfortunately, however, its use also appears to have resulted in a common misconception, presumably stemming from its original referent, that mutual validation is the goal in mixed methods studies (Gorard and Taylor, 2004; Kelle, 2001). On the contrary, quantitative and qualitative methods provide differing perspectives on a subject and this is why the use of both may be viewed as complementary rather than validatory. The quantitative approach is characteristically indirect and reductive; the qualitative approach is characteristically direct and holistic. These are the strengths of each; these are the different levels of inquiry at which they are directed. (8)

In addition to triangulation, Rossman and Wilson (1991) offer four purposes for mixed methods research. In the first, corroboration, multiple methods are utilized simultaneously but independently to test consistency of findings. The second, elaboration,

Table 12.2  Justifications for undertaking mixed methods studies (O'Cathain, nicholl, and murphy 2007, 148) 1. Comprehensiveness, where using both qualitative and quantitative methods allows an issue to be addressed more widely and more completely (Morse 2003). 2.  Increased validity, when the findings from two different methods agree (Glik et al. 1986). 3. Development or facilitation in that one method is improved due to the existence of the other, for example, one method guides the sampling, data collection, or analysis of the other (Sandelowski 2000). 4. Emancipation, where the use of a variety of methods ensures that marginalized voices are given space, offering a more equitable or ethical approach to research (Mertens 2003). 5. ‘‘Satisficing,’’ or second best because it may be impractical to undertake the single-method study ideally required (Datta 1997). 6. “Salvaging,’’ where one method saves another that has floundered (Sandelowski 2000; Weinholtz, Kacer, and Rocklin 1995).

Mixed Methods Research  215 utilizes two approaches to enhance and enrich the findings of one method with another. Development is a third purpose for mixed methods research, and utilizes the results from one method to shape the design of the next method. The fourth purpose is initiation, wherein a second methodology is utilized to challenge the original conception of the research problem and to suggest ways in which it may be reframed. In addition, Table 12.2 presents O’Cathain, Nicholl, and Murphy’s (2007) summary of literature that discusses other purposes for the use of mixed methods research.

12.2.3 Mixed Methods Designs With regard to selecting a mixed methods research design, the question is key. Mixed methods approaches are most appropriate for studies where the purpose and research questions require answers that are both meaningfully contextual and also sufficiently illustrative of broader trends. The selection of a mixed methods design, however, may not be a simple task. As the mixed methods field continues to evolve and develop, so do mixed methods designs continue to change. In fact, “many believe that a complete typology of MMR [mixed methods research] designs is not possible due to the emergent nature of the QUAL component of the research and the ability of MMR designs to mutate, while others seek agreement on a set number of basic designs for the sake of simplicity and pedagogy” (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2011). According to Creswell (2003), four main choices need to be made with regards to implementation, priority, integration, and theoretical perspective. First, the researcher needs to decide the sequence in which the methods will be utilized. For example, both methods may be used concurrently, or one method may be used first followed by the other. The researcher next needs to decide what priority will be given to the different methods—will one method predominate in importance, with the other playing a supporting role? Or, will both methods be used equally? Third, the researcher must decide at what stage in the research project (data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or some combination of the above) the methods will be integrated. Finally, the researcher must decide if an explicit theoretical framework (such as an advocacy lens or a theoretical perspective from the social sciences) will be utilized to guide the use of both methods. The choices that the researcher makes leads to the study being classified according to five different categories of mixed method designs (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998; Creswell 1995; Morse 1991). The following design categories are provided for the purpose of providing a baseline understanding of mixed methods designs; mixed methods researchers should be encouraged to thoughtfully develop other designs that best serve the purposes of their individual studies:

1. Sequential studies, which consists of two consecutive phases of research—one quantitative and one qualitative 2. Parallel/simultaneous studies, in which both quantitative and qualitative phases are conducted at the same time

216   kate r. fitzpatrick 3. Equivalent status designs, which utilize the qualitative and quantitative approaches equally to investigate the same phenomenon 4. Dominant-less dominant studies, in which most of the study is undertaken within either a quantitative or qualitative approach, but the other method is used supportively 5. Designs with multilevel use of approaches, which utilize both methods at different levels of data aggregation These different aspects of design can be combined, as an equivalent design may be conducted sequentially, and a dominant/less-dominant design may be conducted parallel/ simultaneously.

12.2.4 Data Mixing or Integration When mixed methods research was first emerging as an accepted mode of inquiry, Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) defined mixed methods designs as ‘‘those that include at least one quantitative method (designed to collect numbers) and one qualitative method (designed to collect words)’’ (256). In recent years, however, this definition has been questioned, and those types of research designs that simply present quantitative and qualitative research as two distinct strands without explicit integration have been labeled as ‘‘quasimixed’’ (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2006). According to Bazeley (2009), “Integration requires interdependence in reaching a common theoretical or research goal, so that complementary or sequenced components in a study, not necessarily involving integration, may consequently not be considered to be mixed methods” (204). Integration, or mixing, of qualitative and quantitative data sets is now considered to be an essential component of mixed methods designs: Mixed methods research is simply more than reporting two distinct “strands” of quantitative and qualitative research; these studies must also integrate, link, or connect these “strands” in some way. The expectation is that by the end of the manuscript, conclusions gleaned from the two strands are integrated to provide a fuller understanding of the phenomenon under study. (Creswell and Tashakkori 2007)

The successful integration of qualitative and quantitative data is directly related to the concept of mixed methods validity (also called inference quality or legitimation), a concept that “addresses the ability of the researcher to draw meaningful and accurate conclusions from all of the data in the study” (Creswell and Plano Clark 2007). Mixed methods researchers use many strategies to mix or integrate data from quantitative and qualitative sources. The most common method utilized for direct integration is the use of a discussion or matrix. Within a mixed methods discussion section of an article, thesis, or dissertation, a researcher may choose to present qualitative quotes, codes, or themes alongside specific statistical results that align topically. A matrix may be used to

Mixed Methods Research  217 present both qualitative and quantitative results directly alongside one another for easy comparison and contrast (see Fitzpatrick 2008). Another technique that is more rarely used is data transformation. Researchers use data transformation to convert one form of data into another. For example, a researcher may count the instances or prevalence of qualitative themes or codes, analyze them statistically, and then compare them with quantitative data (Creswell and Plano Clark 2007). Or, a researcher may conduct a quantitative factor analysis to develop factors that could then be compared with qualitative themes (Punch 1998). Some sequential or embedded mixed methods designs are integrated directly through the use of one form of data to shape another. For example, in an instrument development design, an initial qualitative phase may lead to the development of a quantitative instrument, with the mixing of the two phases happening at the point of the construction of the new instrument. The development of new techniques for the integration of quantitative and qualitative data sets will be a priority for mixed methods researchers in the coming years, According to O’Cathain, Nicholl, and Murphy (2007), it is this vital aspect of integration that distinguishes mixed methods studies from a set of monomethod studies undertaken independently.

12.3 Considering Qualitative Research in Mixed Methods Studies Creswell (2011) points out that qualitative researchers have long embraced the complementary use of quantitative data, even before the emergence of a full mixed methods scholarly dialogue in the 1980s. For example, in Denzin’s seminal 1978 book (Denzin 1978), he suggests the use of various data sources in a study under the umbrella term “data triangulation,” saying: “I now offer as a final methodological rule the principle that multiple methods should be used in every investigation” (28). In 1973, Sieber (1973) discussed and developed procedures for the “interplay” of fieldwork and survey methods. Patton (1980) advanced the use of “methodological mixes” and described four design models, some of which included the transformation of qualitative data into “counts.” More recently, Morse and Niehaus (2009) described the work of ethnographers as being “mixed” in nature, due to the frequent collection of both quantitative and qualitative data in ethnographic work. Still, many qualitative researchers question the use of mixed methods research. Such critics are concerned not only about the “incompatibility thesis” (Howe 2004), or the problems associated with mixing worldviews in a single study, but also the perceived prominence of postpositivist thinking in mixed methods research (Creswell 2011). This perception is logically grounded, given that most initial mixed methods studies involved the addition of a qualitative component to a study that was initially

218   kate r. fitzpatrick a quantitative project (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2011). According to Howe (2004), “It is not that qualitative methods can never be fruitfully and appropriately used in this way, but their natural home is within an interpretivist framework with the democratic aim of seeking to understand and give voice to the insider’s perspective” (54). Denzin and Lincoln similarly discussed the need for qualitative methods to exist within their own domain of a “critical, interpretive framework” rather than within the framework of a mixed methods design. Giddings (2006) refers to mixed methods research as “positivism dressed in drag,” with such positivistic thinking reflected in the design and analysis techniques described by mixed methods scholars. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2011) address these concerns directly: We want to unambiguously express our regard for the powerful contributions of QUAL methods due to the concern that some scholars have expressed about MMR [mixed methods research] subordinating QUAL methods to a secondary role behind QUAN methods. This is not how we interpret the MMR literature from the past 30-plus years. In fact, QUAL + quan studies [those emphasizing the qualitative component over the quantitative] emphasizing the detailed, impressionistic perceptions of human ‘data-gathering instruments’ and their interpretations of their outcomes are among the most valuable of all the extant MMR [mixed methods research] literature. (286)

Although mixed methods research has been emerging as a viable paradigm for some time, strategies to ensure the rigor of new mixed methods designs are still being developed. With regard to the use of qualitative research in mixed methods designs, there are important decisions that have yet to be made on important methodological issues. According to Morse (2005), it is qualitative researchers who must make these decisions: Qualitative researchers, therefore, have a choice:  We can take control, or we can ignore this trend; we can step aside and let other researchers establish rules for the use of qualitative data, or we ourselves can develop sound principles of appropriate use. (583)

Surely there are many questions that deserve consideration with regard to the development of mixed methods research in music education, and space here precludes the discussion of them all. To further the conversation within our field about the use of mixed methods research, I here present some emerging issues that deserve contemplation by the qualitative music education research community.

12.3.1 Lack of Qualitative Rigor According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2007), studies that utilize minimal qualitative research, such as those survey studies that ask a few open-ended questions as a part of the survey, can still be considered mixed methods research, even though “the qualitative data

Mixed Methods Research  219 may consist of short sentences and brief comments, hardly the type of qualitative data that involves rich context and detailed information from participants” (11). To me, this is a problematic assertion that needs to be addressed by the qualitative research community. There is concern among mixed methods scholars (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2011) that such issues of lack of rigor may be due in part to researchers who undertake such research with primary training in one tradition and minimal competence or education with regard to the other. Similarly, there is a concern that the ability to be a “methodological connoisseur” requires a depth of experience in both methodological traditions that novice researchers may not have. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2011) suggest that one remedy will need to be the provision of better and deeper experiences at the doctoral level, where students work in the field alongside their quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods mentors. As mixed methods research continues to evolve as an accepted domain and doctoral students increasingly require better experiences with both qualitative and qualitative techniques, the necessity of methodological diversity within faculties may increase. I would assert instead that all mixed methods data, whether qualitative or quantitative, should be collected and analyzed according to the traditions of that particular methodology. Within mixed methods designs, it is possible, for practical purposes, that some phases of study will be more abbreviated than would normally occur with a larger singular study. However, each phase of the research design, even if abbreviated, should align with the expectations of rigor that each method requires. The primary question to be asked is “Would the design of this portion of the study be able to stand alone were it not part of a mixed methods study?” With regard to the use of an open-ended question at the end of a survey, I would argue that this would not be sufficient to constitute the qualitative phase of a mixed methods study, as the foundations of qualitative research, including standards of trustworthiness, do not typically justify stand-alone “open-ended questionnaire” studies.

12.3.2 Use of Data Transformation Techniques The use of data transformation techniques has its origins in the quantitizing of qualitative data, or the process of converting qualitative data to numerical codes that can be statistically analyzed (Miles and Huberman 1994). The process of qualitizing (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998), or the process by which quantitative data are transformed into data that can be analyzed qualitatively, is also used, albeit more rarely, in mixed methods research. Many qualitative researchers will argue with the basis for conducting such transformations of data, and the discussion and debate of this proper use of this technique should continue. Does the quantifying of qualitative data undermine the purpose and trustworthiness of qualitative research? Are there ways to better adapt such techniques to allow for the better representation of data in its original form? For example, perhaps researchers who utilize such techniques might first be asked to present both qualitative and quantitative data in the manner associated with each paradigm’s traditional modes of representation (i.e., presentation of within-case and cross-case

220   kate r. fitzpatrick themes) prior to the transformation of any one form of data into another (i.e., counting of instances of a case). Hindering such full presentations of data, of course, are the page length restrictions of most peer-reviewed journals in music education. Such issues deserve further discussion among qualitative researchers in our field.

12.3.3  Publication of Mixed Methods Studies in Music Education Journals There are far fewer instances of mixed methods research published in our field than there are mixed methods dissertations. One apparent reason for this discrepancy is the issue of how to successfully report the findings of such studies, which can be significantly longer and more complex than monomethod studies, within the typical page constraints of music education journals. This issue may be especially problematic for the full representation of qualitative data within a published article, as authors struggle to provide rich and thick description of their participants’ experiences while also accommodating both quantitative data and the merged “mixed” data analysis. Understandably, authors are often tempted to publish the qualitative and quantitative components of their studies separately. However, according to O’Cathain, Nicholl, and Murphy (2007), such separate publication may produce decreased “yield” from the mixed methods study: “A study with separate articles from both components might be considered to have produced ‘the sum of its parts’ and might arguably be no better than if independent qualitative and quantitative studies had been undertaken” (151). Sims (2011) echoes these thoughts in her previously mentioned “Forum” piece addressing the publication of mixed methods research in the Journal of Research in Music Education: “True mixed methods research cannot be divided into two articles for publication without losing an important, arguably the most important, aspect of the analysis” (227). Given that research using a mixed methods approach consists of both the qualitative and quantitative components as well as the integrated analysis, it may indeed require more space to report than other types of research. What types of solutions can our professional community develop to make the publication of mixed methods research easier? For example, Sims (2011) suggests the use of and Fitzpatrick (2011) utilizes supplemental online Web space to present data that could not be fitted within the page constraints of the journal. What other strategies can be developed by our research community?

12.3.4  Future Directions: Maintaining Creativity and Openness Besides addressing some of the previously discussed issues, there are many exciting contributions that the qualitative research community can make to the future of

Mixed Methods Research  221 mixed methods research in music education. For example, how can mixed methods research designs be adapted to address the richness of the arts? How can mixed methods researchers utilize arts-based approaches (Barone 2001) within mixed methods designs to enrich our understanding of phenomena? The music education community could provide tremendous leadership with regards to this issue. In addition, how can we better foster collaborations between qualitatively trained music education researchers and their like-minded quantitatively trained colleagues? Can such collaborations allow for fruitful mixed methods collaborations to emerge? As Reimer stated, such collaborations “would allow us to tackle the larger issues, rescuing us from our tendency to deal only with those small enough to be handled in single, one-shot studies” (2008, 200–01). The resulting interactions and publications may also help to develop mutual understanding within our research community: “Interaction between colleagues—even colleagues of quite different methodological persuasions— can be a powerful integrative force” (Brewer and Hunter 2006, 12). Many exciting possibilities are emerging with regard to the use of mixed methods research in music education. However, there are also many questions that remain. The successful development of mixed methods research within our field will rely upon the emergence of a dialogue that attempts to honor the integrity of both qualitative and quantitative research traditions. Such a dialogue requires a level of creativity and openness, and the thoughtful contributions of the qualitative research community in music education.

12.4 Moving Forward Within the music education community, there is no doubt that monomethod designs predominate, and there are, of course, many research questions that are best addressed using either a singular quantitative or qualitative approach. However, increasingly, music education researchers are exploring ways to use mixed methods designs within their studies. The use of multiple methods requires a thoughtful, well-crafted and well-considered approach. As the use of mixed methods research increases within our field, there will be growing pains as the methodology evolves and adapts to the needs of the music education community. The development of better mixed methods research in music education and criteria for evaluating such designs will be aided by the thoughtful and creative contributions of the qualitative research community.

References Austin, J. and M. Berg, M. 2006. “Exploring Music Practice among Sixth-Grade Band and Orchestra Students.” Psychology of Music 34: 535–58.

222   kate r. fitzpatrick Baer, J. S. 2010. “The Relationship of Multiple Intelligence Instruction to Sight Singing Achievement of Middle School Choral Students.” PhD diss., Walden University. Barone, T. 2001. “Science, Art, and the Predispositions of Educational Researchers.” Educational Researcher 30 (7): 24–28. Bazan, D. 2007. “Teaching and Learning Strategies Used by Student-Directed Teachers of Middle School Band.” PhD diss., Case Western Reserve University. Bazan, D. 2011. “The Use of Student-Directed Instruction by Middle School Band Teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 189: 23–56. Bazeley, P. 2009. “Editorial: Integrating Data Analyses in Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 3 (3): 203. Brewer, J., and A. Hunter. 2006. Foundations of Multimethod Research:  Synthesizing Styles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Campbell, P. S. 2002. “Senior Researcher Award Acceptance Speech:  A  Matter of Perspective: Thoughts on the Multiple Realities of Research.” Journal of Research in Music Education 50: 191–201. Carlisle, K. J. 2008. “A Study of Social-Emotional Climate within Secondary School Music Classrooms Settings.” PhD diss., University of Toronto. Conway, C., J. Eros, K. Pellegrino, and C. West. 2010. “The Role of Graduate and Undergraduate Interactions in the Development of Preservice Music Teachers and Music Teacher Educators: A Self-Study in Music Teacher Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education (183): 49–64. Conway, C., J. Eros, and A. M. Stanley. 2008. “Summers-Only versus the Academic Year Master of Music in Music Education Degree: Perceptions of Program Graduates.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education (178): 21–34. Creswell, J. 1995. Research design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. 2011. “Controversies in Mixed Methods Research.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J., and V. Plano Clark. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J., and A. Tashakkori. 2007. “Developing Publishable Mixed Methods Manuscripts. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (2): 107–11. Dansereau, D. R. 2005. “The Musicality of 3-year-old Children within the Context of ResearchBased Musical Engagement.” PhD diss., Georgia State University. Datta, L. 1997. “A Pragmatic Basis for Mixed-Methods Designs.” In Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation:  The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, edited by J. C. Greene and V. Caracelli. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Denzin, N. K. 1978. The Research Act:  A  Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: Praeger. Fitzpatrick, K. A. 2008. “Mixed Methods Portrait of Urban Instrumental Music Teaching.” PhD diss., Northwestern University. Fitzpatrick, K. A. 2011. “A Mixed Methods Portrait of Urban Instrumental Music Teaching.” Journal of Research in Music Education 59: 229–56. Gavin, Russell B. 2010. “An Exploration of Potential Factors Affecting Persistence to Degree Completion in Undergraduate Music Teacher Education Students.” PhD diss., The Florida State University.

Mixed Methods Research  223 Giddings, L. S. 2006. “Mixed-Methods Research:  Positivism Dressed in Drag?” Journal of Research in Nursing 11 (3): 195–203. Glik, D. C., K. Parker, G. Muligande, and B. Hategikamana. 1986. “Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Survey Techniques.” International Quarterly of Community Health Education 7 (3): 181–200. Greene, J. C. 2007. Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Greene, J. C., and V. Caracelli. 2003. “Making Paradigmatic Sense of Mixed Methods Practice.” In Handbook of Mixed Methods on Social and Behavioral Research, edited by A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Greene, J. C., V. Caracelli, and W. Graham. 1989. “Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11 (3): 255–74. Hart, L. C., S. Z. Smith, S. L. Swats, and M. E. Smith. 2009. “An Examination of Research Methods in Mathematics Education.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 3: 26–41. Howe, K. R. 2004. “A Critique of Experimentalism.” Qualitative Inquiry 10: 42–61. Huang, H. J. 2004. “A Study of the Relationship between Music Learning and School Achievement of Sixth-Grade Students.” PhD diss., University of Idaho. Mertens, D. M. 2003. “Mixed Methods and the Politics of Human Research:  The Transformative-Emancipatory Perspective.” In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie. London: Sage Publications. Mertens, D. M. 2007. “Transformative Paradigm: Mixed Methods and Social Justice.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (3): 212–25. Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis:  A  Sourcebook of New Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Morse, J. 1991. “Approaches to Qualitative-Quantitative Methodological Triangulation.” Nursing Research 40: 120–23. Morse, J. 2003. “Principles of Mixed Methods and Multimethod Research Design.” In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie. London: Sage Publications. Morse, J. 2005. “Evolving Trends in Qualitative Research: Advances in Mixed-Methods Design.” Qualitative Health Research 15 (5): 583–85. Morse, J., and L. Niehaus. 2009. Mixed Method Design: Principles and Procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Neokleous, R. 2010. “Tracking Preservice Kindergarten Teachers’ Development of Singing Skills and Confidence: An Applied Study.” PhD diss., Boston University. O’Cathain, A., J. Nicholl, and E. Murphy. 2007. “Integration and Publications as Indicators of ‘Yield’ from Mixed Methods Studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (2): 147. Onwuegbuzie, A. 2000. “Positivists, Post-Positivists, Post-Structuralists, and Post-Modernists:  Why Can’t We All Get Along? Towards a Framework for Unifying Research Paradigms.” Access ERIC: FullText. Georgia. Onwuegbuzie, A., and A. Ross. 2010. “Mixed Methods Research Design: A Comparison of Prevalence in JRME and AERJ.” International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 4 (3). Panaiotidi, E. 2005. “The Nature of Paradigms and Paradigm Shifts in Music Education.” Philosophy of Music Education Review 13 (1): 37–75. Patton, M. 1980. Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Punch, K. F. 1998. Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage Publications.

224   kate r. fitzpatrick Reimer, B. 2008. “Research in Music Education: Personal and Professional Reflections in a Time of Perplexity.” Journal of Research in Music Education 56 (3): 190–203. Rossman, G. B., and B. L. Wilson. 1991. “Numbers and Words Revisited: Being ‘Shamelessly Eclectic.’ ” Access ERIC: FullText. Massachusetts. Roulston, K. 2006. “Mapping the Possibilities of Qualitative Research in Music Education: A Primer.” Music Education Research 8 (2): 153–73. Rummel, J. R. 2010. “Perceptions of Jazz Improvisation among Pennsylvania Music Educators.” PhD diss., Boston University. Sandelowski, M. 2000. “Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Sampling, Data Collection, and Analysis Techniques in Mixed-Method Studies.” Research in Nursing and Health 23: 246–55. Saunders, A. T. 2005. “The Role of Motivation in the Choral Setting: Teacher Beliefs and their Impact on Choral Conductor Behavior and Choral Student Motivation.” PhD diss., The University of Utah. Scruggs, B. B. 2009. “Learning Outcomes in Two Divergent Middle School String Orchestra Classroom Environments: A Comparison of a Learner-Centered and a Teacher-Centered Approach.” PhD diss., Georgia State University. Sieber, S. D. 1973. “The Integration of Fieldwork and Survey Methods.” American Journal of Sociology 78: 1335–59. Sims, W. 2011. Forum. Journal of Research in Music Education 59: 227–28. Stringham, D. A. 2010. “Improvisation and Composition in a High School Instrumental Music Curriculum.” PhD diss., University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music. Tashakkori, A., and C. Teddlie. 1998. Mixed Methodology:  Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tashakkori, A., and C. Teddlie, eds. 2003. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Teddlie, C., and A. Tashakkori. 2006. “A Genera; Typology of Research Designs Featuring Mixed Methods.” Research in Schools 13 (1): 12–28. Teddlie, C., and A. Tashakkori. 2011. “Mixed Methods Research: Contemporary Issues in an Emerging Field.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Thomas, M. P. 2007. “Effects of Team Teaching in the Massed Secondary Choral Setting.” PhD diss., Walden University. Weinholtz, D., B. Kacer, and T. Rocklin. 1995. “Salvaging Quantitative Research with Qualitative Data.” Qualitative Health Research 5 (3): 388–97. Woolley, C. M. 2009. “Meeting the Mixed Methods Challenge of Integration in a Sociological Study of Structure and Agency.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 3 (1): 7. Yarbrough, C. 1984. “A Content Analysis of the ‘Journal of Research in Music Education,’ ” 1953– 1983. Journal of Research in Music Education 32 (4): 213–22. Yarbrough, C. 1996. “The Future of Scholarly Inquiry in Music Education”:  1996 Senior Researcher Award Acceptance Address. Journal of Research in Music Education 44: 190–203.

pa rt  i i i

QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS IN MUSIC EDUCATION

Chapter 13

C ollectin g a nd Ana ly zing Ob se rvat i on of Mu sic Teac h i ng a nd Learning  Data margaret schmidt

Humans are born observers—observation is a primary tool that permits us to learn about and make sense of the world around us. However, if we noticed every detail in our environment, we would quickly become overwhelmed. Instead, our brains simplify routine visual information and direct our attention to more important or meaningful features. With practice, we can become discriminating observers. For example, a collector of Dresden china will observe details in a flea market display that others pass by. A music teacher will notice details about the behavior and musical performance of students in his classroom that a parent volunteer might not see. A cardiologist will see more than squiggles in an EKG report. These people have developed what Eisner (1991) calls “connoisseurship” of a particular facet of human activity, well-honed perceptual skills that allow them to observe more detail in and attribute greater meaning to what they observe than one who has a mere acquaintance with that activity. John Dewey (1934) distinguishes between two modes of observing: recognition, or “bare identification,” and perception, where we “begin to study and to ‘take in’ ” what we observe (52–53). Such perception is the goal of qualitative observation. Adler and Adler (1994) suggest, What differentiates the observations of social scientists from those of everyday-life actors is the former’s systematic and purposive nature. Social science researchers study their surroundings regularly and repeatedly, with a curiosity spurred by theoretical questions about the nature of human action, interaction, and society. (377)

228   margaret schmidt Collecting and analyzing observation data relies on the researcher’s connoisseurship of the research setting, the willingness to observe “regularly and repeatedly,” and the ability to perceive details, “taking them in” in order to make meaning from them through analysis. In this chapter, I discuss nine aspects of observational research: preparing for observations, determining the researcher’s role, planning to enter and leave a site, processes of observation, collecting data, maintaining a data record, analyzing data, writing the research report, and ethical considerations in working with observation data.

13.1  Preparing for Observations Qualitative studies that rely solely on observation data are rare; however, nearly all researchers collect data through observation. Even a study that draws almost completely on interview data involves some observation of interviewees’ body language, verbal pauses, and tone of voice. Observation data are often used to corroborate or triangulate data from multiple other sources. For example, by comparing participants’ observed actions with their perspectives as revealed through interviews, written documents, or informal conversations, a researcher can learn a great deal about unnoticed, implied, or unvoiced rules or relationships within the setting under study. For example, Norgaard (2008) observed seven professional jazz musicians as they improvised a blues form. By comparing his observations of their performances with the comments they made as they listened to a recording of their own improvisations, Norgaard was able to identify common strategies they used to improvise. A study’s research questions help determine whether observation offers a useful source of data and, if so, what might be observed to address those questions. Qualitative research methods texts offer a variety of perspectives on site and participant selection or “sampling” (Glesne 1999; Stake 1995), including, for example, purposeful, intensity, criterion, critical case, convenience, or maximum variation sampling (Creswell 2007, 127). “The researcher should have a connoisseur’s appetite for the best persons, places, and occasions. ‘Best’ usually means those that can best help us understand” the study’s questions (Stake 1995, 56). A pilot study in the prospective or a similar setting may provide opportunities to identify potential benefits and challenges, as well as to practice and refine observation techniques. Selecting sites and participants often requires balancing different tradeoffs, including practical issues such as time and funding required and accessibility and availability of participants. Tobias (2010, 89–98) provides extensive detail about his selection of research site and participants in a study of a high school songwriting class, describing the range of options he identified and his reasons for his final selection. Gaining access to a desired research setting requires approval of procedures by the appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB). In some cases, researchers make preliminary contact with a proposed site to determine feasibility of the study in that site before submitting a proposal to the IRB. In other cases, IRB approval precedes contacts with

Collecting and Analyzing Observation Data  229 possible sites. Gaining access may be a relatively simple or an extremely complex process. For example, to collect observation data in a public school classroom, a researcher may need approval from both a university and a school district IRB. Sometimes the process begins with contacting official gatekeepers, such as a school principal, the administrator of a club, or the director of a community ensemble. Other times, a friend or acquaintance with access can introduce the researcher to the official gatekeepers. When a study involves only adults in everyday settings, an IRB may declare it “exempt,” allowing researchers to contact participants directly. For example, although Pellegrino’s (2010) study included classroom observation, because she focused her observations only on the teachers, the IRB did not require her to obtain permission from the school or the students’ parents. Obtaining access usually involves collecting informed consent forms signed by participants or their guardians, and assent forms signed by minors under age eighteen or other vulnerable individuals. The researcher prepares an overview of the study’s purposes and methods in language participants can understand. Particular concerns that must be addressed include whether photos, student work, interviews, audio, or video recordings will be collected. Researchers must provide specific information about how data will be used, with appropriate guarantees of anonymity and other privacy protections for all participants. In some cases, the formal language required by IRBs in consent/assent forms may be off-putting to participants, and researchers may plan a verbal “translation,” speaking with participants in more familiar terms when they present the forms. The appendices and method chapters of many dissertations include examples of consent/assent forms and other IRB-approved documents. Issues of access may require changes in research focus or design as the researcher proceeds with observations. Glesne (1999) writes, Access is a process. It refers to your acquisition of consent to go where you want, observe what you want, talk to whomever you want, obtain and read whatever documents you require, and do all of this for whatever period of time you need to satisfy your research purposes. If you receive full and unqualified consent, then you have obtained total access. If your access is qualified somehow, then you must explore the meaning of the qualifications for meeting research expectations: Should you redefine your research? Should you select another site? (39)

For example, although Soto, Lum, and Campbell (2009) had planned to collect data from two school sites, they discovered more limited access than anticipated at one of the schools, and had to reassign that school to “an occasional rather than the central feature of the project” (339). They also had to revise their intentions to interview all the participants, as some “could not commit the time to sit-down interviews with one or more members of the research team” (340–41). Similarly, a researcher may intend to study interactions among students in a classroom, but several parents may not provide consent for their children to participate. In such cases, the researcher may need to reposition recording equipment to exclude those participants, eliminate some collected data from analysis, or revise the research questions.

230   margaret schmidt

13.2 Determining the Researcher’s Role In each observation study, researchers create their role from an array of possibilities. These choices commonly involve identifying one’s place on the participant-observer continuum, using oneself as the primary research instrument, and establishing relationships with participants.

13.2.1  The Participant-Observer Continuum As data-collectors, researchers function as both participants and observers in any research study. Spradley (1980) distinguishes five possible levels of participation as an observer. Non-participation is the rare case where the researcher simply observes, with participants sometimes unaware of being observed. For example, Duke and Simmons (2006) analyzed 25 hours of video-recorded studio lessons taught by three artist-teachers, and described the teaching strategies they observed. Passive participation involves minimal interaction with the participants, as when the researcher sits in a corner of a classroom taking notes. Studies of young children’s musical activities often rely primarily on observation of the children’s music-making on the playground or other settings, with minimal interaction between children and researchers (e.g., Jackson-Gough 2003; Lum and Campbell 2007; Stauffer 2002). An example of moderate participation is studying interactions in a third-grade music class, where the researcher determines ahead of time to chat with children and answer their questions before and after class, but also remains on the sidelines unless approached while the class is formally in session. Seddon and Biasutti (2010) video recorded three college students using a text in an asynchronous e-learning environment to create 12-bar blues; only when participants requested assistance did the researchers provide support. Spradley’s fourth level of involvement, active participation, is when the researcher “seeks to do what other people are doing, not merely to gain acceptance, but to more fully learn the cultural rules for behavior” (60). Manes (2009) took shamisen lessons himself, observed other students’ lessons, and interviewed the teacher to study traditional Japanese teaching strategies and playing techniques. Complete participation involves the researcher in a setting in which he or she is a full participant, as in an action research study of one’s own classroom, or an examination of the implicit workings of an ensemble of which one is a member. Gackle (Gackle and Fung 2009) studied her choir’s experience learning traditional Chinese songs in a community youth choir organization of which she was founder, artistic director, and conductor of the choir. She and co-author Fung together analyzed videos of her rehearsals. Most often, researchers function as moderate or active participants, becoming directly

Collecting and Analyzing Observation Data  231 involved in some degree, as determined by both the research questions and the nature of what is being observed.

13.2.2  Researcher as Research Instrument In qualitative research, researchers themselves are the primary research instruments; they cannot “completely disappear [as] a distinct person” (Angrosino 2005). Peshkin (1988) defines this researcher subjectivity as “an amalgam of the persuasions that stem from the circumstances of one’s class, statuses, and values interacting with the particulars of one’s object of investigation” (17). The researcher’s own positionality, of having particular experiences of gender, class, ethnicity, profession, and place, may provide valuable insight into the situation under study. However, it may just as easily create blinders or encourage “selective inattention, tuning out, not seeing, and not hearing” (Spradley 1980, 55). Researchers are obligated to account for both the benefits and limitations of their subjectivity. For example, Tsugawa’s (2009) 25 years of band and orchestra teaching experience allowed him to quickly understand the rehearsal processes of a senior adult band and orchestra. However, in reviewing his observation notes, Tsugawa noticed he was critiquing the participants’ performance skills as if he were the teacher. He realized that, to better understand the participants’ experiences, he needed to move beyond his prior experience and “change role by removing [his] teacher-adjudicator glasses and putting on [his] participant-observer glasses” (56–57). Members of a research team can challenge each other’s selective vision (e.g., Soto, Lum, and Campbell 2009), while individual researchers can invite peer review of their work to help them eliminate blind spots in collecting and analyzing data. Creswell’s (2007) Chapter 10 provides one overview of multiple “validation strategies” for qualitative research. He outlines eight procedures that are commonly accepted as standards to establish credibility and account for researcher subjectivity. These include prolonged engagement and observation in the study site, triangulation of multiple data sources, peer review, negative case analysis, clarification of researcher bias, member checks, “rich, thick description,” and external audits (207–09). Creswell recommends that researchers plan to employ at least two of these strategies.

13.2.3  Relationships with Participants Atkinson and Hammersley (1994) argue that “we cannot study the social world without being part of it;” therefore they suggest “that participant observation is not a particular research technique but a mode of being-in-the-world characteristic of researchers” (249). Deciding on this “mode of being-in-the-world” for a study is less straightforward than it may seem. In the ways researchers design a study and collect, analyze, and report observation data, they convey their understandings of their relationship with participants (e.g., Angrosino and Rosenberg 2011; Atkinson and Hammersley 1994; Flinders

232   margaret schmidt and Richardson 2002; Spradley 1980). Relationships can range from an authoritative Researcher positioning participants as Others to a view of “observer and observed as inhabitants of a shared social and cultural field, their respective cultures different but equal, and capable of mutual recognition by virtue of a shared humanity” (Atkinson and Hammersley 1994, 256). Spradley (1980) suggests that much useful information arises as researchers position themselves as learners, allowing participants to serve as teachers and experts: “Fieldwork, then, involves the disciplined study of what the world is like to people who have learned to see, hear, speak, think, and act in ways that are different. Rather than studying people, [participant observation] means learning from people” (3). The music education researchers cited in this chapter describe ways they assured participants that they wanted to learn their perspectives. For example, Abramo (2009) studied his own high school students rehearsing in rock bands. Concluding that “the social dynamic of ‘outnumbering the adult’ would yield more honest answers than the asymmetrical power relationship of teacher/student” (120), he sought to empower the students by conducting the study in spaces where they normally “hung out,” providing food, using their language, and allowing their friends to be in the room during individual interviews.

13.3 Collecting Observation Data: Entering and Leaving a Site Stake (1995) points out, “Almost always, data gathering is done on somebody’s ‘home grounds.’ . . . [The] burden on the host should be acknowledged. The researcher may be delightful company, but hosting delightful company is a burden” (57–58). In beginning an observational study, researchers will want to plan carefully how they will enter those “home grounds” in a respectful way. Will the researcher suddenly appear, or will a collaborator already familiar to the participants prepare them for the researcher’s coming? Will the researcher begin formal observations immediately or start with a period of “informal hanging out” (Jansen and Peshkin 1992, 709)? How will the study be explained to the participants? What will they want to know about the researcher’s personal background and interests? Answers to these and similar questions will depend on variables such as the study’s purposes, the researcher’s familiarity with the site or participants, the researcher’s anticipated role on the participant-observer spectrum, and the type of relationship the researcher intends to establish with the participants. No matter the approach chosen, the goal is to bring the researcher into the setting in ways that promote his or her ability to eventually become a part of the setting, so that participants act much as they normally would were the researcher not present.

Collecting and Analyzing Observation Data  233 To blend in, researchers aim to establish trust with participants. Rapport may be created in a variety of ways, as fits the purpose of the study. Sometimes, the researcher is already familiar with the research site and participants. In her dissertation, Lum (2007, 18–27) provides a detailed explanation of selecting and entering an elementary school in her native Singapore, where she had taught for five years and had already earned a high level of trust. When researchers have no prior relationship with the site or participants, they will need to plan ways to build trust. Tobias (2010, 115–19) describes his theoretical goals and internal debates as he negotiated his relationships with high school students and their teacher. Koops (2010) wanted to study the learning processes of children in The Gambia. In the year prior to the study, she learned the Wolof language. While in The Gambia, she lived closely with the children and their families, and found that her limited knowledge of Wolof was helpful in establishing rapport, allowing her “to greet people, bargain at the market, interact with children, and explain [her] research” (23). The credibility of both the researcher and the study may be enhanced when relationships with participants are consciously negotiated. In his study of a middle-school technology classroom, Ruthmann (2006, 73–77) describes his progression from being a stranger in the classroom to becoming a “collaborative participant” as students began to seek his advice on their compositions, and the teacher asked his ideas about curricular, technological, and pedagogical issues that arose in her work. Alert researchers use their intuition as a guide to identify and resolve challenges that arise in establishing and maintaining rapport, as Blair (2009) did in studying her colleague Sue’s classroom: Though my role as researcher was transparent to me, Sue regarded me as a fellow teacher, as that was how our relationship had begun and, as I entered her classroom, I once again assumed this role. Though always carefully observing while in the classroom, my researcher role was largely conducted outside of her classroom as I constructed field notes and journals and studied the literature, much of which was not a part of Sue’s world as an educator. The conversations in which we engaged were “teacher talk,” . . . a sharing of the professional landscape now held in common . . . (21)

Blending in, however, can become a potential concern in leaving a site at the conclusion of the study. The researcher often comes to feel a part of the group, and may be reluctant to sever ties. If a close relationship has developed, or if the researcher has been providing assistance to them, participants may feel abandoned once the researcher ceases to be part of the setting. It may be helpful to keep open the option to return, in case additional observation is needed to clarify questions that arise during later analysis. If appropriate, researchers can gradually withdraw by coming less frequently until visits cease (Bogdan and Biklen 2003). Stake (1995) recommends that researchers use good judgment, common sense, and good manners to respectfully enter and leave a research site, having “made no one less able to carry out their responsibilities” during or at the conclusion of the study (60).

234   margaret schmidt

13.4 Collecting Observation Data: How to Observe Initially, novice researchers may experience unsettling feelings of not knowing how or what to observe. With practice, they can develop the skills to notice key features relevant to a study’s purpose. Stake (1995) suggests that effective observation requires both sensitivity and skepticism: the sensitivity to remain alert for potentially useful information, and the skepticism to constantly question whether other important things are being overlooked. The skilled observer seeks both to “make the obvious obvious” (Wolcott 1992, 24)  and to “make the familiar strange” (Spindler 1982, 313). The most effective researchers constantly search for alternative perspectives and explanations, being slow to conclude that they have observed the whole picture. Skilled researchers learn to determine clear foci for each observation; a large quantity of unfocused observation notes might actually needlessly complicate data analysis, by obscuring the information most pertinent to the study’s research questions. Spradley (1980) describes three levels of observation. In a descriptive observation, researchers try to address the question, “What is going on here?” (73). At this level, Angrosino (2005) suggests observing as many details as possible, setting aside preconceptions and taking nothing for granted. This wide lens, he suggests, will yield a great deal of data. Although some of these data may later prove to be irrelevant, the discipline of detailed looking assures that important information is not too easily dismissed. A second level is focused observation. Spradley (1980) suggests using five or six broad categories derived from the research questions to guide increasingly more focused observations. Key information begins to surface over repeated visits, as the researcher becomes more familiar with the setting and more aware of “what’s going on.” Selective observation is a third level, where the researcher plans to observe for specific details. These foci change and evolve throughout the study, often based on questions that arise in reviewing data from previous observations. “Most researchers find they do their best work by being thoroughly prepared to concentrate on a few things, yet ready for unanticipated happenings that reveal the nature of the case” (Stake 1995, 55). Spradley’s (1980) book, Participant Observation, offers detailed guidance in maintaining the “balanced tension” (102) between big-picture and in-depth observation. Rarely will a researcher begin with descriptive observation, proceed in order through the next two levels, and conclude data collection. It is also unusual for an observation study to close with the original research questions unchanged. With each return visit to the site, the researcher tacks back and forth among all three levels, as newly observed data raise questions that provoke a shift in observation focus or suggest refinement or revision of research questions. The method chapter of dissertations often provides details about the evolution of a study. For example, Lewis (2004, 22–23) describes the gradual revision of her research questions. She intended to study whether kindergarten

Collecting and Analyzing Observation Data  235 teachers made connections between music and other subject areas. As data collection proceeded, reading and literacy emerged as the key focus.

13.5 Collecting Observation Data: What to Collect Observers typically collect multiple types of data. Field notes and audio or video recordings are common. Pertinent documents and artifacts, such as songbooks, photographs, music program brochures, or examples of students’ work, may be appropriate. In addition, the researcher maintains a journal throughout the study (Creswell 2007). The more different kinds of data sources, the more credible the findings will be. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest, Triangulation is a state of mind. If you self-consciously set out to collect and double-check findings, using multiple sources and modes of evidence, the verification process will largely be built into the data-gathering process. (235)

In this section, I  discuss field notes, artifacts, preliminary data analysis, and the researcher journal.

13.5.1 Field Notes Researchers make field notes in a variety of ways, depending on the circumstances of a particular study. Glesne (1999), Stake (1995, 2010), Spradley (1980), and Bogdan and Biklen (2003) are among the many texts that provide detailed examples of processes for making field notes. If the researcher’s role is primarily as observer, notes may be made by hand in a notebook or on a computer while observing. Sometimes, however, this may create a disturbance or discomfort for the participants, or researchers may be participating fully during an observation. For example, Tobias’s (2010) data gathering procedures in a high school songwriting class required considerable multitasking, keeping him too busy to make notes on-site beyond “in-process analytic writing such as asides, commentaries, and in-process memos.” After leaving the site each day, he reviewed the videos to make detailed descriptive notes (105, examples on 106–07). Spradley (1980) notes a particular challenge related to field notes: “the moment you begin writing down what you see and hear, you automatically encode things in language . . . [and while] this may seem a rather straightforward matter, the language used in field notes has numerous long-range consequences for your research” (64). Especially important are the use of participants’ own language and concrete, descriptive terms. The most useful field notes record terms and phrases participants themselves use to label, describe, or discuss what the observer sees. Additionally, precise descriptions of a

236   margaret schmidt participant’s behaviors and actions will yield more useful data than simply noting that a child is “angry.” Evaluative descriptors, such as “wonderful,” “boring,” or “enthusiastic,” may record more about the researcher’s perspective than the views of the participants. To separate their own feelings and interpretations from description of what is observed, researchers may find it helpful to record field notes on a divided page, using one side to describe events and the other side to record the researcher’s own thoughts or questions. Another option is writing researcher memos, entered directly in the field notes using a different font or other special notation, as Schmidt did (1994, 471–75). Berg’s (1997) Appendices H and I  offer complete transcripts of her observations of two high school chamber ensembles’ rehearsals; Jackson-Gough’s (2003) Appendices D and E provide both raw observation notes and descriptive summaries of her video recordings.

13.5.2 Artifacts For some studies, site diagrams, participant e-mails, concert programs, and other artifacts may provide invaluable information, while in others, they may be irrelevant. To record the contexts in which four urban music teachers worked, Fitzpatrick (2008) “drove around the school neighborhood, taking photographs of local housing, area businesses, and otherwise trying to document aspects of the local culture” (110). Soto, Lum, and Campbell (2009), studying a school-university partnership, collected “class handouts, songs and song sheets, teaching schedules, and lesson plans,” as well as “the school’s annual calendar, local news coverage on the program, and articles published in the university magazines and faculty/staff weekly” (351), to triangulate observation and interview data. To supplement her classroom observations, Blair (2009) took photos of student group work completed on the classroom white board, reviewed student work saved to classroom computers, and archived e-mail conversations with the classroom teacher. Occasionally, participants may not mention key documents and artifacts simply because they assume they are not important. A researcher’s ability to follow hunches and ask good questions can be useful in revealing or locating important artifacts. Stake (1995) suggests using logic, intuition, and careful observation, recommending that “one needs to have one’s mind organized, yet be open for unexpected clues” (68).

13.5.3  Researcher Journal Because the researcher is the key research instrument, another important data source is the record of the observer’s own experience of conducting the study (Bogdan and Biklen 2003; Creswell 2007; Stake 2010). The research journal “contain[s]‌a record of experiences, ideas, fears, mistakes, confusions, breakthroughs, and problems that arise during fieldwork. A journal represents the personal side of fieldwork; it includes reactions to informants and the feelings you sense from others” (Spradley 1980, 71).

Collecting and Analyzing Observation Data  237 Peshkin (1988) believes an awareness of feelings can alert researchers to important data. He writes, I looked for the warm and the cool spots, the emergence of positive and negative feelings, the experiences I wanted more of or wanted to avoid, and when I felt moved to act in roles beyond those necessary to fulfill my research needs. . . . I had to monitor myself to sense how I was feeling. (18)

Schmidt (1994) was surprised by the strong emotional reactions the student teachers in her study revealed as casual conversations after class evolved into discussions of major issues. She later made notes about these exchanges, and also recorded the tensions this created for her, finding that “keeping records of ‘friendly’ conversations reflected an attitude [she] did not want to convey: that the student teachers were ‘subjects’ for research” (42). The journal also documents the evolution of research questions or data collection methods. Spradley (1980) explains that “rereading your journal at a later time will reveal how quickly you forget what occurred during the first days and weeks of fieldwork” (71). The journal becomes part of the data record, and can be used in creating the final report to inform readers about the researcher’s process, permitting readers to better interpret the study’s findings.

13.5.4  Preliminary Data Analysis Novice researchers often fail to plan adequate time for review of data as it is collected. Although it is tempting to assume that recordings will preserve data adequately for analysis several months later, timely review of field notes and recordings are essential components of data collection and analysis. As Stake (1995) points out, “There is always too little time. . . . We need some deep thinking, perhaps a data-gathering plan, a plan that protects time for the less attractive work, such as writing up observations” (51). Following each observation, researchers return to field notes to “thicken” them, reviewing recordings or mentally recreating the visit and filling in additional details to describe the people, setting, and events as thoroughly as possible. Memories are most vivid within the first 24 hours following an observation. Observation data will be most complete if researchers review field notes within that time frame, recalling their own sensations during the observation and adding information about participants’ actions or body language. As researchers note possible interpretations, questions, or foci for subsequent observations, this review process informs preliminary data analysis. Ongoing preliminary analysis is also important in determining when enough data have been collected. Sometimes a study is limited by the amount of time granted for access, for example, when a music program’s schedule dictates the end. The ideal end of data collection occurs when data become “saturated” (Adler and Adler 1994; Glesne 1999), i.e., when repeated visits yield redundant information or “diminishing returns”

238   margaret schmidt (Bogdan and Biklen 2003, 62). To help in deciding when data are saturated, Spradley (1980) recommends that occasionally “you need to climb a very tall tree and gain a broad perspective on how far you have come, what tasks lie ahead, and which direction you should take” to keep “from losing sight of the forest because of the trees” (35).

13.6 Maintaining a Data Record Observational studies can generate a large volume of data, requiring the researcher to develop systematic and accessible methods for organizing it. Technology has made it possible to collect hundreds of photographs or hours of recordings. These data permit repeated examination and allow researchers to review an observation in more detail. However, the benefits of digital records should be weighed against the time, energy, and intrusiveness required to collect and transcribe the data. Wolcott (2001) warns, Audiotapes, videotapes, and now computer capabilities . . . have gargantuan appetites and stomachs. Because we can accommodate ever-increasing quantities of data— mountains of it—we have to be careful not to get buried by avalanches of our own making. (44)

Very early in the study, researchers need to develop systems for handling data, clearly labeling files with dates, participants’ names, locations, and other pertinent information. Some researchers like to work with an electronic archive of field notes; others prefer to maintain hard copy of field notes in binders. Recordings may be kept on a computer or transferred to other digital formats. Photographs and other documents may be digitally scanned or stored in paper files. Frequent backup of digital files can avoid catastrophe. (Tobias’s c­ hapter 16 in this volume offers practical suggestions for data management.) Markers within field notes that easily identify the location of data are particularly helpful during analysis and writing the final report. For example, labeling field notes with “4/12.O3A.6.23” could identify the date the notes were made (April 12), the observation (the third observation of classroom A), and the page (6) and line number (23) (e.g., Schmidt 1994, 471–75). Most word processing systems will configure documents with this type of marker for easy reference. Similarly, a system for classifying and labeling recordings can simplify review and analysis. It is important to be aware that transcription can take five to eight hours per hour of recorded data; sometimes a paid transcriptionist can expedite the process, getting the basics on paper for the researcher to thicken in reviewing recordings. An indexed timeline entered in the corresponding transcript for each recording, marking major points or predetermined time intervals, will facilitate later analysis. For example, Hornbach’s (2005) Appendix E shows field notes using a timeline to note shifts in children’s musical activities.

Collecting and Analyzing Observation Data  239

13.7 Analyzing Observation Data Preliminary analysis, described in Section 13.5.4, continues from the first observation to the last. While preliminary analysis reveals some important information, once data collection is complete, formal analysis involves a more systematic search. Most approaches to analysis share a common understanding of the researcher as the primary research instrument, whose job is to describe and interpret what was observed. Through analysis, researchers seek to document the “complex meaning systems [people use] to organize their behavior, to understand themselves and others, and to make sense out of the world in which they live” (Spradley 1980, 5). For novice researchers, analysis may seem mysterious or unsettling, with few easy-to-follow guidelines. Stake (1995) defends a view of data analysis as a largely intuitive, subjective process, learned through practice. I defend it because I know no better way to make sense of the complexities of my case. I recognize that the way I do it is not “the right way.” . . . Each researcher needs, through experience and reflection, to find the forms of analysis that work for him or her . . . The nature of the study, the focus of the research questions, the curiosities of the researcher pretty well determine what analytic strategies should be followed. (77)

In this section, I discuss the analytical processes of developing and refining data codes.

13.7.1 Developing Data Codes Formal analysis requires “perform[ing] some kinds of dissection, to see the parts separately and how they relate to each other” (Stake 1995, 72). Generally, researchers begin by reviewing all the collected data, rereading field notes and documents, listening to or watching recordings, and making notes about larger patterns, themes, or categories that emerge. In this initial review, it is important to keep an open mind, looking not only to confirm ideas that have arisen during preliminary analysis, but also searching for things that may have been overlooked or that challenge those initial thoughts. Researchers often use this first review of data to develop an initial coding scheme. Qualitative research methods texts provide a variety of approaches to and detailed examples of coding (e.g., Bogdan and Biklen 2003; Creswell 2007; Glesne 1999; Miles and Huberman 1994; Stake 2010). They generally describe a process of identifying key categories, or codes, with subcategories of related data. The data itself may suggest codes; for example, Brewer (2009) found that his data documenting preservice music teachers’ conceptions of good teaching could initially be grouped into three large categories: personal skills and knowledge, teaching skills and knowledge, and musical skills and knowledge. Over time, these data categories suggested a model of role-identity in music teaching, which he continued to refine over the course of his study (72–82). Alternatively, codes may be initially determined from prior research. Abramo (2011,

240   margaret schmidt 121) set out to specifically study the ways that high school students performed gender roles as they worked in small rock groups. He began initial data analysis by coding the data for issues of power, gender, and musical gesture that informed the study’s theoretical framework, developed through his review of literature. Using these preliminary codes, researchers review the entire data set again, coding individual bits of data, either by hand or using a software program. Others may prefer tactile manipulation of data; Wolcott (2001, 41–43) writes data on cards and manually sorts them into coded piles. Hornbach’s (2005) Appendices E and H show her field notes with codes written beside each data segment. Some researchers prefer to work with lists of codes; for others, charts, tables, or diagrams may help clarify codes, subcodes, and the relationships among them. Berg (1997, 301–16) provides a detailed table of her final set of codes, with a definition and example given for each. In some cases, numerical analysis of codes may be helpful, such as Norgaard’s (2008, 202–05) Code Table, which counts the number of references to each code made by each participant, or Jackson-Gough’s (2003, 51–52) Tables 12 and 13, which count the frequencies with which kindergartners engaged in specific musical events and the types of musical events observed at each of her eight research sites. A comprehensive quantitative analysis of rehearsal communication and thought patterns appears in Berg’s Chapter 4 (1997, 110–39). She also includes diagrams to explain relationships in her coding scheme.

13.7.2 Refining Codes In the process of assigning codes to specific data, initial codes are often revised by combining, dividing, adding, or deleting categories, until the researcher is satisfied that categories account as well as possible for the collected data. Although coding is time-consuming and can seem tedious, it is important to spend adequate time in this stage of analysis, recognizing that “as you choose what to attend to and how to interpret it, mental doors slam shut on the alternatives” (Agar, cited in Jansen and Peshkin 1992, 706). Stake (1995) suggests being deliberate, “looking [data] over again and again, reflecting, triangulating, being skeptical about first impressions and simple meanings” (78). Not all data, no matter how interesting, will be relevant to the purpose of a study; therefore, those data are not coded. Alternatively, data that do not fit a code may signal the need to revise or divide codes. They may also point to inconsistencies or contradictions in participants’ beliefs and behaviors that the researcher should consider. Matsunobu’s (2011) study of North American shakuhachi practitioners offers details about the evolution of his analysis. He began his coding process using five dimensions of spirituality identified by other researchers. From those initial categories, four contrasting pairs of concepts emerged, which in turn suggested questions that guided further analysis. In the process, Matsunobu was forced to question his original understandings of music as culturally specific, and identified a key theme which he had not considered earlier in his research. As Wolcott (2001) suggests, “Good qualitative research ought to confound issues, revealing them in their complexity rather than reducing them

Collecting and Analyzing Observation Data  241 to simple explanation” (36); it ought to “trouble certainty” (Barrett and Stauffer 2009). While this may sometimes lead to researcher frustration and somewhat messy research findings, it can also lead to a more holistic understanding of the complexity of the observation setting and participants.

13.8 Writing about Observation Data The previous section described the process of data analysis, which involves searching for patterns and themes within the data themselves. As the researcher reviews the data set multiple times and refines codes, larger patterns or themes begin to emerge. These themes and broad categories, now supported by specific coded data, help determine the organization of the report of the study’s findings, and writing of findings can begin. Wolcott (2001) suggests first writing a description of what was observed. A  separate process, interpretation of the findings, involves researchers in “sensemaking” (Wolcott 2001, 33), explicating their own understandings of the meaning of what was observed. In published research, descriptions are often titled “findings” or “results,” and interpretations “discussion” or “implications.” In this section, I first consider writing descriptions, then writing interpretations, followed by a discussion of the author’s voice in research writing.

13.8.1 Writing Descriptions of Observation Data The first phase of writing is to describe what was observed, creating rich and vivid descriptions of the context and providing key details that “develop vicarious experiences for the reader, to give them a sense of ‘being there’ ” (Stake 1995, 63). A major premise of qualitative research is that no one “correct” view of reality exists; “reality is socially constructed, complex, and ever changing” (Glesne 1999, 5). The most carefully crafted descriptions still position some things to be noticed while others are ignored. Therefore, the researcher faces “the possibility of arriving at different descriptions of the same data. This is sometimes regarded as a problem, but I would argue it could also be regarded as an opportunity of seeing new dimensions in a phenomenon” (Larsson 1986, 38). In this sense, writing descriptions of observed data is both an analytical and a creative process, as the researcher makes decisions about what to include and omit, as well as choices of writing style and language. The goal is to craft a story that conveys the most important details from one’s vast collection of data, those details that best illustrate the large patterns or themes determined through the analysis process. Reflecting on a previous study, Peshkin (1982) described his goal in writing: Any number of observers could have joined me in Mansfield and shared my “scientific observation.” To be sure, they might have seen something else, something

242   margaret schmidt I overlooked or valued less and therefore ignored in my reconstruction. Indeed, they could have overlooked what I was seeing, by fastening upon some dimension of the phenomena before us that was central to them. But I believe that if I pointed to what I was seeing, the overlookers would then be able to say, “Yes, I see what you see.” (62–63)

13.8.2 Writing Interpretations of Observation Data Description of findings is the section of the written report that brings the researcher’s observations to life for readers. In contrast, “interpretation involves explaining and framing your ideas in relation to theory, other scholarship, and action, as well as showing why your findings are important and making them understandable” (Bogdan and Biklen 2003, 147). The interpretation section presents researchers’ own understandings of key relationships and connections among the people, actions, and beliefs they observed, and discusses these in relation to the crucial questions, “So what?” and “What difference does this study make?” (Flinders and Richardson 2002, 1169). Writing interpretation is similar to constructing a convincing argument. Carter (1993) states, “We are, in the very act of story making, deciding what to tell and what to leave out and imposing structure and meaning on events” (9). Carefully crafted descriptions will include details that foreshadow points made in the interpretation. Skilled writers make many revisions of both description and interpretation sections, until the vivid portrayals of observed data hang together in a convincing way with the ideas raised in the interpretation. Bogdan and Biklen’s Chapter 5 (2003, 185–207) presents a thorough discussion of choices writers face; Wolcott’s chapter, “Tightening Up” (2001, 109–34), offers invaluable practical advice for editing one’s own writing. Because a goal of qualitative research is to present multiple perspectives on the observed setting, writers are obligated to consider and report participants’ differing perceptions and to account for plausible alternative or discarded explanations. Equally critical in writing interpretations is connecting a study’s findings to other research, articulating where the current findings support prior work and where they may challenge others’ findings or suggest questions for further research. In addition, interpretations include implications of the findings for practitioners in the field. Music education researchers use a variety of formats for reporting a study’s findings and interpretations. Koops (2010) presents her data in a “Results” section, followed by “Interpretations” revealing the three main themes she found, and “Discussion” suggesting implications of those themes for music educators’ practice and for further research. Rather than writing a separate “Findings” section, Silverman (2011) describes the choral ensemble she studied in the “Method” section, then presents specific descriptions to support her interpretation of the four themes that emerged from her data. Dissertations offer additional examples for organizing description and interpretation. Paise’s (2010) Chapters 4 and 5 present her data, first as individual case studies of participants, then as cross-case analysis of similarities and differences in their teacher role identities; in Chapter 6 she discusses interpretations and implications. Eros (2009),

Collecting and Analyzing Observation Data  243 Berg (1997), and Schmidt (1994) each wrote individual chapters to describe findings related to one of their three research questions; subsequent chapters offer further interpretation of themes and discussions of implications of the three description chapters.

13.8.3 Establishing the Writer’s Voice Language “is not merely a conveyor of [experience]. Language shapes, focuses, directs our attention; it transforms our experience in the process of making it public” (Eisner 1991, 28). By the language they use, researchers craft a writer’s voice, assuming a position that implies varied degrees of omniscience and authority over, under, or alongside participants and readers. Most often, researchers are the primary writers, although they may invite participants to read and comment on some or all of the final report (e.g., Eros 2009, 71–72; Gray 2011, 99–100; Pellegrino 2010, 88–89). Schmidt and Canser (2006) demonstrate one example of researcher and participant sharing in analyzing and writing a study’s findings. Researchers will want to consider whether their language reflects the kind of relationship with participants and readers they intend. The voice a researcher assumes is thus an ethical decision, because “all types of educational research, both quantitative and qualitative, employ rhetorical forms and thus privilege those who know how to use the rules of the discourse to their advantage” (Flinders and Richardson 2002, 1167). Voice and vocabulary concern not only whose perspective is presented, but whether the language of the report permits participants to read, debate, or own it (Carter 1993; Eisenhart and Howe 1992; Stake 1995). The tone may range from detached or scholarly to warm and poetic. No matter the choices made, writers are obligated to articulate their decisions for readers. In writing about a study, Peshkin (1985) was surprised to catch himself “red-handed, with [his] values at the very end of [his] pen,” but then decided that is “right where they belong” (277). Such disclosures allow readers to evaluate the credibility and applicability of the findings for their own work. Recognizing that multiple possible interpretations of events exist suggests that readers will add their own voices to the researcher’s discussion. It is important for researchers to “inform readers where self and subject have been joined;” otherwise, the researcher’s experiences remain “beyond control in the research process” (Jansen and Peshkin 1992, 710). Although the word “generalization” is problematic in qualitative research (see Bogdan and Biklen 2003, 31–32; Stake 2010, 197–98), Wolcott (1990) makes a useful point in distinguishing “propositional generalizations” (stated directly by the researcher) from “naturalistic generalizations” (made as readers compare their own experiences with those the researcher reports): We have choices to make in terms of how much we should organize our analyses and interpretations to produce the researcher’s propositional generalizations (which I have been calling assertions) or to provide input into the reader’s naturalistic generalizations. We will ordinarily do both, but how much of either is an important strategic choice. (86)

244   margaret schmidt Words suggesting that readers “should,” “must,” or “need to” do something based on the study’s findings position the writer as more of an authority. In contrast, words suggesting that readers “may,” “consider,” or “might” do something invite more input from readers’ perspectives in determining the usefulness of the findings for their own situations. Flinders and Richardson (2002) provide a good discussion of issues of authorship, suggesting that qualitative researchers “write in a voice that frees the reader to find the meaning of the qualitative research report” for themselves (1169).

13.9 Ethical Issues in Observational Studies Deyhle, Hess, and LeCompte (1992) offer a history and extensive discussion of ethical issues that may arise in qualitative research. For example, a researcher may be observing a group where several participants have not provided consent forms. No matter how interesting the data these participants provide, their words and work cannot be used in the study, unless the researcher devises a mechanism for collecting such data that meets IRB approval. Other issues, while within the ethical guidelines of IRBs, are less clear-cut. When the video or audio recording captures the interactions of the whole group, including those participating without permission, can researchers use the video for data analysis, if they use only data pertinent to participants with appropriate permission? Conversations not intended for the researcher’s ears may be overheard, or confidential information may be offered off the record or in informal exchanges. Is this data appropriate to include for analysis? Skilled researchers also remain aware of participants who find recording or photography uncomfortable, disruptive, or even disrespectful. For example, Blair (2009) turned off her video recorder because two girls in the class she studied were very sensitive to being photographed. Similarly, in studying his own teaching of private percussion lessons, Smith made only audio recordings and notes, deciding that video would be too intrusive for his students in that intimate setting (Smith and Durant 2006). Other ethical concerns may arise as researchers seek to establish positive relationships with participants, for example, offering something to participants in exchange for the privilege of observing. To establish rapport and thank participants, Berg (1997, 94) regularly brought snacks for students in the high school chamber music programs she studied, offered to help the coordinators and provide them with information about their programs and, at the conclusion of the study, bought a meal or small gift for the teachers and coaches. Stake (1995) recommends caution in making promises or offers of help, particularly in the early stages of a study. For example, researchers may promise participants the opportunity to review the final research report, and then discover that findings raise issues that participants are not able to or may prefer not to acknowledge. Descriptions

Collecting and Analyzing Observation Data  245 that participants find unflattering or that could reveal sensitive information may be important findings. Are these findings essential to reporting the study? Should they be shared with participants? Angrosino (2005) offers guidelines for such slippery questions under a principle he calls “proportionate reason.” First, the means used will not cause more harm than necessary to achieve the value. . . . If we take “the value” to refer to the production of some form of ethnography, we must be careful to ensure that the means used (e.g., inserting oneself into a social network, using photographs or other personal records) do not cause disproportionate harm. . . . The second criterion is that no less harmful way to protect the value currently exists. (737, italics in the original)

Angrosino proposes that proportionate reason may be judged through intuition, trial and error, and common sense guidelines such as respecting community norms. Acknowledging that researchers cannot always predict the consequences of their choices, he also offers, “The moral advantage of the proportionate reasoning strategy is that it encourages researchers to admit to errors once they have occurred, to correct the errors so far as possible, and to move on” (737).

13.10  Parting Thoughts Observational studies have made important contributions to our understanding, illuminating processes of music teaching and learning, and articulating a wealth of individually and socially constructed meanings among music-makers, listeners, teachers, learners, and music itself. More studies of formal and informal music teaching and learning in outside-of-school settings could deepen our understanding of individuals’ motivations to make music and the meanings of music-making in their lives. Observational studies of small groups who gather to make music for themselves or to share with others, such as garage bands, woodwind quintets, drumming groups, country-western bands, vocal quartets, laptop orchestras, or fiddle bands, are lacking. Also unexplored are the behaviors of those who, as their primary way of interacting with music, choose to listen to live or recorded music, as audience members, fans, or avid and knowledgeable collectors. Such studies could offer insights into teaching and learning processes and suggest ways for music educators to more effectively prepare individuals with skills for lifelong involvement with music. Technological advances continue to provide expanded options for data collection. (See Chapters 16 and 18.) Researchers are gaining the technical capabilities to conduct observations remotely, rather than on-site. What are the possibilities for combining on- and off-site observations in a study? What is gained or lost, for example, observing music-making in a remote area by Web camera, rather than in person? In addition, Angrosino (2005) warns that it is easy to forget that photographs, recordings, and other

246   margaret schmidt digital data are partial and decontextualized. He urges researchers to remember that, far from being a neutral record, technology “has the perceived power to objectify and turn into ‘data’ everything it encounters” (743). He therefore recommends that, rather than focusing on digital records themselves, researchers concentrate on understanding participants’ and their own lived experience. In my experience as a researcher, I have been privileged to be allowed to observe and share in participants’ worlds and lives. In the process, I have gradually learned to become a more skilled observer. I have learned to plan more carefully and to deal with unanticipated occurrences that disrupt my careful plans. There is no shortcut for developing observation skills—we learn to observe by doing observation. Through continued practice, we discover that All researchers have great privilege and obligation:  the privilege to pay attention to what they consider worthy of attention and the obligation to make conclusions drawn from those choices meaningful [to others]. . . . Added to the experience of ordinary looking and thinking, the experience of the qualitative researcher is one of knowing what leads to significant understanding, recognizing good sources of data, and consciously and unconsciously testing out the veracity of their eyes and the robustness of their interpretations. (Stake 1995, 49–50)

Studying music teaching and learning through observation offers an adventure with few specific rules or recipes. General principles, such as those outlined in this chapter, can help us develop useful questions and determine appropriate methods of data gathering and analysis, offering vivid descriptions and considered interpretations to participants, readers, and our field.

References Abramo, Joseph Michael. 2009. “Popular Music and Gender in the Classroom.” PhD diss., Teachers College, Columbia University. Abramo, Joseph Michael. 2011. “Gender Differences of Popular Music Production in Secondary Schools.” Journal of Research in Music Education 59 (1): 21–43. Adler, Patricia A., and Peter Adler. 1994. “Observational Techniques.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Angrosino, Michael V. 2005. “Recontextualizing Observation: Ethnography, Pedagogy, And The Prospects For a Progressive Political Agenda.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Angrosino, Michael V., and Judith Rosenberg. 2011. “Observations on Observations: Continuities and Challenges.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Atkinson, Paul, and Martyn Hammersley. 1994. “Ethnography and Participant observation.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Barrett, Margaret S., and Sandra Lee Stauffer. 2009. Narrative Inquiry in Music Education: Troubling Certainty. Dordrecht, London: Springer.

Collecting and Analyzing Observation Data  247 Berg, Margaret H. 1997. “Social Construction of Musical Experience in Two High School Chamber Music Ensembles.” PhD diss., music education, Northwestern University. Blair, Deborah V. 2009. “Nurturing Music Learners in Mrs. Miller’s ‘Family Room’: A Secondary Classroom for Students with Special Needs.” Research Studies in Music Education 31 (1): 20–36. Bogdan, Robert C., and Sari Knopp Biklen. 2003. Qualitative Research For Education:  An Introduction to Theories and Methods. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Brewer, Wesley. 2009. “Conceptions of Effective Teaching and Role-Identity Development among Preservice Music Educators.” PhD diss., Arizona State University. Carter, Kathy. 1993. “The Place of Story in the Study of Teaching and Teacher Education.” Educational Researcher 22 (1): 5–12, 18. Creswell, John W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design:  Choosing among Five Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dewey, John. 1934. Art as Experience. New York: Perigee Books. Deyhle, Donna L., G. Alfred Hess Jr., and Margaret D. LeCompte. 1992. “Approaching Ethical Issues for Qualitative Researchers in Education.” In The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education, edited by M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, and J. Preissle. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc. Duke, Robert A., and Amy L. Simmons. 2006. “The Nature of Expertise: Narrative Descriptions of 19 Common Elements Observed in the Lessons of Three Renowned Artist-Teachers.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 170: 7–19. Eisenhart, Margaret A., and Kenneth R. Howe. 1992. “Validity in Educational Research.” In The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education, edited by M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, and J. Preissle. San Diego: Academic Press. Eisner, Elliot W. 1991. The Enlightened Eye:  Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Eros, John D. 2009. “A Case Study of Three Urban Music Teachers in the Second Stage of Their Teaching Careers.” PhD diss., The University of Michigan. Fitzpatrick, Kate R. 2008. “A Mixed Methods Portrait of Urban Instrumental Music Teaching.” PhD diss., Northwestern University. Flinders, David J., and Carol P. Richardson. 2002. “Contemporary Issues in Qualitative Research and Music Education.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. J. Colwell and C. Richardson. New York: Oxford University Press. Gackle, Lynne, and Victor Fung. 2009. “Bringing the East to the West: A Case Study in Teaching Choral Music to a Youth Choir in the United States.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 182: 65–77. Glesne, Corrine. 1999. Becoming Qualitative Researchers:  An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Longman. Gray, Lori F. 2011. “The Impact of Changing Teaching Jobs on Music Teacher Identity, Role, and Perceptions of Role Support.” PhD diss., Arizona State University. Hornbach, Christina M. 2005. “Ah-eee-ah-eee-yah-eee, Bum and Pop, Pop, Pop:  Teacher Initiatives, Teacher Silence, and Children’s Vocal Responses in Early Childhood Music Classes.” PhD diss., Michigan State University. Jackson-Gough, Julie J. 2003. “Music Events among Four-Year-Old Children in Naturalistic Contexts, within Selected New Zealand Kindergartens.” PhD diss., Florida State University. Jansen, Golie, and Alan Peshkin. 1992. “Subjectivity in Qualitative Research.” In The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education, edited by M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, and J. Preissle. San Diego: Academic Press.

248   margaret schmidt Koops, Lisa Huisman. 2010. “‘Deñuy Jàngal Seen Bopp’ (They Teach Themselves): Children’s Music Learning in The Gambia.” Journal of Research in Music Education 58 (1): 20–36. Larsson, S. 1986. “Learning from Experience:  Teachers’ Conceptions of Changes in Their Professional Practice.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 19 (1): 35–43. Lewis, Carolyn E. 2004. “Music’s Role in the Kindergarten Classroom: A Qualitative Study.” Master’s thesis, University of Louisville. Lum, Chee-Hoo. 2007. “Musical Networks of Children: An Ethnography of Elementary School Children in Singapore.” PhD diss., University of Washington. Lum, Chee-Hoo, and Patricia Shehan Campbell. 2007. “The Sonic Surrounds of an Elementary School.” Journal of Research in Music Education 55 (1): 31–47. Manes, Sean Ichiro. 2009. “The Pedagogical Process of a Japanese-American Shamisen Teacher.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 281: 41–50. Matsunobu, Koji. 2011. “Spirituality as a Universal Experience of Music: A Case Study of North Americans’ Approaches to Japanese Music.” Journal of Research in Music Education 59 (3): 273–89. Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Norgaard, Martin. 2008. “Descriptions of Improvisational Thinking by Artist-Level Jazz Musicians.” PhD diss., University of Texas. Paise, Michele. 2010. “Six Beginning Music Teachers’ Music Teacher Role Identities.” PhD diss., Arizona State University. Pellegrino, Kristen 2010. “The Meanings and Values of Music-Making in the Lives of String Teachers:  Exploring the Intersections of Music-Making and Teaching.” PhD diss., The University of Michigan. Peshkin, Alan. 1982. “The Researcher and Subjectivity:  Reflections on an Ethnography of School and Community.” In Doing the Ethnography of Schooling, edited by G. Spindler. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Peshkin, Alan. 1985. “Virtuous Subjectivity:  In the Participant-Observer’s I’s.” In Exploring Clinical Methods for Social Research, edited by D. N. Berg, and Kenwyn K. Smith. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Peshkin, Alan. 1988. “In Search of Subjectivity—One’s Own. ” Educational Researcher 17 (7): 17–21. Ruthmann, Stephen Alexander. 2006. “Negotiating Learning and Teaching in a Music Technology Lab:  Curricular, Pedagogical, and Ecological Issues.” PhD diss., Oakland University. Schmidt, Margaret. 1994. “Learning from Experience: Influences on Music Student Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices.” PhD diss., The University of Michigan. Schmidt, Margaret, and Jelani Canser. 2006. “Clearing the Fog: Constructing Shared Stories of a Novice Teacher’s Success.” Research Studies in Music Education 27: 52–66. Seddon, Frederick, and Michele Biasutti. 2010. “Strategies Students Adopted When Learning to Play an Improvised Blues in an E-Learning Environment.” Journal of Research in Music Education 58 (2): 147–67. Silverman, Marissa. 2011. “Music and Homeschooled Youth: A Case Study.” Research Studies in Music Education 33 (2): 179–95. Smith, Gareth Dylan, and Colin Durrant. 2006. “Mind Styles™ and Paradiddles—Beyond the Bell-Curve: Towards an Understanding of Learning Preferences, and Implications for Instrumental Teachers.” Research Studies in Music Education 26 (1): 51–62.

Collecting and Analyzing Observation Data  249 Soto, Amanda Christina, Chee-Hoo Lum, and Patricia Shehan Campbell. 2009. “A University-School Music Partnership for Music Education Majors in a Culturally Distinctive Community.” Journal of Research in Music Education 56 (4): 338–56. Spindler, Gary, ed. 1982. Doing the Ethnography of Schooling. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Spradley, James P. 1980. Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Stake, Robert E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stake, Robert E. 2010. Qualitative Research:  Studying How Things Work. New  York:  The Guilford Press. Stauffer, Sandra. 2002. “Connections between the Musical and Life Experiences of Young Composers and Their Compositions.” Journal of Research in Music Education 50 (4): 301–22. Tobias, Evan. 2010. “Crossfading and Plugging in:  Secondary Students’ Engagement and Learning in a Songwriting and Technology Class.” PhD diss., Northwestern University. Tsugawa, Samuel. 2009. “Senior Adult Music Learning, Motivation, and Meaning Construction in Two New Horizons Ensembles.” PhD diss., Arizona State University. Wolcott, Harry F. 1990. Writing up Qualitative Research. 1st ed. Vol. 20. SAGE Qualitative Research Methods Series. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Wolcott, Harry F. 1992. “Posturing in Qualitative Inquiry.” In The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education, edited by M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, and J. Preissle. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc. Wolcott, Harry F. 2001. Writing up Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Chapter 14

C onduct i ng a nd Analy zing I ndi v i dua l Interv i ews kathryn roulston

Daily life in the first decades of the twenty-first century is saturated with information generated in interviews and disseminated via a spectrum of print and digital media. Interviewees include people from all walks of life—politicians and public figures, celebrities, and ordinary people caught up in both mundane and extraordinary circumstances. Citizens globally have come to know the “interview” as both spectators and participants. In fact, it would be hard to find someone who has not participated in some form of interview—as parents, teachers, or students in educational settings; as health professionals or patients in clinical encounters; or as potential employers or employees in job interviews. Given the ubiquity of interviews in social life, it is easy to overlook the complexity of the interview as a particular form of interaction specifically characterized by question and answer sequences. This chapter discusses a specific subset of individual interviews—that is, “research interviews.” Research interviews are used as a method to generate data to explore research problems and topics. Although some forms of interviewing involve groups, the most common of which is focus groups, these are not discussed here (see ­chapter 15 in this volume for further information). Here I focus on the use of research interviews to examine topics in music education in North America. First, I  review the different structures and types of interview used by researchers in relation to question formulation, before discussing how questions might be asked. I then outline the process of research design using interviews, including sampling and recruitment, and transcription practices. Analytic approaches to interview data are discussed, in addition to new trends in representing findings. Ethical issues are threaded throughout the chapter, as are relevant exemplars of research studies in music education that illustrate different approaches to interviews. I conclude by proposing issues for consideration for the future of interviewing in music education research, specifically, emerging avenues for research made possible by new technologies; how methodological

Conducting and Analyzing Interviews  251 and theoretical development in the social sciences might inform the use of interviews in music education research; and implications of these developments for the assessment of quality in research. I define the research interview as an interaction in which an interviewer asks a participant of a research study questions in order to generate information about a particular research topic. What distinguishes research interviews from mundane conversations in which people ask and answer one another’s questions is that information generated is used to examine research questions about the social world. With the ubiquity of recording devices, interviews are commonly audio- and/or video-recorded. They are later transcribed and systematically analyzed to generate knowledge about people’s experiences of engaging with music, music learning and teaching, and the meanings—including beliefs, opinions, and perspectives—that they attribute to their experiences.

14.1 Types of Interviews Interviews range in structure from standardized in which highly structured protocols are used, through semi-structured, to unstructured or conversational interviews. What all these interview types have in common is that questions are posed to research participants with the expectation that they provide factual information and/or descriptions of experiences, beliefs, or events. Yet, the kinds of descriptions generated by standardized question guides are likely to be quite different from those provided in unstructured conversations. In unstructured formats, talk is more likely to be symmetrical, in that both interviewers and interviewees are free to generate topics of discussion and ask one another questions. In contrast, a standardized interview format relies on the interviewer asking the same questions in the same sequence, with little deviation from pre-formulated scripts (Foddy 1993). Somewhere in between structured and unstructured formats is the semi-structured interview in which researchers use a topical guide to generate talk. Semi-structured interviews provide freedom for interviewers to pursue further detail concerning topics that arise in discussions with individual participants. While many researchers describe their use of interviews via the structures mentioned above, methodological literature has developed to describe a variety of interviews used in qualitative inquiry. These include phenomenological interviews, ethnographic interviews, life history and oral history interviews, feminist interviews, and dialogic interviews. Recent innovations in technology also afford opportunities to conduct interviews via telephone, as well as in online settings. Below I discuss these forms of interview in more detail. Broadly speaking, most qualitative inquiries are “phenomenological” in that the intent is to develop knowledge about human experience through examining people’s descriptions of their lived experiences and life worlds. Thus, in phenomenological interviews, interviewers ask questions of participants in order to generate in-depth descriptions of participants’ experiences. Some researchers situate their use of this type

252   kathryn roulston of interview within one of the many strands of philosophical phenomenology (e.g., Moustakas 1994; van Manen 1990; Vagle 2010; Wertz et al. 2011). Others use the phenomenological interview to generate rich descriptions of human experience that are analyzed via other approaches to human science research (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009; Seidman 2006). In a phenomenological interview, the interviewer’s responsibility is to listen carefully to the participant and ask thoughtful and relevant follow-up questions to elicit further details about the phenomenon of interest. The interviewer usually refrains from contributing his or her own ideas and experiences during conversations, and aims to provide a supportive, non-therapeutic environment in which participants are comfortable to talk about their life worlds. A typical opening question posed is: • Think of a time when you experienced . . . , and describe that in detail. Follow-up questions or probes may incorporate the participants’ utterances in order to facilitate story-telling in participants’ own words. For example: • You mentioned . . . , tell me more about that. • You talked about . . . , what was that like for you? Ryan Hourigan (2009) examined preservice teachers’ fieldwork experiences in special needs classrooms. Although his report describes the interviews as semi-structured, his analysis is informed by phenomenological theory, and as such, provides an example of phenomenologically informed interviews. Hourigan (2009) used a case study design to examine the lived experiences of participants, including four preservice teachers, a music teacher educator, and an inservice music teacher, as they collaborated with one another during a fieldwork practicum designed for preservice teachers. Data included preservice teachers’ journals, three semi-structured interviews with each participant, preservice teachers’ writing of a case describing a significant event during their field placement, and field notes of observations. Hourigan used a process of phenomenological reduction to analyze data, and participants’ lived experiences during field practicums are represented thematically. Hourigan’s study demonstrates how interviews can be used in conjunction with other data to examine a particular lived experience (i.e., learning to teach children with special needs) from the perspectives of collaborating participants. Phenomenological interviews might also be used as a sole source of data (e.g., Fischer and Wertz 2002); although in music education research, multiple sources of data are frequently used (see also ­chapter 9 for more detail on phenomenological research in music education). Ethnographic interviews have traditionally been used in research in which researchers want to explore particular cultural contexts with a view to examining the meanings that people attribute to events (Wolcott 1999). In this kind of work there is an emphasis on eliciting participants’ descriptions of native or “folk” terms (Heyl 2001). With roots in anthropological and sociological field studies, ethnography as a research design uses

Conducting and Analyzing Interviews  253 informal and formal interviews as an adjunct to prolonged participant observation in social settings. Ethnographers are likely to spend considerable amounts of time observing participants in naturalistic settings before asking questions in informal settings or arranging formal interviews. Thus, the range of questions that might be asked in an ethnographic study varies considerably with respect to the topic/s of study, and may include questions about the researcher’s observations concerning space, objects, activities, events, time, people, goals, and feelings (Spradley 1979; Spradley 1980). Particular question types first described in relation to ethnographic work have become commonplace in other kinds of research, and include “the grand tour question” (e.g., “Describe the rehearsal room for me” or “Describe the final rehearsal for me from the moment you arrived until you left”) and “mini-tour questions” (e.g., “Describe how you plan for a lesson”). Informal interviews are conversations that researchers might initiate in response to actions and activities that they observe. In ethnographic work, researchers might not audio-record these interviews, but rather jot down details and information at a later time. In both informal and formal interviews, the ethnographic interviewer must express genuine interest in learning about others and their actions and contexts. Researchers must also develop a high level of rapport and engage in ethical ways with participants. While all research involving human subjects requires respect for and ethical treatment of participants, ethnography calls upon researchers to be keenly aware of how data are collected over prolonged periods of time, and to let participants know about their rights as participants. Because researchers may develop friendly relationships with participants, it is the ethical responsibility of researchers to let participants know the boundaries within which data-gathering occurs. This avoids misunderstandings when information gained from informal conversations is later used as “data,” when a participant may have thought they were reporting confidential information to a “friend.” Multiple ethnographic interviews are likely to occur over time, with analysis occurring simultaneously with data generation. Thus, findings and questions from earlier interviews are used to structure different sorts of questions in later interviews (for example, Spradley (1979) discusses the use of descriptive, structural, and contrast questions at different points during an ethnographic study). Mary Kennedy’s (2004) study of the American Boychoir School (ABS) in Princeton, New Jersey, provides an example of the use of ethnographic interviews. The purpose of this study was to describe the culture of boys with changing voices within the context of a boys’ choir. Kennedy’s study is typical of ethnographic studies in that it uses multiple data sources, including interviews, field notes of observations, and examination of material culture (including musical scores, concert programs, promotional materials, CDs, handbooks, and academic tour packets). The study was conducted over a period of six months, in which the researcher attended and observed rehearsals and a range of school events, talked with academic and support staff in addition to conducting group interviews with boys (n = 36), and shadowed the choir during a six-day concert tour. Data were analyzed inductively, and findings are presented via general comments about the culture of boys with changing voices, and two in-depth portrayals of participants —a

254   kathryn roulston chorister, and an alumnus from the ABS. Multiple data sources are used in the construction of these portrayals, which are selected to demonstrate contrasting experiences of the changing voice. Further examples of the use of ethnographic interviewing may be found in Andrew Goodrich’s (2007) ethnographic study of peer mentoring in a high school jazz ensemble (also see ­chapter 8 for more information on ethnographic research in music education). Oral and life history interviews have long been used by oral historians and folklorists such as the renowned Studs Terkel (1912–2008) and Alan Lomax (1915–2002) to document peoples’ life stories. Researchers in the arts and humanities and social sciences also use oral and life history interviews to conduct research projects to document events and people’s lives (Janesick 2010; Ritchie 2003, 2011; Miller 2000). Countless oral histories of musicians and folk performers have been collected and archived in the Smithsonian Museum. One such collection is the Smithsonian Jazz Oral History Program, established in 1992 by the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History to record interviews with senior jazz musicians. The American Folklife Center also archives photos, films, interviews, and musical recordings of material culture to document peoples’ lives. Although music education researchers have established an extensive body of research (Cox 2002) accounting for the history of music education in North America, there is a surprising lack of research that makes use of oral history and life history interviews. This contrasts with extensive use of oral and life history interviews documenting the practice of musicians and music educators that is regularly published in practitioner journals (see also the oral history project of the National Association of Music Merchants at www.namm.org). Gordon Cox (2002) argues that music education researchers could make more use of life history research to document the lives and experiences of teachers. This would attend, he asserts, to the lack of work in this area, as well as providing new readings of historical topics of interest. Over the last 50 years, feminist researchers have developed specific methodological literature concerning how feminist research might contribute to the work of forwarding women’s agendas in patriarchal societies. The central commonality of feminist interviewing is that women’s ways of knowing are explored (Belenky et al. 1986) and women’s voices are made audible (Reinharz and Chase 2002; DeVault and Gross 2007). Thus, feminists have explored the use of many kinds of interview formats, including life history, semi-structured and unstructured interviews, as well as focus groups (Madriz 2000). Whatever interview method is used, feminist researchers strive to listen to and respond sincerely to participants, promote non-hierarchical and/or dialogic relationships with women, and represent women in ways that avoid objectification. While there is a growing body of feminist research in music education research (Lamb, Dolloff, and Howe 2002), it is difficult to locate specific examples that illustrate the use of feminist interview methods. In part, this may be attributed to the emancipatory emphasis of feminist work that seeks to challenge patriarchal structures. Feminist researchers use diverse research designs and methods, among which interviewing is but one method. Further, given the wide range of emerging topics concerning

Conducting and Analyzing Interviews  255 gender and feminist research in music education, central issues of concern have been to include women in historical accounts of music and music education (see for example the online magazine produced by The Maud Powell Society for Music and Education, Signature: Women in Music); and to promote discussion of gender and feminist theory in relation to music and music education (see, for example, the international organization, Gender Research in Music Education). Thus, focus on the use of feminist interviewing strategies in music education research is a topic yet to be explored. Similarly to feminist interviews, dialogic interviews involve a greater degree of back-and-forth conversation between interviewers and interviewees. Rather than taking a “neutral” or “objective” role in interviews, interviewers are more likely to express opinions, discuss their experiences, and even challenge participants’ accounts. Writing on this form of interview is relatively new in qualitative methodological literature (Brinkmann 2007; Tanggaard 2007; Tanggaard 2008), and has yet to influence work in music education research. Given that a lay-person understands the purpose of research interviews as eliciting individual thoughts and perspectives, any challenges on the part of the interviewer to what has been said may prove perplexing for a participant of a research study. Thus, use of dialogic interview methods—which may even seek to elicit change in participants’ understandings of a particular topic—entails careful thought by researchers concerning the purpose of a study, and ethical issues surrounding explanations about informed consent provided to participants.

14.2 Modes of Interacting with Interviewees In addition to conducting interviews face-to-face, researchers also make use of other modes of interacting with research participants, including telephones and computer-mediated communication. Social research has made extensive use of telephones (Genovese 2004) and more recently cell phones (Carley-Baxter, Peytchev, and Black 2010; Steeh, Buskirk, and Callegaro 2007) to ask participants questions, although this work predominantly relies on standardized surveys administered to participants who have been randomly selected. For an example of this application of telephone interviews in music education research, see Custodero and Johnson-Green (2003). Similarly to Opdenakker (2006), Sturges and Hanrahan (2004) argue for the advantages of using telephones to conduct interviews, noting that they are effective for examining topics that involve sensitive topics, enable researchers to involve participants who may be difficult to access, involve cost-savings, and ensure researcher safety. Using their research with correctional officers and visitors in county jails, they found that telephone interviews yielded data of quality comparable to interviews conducted face-to-face, and recommend telephone interviews for research not requiring that the researcher immerse himself or herself in a field setting.

256   kathryn roulston Qualitative studies in music education research have historically made use of interviews that have been conducted face-to-face, yet isolated examples of research using qualitative interviews via telephone may be found in research conducted in the United Kingdom. For example, Cope (2002, 95) used this means to talk with “geographically scattered” participants he had met at a music festival in Scotland. For the same reason, Burland and Davidson (2002) conducted a follow-up study of young adults who had been identified as having high musical potential in a research study conducted eight years previously. For researchers intending to use telephone interviews, advice from those experienced in survey research may be instructive. Genovese (2004, 216) points out that telephone interviews are quite different to face-to-face interviews because the interviewer does not have access to visual cues supplied by facial expressions and body language. A good telephone interviewer, according to Genovese (2004, 225) creates a comfort zone, engages the listener, visits a little with the person interviewed, exhibits patience, takes time, maintains a persona, is consistent, and communicates clearly. New modes of computer-mediated communication (CMCs) have provided both opportunities to recruit participants who were previously unavailable because of geographical distance, as well as fresh topics for examination. Online interviewing may be conducted asynchronously (e.g., via e-mail), or synchronously (e.g., via Internet chat rooms, instant messaging, or Voice over Internet Protocols (VoIPs) such as Skype or in multi-user domains (MUDs)) (James and Busher 2009; Salmons 2010). While online methods of communication provide ways to recruit participants from groups who otherwise may not be able to participate in interviews face-to-face, a range of issues must be considered by researchers. First, in online interviews, researchers must consider whether the person interviewed is who he/she says he/she is. This can be an issue in both synchronous and asynchronous settings when researchers cannot see parties to the interaction. Second, researchers cannot necessarily ensure confidentiality of electronic communications. Third, researchers need to consider participants’ level of skill in the use of technologies in addition to the robustness of Internet connections. For participants lacking skill in the use of technologies, participating in an online interview may be onerous and difficulties may also be encountered if connections fail during interactions. With advances in online technologies, however, reliance on CMCs for social research has the potential to increase. For example, Janice Waldron and Kari Veblen (2008) examined music teaching and learning in the Irish traditional virtual music community in cyberspace. Their article reviews different sites in virtual space for learning of Irish traditional music (e.g., websites, YouTube, wiki sites), and although it does not make use of interviews, it demonstrates the potential for music education researchers to examine new spaces in which music learning takes place. Researchers might incorporate new technologies as methods to generate and collect data in addition to further examining online settings as contexts for music learning and teaching. Given the growing array of options available to researchers, careful thought needs to be given to what kind of interview format will be used, how participants are recruited

Conducting and Analyzing Interviews  257 for a study, and how questions are formulated. Next, I consider the process of research design for researchers using interviews.

14.3 Designing Studies Using Interviews The process of designing a study using interviews encompasses developing a research topic and research questions, decision-making concerning the overall design and methods for the study, and formulating interview questions for a study. Questions used for a study are called “interview guides” or “interview protocols.” Once a proposal for a study has been developed, the researcher must gain approval for the study from relevant institutional review boards (IRBs) (these may include both university and school boards), and outline plans for sample selection and recruitment of participants. Proposals for studies involving human subjects usually include the following elements: • Background to the study and outline of the research problem (including reference to relevant literature) • Research design and methods statement explaining: o  A description of the study’s design (e.g., interview study, case study, ethnography etc.) o The population from which participants for the study will be selected, and criteria for selection o Plans for recruitment and relevant recruitment materials o Research settings and contexts o Projections concerning what data will be collected over what time period; o Plans for data analysis o Interview guides • Risks and benefits for participants • Benefits for humankind Given that any research topic could potentially include large numbers of participants, researchers bound the scope of qualitative studies by specifying research contexts, methods of data collection, time periods, and sampling strategies for participant selection. Since qualitative interviewing involves in-depth interaction between interviewers and interviewees, qualitative researchers are more likely to use purposeful sampling strategies rather than the random sampling commonly used in standardized interviewing for the purposes of opinion polling. Michael Quinn Patton (2002, 243–44) outlines a range of 16 purposeful sampling strategies. Depending on the research purpose of a study, researchers might outline inclusion criteria for a study. For example, participants might be sought because they represent a “typical case,” an “information-rich case,” an “extreme

258   kathryn roulston case” or because they fit specific criteria (e.g., they are recommended by others as “exemplary” teachers). Patton (2002) identifies “convenience sampling,” in which participants are selected and recruited because they are easily accessible and willing to volunteer, as the least defensible and weakest form of sampling. Thus, to ensure that a research study meets standards for quality used by music education researchers to judge the merit of research, considerable thought must be given to decision-making concerning research contexts, sample selection, and recruitment in order to allow maximum opportunities for the generation of rich information to respond to the research questions. Since qualitative interviewing involves the researcher in the generation of data, researchers need to consider the implications of the subject positions that they occupy in relation to the research topic and participants. Alan Peshkin referred to this sort of investigation as searching for one’s own “subjectivity.” Peshkin (1988, 17) defined subjectivities as the “amalgam of the persuasions that stem from the circumstances of one’s class, statuses, and values interacting with the particulars of one’s object of investigation.” In any project, different “researcher subjectivities” are mobilized in relation to topics and participants that have varied implications for the data generated. There are no specific subject positions that researchers occupy that should be considered. As a starting place, these might include gender, race, ethnicity, occupation, country of origin, age, educational attainment, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. For example, Mary Kennedy (2004) reports that her identity as a woman studying boys’ experiences of the changing voice likely impacted the data generated in interviews. The search for one’s subjectivity will unfold differently for each and every research project, given that contexts and human beings change, and participants orient to different aspects of a researcher’s self-presentation. Another example of how a music education researcher has discussed their subjectivities is provided by Tami Draves (2012). The identification of one’s subjectivities has become a standard practice among qualitative researchers, and is frequently identified with the idea of “reflexivity.” Kim Etherington (2004, 31–32) defines researcher reflexivity as “the capacity to acknowledge how their own experiences and contexts (which may be fluid and changing) inform the process and outcomes of inquiry.” Linda Finlay (2002) has reviewed the multiple ways in which “reflexivity” is conceptualized by qualitative researchers. Although there is no one “right” path to demonstrating researcher reflexivity, this is an important consideration in planning for and conducting music education research. I next turn to the conduct of interviews and asking questions.

14.4 Asking Questions The type of interview question that is formulated for a research project is integrally connected with the theoretical and conceptual framework for a study, the research purpose, the research questions posed, research design and methods used, and the analytic methods that are projected. For example, if the object of a research project is to gain rich descriptions of a participant’s experiences and lifelong involvement as a music educator, then a life

Conducting and Analyzing Interviews  259 history interview would be appropriate. Open interview questions would need to be formulated to elicit stories. For example, a beginning question might be formulated as: • Think back to your first memories of being involved in music, and tell me about that. In contrast, if the research purpose is to generate comparable factual data across a range of participants about their perspectives of a topic, then a non-qualitative interview (i.e., standardized survey questions with fixed-response choices) might be more appropriate. Clearly, the selection of the type of interview and how questions are formulated are both linked to the method selected to analyze and represent data. Patton (2002, 348–51) describes six types of interview questions, including questions concerning (1) experiences and behaviors; (2) opinions and values; (3) feelings; (4)  knowledge; (5)  sensory observations; and (6)  background and demographics. Table 14.1 below includes examples of each question type. Numerous methods texts provide advice on how questions should be posed during interviews. One frequent recommendation is that researchers using qualitative interviews should pose “open” rather than “closed” questions. As I have written elsewhere (Roulston 2010b), open questions call upon participants to respond to question topics using their preferred terms rather than those of the interviewer. Closed questions, in contrast, provide parameters in which participants may answer. These sometimes generate yes/no responses or short answers. For example, with respect to the topic of learning an instrument as an adult, the following questions illustrate these open and closed formulations: Open: • Tell me about your childhood experiences in taking music lessons. Closed: • Have you been able to meet that goal? Table 14.1  Examples of question types Experiences and behaviors

Tell me how you came to be involved in learning music/taking music lessons. Describe a typical music lesson. Opinions and values Tell me what you see as the role of your teacher. What else do you think would be helpful? Feelings Tell me about the feelings you experience when you perform. Knowledge Tell me about how the Community Band is organized. Sensory observations Describe what you hear and see when you are performing in the ensemble. Background and demographics Age Ethnicity/race No. of years of teaching experience

260   kathryn roulston Open questions are more likely to generate rich, in-depth descriptions, and may be used to elicit detailed stories, or initiate new topics within the interview as whole. While many texts recommend that researchers avoid the use of closed questions, I have found these to be particularly useful when clarifying details of earlier talk, or making requests for specific, factual information (e.g., “And how many people were in your group to begin with?”). Another guideline for asking questions is to pose short, simple, and clear questions, one at a time. This helps participants by asking them to address one topic at a time. Novice interviewers frequently find themselves asking multiple questions, particularly if interviewees do not immediately respond. To avoid this, interviewers need to provide sufficient wait time for participants to think about the question posed before replying. For interviewers who find it difficult to wait before asking more questions or commenting, a useful guideline is to count to five, slowly, before saying more. An effective strategy for posing follow-up questions with participants includes incorporating the participant’s prior talk in the formulation of the question. For example, these are follow-up questions I posed in a recent interview: • And so you said that this is something you’d always wanted to do. And what was that like for you? • Can you say more about what you enjoy about it? By using participants’ utterances in the formulation of follow-up questions, interviewers can avoid posing questions that are “leading.” An example of how this works is included in an interview conducted early in the process of my own dissertation research. In this excerpt (Box 14.1), I  have purposefully included additional

Box 14.1  Excerpt 1 (Roulston 2000) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

IR

P IR P IR P IR P

so do you find because of this (.) um (.) I guess compression of more classes into the same period of time that you’re just doing less and less? (1.0) oh yes it’s it’s not half as good it’s about a quarter as good you know= =yeah= =yes you’re doing less and less as far as what what you [accomplish in literacy= [yes yeah (.) so less in terms of quantity song material= =oh less [less in terms of quantity yep [but also less in terms of u:m (1.0) u:h (.) I guess (.) conceptual knowledge= =yes (.) less in term yeah less in both ways and of course it’s a vicious circle

IR: Interviewer P: Participant

Conducting and Analyzing Interviews  261 information about the delivery of talk by including conventions that have been developed to convey features of talk in addition to words spoken, including overlap, pauses, and word stress (Psathas and Anderson 1990).i In this semi-structured interview, the follow-up question at lines 1–2 expressed my understanding of prior talk—specifically that changes in this elementary teacher’s allocation of classes had resulted in him being able to do “less and less.” In the ensuing utterances, the interviewee agreed with my interpretation of his talk, but notice at line 6 how the exact words that I used in formulating the interview question were recycled by the interviewee. In fact, if interviewers are not vigilant in how they ask questions, it is possible to generate precisely the kind of information that is being sought. In this excerpt, mutual understanding and agreement are demonstrated by parties to the talk. It is equally likely that participants may disagree with assumptions embedded in interviewers’ questions. If researchers are aiming to learn about participants’ lives and their interpretations of their experiences, formulating questions that facilitate spaces for interviewees to use their own words is an important consideration. In the excerpt above, another follow-up question that I  might have used is: You’ve talked about what has happened in your music program since the number of times you meet your early grades classes has been reduced. Tell me how that has impacted your curriculum.

This is a complex question, and formulating this kind of follow-up question on a routine basis requires intensive listening, careful thought, and a good deal of practice. By learning how to ask just these kinds of questions, interviewers can facilitate spaces for participants to orient to questions in ways that provide rich descriptions in their own terms.

14.5  Preparing Interview Data for Analysis To prepare interview data for analysis and representation of findings, researchers must first transcribe the words spoken by both interviewers and interviewees. It is a good idea to include the following information on any interview transcript:

• • • •

Project name Date, place, and time of interview Interviewer’s name Interviewee’s pseudonym (unless specific permission has been requested to reprint the interviewee’s name) • Duration of interview

262   kathryn roulston There is enormous variation in what kind of detail might be included in an interview transcript (Poland 2002). A basic transcript will include the words spoken together with identification of speakers. Utterances are usually punctuated and edited for clarity— that is, overlapping talk, pauses, and continuers such as “um,” “yeah,” and “uh,” as seen in the excerpt in Box 14.1, are frequently omitted. Since speakers make use of all kinds of conversational resources to communicate, transcriptions may include annotations indicating laughter, sighs, coughs, pauses, crying, or moments when participants punctuate descriptions by singing melodies. If interviews have been conducted in another language, researchers must note in methods descriptions at what point data are translated. That is, data analysis may take place in the original language or in the translated language. If findings are represented in a language other than the original talk, researchers must choose whether to include the original language in representations of findings. Decisions about what level of detail to include in a transcript are related to the method of analysis selected and the audience/s to whom the researcher wishes to communicate. If the topic of talk is the primary focus of analysis, then paralinguistic features of talk as shown in Box 14.1 are usually omitted. In contrast, if researchers want to account for how talk is co-constructed in interviews (e.g., Roulston 2006), then further detail is included (for an example of transcription conventions from conversation analysis with naturally occurring data, see Forrester 2010). Researchers conducting unfunded research usually transcribe their own interviews, whereas in funded research, funds are routinely allocated for transcription purposes. Freeware such as Express Scribe (see http://www.nch.com.au/scribe/index.html) may be used to transcribe digital audio-files. As a general rule, it takes four hours to transcribe one hour of audio-recorded talk. Depending on the amount of detail required and the speed of delivery of talk, this may take considerably longer. In cases in which a professional transcriber has been employed, I always check the transcripts for accuracy by listening to the audio-recordings, adding further details in the transcript where necessary. As a preliminary step in analysis, re-listening to audio-recordings of interviews is productive, and researchers can use this phase to note down emerging ideas and insights for future coding and analysis, as well as methodological reflections concerning the conduct of the interview.

14.6 Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data Of the numerous ways to analyze interview data, coding and categorization approaches are most commonly used (Saldaña 2013). Inductive approaches to coding data were first codified in Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss’s seminal book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Since that time, grounded theory as an approach to research has developed into a diversity of approaches (Charmaz 2006;

Conducting and Analyzing Interviews  263 Corbin and Strauss 2008; Morse et al. 2009). The basis of coding and categorization of data is that data in the form of interview transcripts, field notes of observations, or documents are reduced by labeling sections of data with “codes” that reflect some combination of topical content, structural features, and/or concepts derived from literature in the field (Lofland et al. 2006; Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña 2014). Researchers frequently develop “code books” or “code dictionaries” that include definitions for each code and the parameters by which codes might be applied, as well as examples of data that illustrate the code (Bernard and Ryan 2010). Systematic coding involves an iterative and recursive process in which the analyst reads and re-reads data, and develops concepts and ideas represented by the codes through memo-writing (Lempert 2007). Once a set of codes has been systematically developed and applied across a data set, researchers then sort the codes into larger categories, comparing data with data, events with events, codes with codes, and categories with categories in a process identified by grounded theorists as the “constant comparative method.” Over the last two decades, a variety of Computer Assisted Qualitative Data AnalysiS (CAQDAS) software programs have been developed. With each new version, these programs display ever-increasing capacities to assist in coding, searching, retrieving, and theorizing of qualitative data. In using CAQDAS packages to code qualitative interview data, it is useful to remember that they do not analyze the data—instead, the analyst is fully responsible for coding and analysis. Thus, thoughtful decision-making and careful reflection are required throughout the analytic process. For useful introductions to CAQDAS and specific packages, see Lewins and Silver (2007) and Friese (2012). CAQDAS programs are regularly updated by software developers, so researchers should check product websites for the latest versions and training opportunities. Grounded theorists vary considerably in relation to how and what constitutes a “theory.” In much qualitative research, the coding processes first described in grounded theory literature are used not so much to develop “theory,” but to generate “themes” that are supported by excerpts from the data set (Braun and Clarke 2006). The processes of coding and categorizing that fragments data and then reassembles it into “themes” is described by Donald Polkinghorne (1995) as a “paradigmatic” approach to the analysis of narrative data. Another approach to analysis of qualitative interview data is that of the generation of narratives, or what Polkinghorne (1995) describes as “configuration of narratives.” Rather than comparing and contrasting data to examine commonalities and differences, some narrative researchers aim to preserve the unique features of individual stories through the development of narratives. We are very familiar with this sort of work in autobiographies, biographies, and, more recently, autoethnographies (Ellis and Bochner 2000; Jones, Adams, and Ellis 2013). In narrative inquiry, researchers work to configure a variety of data—which may include interviews, documents, visual data, and field notes—into a story with a plot that answers the question of how and why events occur as they do (Clandinin 2007; Riessman 2008). In music education, Margaret Barrett and Sandra Stauffer (2009) have forwarded the application of narrative approaches to the analysis and representation of data. In their edited collection, Barrett and Stauffer

264   kathryn roulston review the origins of narrative inquiry, provide seven examples of narrative inquiry by music education researchers, and include invited commentaries from other researchers on the narrative examples and the potential for the use of narrative inquiry in music education (see also ­chapter 10 in this volume). More recently, qualitative inquiry has been profoundly influenced by new initiatives in the arts and humanities in what is variously labeled as “arts-based inquiry,” “arts-based educational research” and “a/r/tography” (Cahnmann-Taylor and Siegesmund 2008; Kouritzin, Piquemal, and Norman 2009). A wide-ranging assortment of influences—including fiction, non-fiction, theater, dance, performance texts, poetry, visual arts, and music—has influenced the ways in which interview data are represented, and the audiences to whom it may be presented. Yet, although these approaches have grown in influence in social sciences research, arts-based approaches to inquiry and the representation of data have yet to have widespread impact in music education research. One example of the use of poetic representation (Richardson 2002) is found in an article co-authored by Monica Prendergast, Peter Gouzouasis, Carl Leggo, and Rita Irwin (Prendergast et  al. 2009). All of the authors identify with the “a/r/t/ography” movement and are accomplished as artists, teachers, and researchers. This paper represents findings from a study of secondary school students’ musical engagement in the form of a haiku suite. Gouzouasis had worked with the students and their teacher in a rhythm and blues class over a three-year period in a high school in Vancouver, Canada, and interviews were conducted with students about their involvement. The purpose of the haiku suite is described as a “collective portrait of these students’ thoughts, attitudes, reflections, and philosophical statements” in response to interview questions (307). This representation of findings breaks with long-standing traditions in how music education research might be presented and is notable because it is published in a music education journal. Other examples of alternative forms of representation demonstrate the use of readers theater, but are not published in music education journals (Roulston et al. 2008; Lamb 1991).

14.7 The Future of Interviewing in Music Education Research Here, I  enter uncharted territory by forecasting possibilities. I  focus on three issues: emerging avenues for research made possible by new technologies; how methodological and theoretical development in the social sciences might inform the use of interviews in music education research; and implications of these developments for the assessment of quality in research. First, the continual development of technologies is providing new contexts for conducting research as well as innovative ways to conduct interviews. The influence of

Conducting and Analyzing Interviews  265 digital technologies on what topics are deemed significant to study and how research is conducted is swift and unrelenting. Given that musicians have long embraced the use of new technologies and integrated these into music education contexts, the possibilities for embracing these for the purpose of doing interview research are manifold. I expect that over the next decade, reports from music education research will include interview studies of the ways in which people make use of digital technologies, games, and online communities to engage in musical activities. Future research will likely demonstrate how asynchronous and synchronous CMCs might be used to conduct and record interviews that contribute to an understanding of significant topics in music education. Second, methodological writing on interviewing in the social sciences has in recent years been influenced by the epistemological perspective of constructionism, in which researchers acknowledge that “there is no objective truth waiting for us to discover it. Truth, or meaning, comes into existence in and out of our engagement with the realities of our world” (Crotty 1998, 8). An outcome of this perspective of knowledge production has been a heightened sense of awareness that research interviews are sites in which interviewers and interviewees collaboratively co-construct data for research purposes (Holstein and Gubrium 1995). From this viewpoint, participants are conceptualized as “active subjects,” rather than “vessels of answers.” The implications of this reconceptualization of the interview subject are considerable. The search for “objective truth” is deemphasized in favor of representations of humans’ meaning-making. Qualitative researchers have developed innovative theoretical approaches to the study of the social world in order to do this work and represent it to others. For example, researchers have developed new ways of including visual methods in conjunction with interviewing (e.g., Stanczak 2007) and used creative analytic practices to represent research (Richardson and St. Pierre 2005). Music education researchers have begun, and will continue to “trouble certainty” (Barrett and Stauffer 2009) by using diverse theoretical perspectives to examine research topics of interest and innovative approaches to represent findings. Third, and finally, the standards by which “quality” might be judged for interview research must be considered in relation to the theoretical assumptions about knowledge production used in research studies (Roulston 2010a). In music education research there has been an emphasis in qualitative inquiry on verifying the truth value of participants’ accounts through the use of multiple forms of data over lengthy periods of time. This aligns with a neo-positivist (Roulston 2010b) conceptualization of interviewing. Yet, within the field of qualitative inquiry, there are other ways of conceptualizing interviews. For example, with the re-theorizing of interviews as socially situated and active meaning-making sites in which interviewers and interviewees co-construct data, researchers have advocated for more transparency in terms of what information is included in reports (Potter and Hepburn 2012, 2005). There are many other possibilities for music education researchers to consider. The future is filled with promise for using interviews for innovative research that will inform the field of music education.

266   kathryn roulston

Notes i. Transcription conventions used: (.) A micropause between utterances ? Rising intonation (1.0) Pause timed in seconds less Underlined words indicate emphasis = Indicates “latched” utterances, or no pause between turns [Square brackets indicate overlapping utterances u:m Indicates elongated utterance

References Barrett, Margaret S., and Sandra Lee Stauffer. 2009. Narrative Inquiry in Music Education Troubling Certainty. Dordrecht, London: Springer. Belenky, M., B. Clinchy, N. Goldberger, and J. Tarule. 1986. Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice and Mind. New York: Basic Books. Bernard, H. R., and G. W. Ryan. 2010. Analyzing Qualitative Data:  Systematic Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. Brinkmann, Svend. 2007. “Could Interviews Be Epistemic? An Alternative to Qualitative Opinion Polling.” Qualitative Inquiry 13 (8): 1116–38. Burland, Karen, and Jane W. Davidson. 2002. “Training the Talented.” Music Education Research 4 (1): 121–40. doi: 10.1080/14613800220119813. Cahnmann-Taylor, Melisa, and Richard Siegesmund. 2008. Arts-Based Research in Education: Foundations for Practice. New York: Routledge. Carley-Baxter, Lisa, Andy Peytchev, and Michele Black. 2010. “Comparison of Cell Phone and Landline Surveys: A Design Perspective.” Field Methods 22 (1): 3–15. Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Clandinin, D. Jean. 2007. Handbook of Narrative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cope, Peter. 2002. “Informal Learning of Musical Instruments:  The Importance of Social Context.” Music Education Research 4 (1): 93–104. doi: 10.1080/14613800220119796. Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles:  Sage Publications. Cox, Gordon. 2002. “Transforming Research in Music Education History.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by Richard Colwell and Carol Richardson, 695–706. New York: Oxford University Press. Crotty, Michael. 1998. The Foundations of Social Research:  Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Custodero, Lori A., and Elissa A. Johnson-Green. 2003. “Passing the Cultural Torch: Musical Experience and Musical Parenting of Infants.” Journal of Research in Music Education 51 (2): 102–114. doi: 10.2307/3345844.

Conducting and Analyzing Interviews  267 DeVault, Marjorie L., and Glenda Gross. 2007. “Feminist Interviewing: Experience, Talk, and Knowledge.” In Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis, edited by Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber, 173–98. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Draves, Tami. 2012. “Teaching Ambition: A Case Study of High School Music Students.” Music Education Research 14 (3): 347–364. doi: 10.1080/14613808.2012.685463. Ellis, Carolyn, and A. P. Bochner. 2000. “Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity: Researcher as Subject.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 733–68. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Etherington, Kim. 2004. Becoming a Reflexive Researcher: Using Our Selves in Research. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Finlay, Linda. 2002. “Negotiating the Swamp: The Opportunity and Challenge of Reflexivity in Research Practice.” Qualitative Research 2 (2): 209–230. Fischer, Constance T., and Frederick J. Wertz. 2002. “Empirical Phenomenological Analyses of Being Criminally Victimized.” In The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion, edited by A. Michael Huberman and Matthew B. Miles, 275–304. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Foddy, W. 1993. Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory and Practice in Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Forrester, Michael A. 2010. “Emerging Musicality During the Pre-School Years: A Case Study of One Child.” Psychology of Music 38 (2): 131–58. doi: 10.1177/0305735609339452. Friese, Susanne. 2012. Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.ti. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Genovese, Barbara J. 2004. “Thinking inside the Box: The Art of Telephone Interviewing.” Field Methods 16 (2): 215–26. doi: 10.1177/1525822x04263329. Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Goodrich, Andrew. 2007. “Peer Mentoring in a High School Jazz Ensemble.” Journal of Research in Music Education 55 (2): 94–114. Heyl, Barbara Sherman. 2001. “Ethnographic Interviewing.” In Handbook of Ethnography, edited by P. Atkinson, Amanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland, and Lyn Lofland, 369–83. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Holstein, James A., and Jaber F. Gubrium. 1995. The Active Interview. Vol. 37. Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hourigan, Ryan M. 2009. “Preservice Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Fieldwork Experiences in a Special Needs Classroom.” Journal of Research in Music Education 57 (2): 152–168. James, Nalita, and Hugh Busher. 2009. Online Interviewing. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Janesick, Valerie J. 2010. Oral History for the Qualitative Researcher: Choreographing the Story. New York and London: The Guilford Press. Jones, Stacy Holman, Tony E. Adams, and Carolyn Ellis. 2013. Handbook of Authoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Kennedy, Mary Copland. 2004. “ ‘It’s a Metamorphosis’ ”: Guiding the Voice Change at the American Boychoir School.” Journal of Research in Music Education 52 (3): 264–280. Kouritzin, Sandra G., Nathalie A. Piquemal, and Renee Norman. 2009. Qualitative Research: Challenging the Orthodoxies in Standard Academic Discourse(s). New York and London: Routledge. Kvale, S., and Svend Brinkmann. 2009. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lamb, Roberta. 1991. “Medusa’s Aria: Feminist Theories and Music Education, a Curriculum Theory Paper Designed as Readers’ Theater.” In Women and Education, edited by J. Gaskell and A. McLaren, 299–319. Calgary: Detselig.

268   kathryn roulston Lamb, Roberta, Lori-Anne Dolloff, and Sondra Wieland Howe. 2002. “Feminism, Feminist Research, and Gender Research in Music Education:  A  Selective Review.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and Carol Richardson, 648–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lempert, Lora Bex. 2007. “Asking Questions of the Data:  Memo Writing in the Grounded Theory Tradition.” In The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory, edited by Antony Bryant and Kathy Charmaz, 245–64. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Lewins, Ann, and Christina Silver. 2007. Using Software in Qualitative Research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Lofland, John, David Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn H. Lofland. 2006. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson, Wadsworth. Madriz, Esther. 2000. “Focus Groups in Feminist Research.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 835–50. Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications. Miles, Matthew B., A. Michael Huberman, and Johnny Saldaña. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Miller, Robert L. 2000. Researching Life Stories and Family Histories. London: Sage Publications. Morse, Janice M., Phyllis Noerager Stern, Juliet Corbin, Barbara Bowers, Kathy Charmaz, and Adele E. Clarke. 2009. Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Moustakas, Clark. 1994. Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications. Opdenakker, Raymond. 2006. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Four Interview Techniques in Qualitative Research.” Forum:  Qualitative Social Research 7 (4), Art. 11, http://www. qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/175/392. Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Peshkin, A. 1988. “In Search of Subjectivity: One’s Own.” Educational Researcher 17 (7): 17–22. Poland, Blake D. 2002. “Transcription Quality.” In Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method, edited by J. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein, 629–50. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Polkinghorne, Donald E. 1995. “Narrative Configuration in Qualitative Analysis.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 8 (1): 5–23. Potter, Jonathan, and Alexa Hepburn. 2005. “Qualitative Interviews in Psychology: Problems and Possibilities.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 2: 38–55. Potter, Jonathan, and Alexa Hepburn. 2012. “Eight Challenges for Interview Researchers.” In The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research:  The Complexity of the Craft, edited by Jaber F. Gubrium, James A. Holstein, Amir Marvasti, and Karen McKinney, 555–70. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Prendergast, Monica, Peter Gouzouasis, Carl Leggo, and Rita L. Irwin. 2009. “A Haiku Suite: The Importance of Music Making in the Lives of Secondary School Students.” Music Education Research 11 (3): 303–317. doi: 10.1080/14613800903144262. Psathas, George, and Timothy Anderson. 1990. “The ‘Practices’ of Transcription in Conversation Analysis.” Semiotica 78: 75–99.

Conducting and Analyzing Interviews  269 Reinharz, Shulamit, and Susan E. Chase. 2002. “Interviewing Women.” In Handbook of Interviewing: Context and Method, edited by J. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein, 221–38. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Richardson, L. 2002. “Poetic Representation of Interviews.” In Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method, edited by J. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein, 877–92. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Richardson, Laurel, and Elizabeth A. St. Pierre. 2005. “Writing: A Method of Inquiry.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 959–78. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Riessman, Catherine K. 2008. Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ritchie, Donald A. 2003. Doing Oral History:  A  Practical Guide. 2nd ed. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Ritchie, Donald A. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Oral History. New  York:  Oxford University Press. Roulston, Kathryn. 2006. “Close Encounters of the ‘CA’ kind:  a Review of Literature Analysing Talk in Research Interviews.” Qualitative Research 6 (4):  515–534. doi: 10.1177/1468794106068021. Roulston, Kathryn. 2010a. “Considering Quality in Qualitative Interviewing.” Qualitative Research 10 (2): 199–228. doi: 10.1177/1468794109356739. Roulston, Kathryn. 2010b. Reflective Interviewing: A Guide to Theory and Practice. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Roulston, Kathryn, Roy Legette, Monica DeLoach, and Celeste Buckhalter. 2008. “Troubling Certainty: Readers’ Theatre in Music Education Research.” In Arts-Based Inquiry in Diverse Learning Communities: Foundations for Practice, edited by Melisa Cahnmann-Taylor and Richard Siegesmund, 208–19. New York and London: Routledge. Saldaña, Johnny. 2013. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Salmons, Janet. 2010. Online Interviews in Real Time. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Seidman, Irving. 2006. Interviewing as Qualitative Research:  A  Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social sciences. 3rd ed. New York: Teachers College. Spradley, James P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Spradley, James P. 1980. Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Stanczak, Gregory C. 2007. Visual Research Methods: Image, Society, and Representation. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Publications Steeh, Charlotte, Trent D. Buskirk, and Mario Callegaro. 2007. “Using Text Messages in U.S. Mobile Phone Surveys.” Field Methods 19 (1): 59–75. Sturges, Judith, E., and Kathleen Hanrahan, J. 2004. “Comparing Telephone and Face-to-Face Qualitative Interviewing: a Research Note.” Qualitative Research 4 (1): 107–118. Tanggaard, Lene. 2007. “The Research Interview as Discourses Crossing Swords.” Qualitative Inquiry 13 (1): 160–76. Tanggaard, Lene. 2008. “Objections in Research Interviewing.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 7 (3): 15–29. Vagle, Mark D. 2010. “Re-Framing Schon’s Call for a Phenomenology of Practice:  A  PostIntentional Approach” Reflective Practice 11 (3): 393–407. van Manen, Max. 1990. Research Lived Experience:  Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. Ontario, Canada: The Althouse Press.

270   kathryn roulston Waldron, Janice L., and Kari K. Veblen. 2008. “The Medium is the Message: Cyberspace, Community, and Music Learning in the Irish Traditional Music Virtual Community.” Journal of Music, Technology and Education 1 (2–3): 97–112. doi: 10.1386/jmte.1.2 and 3.99/1. Wertz, Frederick J., Kathy Charmaz, Linda M. McMullen, Ruthellen Josselson, Rosemarie Anderson, and Emalinda McSpadden. 2011. Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis:  Phenomenological Psychology, Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis, Narrative Research, and Intuitive Inquiry. New York and London: The Guilford Press. Wolcott, H. 1999. Ethnography: A Way of seeing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Chapter 15

C ollectin g a nd Analy zing Fo c u s Group Data john eros

The interview has long been an element of qualitative research in music education. In ­chapter 14 of this volume, Roulston examines the use of interviewing in qualitative music education research. Researchers might take a number of approaches to conducting interviews (Seidman 2006) and might use them as a data collection device in a variety of qualitative paradigms, such as those described in part II of this text (i.e., case study, ­chapter 7; ethnography, ­chapter 8; and phenomenology, c­ hapter 9). Although interviews are usually conducted between one interviewer and one participant at a time, this chapter discusses a specific type of interview that involves several participants simultaneously: the focus group interview. The primary objective of this chapter is to discuss strategies for the collection and analysis of data through the use of focus group interviews within the context of music education research. I will begin with a brief history of the focus group followed by a definition of key terms. I then examine ways in which focus groups have been employed in recent research in music education. I next discuss the logistical issues that researchers must address, followed by a discussion of conducting focus groups. I conclude with a discussion of analytic strategies. There will be overlap between this particular topic and the more general topic of qualitative interviewing so this chapter assumes that the reader has at least some familiarity with qualitative interviewing.

15.1 History of Focus Group Interviews Although the focus group interview has been used as a data collection device since the 1950s, particularly in areas such as market research and politics, it is in recent decades

272   john eros that it has developed a presence in the qualitative research tradition. The earliest published use of the focus group was by Merton and his collaborators, who used focus groups to study the effectiveness of wartime propaganda (Merton and Kendall 1946; Merton et al. 1956; Merton 1987). The term “focus group interview” became more widespread in the 1960s (Lee 2010), and the focus group interview gained more of a foothold in the qualitative research tradition during the 1980s (Morgan 1988; Morgan, Fellows, and Guevara 2008). Focus groups began to appear within qualitative methodologies in music education in the 1990s and have been used frequently in the 2000s (Beegle 2010; Conway 2000, 2003; Conway, Eros, Hourigan, and Stanley 2007; Conway, Eros, Pelligrino, and West 2010a, 2010b; Eros 2009; Mantie and Tucker 2008; Robinson 2005; Roulston et al. 2005).

15.2 Defining Characteristics Morgan (1988) suggests that focus group interviews are not equivalent to traditional interviews “in the sense of an alternation between the researcher’s questions and the participants’ responses” (9). Rather, Patton defines a focus group interview as “an interview with a small group of people on a specific topic” (2002, 385). The principal defining trait of focus group interviews as a specific type of interview, therefore, is the element of group interaction. Brenner (2006) discusses the difference in interaction between individual and group interviews: “group interviews such as the focus group (Morgan 1988) offer a way to move beyond the personal interaction of an interviewer and informant” and Morgan states that the primary characteristic of a focus group is “the explicit use of the group interaction to produce data and insights that would be less accessible without the interaction found in a group” (1988, 12). While there will obviously be interaction between the interviewer and the participant in the setting of an individual interview, the element of interaction between numerous persons not including the interviewer is particular to focus group interviews. Morgan states that focus group interviews actually combine the element of participant observation (a foundational data collection method in qualitative research) with the already present element of interviewing, creating the potential for data that would otherwise not be obtainable (1988). Another crucial characteristic of focus group interviews is that they are focused on a specific topic. It is not the same as gathering a number of people together for a general discussion related to the research questions, or even a serendipitous meeting of several participants. The interview itself must be prepared for and structured such that it, and the resulting data, will be focused on the study’s purpose. Finally, it is important to remember that a focus group interview is still only one interview. It is not several individual interviews conducted simultaneously. To take such an approach would compromise the foundational component of interaction.

Collecting and Analyzing Focus Group Data  273

15.3  Rationale: Why Include Focus Group Interviews? Focus group interviews have the potential to generate particularly rich data. Kamberelis and Dimitriadis (2005, 904) suggest that focus groups “allow for the proliferation of multiple meanings and perspectives as well as for interactions between and among them.” An example of a good candidate for the use of focus group interviews would be a study involving the perspectives of several teachers who share a common trait, such as middle school band directors, recent graduates, or rural music teachers. Another example would be a study in which the researcher is interested in the interaction among the members of a small performance ensemble (such as a jazz combo, garage band, or string quartet). Additionally, focus group interviews may serve not only as a data collection device, but also as a component of the validity (trustworthiness) of the research study. Kamberlis and Dimitriadis (2006, 904) suggest that focus group dialogue and its resulting shift of power away from the researcher may prevent the researcher from drawing hasty conclusions:  “[T]‌he dialogic possibilities afforded by focus groups help researchers to work against premature consolidation of their understandings and explanations.” Finally, there may be an element of convenience, due to the fact that one meeting with several people will take less time to conduct than several meetings with individuals. Focus group interviews may be easier to schedule, particularly if they are to take place during an already regularly scheduled meeting, such as a seminar, rehearsal, or class meeting. However, as with any research design, convenience should not be the sole determining factor for the use of a data collection device if it is to be included in a rigorous research design.

15.4  Focus Group Interviews in Music Education Focus group interviews have been used in music education research with an increasing frequency in recent years both in the United States (Bourn 2000; Conway 2000, 2003; Conway, Eros, Hourigan, and Stanley 2007; Conway, Eros, Pelligrino, and West 2010a, 2010b; Eros 2009; Mantie and Tucker 2008; Roulston et  al. 2005; Yourn 2000)  and abroad (Byrne and MacDonald 2002; Gouzouasis, Henrey, and Belliveau 2008; Marshall and Hargreaves 2007; Papageorgi et al. 2010a, 2010b). Common topics include research on the perspectives of beginning teachers, students’ transitions between grade levels, teachers’ common experiences with specific events, and interaction among ensemble

274   john eros members or students in a class. It is also common for research in music education to use the terms focus group, focus group discussion, or even focus group meeting in place of focus group interview. Whichever term is selected, it should be described clearly in the research design. Yourn (2000) used focus group interviews, along with individual interviews and observations, to study the perspectives of nine beginning music teachers, as well as their mentors and supervisors. While one finding was that the new teachers had a number of concerns on an individual level, such as classroom management, an “unexpected finding” was the degree to which the beginning teachers valued the relationships that they developed with their peers:  “The beginning music teachers enjoyed discussing their concerns and found comfort in having their peer group identify and listen to how they felt. We consoled each other and laughed together” (189). Had the methodology not included focus group interviews, this important finding might not have become known. As part of a study on perceptions of music teacher education by beginning teachers, their mentors, and administrators that was held over the course of a school year, Conway (2003) conducted four focus group interviews, including one each at the beginning and ending of the school year. The study began with a focus group interview, at which the participants discussed “issues pertinent to the study” (25). Moreover, Conway states that this first focus group interview “served as the starting point for data collection,” which went on to include individual interviews, observations, questionnaires, and a researcher log. In a similar example of the importance of the placement of focus group interviews within the overall design, in a study on beginning teachers’ perceptions regarding instrumental techniques classes, Conway, Eros, Hourigan, and Stanley (2007) conducted a focus group with the four participants in their study after each participant had been individually interviewed. The focus group interview served as both analysis and data collection, as the researchers had begun preliminary analysis before the focus group and were therefore able to use the focus group to follow up on early findings. The focus group also generated additional data, as the participants were able to listen and respond to one another’s perceptions. At times, researchers have identified the use of focus groups as a data collection device, but not necessarily identified them as focus group interviews. In a study of experienced music teachers participating as scorers in a two-week new teacher assessment institute, Robinson (2005) used as a data source the “informal, impromptu focus-group meetings” that took place between the teachers during the institute itself. Although arguably not a focus group interview due to the absence of a moderator to ensure that the discussion remain focused on the topic, the value of these informal discussions by the participants, focused on the research topic, should not be discounted. Considering the research setting of a two-week institute at which the participants spend a great deal of time with one another, spontaneous group conversations on research-focused topics certainly present fertile ground for rich (and sustained) data collection. The researcher must be careful, however, to qualify how the focus group was used in the design, and hence if it is a researcher-led interview or a self-directed group discussion.

Collecting and Analyzing Focus Group Data  275 Typically, research that uses focus group interviews is conducted with adult participants. The focus group is much less common in studies involving K–12 students. However, Beegle (2010) described using focus groups as part of an investigation into fifth-grade students’ improvisation, interaction, and musical self-evaluation during class. Within a larger study of two classrooms, four sets of four students were placed into focus groups for extended study of their music-making, including group interviews. Prompts at these interviews included such questions as “What was it like working together?” and “ What did you like/dislike about each of your performances?” While this configuration differs somewhat from the more conventional focus group interview procedures as described elsewhere in this chapter, it provides an interesting glimpse into how the overall focus group interview concept might be expanded beyond a purely discussion-based paradigm.

15.5  Before the Focus Group Interview 15.5.1 Confidentiality and Informed Consent Confidentiality requires particular consideration in the focus group interview context. As several persons are present during the data collection session, and they will all ostensibly hear what each other says, confidentiality will be more difficult to maintain. It is possible that a university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) will have specific regulations regarding the use of focus group interviews. Chapter 30 in this text discusses the ethics of qualitative research, including the IRB. An IRB may require a specific mention in the informed consent form that will be given to the participants, such as in the following example, required by the IRB at California State University, East Bay: California State University East Bay Focus Group Consent

(Directions: Focus groups require an additional layer of privacy protection, because the researcher cannot guarantee that the participants of the group will not reveal each other’s contributions to the group discussion once it has ended. In addition to the usual warning about “loss of privacy is a potential risk,” the “Risks” section of the protocol and the informed consent should contain the “focus group consent” wording below, adapted to the individual research project.) Also, because the focus groups include discussion of personal opinions, extra measures will be taken to protect each participant’s privacy. The researcher will begin the focus group by asking the participants to agree to the importance of keeping information discussed in the focus group confidential. She will then ask each participant to verbally agree to keep everything discussed in the room confidential, and will remind them at the end of the group not to discuss the material outside.

276   john eros Only the researcher will have access to the data collected. Any tapes and transcripts of the focus group will be destroyed after one year or at the end of the study.

In proposing focus group interview research, then, researchers should examine their particular IRB’s rules regarding specific regulations for focus group interviews.

15.5.2 Selection of the Participants: Implications for the Group Dynamic Although the selection of participants is critical to any qualitative design, it is worth noting the specific reasons why this might be considered in focus groups. The number of participants in a focus group is one of the first steps. A common figure among research texts is six to ten (Merriam 2009; Patton 2002), although fewer might also be used. Conway and Hodgman (2008) used two focus groups of eight. Larger numbers have been used, as in a study of a music technology class, in which Ruthmann (2008) conducted two focus group interviews with all 16 members of a class. With a group of that size, however, it might be difficult for one moderator to maintain an awareness of all participants, such that all voices are heard. It is recommended that the researcher know a bit about each of the participants. Conway (2000) had observed all of her participants during their student teaching. In another study, as the focus group was the final data collection device, Conway, Eros, Hourigan, and Stanley (2007) were familiar with all of their participants based on earlier interactions during the research. In a study of her own fifth-grade students using focus groups, Beegle (2010) placed students into four four-person focus groups based on input from a variety of sources: “Groups were selected using suggestions from the participants, classroom teachers, [and] based on harmonious and productive group dynamics during previous grouping experiences in their regular classrooms” (221). Research settings in which researchers are studying students in their own classes might allow for more carefully planned groupings. Researchers might also consider characteristics such as age, gender, or ethnic background. Yourn’s (2000) focus group was composed of eight female and one male participant. The male student, who is in the minority, might be less inclined to speak. Familiarity will help the researcher to consider the dynamic that will be created amongst the participants and, hence, to consider the nature of the interaction. Who is gregarious? Who is reserved? How well do the participants know one another? If the participants are complete strangers, it might take longer for them to develop a level of comfort amongst themselves. Patton notes that participants commonly have “similar backgrounds” (2002, 385) although, conversely, Merriam (2009) suggests that the participants should be quite unfamiliar with one another. Another factor to be considered is the nature of the rapport between the interviewer and subjects. Conway stated:

Collecting and Analyzing Focus Group Data  277 As director of the music student-teaching program, I had previously established relationships with all of the teacher participants in this study because I had observed all of them at least once during their student teaching semester. This previously established relationship made it easier for me to maintain the necessary rapport for in-depth observation and interviewing. (2000, 24)

Conway (2000, 27) also discussed rapport as a factor in strengthening the validity of the study, considering rapport to be a factor in attention to researcher expertise: “I had enough background in the content area and association with the participants to be empathetic in my interview approach and to establish the necessary rapport.” While a positive rapport is generally viewed as advantageous, an overly comfortable rapport might impact the data collected. Seidman (2006, 97) states that, “the rapport an interviewer must build in an interviewing relationship needs to be controlled. Too much or too little rapport can lead to distortion of what the participant reconstructs during the interview (Hyman et al. 1954).”

15.5.3 Logistics The researcher must determine an appropriate site for the focus group interview. The location should be one in which a good quality audio recording can be made, as the primary form of data is typically the audio recording (Morgan 1988). A “neutral” location such as a university conference room, a school classroom, or a similar meeting place often works well. Other possibilities might be the researcher’s office or home. The location should be a reasonable distance for the participants to travel, as well as easy to find. In a study that I conducted with three participants, two lived in the same metropolitan area and one lived in another city approximately 90 miles away. We were able to find a location nearly equidistant from both areas. Although the participants’ considerations must take precedence, the researcher should also not commit to a time or location that is not practical. In another study in which I participated, two researchers and four participants met at my home.

15.6  Preparing for the Focus Group Interview 15.6.1  The Interview Protocol In the interest of keeping the discussion focused, an interview protocol is necessary (Patton 2002). However, the focus group interview protocol will typically be shorter than that of an individual interview, as the interaction within the focus group interview will theoretically generate its own questions and prompts. Knodel (1994, 36) advocates the use of guidelines in outlining the format for focus group interviews:

278   john eros The first step in designing a focus group study should be to define and clarify the concepts that are to be investigated. . . . The general concepts to be explored need to be formulated as a set of discussion guidelines that can be used by the moderator during the focus group sessions.

He also states that “guidelines tend to be general in nature, be open-ended, and seek to find what is going on without specifically asking directly about the situation of the individual participants” (37). He gives the following examples, taken from a study of support and exchange systems involving the elderly: “Do most elderly work in this community?” and “Do elderly work because they want to or because they have to?” (38). Similarly, Yourn (2000, 184) began her study with a focus group meeting, at which the time “was spent discussing two questions in some depth: what concerns they had prior to going out to schools, and how they could manage their concerns.”

15.6.2 Recording Many individual interviews are audiotaped. However, focus group recordings will have numerous voices. The listener must be able to discern which participant is speaking. Also, with a larger number of people, there is a greater chance of participants talking simultaneously. The interviewer should establish a baseline for identifying everyone’s voices. The interviewer might begin the focus group interview by having the participants introduce themselves, making sure to state their names clearly. Also, in the interest of keeping track of who is speaking, and considering the ready availability of portable video recording equipment (i.e., smart phones and tablets) at the present, focus group interviews might also be video recorded. That might make it easier to keep track of who is speaking, as well as to observe any nonverbal responses or cues amongst the group, although the quality of the sound itself might not be as good as with audio equipment. The researcher would, of course, need to include mention of video recording in the informed consent. Finally, to return to the topic of confidentiality, it is quite possible that the participants will have their own personal electronic devices (smart phones and tablets) with them and, as such, will also have the capacity to record the focus group interview. The researcher should make it clear that, to maintain confidentiality, the researcher’s is the only recording that is to be made.

15.7 During the Interview 15.7.1 Interviewer vs. Moderator The researcher’s role in a focus group interview is not equivalent to that played in an individual interview. The role takes a different form: that of a moderator rather than

Collecting and Analyzing Focus Group Data  279 an interviewer (Krueger 1994; Morgan 1988). Rather than posing specific questions to particular people, the researcher will more likely be establishing an initial topic and direction for the focus group interview and then moderating the interview as needed.

15.7.2 Opening The focus group interview should begin when all participants are assembled. The interviewer should begin by introducing himself or herself, and briefly describing the topic for the focus group. Based on where the focus group is in the research design, the researcher might comment on previous focus group interviews or other data collection, in the interest of setting the stage. The focus group interview should then continue with brief introductions from the participants. Even if they already know one another, it will serve to focus the participants on the discussion format. With music educators, for example, the interviewer might begin by having the participants state their names and a bit about their current teaching situations (location, type of school, specific discipline, grade levels, etc.). Although my participants (Eros 2009)  were already somewhat familiar with each other, I began a focus group interview with the following prompt: [It] would be helpful to talk for a second about the schools where everybody teaches, because we have elementary general, high school band, and middle school band. Perhaps we can talk for a minute or so in order to know what each school is like.

This has the intended effect of getting the participants talking, establishing a reference for each voice, making the participants more comfortable with one another, and allowing the participants to begin the discussion “in familiar territory.” The interviewer should also take the time to establish a few ground rules for a productive discussion, such as respecting one another’s contributions, speaking one at a time, and not maintaining side conversations, encouraging everyone to speak freely, etc. It is important for the participants to feel sufficiently comfortable with one another that all are willing to participate. Some members may be more naturally gregarious than others, and some more reserved, particularly among a group of strangers. Focus groups themselves might be held in “less formal” settings, such as a gathering or even a meal. However, the researcher must maintain an awareness of the intended focus, rather than letting the group drift more towards a social encounter with little or no relevance to the research topic.

15.7.3 Moderating the Interview As mentioned previously, it is incumbent on the researcher to moderate the discussion. The researcher should remember that focus group interviews must remain focused on the research topic at hand. Therefore, the interviewer must be able to quickly determine if “tangents” are relevant to the research questions and objectives for the interview.

280   john eros The interviewer should also take note of the degree to which all participants are responding. The interviewer might maintain a checklist of each person’s name and make checkmarks each time the person speaks, so as to have a clear reference for how well each person is represented. Not only is it important to have all members of the focus group contribute, it provides for richer data and also serves to support the validity of the study. An hour can pass by quickly, and if there are eight people in the focus group, the researcher will need to ensure that two or three talkative people do not dominate the hour, while another two or three barely speak at all. Nonverbal communication may also play a role. It is possible that the participants are showing responses to one another rather than verbally articulating them. In this case, the interviewer should think ahead to the act of transcription, if an audio recording is being made. Since recordings will not catch nonverbal communication, it is the interviewer’s job to make sure that these details are captured. For example, several participants might be nodding their heads in agreement while one is shaking his head in disagreement. While this is significant in individual interviews, it takes on an added dimension in focus group interviews inasmuch as it is an element of interaction. The interviewer might use comments such as, “Jim, I noticed that you were shaking your head. Do you disagree with Janice?” both to make the nonverbal communication evident for audio recordings and to potentially draw out participants who have been somewhat quieter. Moreover, the interviewer should take note of times when multiple gestures are being made, such as “It looks like Evan and Nate both agree. Is that accurate?” or “Alan, I notice that you’re nodding your head but Bill is shaking his. In what ways do you disagree?” Finally, as the transcripts will be a crucial data set, the researcher must think ahead to what the transcriber will encounter. For example, the researcher should be aware of participants talking over one another. If there is an overlap in statements, the interviewer might say, “James, what was that you said again?” And “Peter, you were saying . . . ?” Statements should be made in a non-threatening manner, such that the participants are not made to feel as though they are being reprimanded for talking out of turn.

15.7.4  Posing Questions Numerous texts exist with guidelines for asking interview questions (for example, Patton 2002). Most importantly in the focus group interview context, the researcher should recall that he or she is posing one question to a group of six rather than asking the same question six times. The researcher will pose questions, and guide activities based on the research questions, but the objective is to conduct one focus group interview of six people rather than six simultaneous individual interviews. The potential for new topics to emerge in focus group interviews is greater than in individual interviews. In the following example, although the second participant’s questions are of the yes/no variety, all three demonstrate the phenomenon of participants beginning to “interview each other,” leading to additional related discussion (Eros 2009):

Collecting and Analyzing Focus Group Data  281 Tom:  But I have no lesson plan structure to go back and look at. So that makes me really frustrated because I can’t sit down and figure out what to do to improve. James:  Do you have support? Like administrative support? Supervisory support? Tom:  Yes. I love my principal. James:  Do you feel like those are people that can assist you with that? Tom:  No. Sam:  I definitely understand. Is it an issue where your administrators see that you have it together, that your kids are doing great things, that there are no problems. . . .

At other times, the interviewer might pose an initial question that leads to answers from several participants that are in agreement, disagreement, or response to one another, such as in this excerpt (Conway, Eros, Pelligrino, and West 2010b): Interviewer:  Did you feel like it established a bond with the graduate students? Participant #1:  I thought so—I thought I talked to Lisa more after than I probably would have walking down the hallway or whatever, yeah. Participant #2:  I feel the observations, like when you watched us teach was more interactive than the PhD buddy thing because we didn’t really have a connection at that point. It was just like what I said, “Tell me what you’re learning in class.” But there, they are watching you and giving you direct feedback on your teaching or future career, so it seemed more personal. Participant #3:  I agree. I found it extremely helpful to have PhD buddies or, you guys around because you are not teachers. I can talk freely with you. Especially, for instance, on the Detroit trip, I had a chance to just have a conversation with Chad. Whenever I have a conversation with a GSI in these classes, I get a lot of really good advice. It’s not so much someone telling me, “No, you’re wrong, it’s actually like this,” which isn’t so helpful for me. It’s just sort of like having a dialog with someone who has a lot more experience, which is more helpful than only having teachers you can’t necessarily have a free conversation with. Participant #5:  I think we got to know you guys more, too, when you were observing us this year. Like, after we would teach and you guys would talk about it with us. It wasn’t like, “This is what you did, this is what you did, this is what you did. Well . . .” I don’t think any of the GSI’s did that. It was good to hear a perspective from you guys.

In this case, one question produced four answers, including affirmation of one answer, via another participant.

15.8 Analysis Morgan (1988) states that, “The fundamental data that focus groups produce are transcripts of the group discussions” (10). Many researchers, once the transcript is prepared, read and reread the transcripts, leading to the development of codes and categories. Another option is the use of qualitative analysis software such as NVIVO.

282   john eros

15.8.1 Transcription There are different issues to address in the transcription of focus group interviews than in individual interviews. There will be more spoken text and there is also the potential for participants to talk simultaneously. It has been my experience that participants generally listen attentively when others are speaking, and are quite willing to “yield the floor” should someone interject. The researcher will have to decide on the approach that will be taken to transcription. In some cases, the transcription might be absolutely verbatim, including any instances of repeated words and expressions such as “uh-huh.” Other sounds might be included, such as laughter. There is a certain advantage to transcription that includes gestures of this sort, given the fact that focus group interviews have such a focus on interaction. At other times, the discussion might be transcribed at specific times only. Ruthmann (2008, 47) stated that data were “transcribed when salient.” In addition to transcribing participants’ statements, a transcription makes it possible for the researcher to get a sense of reactions from those who are not speaking. It is common for transcribers to eliminate words such as “um,” “yeah,” “you know,” and so forth, as well as to change affirmative words such as “uh-huh” and “mm-hm” into “yes” for purposes of clarity in the transcript. Similarly, similar instances of agreement, such as a combination of simultaneous uh-huh’s, by several persons might be transcribed as such: James:  I have found that students have difficulty with dotted quarter—eighth patterns. Ellen:  Jordan, Kim: verbal agreement

Transcripts must clearly identify each speaker. The larger the group, the more important this becomes. If there is an overlap in statements, the interviewer might say, “James, what was that you said again?” And “Peter, you were saying . . .?” At times, researchers may take notes during the course of the focus group, and those might serve as an additional data set, as well as a way to keep track of participation. Moreover, it is often valuable for the researcher to do the transcription, as an additional element of both analysis and trustworthiness. However, transcription is time-consuming, particularly for focus group interviews. A one-hour focus group discussion with six participants, if transcribed verbatim, could easily equal 50 pages of raw data. If a study includes multiple focus group interviews, the amount of raw data can quickly become imposing. If the researcher is working with research assistants, or using technological aids, this might be less of an issue. Finally, while there are currently voice-recognition programs and devices available, capable of converting speech to text (dictation-style), these devices are usually designed to recognize and work with only one voice at a time, making them impractical for use in transcribing focus groups. As of yet, technology capable of transcribing several voices simultaneously is not available. Once the transcript is obtained, the procedure will unfold much as analysis of an individual interview’s transcript. The key difference between individual and focus group

Collecting and Analyzing Focus Group Data  283 interview analysis, however, is the element of interaction. Based on agreement or disagreement relative to a given statement, the researcher might be able to discern which statements the participants felt the most strongly about and, consequently, which statements can be considered with more confidence. Is a comment an isolated comment, or is it a comment emphatically echoed by a number of participants? If the latter, more weight might be given to considering that comment as codes are determined. Individual statements by participants serve as data in the same manner as in an individual interview, but the added element of interaction might allow the researcher to draw a stronger, more substantiated, conclusion.

15.8.2 Coding Research studies in music education commonly describe their analysis procedures for focus groups as analyzing transcripts for codes and categories. At other times, researchers might only listen to the focus groups initially, as part of the overall analysis procedure. Yourn (2000) wrote: “Analysis was carried out initially by listening to the tape recordings of the focus groups, discussing perspectives with mentor teachers and carefully annotating field notes that were verified with the student teachers.” In the case of studies that contain several focus group interviews, Morgan (1988) suggests that the researchers begin with a detailed analysis of one group, to begin building a coding structure, and then use this as a basis for analysis of additional focus group interviews. Additionally, the focus group and its analysis may play a picture in the larger picture of the research design, such that the focus group itself is a form of analysis, as described by Conway, Eros, Hourigan, and Stanley (2007, 45): “Individual interviews and email surveys had been analyzed previous to the focus group meeting so the focus group provided an opportunity for a ‘collective analysis’ and member check.” Robinson (2005) discussed how focus group discussions were used after the primary data set had been analyzed: “These discussions . . . helped to either clarify previous points or to extend my interpretations of comments made by various individuals at other times” (52). Ruthmann (2008, 47) described his focus group interview analysis, including the use of coding, as follows: The data were coded, transcribed when salient and analyzed throughout the study using a constant comparative method looking for places of resonance and tension among participants’ experiences and perceptions. The techniques of member check and peer-debriefing (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), along with data reflective of the teacher’s, students’, and researcher’s perspectives, were further analyzed through a process of ‘crystallization’ (Richardson, 2000). This process involved viewing and vetting data and interpretations through collecting data from multiple perspectives. This process enables the researcher to transfer the focus from the data as objective and discrete to that of the situated understandings and meanings reflected in the data and as seen through multiple facets of lived experience.

284   john eros

15.8.3 Technology Until recently, focus groups required coordinating a face-to-face meeting of several people. However, the ever-changing factor of technology allows for other options in coordinating focus group interviews. Conference calls, online chat rooms and discussion boards, while available for quite some time, have not been used to a great degree in music education. In a general discussion of the role of technology in focus groups, Stewart (2005) examined the use of online focus groups, using a close analysis of two scenarios, one real-time (synchronous) and one not (asynchronous). Recently, videoconferencing devices such as the platform created by Skype have made it possible for participants to see and interact with one another without being physically present. Videoconferencing is being used with increasing frequency in research in music education (Dammers 2009; Riley 2009). Riley used videoconferencing as a means to enable undergraduate music education majors in the United States to work with students in Mexico. Dammers (2009) used Skype and webcams to hold individual lessons between a trumpet professor and a student. The implications for music education research are significant, as the focus group methodology might not have been an option previously for certain participant populations. For example, due to distance considerations, a focus group of five rural music educators might have been extremely difficult to coordinate, to say nothing of the potential for international research. However, other issues must be considered. All participants would need access to appropriate computers and webcams, all in good working order and with reliable Internet connections. Also, confidentiality becomes even more difficult to account for. Without the researcher being able to directly regulate the setting, it is impossible to know if anyone else is in the room with a participant while the discussion is taking place. This becomes an issue for all of the participants and must certainly be described in detail in the informed consent documentation. On the general topic of virtual focus groups, Galloway (2011) suggests that, “Depending on the medium used and nature of the network, evaluators may be limited in their ability to guarantee that someone who is a nonapproved participant cannot access the focus-group discussion” (49–50). Additionally, the essential element of interaction will not be the same as an in-person focus group. Dammers (2009) remarked that in his study:  “although the [trumpet] instructor and student clearly established a good rapport, it became apparent that this format creates some challenges to establishing a positive interpersonal dynamic.” For a device such as a focus group interview, in which rapport and interaction are substantial factors, this must be considered. It will be difficult if not impossible for the participants and the researchers to maintain awareness of body language, gestures, etc. Participants might also attempt to multitask and not give their full attention to the focus group, again compromising the potential for spontaneous interaction and comment. Even with its disadvantages, it is valuable to acknowledge synchronous technology as an additional tool. Provided the researcher is aware of, and describes, the inherent limitations, videoconferencing may certainly be employed. Clearly, this is an area ripe for exploration by researchers in music education.

Collecting and Analyzing Focus Group Data  285

15.9 Conclusion The focus group is a device that can generate rich data, and can also play a strong role as an element of validity in an overall research design. The fundamental aspect of interaction is a natural fit for the field of music education, in which interaction plays such a fundamental role. Indeed, P–12 students interact with one another in classes and ensembles, and music teachers share many common threads (such as levels and disciplines taught, as well as musical and educational backgrounds and settings) that can form the basis of interaction. Moreover, the area of focus group research is ripe for exploration in ways unique to music education. As one possibility, an intersection of focus groups and Arts-Based Research might be explored. Instead of a discussion prompt, a music education focus group interview might begin with a performance of a piece of music, or perhaps an improvisation. Although the primary data produced from focus group interviews is typically the recordings and transcripts of the discussions, focus group interviews in music education settings have the potential to generate data in arts-based forms, such as musical improvisations and compositions (Beegle 2010). This would have further ramifications for the presentation of findings. Further research possibilities are numerous. More traditional focus groups might be used for research into music teachers’ experiences and perceptions of events in their careers, such as entering the field, or aspects of their teaching practice, such as score study or lesson planning. Others might explore ways to investigate music-making, such as composition and improvisation, or ensemble performance by student groups. With its potential for generating rich data, combined with its potential for a variety of presentations of findings (arts-based and otherwise), the focus group interview is a powerful data collection device for research in music education.

References Beegle, A. A. 2010. “Classroom-Based Study of Small-Group Planned Improvisation with Fifth-Grade Children.” Journal of Research in Music Education 58 (3): 219–39. Brenner, M. E. 2006. “Interviewing in Educational Research.” In Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, 3rd ed. edited by J. L. Green, G. Camilli, and P. B. Elmore, 357–70. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Byrne, C. and R. A.  R MacDonald. 2002. “The Use of Information and Communication Technology (I&CT) in the Scottish Music Curriculum:  A  Focus Group Investigation of Themes and Issues.” Music Education Research 4 (2): 263–273. California State University, East Bay. 2011. Focus Group Consent Form. http://www20.csueastbay.edu/orsp/irb/forms.html. Conway, C. M. 2000. “Perceptions of Beginning Music Teachers, Their Mentors, and Administrators Regarding Preservice Music Teacher Preparation.” Journal of Research in Music Education 50(1): 20–36.

286   john eros Conway, C. M. 2003. “An Examination of District-Sponsored Beginning Music Teacher Mentor Practices.” Journal of Research in Music Education 51(1): 6–23. Conway, C., J. Eros, R. Hourigan, and A. M. Stanley. 2007. “Perceptions of Beginning Teachers Regarding Brass and Woodwind Instrument Techniques Classes in Preservice Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 173: 39–54. Conway, C., J. Eros, K. Pelligrino, and C. West. 2010a. “Instrumental Music Education Students’ Perceptions of Tensions Experienced During Their Undergraduate Degree.” Journal of Research in Music Education 58 (3): 260–275. Conway, C., J. Eros, K. Pelligrino, and C. West. 2010b. “The Role of Graduate and Undergraduate Interactions in the Development Of Preservice Music Teachers and Music Teacher Educators: A Self-Study in Music Teacher Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 183: 49–64. Dammers, R. J. 2009. “Utilizing Internet-Based Videoconferencing for Instrumental Music Lessons.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 28 (1): 17–24. Eros, J. 2009. “A Case Study of Three Urban Music Teachers in the Second Stage of Their Teaching Careers.” PhD diss., University of Michigan. Galloway, K. L. 2011. “Focus Groups in the Virtual World:  Implications for the Future of Evaluation.” New Directions for Evaluation 131: 47–51. Gouzouasis, P., J. Henrey, and G. Belliveau. 2008. “Turning Points: A Transitional Story of Grade Seven Music Students’ Participation in High School Band Programmes.” Music Education Research. 10 (1): 75–90. Kamberelis, G., and G. Dimitriadis. 2005. “Focus Groups: Strategic Articulation of Pedagogy, Politics, and Inquiry.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 887–907. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Krueger, R. A. 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lee, R. 2010. “The Secret Life of Focus Groups: Robert Merton and the Diffusion of a Research Method.” American Sociologist 41(2): 115–41. Mantie, R., and L. Tucker. 2008. “Closing the Gap: Does Music-Making Have to Stop upon Graduation?” International Journal of Community Music 1 (2): 217–27. Marshall, N. A., and D. J. Hargreaves. 2007. “Crossing the Humpback Bridge: Primary-Secondary School Transition in Music Education.” Music Education Research 9 (1), 65–80. Merton, R. K. 1987. “The Focussed Interview and Focus Groups:  Continuities and Discontinuities.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 51(4): 550–66. Merton, R. K., M. Fiske, and P. L. Kendall. 1956. The Focused Interview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures. New York: The Free Press. Merton, R. K. and P. L. Kendall. 1946. “The Focused Interview.” American Journal of Sociology 51: 541–57. Morgan, D. L. 1988. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Morgan, D. L., ed. 1993. Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Morgan, D. L. 2001. “Focus Group Interviewing.” In Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method, edited by J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein, 141–60. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Morgan, D., C. Fellows, and H. Guevera. 2008. “Emergent Approaches to Focus Group Research.” In Handbook of Emergent Methods, edited by S. N. Hesse-Biber and P. Leavy, 189–296. New York: The Guilford Press.

Collecting and Analyzing Focus Group Data  287 NVIVO. http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx. Papageorgi, I., E. Haddon, A. Creech, F. Morton, C. de Bezenac, E. Himonides, J. Potter, C. Duffy, T. Whyton, and G. Welch. 2010a. “Institutional Culture And Learning I: Perceptions of the Learning Environment and Musicians’ Attitudes to Learning.” Music Education Research 12 (2): 151–78. Papageorgi, I., E. Haddon, A. Creech, F. Morton, C. de Bezenac, E. Himonides, J. Potter, C. Duffy, T. Whyton, and G. Welch. 2010b. “Inter-Relationships between Perceptions of the Learning Environment and Undergraduate Musicians’ Attitudes to Performance.” Music Education Research 12 (4): 427–46. Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Robinson, M. 2005. “The Impact of Beginning Music Teacher Assessment on the Assessors: Notes from Experienced Teachers.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 164: 49–60. Roulston, K., R. Legette, M. DeLoach, C. Buckhalter-Pittman, L. Cory, and R. S. Grenier. 2005. “Education:  Mentoring and Community through Research.” Research Studies in Music Education 25 (1): 1–22. Ruthmann, S. A. 2008. “Whose Agency Matters? Negotiating Pedagogical Experiences and Creative Intent During Composing Experiences.” Research Studies in Music Education 30 (1): 43–58. Seidman, I. 2006. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. 3rd ed. New York: Teachers College Press. Skype. www.skype.com. Stewart, K., and M. Williams. 2005. “Researching Online Populations: The Use of Online Focus Groups for Social Research.” Qualitative Research 5 (4): 395–416.

Chapter 16

C ol lecting, G e ne rat i ng , and Ana lyz i ng Multimoda l a nd M u ltimedia  Data evan s. tobias

16.1 Introduction This chapter addresses collecting, generating, and analyzing data contextualized through two key aspects of contemporary society and research: 1) the notion of multimodality as a way of expanding beyond text as the sole or primary way of situating, recording, and analyzing data and 2) the mediation of research through digital media and technology. To understand multimodality one must first acknowledge the multiple modes at play in a given context. Modes are resources for or ways of making meaning such as speaking or gesturing that are expressed through or made into form as media such as what a music educator says or how students respond (Dicks, Soyinka, and Coffee 2006; Kress and Van Leeuwen 2001). Jewitt (2011) identifies four overarching theoretical assumptions of multimodality: 1) language is a part of a multimodal ensemble; 2) each mode in a multimodal ensemble is understood as realizing different communicative work; 3) people orchestrate meaning through their selection and configuration of modes; and 4) meanings of signs fashioned from multimodal semiotic resources are, like speech, social 14–15). Multimodality is thus a framework for recognizing and understanding the use, meaning, and interaction of multiple diverse modes. International researchers such as Dicks, Soyinka, and Coffee (2006), Jewitt (2011), Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001), and Norris (2011) have developed a strong foundation for research and thinking in this vein. Multimodal scholarship often focuses on analyzing meanings of modes and media through frameworks such as semiotics. This chapter situates

Collecting and Analyzing Multimedia Data  289 multimodality more comprehensively, while recognizing that different media afford varied types of meaning. Conducting research through a multimodal framework accounts for how participants communicate and engage with the world through diverse modes. One’s data and analysis thus ought to convey what is specific to particular modes (Dicks et al. 2006). Dicks, Soyinka, and Coffee (2006) suggest that “multimodal representation implies the need for careful consideration of the particular kinds of meaning afforded by different media” (92). They encourage researchers to consider multiple media in terms of data and how these data are represented. The types of modes at play in a study, modal density or when multiple modes of communication and action occur simultaneously (Norris 2011), and how modes work together as an ensemble (Kress and Van Leeuwen 2001) ought to inform one’s approach to collecting and generating data. This chapter looks specifically at methodological approaches accounting for multiple modes and media with a focus on collecting, generating, and analyzing data. The following sections situate qualitative research as occurring within an increasingly digitized society, where even phenomena and data unconnected to technology might be understood through digitally mediated research methods. In some cases the approaches and techniques discussed draw specifically upon affordances of technology. Consequently, the chapter advocates a convergence or “bringing together of a whole range of new and old technologies in ways that can further the traditional yet also enable new approaches to conducting qualitative enquiry” (Brown 2002, 2).

16.2  Generating and Collecting Multimodal and Multimedia Data Generating multimodal and multimedia data affords researchers ways to observe, analyze, and understand phenomena that might not otherwise be possible. This is partially due to how multimedia and digital tools assist in generating overlapping data to provide thick and rich description (Geertz 1973) beyond what one observes and records in field notes (Flewitt 2006). Generating and recording the range and density of data that one might address when observing participants create or perform music requires concentration, coordination, analysis, and decision-making to determine what data to generate and the most appropriate process for doing so. While researchers are often the sole investigators in a study, sometimes assistants, team members, or participants generate data. Researchers ought to consider the benefits and challenges associated with recording data on their own or having others do so given the importance that decisions made while generating data have to a study. Communicating with collaborators before, during, and after recording data is critical in guiding research (Tobin and Hsueh 2007).

290   evan s. tobias Multimedia data can be collected and generated through a continuum of stationary to mobile sources. Whereas an application installed in a computer to record data is a stationary source, moving through a site with a video camera is more mobile. Such approaches and tools may be used in overlapping combinations based on what is most appropriate for particular sites and studies. The following section outlines processes for generating multimodal and multimedia data and decisions that may ensue when involved in such research. For additional information related to observing and video-recording see c­ hapter 13 of this Handbook.

16.2.1  Generating Data through Video and Audio Recording Generating digital video and multimodal data is useful for analyzing the varied phenomena encompassed by music education research. Barrett (2007) suggests that digital video affords qualitative researchers the ability to “work directly with sound, events, and talk in close proximity and without losing nuance through transcription into another form” (431). Video data is particularly useful when researching participants’ interactions in the field given the difficulty for even the most skilled researchers to focus on and record every detail of the multiple modes at play (Barrett 2007). Additionally, video-recording interviews provides context and nonverbal data ranging from facial reactions to gestures unavailable in audio recordings. Unlimited viewing of video records allows for increased detail in constructing data (Barron and Engle 2007). This affordance is key when analyzing multimodal data in music teaching and learning contexts. Barrett (2007) highlights how video data assisted graduate student researchers in analyzing relationships between choral singers’ discussion of music they were singing and their performance throughout a rehearsal. Reviewing video records can aid researchers’ analysis of rich and complex data inherent in such musical engagement. The ability to slow down (S. Goldman and McDermott 2007)  and pause video data to capture still frames (Jacobs, Kawanaka, and Stigler 1999) supports researchers’ capacity to see and hear details not possible while in the field. Video records’ degree of detail make them rich data sources but introduces challenges given the magnitude of data generated and researchers’ roles in its generation (Ash 2007; Barron 2007). Including video data in qualitative research adds significantly to a researcher’s responsibilities. One must consider what type and how many video cameras to use (Hall 2007), where and how they should be placed and positioned (Barron 2007), who should record the footage (Tobin and Hsueh 2007), what to record and how the video should be recorded. These decisions may require adjustments on-site and play an important role in obtaining and analyzing data.

16.2.2 Choosing and Operating Recording Devices Specific attributes of one’s study and research questions ought to guide choices regarding what types of data and recording devices are needed for a particular study and whether

Collecting and Analyzing Multimedia Data  291 equipment is used in a stationary, mobile, or combined manner. Before beginning data generation, researchers might ask themselves questions such as: What types of recording devices do I need for this study? What is the internal audio quality of the device? What types of audio input does a particular video recording device allow? Is it most advantageous to acquire one or more pro-level video cameras, semi-pro wearable cameras, or lower-quality video recording devices? What types of recording formats do the devices allow and to what extent are they compatible with the computer and software allocated for this study? Does the recording device contain zoom functionality? What equipment is necessary to support and secure recording devices? Logistical concerns such as budgets, physical layouts of research sites, participants’ use of space, and quality of recording device also factor in one’s decisions. Generating video data in settings where participants stand on risers and an educator remains on a podium may require a different approach than one where students create music throughout a classroom with the teacher moving between groups. While a basic image is sometimes sufficient, high-quality video and audio data that afford fine-grained visual detail may be required. A blurry image obscuring details of artifacts such as notated music or composition software can limit one’s ability to analyze data accurately. Deciding how many recording devices to use and their implementation in the field are important elements of one’s design (Derry 2007). Though in some studies one stationary video camera may be acceptable to generate data needed for fruitful analysis, when used alone a fixed video recording device may exclude valuable data. The ability to move recording devices when needed is ideal. In settings where numerous participants engage with music individually or in groups, two or more portable cameras might be incorporated to generate data from several perspectives. Using multiple video recording devices supports including a range of multimodal data, varied points of view, and foci that may not be possible when confined to one camera, but presents logistical and analytical challenges to researchers. When using multiple recording devices, one camera might provide a wide-angled or global perspective with other devices focused on individual or small groups of participants (Barron 2007). For example, providing a comprehensive sense of a large ensemble setting might include placing one camera at the back of a room recording the entire ensemble and music educator, another camera at the front of the room focused on all ensemble members, and a third camera at a room’s side focused on a row of ensemble members’ profiles. Incorporating multiple cameras is pivotal if participants are spread across a space or simultaneously located in different spaces. Combining a tripod and dolly with wheels can help maintain continuous steady footage when recording while moving a device. Recording of some music settings may call for nimble movement, so that recording devices must be hand-held. Tripods and supportive devices that can be clipped onto surfaces or attached to objects such as music stands allow one to move and secure recording devices as needed. This may be critical when participants move frequently or a researcher is multitasking. Researchers interested in recording data from participants’ or their own perspective while maintaining free use of their hands might find wearable cameras helpful. Small recording devices worn on one’s head or around/in one’s ear just as a Bluetooth earpiece can provide data

292   evan s. tobias that might otherwise be difficult to record. Just as Wiggins (1994) had students in a music class wear lapel microphones attached to tape recorders to generate data unobtrusively, researchers might have participants wear small video-recording devices to better understand what they see and hear while engaging with music. When participants’ points of view contribute to understanding their musical engagement, wearable cameras may be most appropriate. Researchers ought to consider how they collect audio data along with or as a part of video data. Generating audio data specific to individuals or groups of participants in settings where numerous people are performing can be challenging. Knowing video-recording devices’ specifications, types of audio input possible, and what might be needed to expand beyond basic audio can inform one’s recording strategies. If a high degree of audio fidelity is needed beyond video cameras’ capabilities, researchers might incorporate external microphones that can input to video cameras (Ash 2007; Barron 2007) or cameras that accept microphones via XLR cables. Wireless microphones may sometimes assist in capturing audio that might be unclear if only using the built-in microphone of the video camera (Barron 2007). Mobile devices with audio recording capabilities or the internal audio input of a laptop may also be used in place of or in addition to video recording devices for data generation.

16.2.3 Addressing Participants’ Use of Computers and Digital Devices on-Site Participants’ use of technology in research settings presents challenges for fully encompassing the density of data involved in their interactions with computers, other participants, and their surroundings. When participants engage with combinations of analog, electronic, digital, Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI), and computer instruments or devices, it is ideal to record multiple streams of data (Ruthmann 2006; Tobias 2010). Using a single video camera positioned behind participants exclusively or one set up solely in one part of the room might exclude details of their interactions with computers along with the sound and image needed to determine what is occurring. Ruthmann (2006) leveraged a multi-camera set up to record key informants working in a music lab by including two cameras placed at selected students’ stations and a third camera recording the entire class from the music educator’s perspective at the front of the room. By positioning cameras at computer stations Ruthmann generated data related to “social interactions, ambient audio, audio from a students’ computer and synthesizer, as well as the computer screen and keyboard use of different students throughout the class” (88). Tobias (2010) combined the use of a video camera, tripod and dolly, laptop, and computer screencasting software to generate audio and video data of students creating, recording, and producing music on computers while performing on acoustic and electric instruments or MIDI controllers throughout multiple rooms. The nature of these studies required flexibility in generating data that encompassed the richness of participants’ multimodal musical engagement with technology.

Collecting and Analyzing Multimedia Data  293 Generating audio data related to participants’ interaction with technology presents unique challenges. Recording equipment’s limitations, a computer or mobile device’s audio setup, and whether participants use speakers or headphones can determine one’s capability of recording audio from computers or other technology. When participants listen to the audio output of computers, electronic devices, or instruments with headphones, researchers might request that headphone amplifiers and splitters be used. This equipment amplifies and splits a single audio output into additional outputs, permitting one to listen in with headphones or connect the output to recording devices. When analog audio devices or instruments are used in conjunction with computers, a mixer from which the output can be recorded before being input to the computer along with the computer and other audio might be required. Though one can record participants’ computer work with audio- and video-recording devices, such resources may be inadequate to capture digital data with a high degree of fidelity needed for certain types of analysis. In some situations one might leverage computer video cards to record participants’ work with music software (Kirkman 2010). Screencasting software such as Screenflow or Camtasia allows one to record all video and audio within a computer, external audio such as participants’ dialogue, and video of what occurs in front of the computer. Using screencasting software, Tobias (2010) was able to analyze students’ recording and producing processes in computer environments with a high degree of detail and fidelity of audio and video data. Given the range of existing and emerging music technologies, researchers might be interested in generating data relevant to technology beyond audio and video media. MIDI data provides precise information related to musical parameters and can benefit observation and analysis of participants’ use of and interaction with music technology (Hickey 1997; Kirkman 2010). MIDI data can be collected by connecting a MIDI interface to the originating device or computer outputting the MIDI and a computer running software to record the MIDI data in real time. Open Sound Control (OSC) data, a protocol used to control music software and devices, can also be recorded but may first need to be converted to MIDI data through applications such as OSCulator. Besides recording such data in real time, researchers might collect iterative saved files of participants’ musical engagement with computers (Hickey 1997; Stauffer 2001). Knowing the parameters necessary to encapsulate all information related to participants’ work when saving or exporting files and the technology needed to access the saved data once off-site is essential.

16.2.4 Coordinating and Synchronizing Data Including multiple data sources demands strategies for coordinating and synchronizing recorded data. Locating specific information or identifying and piecing together a particular event across varied formatted data recorded by multiple devices is challenging but viable when a system for organizing, archiving, and logging data is employed. Time-stamping media records while recording is a simple but valuable technique that facilitates this process.

294   evan s. tobias Time-stamping field notes can assist in marking significant events or points of time that a researcher wants to remember when analyzing across data streams during analysis (Derry 2007). Maintaining an overarching sense of what took place along with significant events during each site visit by keeping a log, spreadsheet, or other type of organizational structure can assist in retrieving particular data from digital records (Barron 2007). For instance, a researcher observing groups of students creating music might time-stamp field notes on a tablet or laptop computer while simultaneously recording participants’ work with recording devices. While observing and recording a group creating music, the researcher might notice students stop their work, listen to another group’s music, discuss its similarity to a popular song, and then incorporate aspects of that song in their own music. In such a scenario, generating a memo with a time stamp would assist the researcher in remembering to look at that particular moment across the data records at a later point in time. Using time stamps in combination with logs or spreadsheets containing information about each site visit would also assist the researcher in finding such significant events in each data record. While software such as Final Cut Pro X or PluralEyes can synchronize video clips generated by numerous devices, precisely aligning multimedia recordings from different sources is difficult if the synchronization does not occur simultaneously with recording. Though visible or audible signals such as hand claps or clapper boards can aid in aligning digital recordings, achieving precise synchronization necessitates technical solutions. This is difficult when setting up multiple recording devices, taking field notes, and avoiding interfering with the setting. Kirkman’s (2010) study of young people creating music in the UK employed a synchronous multiple video (SMV) system enabling him to record and synchronize multiple data streams of video footage, audio, and MIDI information from computers and wireless microphones 111–12). This system included a multi-input audio/video capture card in a desktop computer, a video signal converter, and a MIDI interface to transfer MIDI data from the desktop to a laptop. Kirkman was thus able to generate data providing a view of the classroom, students working on specific computers, video of the computer itself with audio of students’ dialogue, and MIDI from their computer work. This unique approach offers a potential model for music educators interested in generating synchronized multimedia data including computers, video-recording devices, and MIDI controllers. When such technological solutions are not possible, researchers can use contextual information across data streams such as listening for the same audio or aligning visual information to synchronize the media.

16.2.5 Collecting and Digitizing Analog Artifacts and Data Collecting artifacts and objects that are meaningful to participants or significant to the study, sometimes referred to as material culture, is an important method for generating data. Atkinson and Delamont (2005) bemoan the lack of material culture in ethnographic fieldwork, urging researchers to “pay systematic attention to the physical embodiment of cultural values and codings” (827). Artifacts such as music curricular

Collecting and Analyzing Multimedia Data  295 and policy documents or examples of students’ work may be essential to one’s study though sometimes inaccessible to the researcher. Obtaining such artifacts may require contacting people beyond the immediate sample of participants, such as site staff or administrators. Researchers ought to consider and address these issues when drafting IRB permissions forms. Though artifacts ranging from sheet music to student’s compositions might be collected physically, it may be necessary to record material culture that cannot be removed from a site, such as trophies and banners in a band room. Researchers might also employ artifacts to obtain additional data. A list of participants’ favorite music for example, might inform searches for related recordings or videos.

16.2.6 Incorporating Participant-Generated Data Many of the strategies addressed thus far also apply to including audio, video, and other artifacts generated and recorded by participants. Whether text-based artifacts such as reflective journal entries or multimedia recordings, participant-generated data can provide information and perspectives that might otherwise be inaccessible to or missed by a researcher and potentially more representative of participants’ worlds and experience than those generated by researchers (Clark-Ibáñez 2007; Mannay 2010). Additionally, participant-generated data can serve as a triangulation measure to researchers’ interpretations of their own observations (Russell 2007). Including participant-generated photos, sometimes referred to as auto-driven visual research, can involve participants generating photographs collaboratively (Kaplan and Howes 2004) or independently (Samuels 2007). Kaplan and Howes’s (2004) international research speaks to the rich data that photographs can provide and how such data might be generated collaboratively. Music education researchers might provide groups of students with digital cameras or mobile devices to photograph aspects of their musical engagement such as when, where, and how they do music. Researchers can alternatively request that participants refrain from sharing what they intend to photograph with each other (Samuels 2007). Providing parameters as to what participants might photograph may be important to one’s research design. Samuels (2007) found more success when asking his participants to photograph specific aspects of their lived experience in terms of topics such as “something that captures the essence of Buddhism” (200) than when using a more open-ended approach that simply specified participants to photograph “ten things they like[d]‌” (202). Providing criteria that are too specific, however, may limit the type of data participants generate based on a researcher’s preconceived idea of what should be included. It is thus incumbent on one to strike the best balance of specificity and openness with what participants might photograph and a study’s focus. Researchers might learn much from participants’ photographs of what is meaningful in terms of their musicianship or musical engagement. Processes for including participant-generated video data parallel aforementioned video research approaches and techniques of auto-driven visual research. Additional techniques such as having participants record video diaries, similar to reflective

296   evan s. tobias journals, may benefit a study. Holliday (2007), whose research in the UK exemplifies this particular use of video data, argues that “video diaries afford participants the potential for a greater degree of reflection than other methods through the process of watching, recording, and editing their diaries before submission” (262). Having participants create video diaries can be particularly beneficial for generating data related to musical engagement that researchers are unable to observe or participants’ reflections beyond the context of interviews. Video confessionals, consisting of someone looking at and speaking directly to the camera (Holliday 2007), may be familiar to participants given this format’s presence on television shows that adopt documentary techniques. Rowe (2009), a researcher from the UK, makes a similar observation regarding video diaries and reality television shows. Holliday (2007), in discussing the value of video confessionals suggests that they be paired with follow-up interviews since they present a one-way conversation (277). Researchers might elicit video confessionals during or after rehearsals, project work, and other settings by providing participants with recording devices or placing them on-site. Video diaries and confessionals may also be useful for obtaining data related to participants’ musical engagement or perspectives in settings outside of a researcher’s immediate purview. Creating and using other visual artifacts such as concept maps or mind maps provides a mechanism for displaying participants’ knowledge, understanding, and perspectives of particular phenomena (Novak and Cañas 2006; Wheeldon and Faubert 2009). While some use the terms concept maps and mind maps interchangeably, others differentiate between the two approaches. According to Novak and Cañas (2006) concept maps “show the specific label (usually a word or two) for one concept in a node or box, with lines showing linking words that create a meaningful statement or proposition” (177). Using Novak and Cañas’s approach, concept maps are arranged hierarchically and contain statements and visual information demonstrating relationships between the concepts (177). Mind maps, however, according to Novak and Cañas, typically “lack one or more of the above characteristics” (177) of concept maps. Having participants create such maps provides them with a creative process to engage their own thinking and researchers with visual representations of participants’ perspectives and understanding of particular topics or phenomena (Wheeldon and Faubert 2009). Butler (2001) analyzed preservice music educators’ concept maps of “effective teaching” created at initial and final stages of a study. Including concept maps assisted Butler in analyzing students’ conceptual understanding of what it means to be an effective teacher. Participant-generated visual data can extend to other types of maps, drawings, representations of music, and self-portraits. Music educators have used listening maps or visual representations of music as a means of students’ musical engagement and data for research (Blair 2008; Kerchner 2000). Incorporating artifacts such as drawings, art works, and self-portraits provides participants with opportunities to share their insights through artistic means beyond text-based or verbal responses to researchers’ questions (Mannay 2010; Russell 2007). Mannay’s (2010) and Russell’s (2011) research overseas demonstrates how participants’ drawings can communicate multiple meanings and perspectives that might otherwise be missed. Though the aforementioned artifacts may

Collecting and Analyzing Multimedia Data  297 be more open to interpretation than textual data and in some cases constrained by participants’ artistic ability and technical skill (Mannay 2010), when combined with accompanying text and/or discussion they provide entry points to participants’ thinking and experience. Thompson and Campbell (2003), for example, incorporated preservice educators’ drawings with accompanying descriptions to analyze their teaching metaphors.

16.2.7 Eliciting Data from Data Researchers can use existing artifacts such as notated music, instruments, or musical recordings; data generated on site such as media recordings of participants engaged in musicking; or artifacts and media generated by participants such as mind maps or video diary entries, to elicit additional data from participants. Discussions that ensue when engaged in this process can be recorded as additional data and part of the triangulation process. It is critical, however, that researchers distinguish between data used to elicit additional data and the information generated in this process (Russell 2007). Photo and video elicitation will be outlined below, though the strategies can be applied to the range of data discussed throughout this chapter. Photo elicitation is a methodological approach whereby one incorporates photographs as prompts, foci, references, and other means for generating data through dialogue and interviews extending beyond a solely verbal-oriented process (Harper 2002; Samuels 2007). Auto-driven photo elicitation, in which participants discuss photographs they generated, brings to focus what they find relevant and meaningful (Clark-Ibáñez 2007; Samuels 2007). This can assist researchers in clarifying potential misinterpretations (Mannay 2010). In music education, photographs of participants engaged in musicking or participant-generated photographs of meaningful musical experiences can serve as springboards for discussing music and research foci. Video elicitation consists of participants viewing and discussing specific excerpts, or moments of video that they or researchers select. Video-stimulated recall involves having participants view video data of themselves to recall and discuss what they were thinking at the particular moment that they observe on the video footage. Though for some, video-stimulated recall encompasses participants commenting on aspects of what they were doing, it is the reliving of experience that is most characteristic of this approach (Rowe 2009; Smith 2008). Tochon (2007) traces how the use of stimulated recall has “shifted from a focus on reconstructing past thinking . . . toward a focus on constructive, shared reflections on present and future actions” 60–61). Tochon suggests researchers abandon the notion of stimulated recall when “dealing with video-based prospective knowledge construction,” which she terms “video-based shared reflection” (VBSR) (60). Rather than having students “relive” the prior experience to recall what they were doing and thinking at the time they were recorded, video-based shared reflection engages participants in “constructive, shared reflections” from their present perspective by discussing video data with the researcher or other participants (Tochon, 2007, 61).

298   evan s. tobias Participants might be encouraged to treat VBSR similar to commentary provided as extra content when watching films on DVD or other media. This approach can generate information that may not be verbalized during interviews or observations. For example, Tobias’s (2010) incorporation of VBSR led to a participant discussing for the first time how he and his partner accommodated for each other’s guitar skills throughout their creative process. This was spurred by the participant observing himself changing a strumming pattern while practicing an original song with his partner.

16.3 Analyzing Multimodal and Multimedia Data Given the spectrum of possible approaches and frameworks for analyzing multimodal and multimedia data, this section focuses on overarching or meta-approaches. Keeping in mind that theoretical frameworks, prior research, and participants’ perspectives will inform analysis of data ranging from photographs to participants’ self-portraits, this section addresses multimedia data specifically by highlighting issues of transformation and transcription and discussing bricolage as an analytical strategy. Analyzing multimodal and multimedia data incrementally and/or recursively may assist researchers in making strategic decisions throughout their study (Ash 2007; Green, Skukauskaite, Dixon, and Cordova 2007; Rich and Patashnick 2002). While most approaches share analytical transformations of data such as indexing, transcribing, creating narrative accounts, creating intermediate representations of data, and coding, these techniques are not necessarily performed in the same order. The theoretical and methodological frameworks from which one operates will influence how one proceeds with analysis (Ash 2007; R. Goldman, Erickson, Lemke, and Derry 2007). Goldman et  al. (2007) suggest that video researchers make analytical decisions based upon inductive, deductive, or narrative evolving approaches to data selection. In an inductive approach the researcher starts with broad questions without a strong orienting theory guiding data selection. Through repeated viewings the researcher might make use of transcripts and intermediate representations of data, such as diagrams, graphs, and matrices to determine significant events and themes (22). A deductive approach makes use of a strong theory and clear research questions to identify and create a representative set of video cases from which to sample systematically to answer the research questions (22). In a narrative evolving approach, data may be selected during and after the recording process to construct a narrative for answering research questions. This approach often includes collaboration with participants 22–23). Rich and Patashnick (2002) demonstrate an inductive process consisting of viewing video records with minimum manipulation, logging the visual and audio narrative

Collecting and Analyzing Multimedia Data  299 aspects of the records in multiple passes, and creating transcripts. Transcripts are then coded and analyzed for “conceptual model building” (256). Both Green et al. (2007) and Ash (2007) move back and forth through layers of analysis recursively. Whereas Green et al. (2007) begin with locating points in the data significant to the study, Ash (2007) first transcribes video records. Both approaches then make extensive use of intermediate representations of data such as maps (Green, et al., 2007) and flow charts (Ash, 2007) to analyze, find relationships between, and apply theoretical frameworks to the video data. Ash (2007) and Green et al (2007) then conduct detailed discourse analyses on the identified significant events before moving to a macro level of analysis to contextualize and make sense of the data. Rostvall and West (2005) take a more deductive approach, beginning with an analytical framework based on research concepts; transcribing speech, gesture, and music into text; and coding data using a concept matrix based on their analytical framework. This is followed by coding based on an additional set of conceptual frameworks. Engle, Conant, and Greeno (2007) suggest a process of progressive refinement of hypotheses wherein a researcher starts with a question and hypothesis about a particular phenomenon. After viewing video through multiple iterations at various degrees of detail, significant events are identified, coded with pre-specified categories, and compared to test various hypotheses. Codes are then applied to build categories and eventually a model explaining the central phenomenon, which is tested against specific cases and aspects of the video data through using transcripts and content logs.

16.3.1  Preparing and Processing Multimedia Data Viewing and indexing multimedia data before and during the transformation and transcription of data can greatly assist with analysis (Hall 2007). Along with viewing and cataloging video (Barron 2007), indexing can include coordinating time-stamped field notes with video records. During multiple viewings of a record, researchers might focus on particular aspects of the video and adjust the speed of footage, gaining different perspectives (Barron 2007). Creating content logs of video data by outlining the media content provides researchers with an indexing mechanism for reviewing specific events or aspects of the data at later points in time (Barron and Engle 2007). In contrast to the concision of content logs (Flewitt 2006), narrative accounts of video data consist of generating detailed and comprehensive descriptions of the entire video recording (Angelillo, Rogoff, and Chavajay 2007). Narrative accounts represent multimodal data through rich description, communicating what occurred to someone who was not present (Angelillo, et  al. 2007; Barron 2007).

16.3.1.1  Transforming and Transcribing Multimedia Data When working with multimedia data, the researcher performs as instrument through transforming, making sense of, and making decisions in relation to data (Barrett,

300   evan s. tobias 2007). Issues of data transformation and analysis are thus embedded within data generation processes and influenced by a researcher’s interests and principles, a point echoed by UK researchers Bezemer and Mavers (2011). Video footage is initially transformed to data through indexing or transcription (Angelillo et al., 2007; Barron and Engle 2007). Researchers might choose to transcribe only particular events and instances in the video record (Spiers 2004)  or entire records. Given the analytical decisions inherent in transforming and transcribing multimodal and multimedia data (Barron and Engle 2007), researchers ought to consider the ramifications of having others transcribe data before delegating this process to assistants or team members. A multimodal paradigm accounts for analyzing data ranging from speech and actions to participants’ embodied expressions such as gestures and gaze (Flewitt 2006; West 2011). Sound and music also play important roles as data, as do various visual representations of music. Challenges abound when determining whether to transform or transcribe one mode to another and the most appropriate process for doing so (Bezemer and Mavers 2011; Kress and Van Leeuwen 2001). Music, for instance, can be transformed from its original recorded format to descriptive text, standard notation, MIDI data, waveforms, iconic notation, spectrograms, or notation devised specifically for the purposes of a particular study. It is thus necessary to be deliberate about the notational convention one uses to represent data (Baldry and Thibault 2010). The ability to generate a composite transcript of varied modes such as speech, gestures, music, and other information is critical when events or interactions involve a high density of multimodal data or constant shifts between modes (Rostvall and West 2005; West 2011). Rostvall and West’s (2005) detailed transcript of an instrumental lesson in Sweden provides a close look at the complexity of transcription when considering multimodal aspects of data. Whether focusing on one mode at a time over multiple iterative passes through data or transcribing the gestalt of multimodal data, it is important to consider that multiple communicative modes can become incoherent and lose meaning when viewed and listened to independently of one another (Tobias 2010; West 2011). West (2011) highlights how when studying one-on-one music lessons participants communicated through multiple modes that transformed from one to another such as “from spoken language into gesture and music” (290). Tobias (2010) noted similar movement between, and overlap of, modes when students worked on recording and producing music. Participants would often point to a computer screen, manipulate digital content in the computer environment, hum or sing, speak, and play instruments as they collaborated on their music. In both studies, focusing solely on a single mode would obscure the larger meanings of what occurred. Working exclusively within linguistic-focused transcription frameworks can limit one’s ability to analyze the richness and complexity of multimodal data (Flewitt 2006). Flewitt’s (2006) research in the UK of young participants’ interactions provides a strong rationale for addressing multimodal data. Approaches to address multimodal data range from creating separate transcripts for each mode to composite transcripts with columns designated for each mode (Rostvall and West 2005). Including speech, actions,

Collecting and Analyzing Multimedia Data  301 and other data in the same transcript mediates analysis and helps researchers make sense of individual modes and how they work together.

16.3.2 Analysis through Bricolage While coding is one way of making sense of data, applying montage or bricolage to juxtapose and put varied data into conversation can lead to interesting analyses and insights (Denzin and Lincoln 2005; Kincheloe and Berry 2004). Employing montage as an analytical approach might be characterized by “many different things . . . going on at the same time—different voices, different perspectives, points of views, angles of vision” (Denzin and Lincoln 2005, 5). While bricolage does not require using computers, technology affords layering, hyperlinking, and creating multimedia as a form of analysis and in some cases representations of data (Lemke 2007). Researchers might juxtapose and shift their attention between written descriptions of students’ musical engagement, researcher memos, recordings of participants’ music, video clips of their process, and audio excerpts of related interviews. Such techniques encourage researchers to extend beyond linear, chronological, or hierarchical approaches when analyzing data. Processes such as selecting and re-ordering “clips” with video editing applications can be extremely helpful in organizing events in video records for detailed analysis (Barrett 2007; Spiers 2004). Barret (2007) explained how graduate student researchers marked significant segments of video footage, grouped the segments together, and organized the clips to create an overview of a choral rehearsal. This aided the researchers in “mov[ing] back and forth from the entire excerpt to segments of interest and back again to the whole” (428). Similar analytical approaches might be applied to data ranging from iterative recordings of students’ original music or performances to significant events throughout a setting where people engage with music. Along with using video editing software, researchers might leverage visual editing applications to combine digital photos or still images of video with annotations, text such as interview data, timelines, concept maps, or other artifacts to gain insight and make connections between data (Flewitt 2006). Using a combination of software, one can weave together interview data, journal entries, photographs, video clips, audio excerpts, researcher memos and other data to understand one’s research in ways that are not possible when coding exclusively. This process is particularly helpful when specific aspects of data relate to one another but are spread across multiple points in time in varied formats from different sources. For instance, a researcher can leverage technology to compile all occurrences that a participant references a particular band, whether in speech, through his original music, or on a t-shirt worn on-site. These disparate data recorded at different moments can be juxtaposed visually and/or conceptually through a creative writing or multimedia process of bricolage to reveal connections that may be key to the study.

302   evan s. tobias

16.4  Future Developments and Directions in Qualitative Research Data Collection and Generation Online research and digital ethnographic methods are hardly new but are not yet widely present in music education. Given the ubiquity of social media and networks, emerging web-based technologies, and ways people engage with music online, music education research ought to account for web-based data. Fieldwork now encompasses digital and hybrid spaces. While studies of online music communities are emerging internationally (Partti and Karlsen 2010; Waldron and Veblen 2008), music education researchers might also incorporate data such as YouTube videos and associated comments, participants’ blog posts or Facebook updates, and microblogging or Twitter messages. Searching through and across such digital media may generate valuable data, however, ethical and methodological issues primarily relating to privacy must be negotiated and reconciled. Addressing new technologies, media, and modes of communication is critical to studying musical engagement as society evolves. The use of large-scale databases to archive and share data for secondary analyses, while fairly common in the sciences, is largely missing from music education research. Pea and Lemke (2007) suggest that providing access to video data allows for “making it possible to subject claims based on the data to scholarly debate” and “enabl[es] other researchers to benefit from the time—and in many cases public money—invested in acquiring the data (42). The ability for peer researchers to access, engage with, and analyze archived data ranging from visual and sonic representations of students’ original music to video clips of people discussing their musical identities could provide opportunities for collaborative, iterative, and longitudinal investigations of phenomena across music education. Strategic planning is needed to address the diversity of data content and formats as well as how this content might be shared. Including metadata or information embedded within the data, in addition to appropriate web-based schemas that can be read and searched within web browsers, can increase the likelihood of data being found and accessed by researchers (Pea and Lemke 2007). Though individuals can create online archives and websites using open source content management and archiving systems, collaborative efforts may assist in broadening beyond analyses “isolated in data islands that can only be used and understood within the tools and projects in which they are created” (Pea and Lemke 2007, 42). This necessitates developing standardized systems to format and label data for use in databases and spaces online ranging from determining what types of meta information should be attached to participants’ original music to the digital format of those files. Music education research might benefit from researchers, institutions, and organizations collaborating to develop and maintain the infrastructure, policies, and knowledge necessary to share and access data and analysis across digital networks.

Collecting and Analyzing Multimedia Data  303

16.5 Conclusion Integrating multimedia and multimodal data in qualitative research offers a way to encompass the varied modes of communication at play in music teaching and learning. This chapter focused on collecting, generating, transforming, and analyzing such data, particularly in relation to those digital or digitized. The complexities inherent when integrating multimedia and diverse artifacts were also highlighted, along with issues related to developing systems and strategies for generating, archiving, organizing, accessing, and analyzing data ranging from video clips to participant-created imagery. As technology develops, musical engagement evolves, and data sources or formats diversify, one might draw upon the strong foundation of qualitative research methods and issues discussed throughout this chapter to inform work on future studies. Music education researchers might thus involve the scope of modes and media applied throughout music teaching.

References Angelillo, C., B. Rogoff, and P. Chavajay. 2007. “Examining Shared Endeavors by Abstracting Video Coding Schemes with Fidelity to Cases.” In Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron and S. J. Derry, 189–206. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ash, D. 2007. “Using Video Data to Capture Discontinuous Science Meaning Making in Nonschool Settings.” Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron and S. J. Derry, 207–226. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Atkinson, P., and S. Delamont. 2005. “Analytic Perspectives.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 821–40. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Baldry, A., and P. J. Thibault. 2010. Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis. London: Equinox. Barrett, J. R. 2007. “The Researcher as Instrument: Learning to Conduct Qualitative Research through Analyzing and Interpreting a Choral Rehearsal.” Music Education Research 9 (3), 417–33. Barron, B. 2007. “Video as a Tool to Advance Understanding of Learning and Development in Peer, Family, and Other Informal Learning Contexts.” In Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron and S. J. Derry, 159–87. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Barron, B., and R. A. Engle. 2007. “Analyzing Data Derived from Video Records.” In Guidelines for Video Research in Education: Recommendations from an Expert Panel, edited by S. J. Derry, 24–33. Chicago: Data Research and Development Center. Bezemer, J., and D. Mavers. 2011. “Multimodal Transcription as Academic Practice: A Social Semiotic Perspective.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 14 (3): 191–206. Blair, D. V. 2008. “Do You Hear What I Hear? Musical Maps and Felt Pathways of Musical Understanding.” Visions of Research in Music Education 11: 1–23.

304   evan s. tobias Brown, D. 2002. “Going Digital And Staying Qualitative: Some Alternative Strategies for Digitizing the Qualitative Research Process.” Forum:  Qualitative Social Research, 3 (2): 1–17. Butler, A. 2001. “Preservice Music Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching Effectiveness, Microteaching Experiences, and Teaching Performance.” Journal of Research in Music Education 49 (3): 258–72. Clark-Ibáñez, M. 2007. “Inner-City Children in Sharper Focus: Sociology of Childhood and Photo Elicitation Interviews.” In Visual Research Methods: Image, Society, and Representation, edited by G. C. Stanczak, 167–196. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2005. “Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 1–32. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Derry, S. J., ed. 2007. Guidelines for Video Research in Education: Recommendations from an Expert Panel. Chicago: Data Research and Development Center. Dicks, B., B. Soyinka, and A. Coffee. 2006. “Multimodal Ethnography.” Qualitative Research 6 (1): 77–96. Engle, R. A., F. R. Conant, and J. G. Greeno. 2007. “Progressive Refinement of Hypotheses in Video-Supported Research.” In Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron and S. J. Derry, 239–54. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Flewitt, R. 2006. “Using Video to Investigate Preschool Classroom Interaction:  Education Research Assumptions and Methodological Practices.” Visual Communication 5 (1): 25–50. Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Goldman, R., F. Erickson, J. Lemke, and S. J. Derry. 2007. “Selection in Video.” In Guidelines for Video Research in Education: Recommendations from an Expert Panel, edited by S. J. Derry, 15–23. Chicago: Data Research and Development Center. Goldman, S., and R. McDermott, R. 2007. “Staying the Course with Video Analysis.” In Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron and S. J. Derry, 101–113. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Green, J., Skukauskaite, A., C. Dixon, and R. Cordova. 2007. “Epistemological Issues in the Analysis of Video Records:  Interactional Ethnography as a Logic of Inquiry.” In Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron and S. J. Derry, 115–32. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hall, R. 2007. “Strategies for Video Recording:  Fast, Cheap, and (Mostly) in Control.” In Guidelines for Video Research in Education: Recommendations from an Expert Panel, edited by S. J. Derry, 4–14. Chicago: Data Research and Development Center. Harper, D. 2002. “Talking about Pictures:  A  Case for Photo Elicitation.” Visual Studies 17 (1): 13–26. Hickey, M. 1997. “The Computer as a Tool in Creative Music Making.” Research Studies in Music Education 8: 56–70. Holliday, R. 2007. “Performances, Confessions, and Identities.” In Visual Research Methods: Image, Society, and Representation, edited by G. C. Stanczak, 255–79. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Jacobs, J. K., T. Kawanaka, and J. W. Stigler. 1999. “Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to the Analysis of Video Data on Classroom Teaching.” International Journal of Educational Research 31: 717–24. Jewitt, C. 2011. “An Introduction to Multimodality.” In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, edited by C. Jewitt, 14–27. New York: Routledge.

Collecting and Analyzing Multimedia Data  305 Kaplan, I., and A. Howes. 2004. “‘Seeing through Different Eyes’:  Exploring the Value of Participative Research Using Images in Schools.” Cambridge Journal of Education 34 (2): 143–55. Kerchner, J. L. 2000. “Children’s Verbal, Visual, and Kinesthetic Responses:  Insight into Their Music Listening Experience.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 146: 31–50. Kincheloe, J. L., and K. Berry. 2004. Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research. New York: Open University Press. Kirkman, P. R. 2010. “Exploring Contexts for Development:  Secondary Music Students’ Computer-Mediated Composing.” Journal of Music, Technology, and Education 3 (2 and 3): 107–24. Kress, G., and T. Van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal Discourse:  The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold. Lemke, J. 2007. “Video Epistemology In-and-Outside the Box: Traversing Attentional Spaces.” In Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron and S. J. Derry, 39–51. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mannay, D. 2010. “Making the Familiar Strange: Can Visual Research Methods Render the Familiar Setting More Perceptible?” Qualitative Research 10 (1): 91–111. Norris, S. 2011. “Modal Density and Modal Configurations:  Multimodal Actions.” In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, C. Jewitt, 78–90. New York: Routledge. Novak, J. D., and A. J. Cañas. 2006. “The Origins of the Concept Mapping Tool and the Continuing Evolution of the Tool.” Information Visualization 5: 174–84. Partti, H., and S. Karlsen. 2010. “Reconceptualising Musical Learning: New Media, Identity and Community in Music Education.” Music Education Research 12 (4): 369–82. Pea, R., and Lemke, J. 2007. “Sharing and Reporting Video Work.” In Guidelines for Video Research in Education: Recommendations from an Expert Panel, edited by S. J. Derry, 34–46. Chicago: Data Research and Development Center. Rich, M., and J. Patashnick 2002. “Narrative Research with Audiovisual Data:  Video Intervention/Prevention Assessment (VIA) and NVivo.” Social Research Methodology 5 (3): 245–61. Rostvall, A., and T. West. 2005. “Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives on Designing Video Studies of Interaction.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 4 (4): 1–26. Rowe, V. C. 2009. “Using Video-Stimulated Recall as a Basis for Interviews: Some Experiences from the Field.” Music Education Research 11 (4): 425–37. Russell, L. 2007. “Visual Methods in Researching the Arts and Inclusion:  Possibilities and Dilemmas.” Ethnography and Education 2 (1): 39–55. Ruthmann, S. A. 2006. “Negotiating Learning and Teaching in a Music Technology Lab:  Curricular, Pedagogical, and Ecological Issues.” PhD diss., Oakland University, Rochester, MI. Samuels, J. 2007. “When Words Are Not Enough:  Eliciting Children’s Experiences of Buddhist Monastic Life through Photographs.” In Visual research methods: Image, society, and representation, edited by G. C. Stanczak, 197–224. Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications. Smith, J. 2008. “Compositions of Elementary Recorder Students Created under Various Conditions of Task Structure.” Research Studies in Music Education 30 (2): 159–76. Spiers, J. A. 2004. “Tech Tips: Using Video Management/Analysis Technology in Qualitative Research.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 3 (1): 1–8.

306   evan s. tobias Stauffer, S. L. 2001. “Composing with Computers: Meg Makes Music.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 150: 1–20. Thompson, L. K., and M. R. Campbell. 2003. “Gods, Guides and Gardeners: Preservice Music Educators’ Personal Teaching Metaphors.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 158: 43–54. Tobias, E. 2010. “Crossfading and Plugging in: Secondary Students’ Engagement and Learning in a Songwriting and Technology Class.” PhD diss., Northwestern University, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (3402496). Tobin, J., and Y. Hsueh. 2007. “The Poetics and Pleasures of Video Ethnography of Education. In Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron and S. J. Derry, 77–91. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tochon, F. V. 2007. “From Video Cases to Video Pedagogy: A Framework for Video Feedback and Reflection in Pedagogical Research Praxis.” In Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron and S. J. Derry, 53–65. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Waldron, J. L., and Veblen, K. K. 2008. “The Medium is the Message: Cyberspace, Community, and Music Learning in the Irish Traditional Music Virtual Community.” Journal of Music, Technology, and Education 1 (2 and 3): 99–111. West, T. 2011. “Music and Designed Sound.” In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, edited by C. Jewitt, 284–92. New York: Routledge. Wheeldon, J., and J. Faubert. 2009. “Framing Experience: Concept Maps, Mind Maps, and Data Collection in Qualitative Research.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8 (3): 68–83. Wiggins, J. H. 1994. “Children’s Strategies for Solving Compositional Problems with Peers.” Journal of Research in Music Education 42 (3): 232–52.

Chapter 17

M usic-Making As Data Collection and Analysis kristen pellegrino

Music making . . . lies at the heart of what music is and music making is a matter of musical knowledge-in-action. (Elliott 1995, 72)

Using music-making as data is a potentially rich but underexplored topic in American music educational research. If music-making is a matter of musical knowledge-in-action, as Elliott believes, then it makes sense that music education researchers would collect and analyze music-making data to provide important insights into the music learning process as well as the very nature and impact of music-making. However, music education researchers who plan to use music-making data are largely left to their own devices, as this is seldom addressed as a separate topic in research books. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the uses of music-making as data in qualitative research in American music education and to offer suggestions about how to collect and analyze music-making data. This chapter begins with an overview of Arts-Based Educational Research (ABER) and music’s place in this field. The second section presents a more comprehensive discussion about collecting music-in-the-moment data, differentiating between collecting (1)  process-of-music-making data; (2)  product-of-music-making data; and (3) meanings-of-music-making data. The third section explores how music education researchers analyzed music-making data, including (1) verbal and nonverbal interactions; (2) musical and nonmusical responses; and (3) social interactions/connections. Then, music therapy research is examined to inspire ways to broaden analysis categories to include individual responses to music-making, perceptions of others’ responses to music-making, and understanding music or music education itself. The chapter concludes with suggestions for future research studies that may benefit from using

308   kristen pellegrino music-making data and encourages music education researchers to use music-making data collection and analysis models presented here as well as to continue to explore and create new models.

17.1 Arts-Based Educational Research (ABER) 17.1.1 A Brief Overview of ABER Arts-Based Educational Research (ABER) developed from the use of Arts-Based Research (ABR). McNiff (1992, 1998, 2008)  was one of the pioneers of ABR. As a creative-arts therapist, he aimed to integrate practice and research in his field. Since creative-arts therapists believe that the arts provide valuable ways of communicating and expressing oneself, he decided to experiment by using art as research. This idea was adopted by educational researchers, and a new branch of research emerged. According to Barone and Eisner (2006), the purpose of ABER is the enhancement of perspectives. They believe that it offers “a unique means for enhancing the educational perspectives of audience members by successfully communicating the ineffable dimensions of experiences within schools” (101). Although arts-based research has become more common in fields such as art and theater, it has scarcely been used in American music education research (Bresler 2008; Daykin 2009; Leavy 2009; Sefton and Bayley 2009). However, Leavy (2009) writes that “music-based methods can help researchers access, illuminate, describe, and explain that which is often rendered invisible by traditional research practices” (101). The American Educational Research Association (AERA) has 175 Special Interest Groups (SIGs), and “Arts-Based Educational Research” was the ninth to be created. The stated purpose of this SIG is “To provide a community for those who view education through artistic lenses, who use a variety of arts-based methodologies, and who communicate understandings through diverse genres” (http://www.aera.net/tabid/11093/ First/A/Last/G/Default.aspx). These diverse genres include connecting knowledge gained through the arts to other areas, such as researching, teaching, learning, or including an artistic expression as a representation of the research itself.

17.1.2 Music and ABER Literature about ABER often mentions the use of music within the framework of research methodologies but offers little specific advice about how to collect or analyze music-making data. Leavy (2009), however, has created a Checklist of Considerations:

Music-Making As Data  309 When considering using music in your research, consider the following questions: What is the purpose of the study and how can music serve as a medium to shed light on this topic? What is my conception of music? In this study, is music conceptualized as a text, as an object, as a sign system, as a performance, or as some combination of these? Am I interested in the textual form of music, music at the moment of articulation, or both? What form will the musical data be in? For example, are the data in the form of compositions, scores, and lyrics, or am I  interested in the performative, audible aspects of music? In terms of the latter, will live performances be recorded, or will audiotapes be used? Will the physical performance serve as data, or only the music itself? What is the analysis strategy? For example, will the music alone be analyzed or will data be gathered regarding people’s subjective experience of the musical performance via interviews or other methods? In terms of the latter, what do I want to learn from the research participants (e.g., their process of creating meaning out of the music, their identity negotiations, their experiences of resistance or community-building, transcendental qualities of the performance)? If using music as a model for conducting qualitative research, how will I  pay attention to dynamics, rhythm, texture, and harmony during my observations and interviews? How will my understanding of form affect my writing process? How will I adapt these principles in order to attend to issues of difference and diversity? What form will my writing/representation take? (116)

Examples of music inspiring the writing process and using music as a model for conducting qualitative research include Bresler (2008, 2009), who compared the process of music-making to the process of researching, and Daykin (2009), who used her own process of music-making and performing to inspire her writing process. For example, Bresler (2008) compared the intensified engagement of giving a music performance with that of performing live research presentations, whereas Bresler (2009) described her approach to teaching doctoral-level research to music education students. First, she discussed connecting knowledge that is documented and “out there” with personal knowledge and connecting the communication between performer or researcher and the audience. To this second point, Bresler wrote: The teaching and learning of research, I suggest in this paper, calls for learning to perceive, listen and improvise, all of which are crucial to establish connection. Focusing on how these processes can be addressed in teaching research, I discuss the important and unexamined contributions that musicianship can offer to research education. (8)

She also likened music and qualitative research in terms of temporal and fluid realities. Even though there are many possible uses of music in ABER, the remainder of this chapter will focus on the uses of what Leavy (2009, 116) referred to as “music at the moment of articulation,” “audible aspects of music,” and “people’s subjective experiences” of music in the moment in qualitative research in the field of music education.

310   kristen pellegrino

17.1.3 Music Education Research and ABER 17.1.3.1  Exploring One Study in Depth Because there are so few examples of musical performance representing research, this section will examine one work (Sefton and Bayley 2009)  in depth. In this auto-ethnographic and ABER study, Sefton and Bayley explored their experiences of teaching in a “faculty of education while attempting to claim space and recognition for performance as research, and for their professional identity as musicians” (1). The purpose of this investigation was to uncover issues of identity for performing musicians who also teach in faculties of education. Sefton and Bayley juxtaposed their work with other ABER, writing that “Arts-based research has often used art as a means of researching non-art subjects, using art as a metaphor, medium, or process, by researchers who have limited skills or knowledge of art” (10). However, these skilled and knowledgeable musicians and music teachers explored their own art-making and used ABER as a strategy for their research study. They also used identity as a theoretical framework and described their own music-making experiences: The experience was uncanny—there was an immediate feeling of ease and communication between us. We began to meet regularly. As our work progressed, we also talked about what it meant to us, personally and professionally. Making time to work seriously with another musician started to open up not only a revitalized sense of self as musician, but also started to raise areas of friction and conflict with our “other” job as university faculty. (12)

The authors spoke and wrote about their own music-making as “an escape and an embrace,” but they also referred to it as an “act of resistance against the institutional expectations and social meanings of our disciplinary group identity” (16). The researchers explained that they considered performing for the research audience during the presentation session but decided against it “due to the logistical problems of transporting instruments” (14). They presented video clips of their rehearsals and journal entries, which revealed their thoughts about music-making, their identities, and how this research developed. In a completed version of the paper, the authors wrote: Our intention was to extend the research into the academic conference as a site of performance, reception, and dialogue. While a video of performance is less immediate than a live performance, it activates a responsive relationship with the spectator . . . during our session of four papers, every presentation talked about music education and performance; only our presentation included performance, albeit in video form. (14)

During the presentation, the video clips seemed to be data as opposed to representing the study, as claimed, but that might be a distinction for future researchers to consider.

Music-Making As Data  311 The paper addressed personal and professional revelations and possible implications for students’ learning. Findings included: (1) Sefton felt more present, something he felt only when music-making; (2) Bayley felt rejuvenated and enjoyed “a return to a higher level of music making” (17); and (3) both explored how they were coming to terms with their professional identity. The authors wrote about the adage “Those who can, do; those who cannot, teach” and explored some of the differences between studio professors, who work in schools of music, and music education professors, some of whom work in faculties of education. They also posed questions and included thoughts about undergraduate and graduate students. For instance, they asked, “What message do we send to teacher candidates about the importance of creativity and how it can be nurtured through the arts if the practice of the arts is absent or invisible within the walls of faculties of education?” (18). They wrote that “The potential benefit of education professors engaging in creative activity goes beyond modeling and mentoring; it opens up spaces of possibility for informal learning resulting from the curiosity and self-motivation of the student” (19).

17.1.3.2  Possible Issues with Musical Performance as Research I attended the conference presentation at which the above study was explained, and after reading the paper two years later, my impression was that the paper was better developed. This is not surprising, though, as at the conference the authors were presenting something new and experimenting with how best to represent themselves and their research. Their excitement was palpable and the idea intriguing, but the paper might do more to act as a catalyst for future researchers to use these new methods within the field than the presentation itself. Their presentation did spark conversation, and I continued to consider why I reacted with less enthusiasm than I would have expected. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that music can be understood in many ways: as art, as something that evokes emotion, as something that conveys a message or tells a story, or as something that reifies a moment in time. Meanings of music-making can be explored for individuals, communities, or cultures, and music-making can be used as a form of therapy or a way to form social connections. How each person receives and interprets music is not universal, however. This poses a potential problem for representing research in a musical performance and may account for one reason that researchers shy away from musical performance as research and music in ABER. Another reason might be the preferred status of language within the research tradition (Sefton and Bayley 2009) and possible confusion about the difference between musical research and a concert. This last statement might be confounded by another factor. Perhaps music education researchers have an unspoken or unexamined desire to have their scholarship look similar to other “core subject” educational research to help legitimize the scholarship as well as to set it apart from other music faculty members’ scholarship, which consists of concertizing. These issues might be important when searching for a job or when applying for tenure. However, researchers in

312   kristen pellegrino other fields have successfully included ABER as part of their research portfolios, and presentation opportunities are available through conferences. For example, Sefton and Bayley’s work was accepted by blind peer review and presented at prestigious conferences, which should make this an acceptable form of scholarship in the view of their institution. The paper is beautifully written and insightful, and it stands alone as an excellent research document, even though the authors wrote about their motivations as being musical and writing the paper as being secondary. They chose to perform in a recital as well as to present their research. Although they said that they used music-making to represent the study in their presentation, their paper used music-making as data and as a catalyst to write about their thoughts and feelings while music-making and about their music-making. This can be related to other music education research that has used music-making as data.

17.2 Music in the Moment: Collecting Music-Making Data Collecting music-in-the-moment data, referred to in this chapter as music-making data, refers to capturing the auditory production of music. The use of music-making as data can be varied, but it can be separated into categories. In this chapter, process-ofmusic-making, product-of-music-making, and meanings-of-music-making all refer to types of music-making data. Each type of data can be collected alone or combined. For instance, if we consider Sefton and Bayley’s work as using music-making as data, they would have included the process-of-music-making as well as meanings-of-music-making. If they had continued their research study to include their performance, then they would have utilized all three data-collection techniques.

17.2.1 Differentiating between Process-of-Music-Making and Product-of-Music-Making Data Differentiating the nature of data derived from the process of music-making from data derived from the product of music-making is an important methodological consideration made more complex by the fine line that separates the two. The process of music-making might consist of rehearsals, lessons, the act of composing a new piece of music, and any other in-the-moment work of being a musician. Of course, any of these processes may be recorded for later analysis, but the researcher’s focus would remain on the musicians’ course of action during the episode of music-making rather than on what resulted later from this course of action. The product-of-music-making is an end result: formal performances, polished recordings, or completed compositions.

Music-Making As Data  313 Some researchers collect data on both process-of-music-making and product-ofmusic-making data (Kratus 1989), and others choose one or the other (McNair 2010; Stanley 2008). Kratus (1989) collected process- and product-of-music-making data in his study of children’s musical composition. Process data included children composing music in the moment (10-minute recordings of their compositional process as they worked on the pieces) as well as the product, their finished pieces (recordings of their performances, played twice for the researcher). He examined both types of data for children’s musical use of exploration, development, repetition, and silence. He used the term “closure” to represent the point at which the child’s active, experimental music-making came to a point of completion: Distinguishing between process and product can be confusing, because the word composition refers to both process (the activity of composing) and product (the resulting music) . . . if one cannot replicate an original melody, then it can be inferred that there is no closure, and the music does not exist as a composed product. (7–8)

Therefore, Kratus’s description of the term “closure” helps distinguish between composition as process-of-music-making data or product-of-music-making data. Stanley (2008) used process-of-music-making data to examine the collaboration between two young violinists who played duets together for fun after school. She was interested in the way these violinists collaborated in the moment, and how their rehearsals might result in shared understandings that might in turn enhance their individual musical knowledge. Stanley analyzed the video recordings of her participants practicing their music together and found they featured creativity, turn-taking, problem-solving, and rich verbal and nonverbal communication. Had she videotaped and analyzed the “closure” of these efforts—say, a public performance of their violin duo—the data may not have yielded a full depiction of the nature of their collaboration. McNair (2010) used process-of-music-making data to examine the nature of joint music attention between toddlers and she, as the researcher-participant and the toddlers’ early childhood music teacher. Multiple data sets were collected, including (1) videos of the six toddler music-play sessions; (2) the researcher’s observations and reflections immediately after each session; (3)  the assistant researcher’s observations and reflections immediately after each session; (4) open-ended video observation forms filled out by the researcher, lead teacher, assistant teacher, and two music specialists; and (5) individual think-aloud interviews with two teachers and two music specialists, as they viewed one selected music play session video with McNair. The first data set was the videos of the six toddler music-play sessions (process-ofmusic-making data), which were recorded from multiple angles. An assistant investigator video recorded the music play sessions and was instructed to focus a Flip video camera on the music teacher and those toddlers who were directly interacting with the music teacher. Additionally, I positioned

314   kristen pellegrino a stationary Flip video camera prior to teaching each music play session so that there were two videos taken from different angles in each of the six music play sessions. (42)

McNair also collected meanings-of-music-making data, which will be described in the next section; her method of data analysis will be explored in the third section of this chapter.

17.2.2 Meanings-of-Music-Making Data Although meanings-of-music-making data can be derived without collecting “music in the moment data” or music-making data, some researchers choose to collect music-making data in conjunction with meanings-of-music-making data. Therefore, meanings-of-music-making data are often combined with process-of-music-making data or product-of-music-making data, but the purpose of the music-making is to derive the meanings participants make of the music-making in the moment. McCarthy (2009), McNair (2010), Pellegrino (2010, 2012, 2013a, 2013b), and Wu (2010) all observed process-of-music-making data, and McCarthy (2009) and Wu (2010) also observed product-of-music-making data. Again, even though they collected music-making data, the purpose was to use the music-making data as a catalyst to understanding the meanings of music-making. Two benefits of combining these data-collection techniques were to provide shared experiences between participants and researcher (McCarthy 2009; McNair 2010; Pellegrino 2010, 2013; Wu 2010) and, in Pellegrino (2010), also a shared experience between participants. In “Exploring the Spiritual in Music Teacher Education: Group Musical Improvisation Points the Way,” McCarthy (2009) used process- and product-of-music-making data when she observed five rehearsals and three performances. In addition, she observed a Contemplative Practice Seminar and interviewed a faculty member and four Jazz and Contemplative Studies college music students involved in the University of Michigan’s Creative Arts Orchestra, who described their experiences with music-making in this group. This is an example of meanings-of- music-making data. In McCarthy’s reporting, she described her surroundings while observing the music-making and her thoughts while and after observing the music-making. She artfully intertwined her narrative, the quotes from her participants, and philosophical literature. McCarthy found four prevalent elements of their experience that she suggested could be applied to music teacher education: attention (getting in the moment), intention (an honest reaction to music), relationship (“meeting in the One”), and community (“Democracy . . . a community that is always in the making”) (15–19). In this way, McCarthy seemed inspired by process-of-music-making data as well as the meanings her participants constructed based on their music-making, which helped her come to new understandings and then apply them to teacher education.

Music-Making As Data  315 Revisiting McNair’s (2010) examination of the nature of joint music attention between toddlers and the researcher, one of the many data sets included meanings-ofmusic-making data in the form of four think-aloud interviews with two teachers who were present at the time the video was taken and two music specialists who were not involved in the session. McNair defines the purpose of these interviews: Ericsson and Simon (1993) noted that a think-aloud interview conducted while viewing a video of an event stimulates recollection of thought processes that occurred during the actual event and also enables observations of occurrences that were not noticed at the actual time of the event. (42)

The same verbal instructions were given to each of the four teachers prior to the thinkaloud interviews: I simply asked them to view the video and to comment out loud on their observations of joint music attention. I had given them a printed definition of joint music attention, complete with a glossary of pertinent terms, on the instructions for the video observation form, Appendix D. They each had the printed definition in front of them during the think-aloud interview. As I interviewed each of the four teacher participants separately, I encouraged them to think aloud as they simultaneously viewed the video, offering their comments on observations of joint music attention. I video recorded the think-aloud interviews of all four participants. (43)

How she analyzed the data will be explored in the third section of this chapter. Wu (2010) studied eight second-generation teenage Chinese American string students who participated in both school and community youth orchestras. She observed 38 rehearsals and concerts over a five-month period and interviewed the participants, their parents, and their music teachers. In the Findings section, she included observations that often described the student’s appearance and actions, the student’s and teacher’s words, and, to a lesser extent, musical analysis (intonation, tone, dynamics, etc.). The music and music-making itself was not the dominant theme, though. The purpose of this study was to examine second-generation Asian identity by understanding meanings of playing their string instruments and being part of the orchestra. Although she interviewed the participants, their parents, and their music teachers, she also felt compelled to observe 38 rehearsals and concerts, trying to glean meaning from their music-making and describe her observations of her participants while music-making. In Box 17.1, I explain how I have collected music-making data in my research. Collecting music-making data can serve many purposes. In the studies discussed in this section, music-making data included videotaping participants while music-making (while composing or playing their instruments, during child-play sessions, etc.), observing rehearsals and concerts, videotaping participants while music-making to be viewed together in talk-aloud interviews, videotaping participants while music-making in order to discuss what they experienced, and music-making to stimulate conversation about the meanings of music-making during a focus-group interview. When

316   kristen pellegrino

Box 17.1  Collecting Music-Making Data I have used music-making data in multiple studies (2010, 2012, 2013a, 2013b, forthcoming a, b). For example, the purpose of my (2010) phenomenological case study was to examine the meanings and values of music-making in the lives of string teachers and to explore the intersections of music-making and teaching. Music-making in the moment was used as two data sets for two different purposes. First, four string teachers were videotaped while music-making on their primary instruments inside the classroom (process-of-music-making data). Then, teacher participants and I  watched the video together so that participants could explain why they chose to make music on their instrument at that moment, what they thought their students were learning from their music-making models, and what they noticed about their students’ reactions (meanings-of-music-making data). Music-making was also used during a focus-group interview. Participants were asked to bring music that had special meaning to them, that would be sight-readable, and that would be appropriate for a string quintet or string orchestra to play. The participants’ music-making was a catalyst to talk about past and present music-making experiences: how participants felt when they played the music, why these chosen pieces were important to each participant, and how meanings may have remained consistent or changed over time. This time, the act of music-making with other participants during the interview was used as a shared experience that formed the basis of discussing the meanings of music-making in their lives. In both of these ways, music-making in the moment helped participants come to new realizations about their own music-making. Watching the videotapes of participants making music in the classroom with their students helped participants realize how their own music-making impacted their own teaching and their students’ learning. Similarly, bringing a piece of music that had meaning to them and then playing the music in the moment with other participants helped them come to new understandings about the connections between past and present music-making and sparked storytelling that had not been shared during three previous individual interviews that did not include their own music-making in the moment. It also helped participants who did not all know each other form a relationship through music-making at the beginning of the focus-group interview, something one of my participants spoke about during the focus-group interview and later to me alone. In both instances, I  collected both process-of-music-making data and meanings-of-music-making data.

considering the appropriateness of this data set or practical issues concerning the collection of music-making data, these ideas can inform the researcher’s choices but should not limit them. This is a newly explored topic, so finding new techniques and reasons to collect music-making data is strongly encouraged.

Music-Making As Data  317

17.3 Analysis of Music-Making Data This section examines how music education researchers have analyzed music-making data in qualitative research. The main analysis category has been to analyze verbal and nonverbal interactions (Conway, Pellegrino, and Stanley 2011), but these interactions can be further analyzed into musical and nonmusical responses or social interactions/ connections.

17.3.1 Verbal and Nonverbal Interactions Verbal and nonverbal interactions (Barrett 2006; Berg 1997; Custodero 2005, 2007; King 2004; St. John 2010; Weeks 1996)  provide different perspectives on musical endeavors. This distinguishes between verbal output that might accompany music-making (i.e., what the musicians say aloud) and the nonverbal communication also inherent in music-making. In King’s (2004) study of musical collaboration, she analyzed the verbal and nonverbal interactions contained in the process of music-making data during rehearsals, looking for the “musical collaboration that might arise explicitly through verbal negotiation of technical or interpretative ideas” as well as the musical collaboration that “may also occur implicitly during play, through eye contact, bodily gestures . . . and in the subtle shaping of sound” (14). Analyzing the verbal interactions may provide more information on musicians’ thought processes as well as their social interactions. Analyzing nonverbal interactions may enable the researcher to closely examine the nonverbal cues shared between people as well as musical interactions. Looking at the verbal interactions, Berg (1997) examined two small chamber ensembles comprised of high school students in order to better understand the nature of peer collaboration. Two chamber-music groups were observed in rehearsal, coaching, and concert settings over a five-month period. Research questions included (1) Do identifiable patterns of musical thought and action exist within the ensembles? If so, how do these patterns compare and contrast in the two ensembles? and (2) How do these patterns of musical thought and action reveal ways that students assist each other in moving through the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD) (Vygotsky 1978) to construct an interpretation of music? Over a period of five months, Berg observed 33 independent group rehearsals or coaching sessions. Using an ethnographic analysis of interaction procedure, she evaluated the videotapes of the rehearsals and conducted formal and informal interviews with the students. Analyzing verbal and nonverbal interactions, she found that students took turns assisting one another through the Vygotskyan ZPD. Berg’s verbal interactions led to the finding that group patterns of thought and action occurred most often when quartet members arrived at decisions on more objective matters—rhythm, tempo, and articulation—rather than interpretation of phrasing, dynamics, and tone color. In some cases, she found that quartet members seemed not to resolve differences, but settled for a peer’s

318   kristen pellegrino or a coach’s suggested interpretation. Berg characterized this as a reluctance to engage in conflict and a premature end to consideration of all the musical options. Berg also found that nonmusical social participation structures stemming from students’ roles in larger sociocultural systems (the school orchestra, the high school, the community) also had an impact on students’ ability to engage together in music-making. Looking at the nonverbal interactions, Weeks (1996) sought to “gain insight into the ongoing accomplishment of collective music” (205), i.e., the way seven members of a chamber-music group performed a piece of music together. Specifically, Weeks was interested in finding out how the musicians restored synchrony after two members made musical errors that resulted in a momentary lapse in musical coordination for the group. Weeks analyzed the musical maneuvers made by either the erring musician or another musician in order to bring the group back together. He called this the constant “split second constitution of synchrony and its restoration despite disruptions” (215). Weeks pointed out that these minute adjustments are generally not created or accessible through talk. In an attempt to make the musical group “members’ practices recoverable from the observable details in the recordings and the transcripts [visualized sounds in graphic form],” Weeks uses the captured sound (recordings) as “docile data” to be mined over and over again until, as an informed musician listener, he could demonstrate, by using details of the musical data, the intent and orientation of the performers. Outside the United States, some researchers have also found that analyzing both verbal and nonverbal interactions of music-making data results in a vivid description of a musical endeavor. For example, Barrett (2006) combined verbal and nonverbal data analysis for a fuller picture of young children’s creativity in music-making. First, she collected all three types of music-making data. Data included video footage and transcriptions of children’s musical processes and products as composers and songmakers (known and invented); researcher transcriptions of children’s music-making; and children’s notations of compositions and songs (known and invented): “The generation and analysis of observational and verbal data in conjunction with musical and notational data provided rich insight into children’s musical thought and activity as composers, songmakers, and notators” (209).

17.3.1.1  Musical and Nonmusical Responses Data can be further delineated into musical and nonmusical responses. For example, Reynolds (2006) analyzed videotaped sessions (N = 9) of the opening segment (3–10 minutes) of early childhood music classes in order to describe the types and frequencies of adults’ and young children’s vocal interactions. Participants were eight children (age 18–36 months) and their caregivers (seven mothers and one grandmother). Data were analyzed to find the musical and nonmusical responses. The nine types of vocal events found included (1) greeting song; (2) greeting pattern; (3) tonal patterns without words; (4) purposeful silences; (5) songs without words; (6) melodic with words; (7) rhythmic without words; (8) harmonic without words; and (9) talking, which is considered nonmusical in this study.

Music-Making As Data  319 Custodero (2007) collected both process-of-music-making (paired improvisation sessions of two late-career adult composers and two seven-year-old children [four sessions]) and meanings-of-music-making data (unstructured group interviews/discussions) in order to explore the musical responses and human processes of improvisations of children and adults. Custodero used the phenomenological lenses of time, space, and responsivity to examine the “origins of spontaneous musical creativity associated with childhood dispositions and the musical expertise gained from practice, training and experience.” In an effort to document “the improvisational process in an authentic way,” Custodero sought to discover “how the collaborations were musically responsive and receptive to the musical cues of the performing partner” (84–85). Further analysis included Responsivity to the musical instruments, to the general milieu, and to performing partners contributed to the improvisational process and hence the content; it is explored through three experiential lenses viewing the musician at play, the musician in motion, and the musician in communication, respectively. (89)

The purpose of St. John’s (2010) study was to investigate the trail of interactions in preschoolers’ pretend play during musical instrument exploration to aid in concept discovery and musical understanding. Eight three-to-five-year-old children were enrolled in an independent music class that met once a week for 15 weeks during the fall. St. John acted as a participant-observer as she videotaped her students and herself in six consecutive 45-minute instrumental exploration sessions. St. John invented three combinations of nonverbal, verbal, musical, and nonmusical analysis (nonverbal musical, nonverbal communication, and verbal communication analysis of the musical events that were shared among students). Analysis of the session included a narrative description of these musical, nonmusical, verbal, and nonverbal exchanges that resulted in 50 hours of coding.

17.3.1.2  Social Interactions/Connections Finally, in addition to musical and nonmusical analysis, social interactions/connections become another important analysis category used in music education research (Custodero 2005; McNair 2010; St. John 2006). Although all of these researchers used additional codes as well as the flow experience and/or Vygotskyan theory as lenses with which to view the data, the common analysis category was social. In an effort to better understand the developmental implications of flow indicators, Custodero (2005) examined four groups of students ranging in age from seven months to eight years old in “naturally occurring contexts where musical instruction was an established routine” (190). Participants in each group were eight infants (7–23 months) in a university laboratory facility with four caregivers; ten toddlers (25–34 months) in a university laboratory facility with four caregivers; six violin students (5–6 years old) with one teacher; and five Dalcroze students (6–8 years old) with one teacher in an afterschool program. Sessions were videotaped over a two-month period, and two videotaped sessions

320   kristen pellegrino per group were randomly chosen to be analyzed. Descriptive analysis was based on clearly observable behavior, and three main analysis categories were (1) challenge-seeking indicators (self-assignment, self-correction, gesture); (2)  challenge-monitoring indicators (anticipation, expansion, extension); and (3) social context indicators (awareness of adults and peers). Custodero defined what she meant by social context: Music is both perceived and produced in a social milieu and it is the interpersonal context that provides meaning. . . . For the present study, the awareness of peers and adults were recorded separately, and defined as “Any observable interactions that involve prolonged gaze, head turning, or physical movement toward another person. Attempts to engage another person physically or verbally were especially noteworthy.” (196)

St. John (2006) observed 12 young children (four to almost six years old) in order to examine collaborative efforts of collective music-making. The teacher presented children with music materials to manipulate and transform. She found that the role of others was fundamental as children made “in-the-moment” adjustments based on their perception of challenge presented and requisite skill. Combining two theoretical frameworks, flow experience and Vygotskyan theory, and analyzing the process of music-making data, three themes emerged: the power of social influence, the children’s transforming behaviors, and the provision of temporal space to explore the music content. Findings included that “Discovering where to situate themselves and with whom, the 12 children . . . ‘played off of ’ each other, much like jazz musicians improvising, and intensified their experience through shared ideas” (238). McNair (2010) used process-of-music-making data to examine the nature of joint music attention between toddlers and the researcher, who was their early childhood music teacher. This qualitative case study used theoretical frameworks of Gordon’s music learning theory, Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning theories, and Bruner’s joint attention theories. She used both musical interactions and social interactions to analyze her data. McNair identified and defined three initial codes to analyze the data: “The three joint music attention cultural domains, shared music focus, shared music interaction, and shared music understanding, were each characterized by social interaction between the toddlers and me as we made music together” (71). From here, she found the following themes: (1) physical proximity influenced joint music attention; (2) the toddlers and the researcher each initiated reciprocal music-making; (3) a social and music-making history was necessary for joint music attention; (4) purposeful silences encouraged joint music attention; (5) objects were useful for achieving joint music attention; and (6) play and playfulness encouraged joint music attention. Additionally, she included many subcategories and provided vignettes of joint music attention.

17.3.2  Broadening Analysis Categories Since analyzing music-making data is a newly explored topic, using these ideas as models and/or finding new ways to analyze music-making data is equally encouraged.

Music-Making As Data  321 Music education researchers might learn about music-making data from music therapy researchers. Music therapy is the use of music and all of its facets to achieve therapeutic goals in the physical, behavioral, mental, emotional, social, and spiritual domains (Bruscia 1998). Music education researchers might analyze music-making data to explore areas of interest to music therapists, such as perceptual awareness (using and heightening the senses), physical and psychological stimulation (motivation and stimulation of music-making helps develop greater engagement with people and the greater world), communicative ability, emotional expression, cognitive abilities, social behavior, and individual resources and capacities (Wigram, Pedersen, and Bonde 2002, 170–72). In addition, if music therapy terms are converted to music education terms (such as “patient” changed to “student” and “therapist” changed to “teacher”), another list of coding ideas for analyzing music-making data might include (1) the nature of the student-teacher relationship; (2)  the student’s personal experience of music-making; (3)  the teacher’s personal experience of music-making; (4)  changing quality of music-making in the dynamic interaction over time; (5) perception of others (parents, relatives, other teachers or students) regarding the student’s music-making; (6)  how music education works; and (7) the relationship between music-making and the student or teacher as a whole person (222–23).

17.4 Conclusion Although using music-making as data has not often been addressed as a separate topic in American music educational research, it has been used as a data set in several qualitative studies. This chapter offers an opportunity to consider the uses of this data set as well as several examples of the ways music education researchers have collected and analyzed music-making data. Some reasons for collecting data included examining musical learning, rehearsal techniques, composing, musical interactions, social interactions, and the nature of collaboration as well as learning more about what music-making means to people and its connection to identity. These reasons influenced decisions about which types of music-making data were collected: process-of-music-making data, product-of-music-making data, and meanings-of-music-making data. Data analysis categories included verbal and nonverbal interactions, musical and nonmusical responses, and social interactions/connections and may be broadened to include categories suggested by music therapy researchers, such as individual responses, perceptions of others’ responses to someone’s music-making, and an understanding of music or music education itself. By categorizing ways music education and music therapy researchers have used music-making data, I hope this chapter becomes a catalyst for more frequent use of music-making data in new research studies. Although previous research can offer models for music-making data collection and data analysis techniques, researchers are also encouraged to create new models in the future. Whether using ABER methodologies or more common qualitative research methods, analyzing music-making data might bring new insights into topics such as

322   kristen pellegrino pedagogy, curriculum, student learning, student well-being, student identity, and music teacher identity (inservice, preservice, and teacher educator). Research topics that may benefit from using music-making data include examining the use of music teachers’ music-making in the classroom and its impact on student learning or examining the impact of preservice music teachers’ music-making during teaching episodes on (1) their perceptions of their teaching during fieldwork and/or student teaching experiences and (2) their students’ and cooperating teachers’ perceptions of the preservice music teachers’ teaching. I would imagine that collecting process-ofmusic-making data and meanings-of-music-making data from both the preservice or inservice music teachers and their students would be appropriate. Other ideas include examining the musical, social, and individual ways music-making impacts student music-makers, music teacher music-makers, or music teacher educator music-makers; the impact of students’ music-making on targeted audiences (parents, peers, administrators, school board members, etc.); or the music-making choices of music students or music teachers outside the classroom. Music education researchers may wish to examine classroom teachers’ use of music-making and the impact of musical programs arranged by classroom teachers on their audiences (parents, peers, administrators, school board members, etc.). Other research study ideas include examining verbal, nonverbal, and musical interactions of chamber musicians or examining the nonverbal interactions of professional musicians of all types and how they relate to audience members’ meanings-of-music-making. These suggestions are not meant to limit music education researchers’ interest in using music-making data, but rather to begin to spark an interest in the varied topics for which music-making data may be useful.

References Barone, T., and E. W. Eisner. 2006. “Arts-Based Educational Research.” In Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, edited by J. Green, G. Camilli, and P. Elmore, 93–107. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Barone, T., and E. W. Eisner. 2011. Arts-Based Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Barrett, M. S. 2006. “Inventing Songs, Inventing Worlds: The ‘Genesis’ of Creative Thought and Activity in Young Children’s Lives.” International Journal of Early Years Education (14) 3: 201–20. Berg, M. H. 1997. “Social Construction of Musical Experience in Two High School Chamber Music Ensembles.” PhD diss., Northwestern University. Bresler, L. 2008. “The Music Lesson.” In Handbook of The Arts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives, Methodologies, Examples, and Issues, edited by J. G. Knowles and A. L. Cole, 225–50. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bresler, L. 2009. Research Education Shaped by Musical Sensibilities. British Journal of Music Education 26 (1): 7–25. Bruscia, K. E. 1998. Defining Music Therapy. 2nd ed. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.

Music-Making As Data  323 Conway, C., K. Pellegrino, and A. M. Stanley. 2011. “Music-Making as Data in Qualitative Research: A Discussion of Method and Analysis.” Session presented at the 2011 Biennial Qualitative and Ethnographic Conference in Cedarville, OH, May. Custodero, L. A. 2005. “Observable Indicators of Flow Experience: A Developmental Perspective on Musical Engagement in Young Children from Infancy to School Age.” Music Education Research 7 (2): 185–209. Custodero, L. A. 2007. “Origins and Expertise in The Musical Improvisations of Adults and Children:  A  Phenomenological Study of Content and Process.” British Journal of Music Education 24: 77–98. Daykin, N. 2009. “Music and Qualitative Research. In Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Research Practices,” edited by P. Leavy, 101–34. New York: Gilford Press. Eisner, E. 1991. The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York: Macmillan. Eisner, E. 2004. “What Can Education Learn from the Arts about Education?” International Journal of Education and the Arts 5 (4). http://www.ijea.org/v5n4/. Elliott, D. 1995. Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music. New York: Oxford University Press. Ericsson, K. A., and H. A. Simon. 1993. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. King, E. C. 2004. “Collaboration and the Study of Ensemble Rehearsal.” Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition, Evanston, IL, August. Kratus, J. 1989. “Time Analysis of the Compositional Processes Used by Children Ages 7 to 11.” Journal of Research in Music Education 37 (1): 5–20. Leavy, P. 2009. Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Research Practices. New York: Gilford Press. Lock, Gerhard. 2011. “Musical Creativity in The Mirror of Glaveanu’s Five Principles of Cultural Psychology.” Culture and Psychology 17 (1): 121–36. McCarthy, M. 2009. “Exploring the Spiritual in Music Teacher Education:  Group Musical Improvisation Points the Way.” In The Mountain Lake Reader:  Conversations on the Study and Practice of Music Teaching, 12–22. http://digital.watkinsprinting.com/ publication/?i=16158andp=1. McNair, A. A. 2010. “Joint Music Attention between Toddlers and a Music Teacher.” PhD diss., University of South Carolina. McNiff, S. 1992. Art as Medicine: Creating a Therapy of Imagination. Boston: Shambhala. McNiff, S. 1998. Art-Based Research. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. McNiff, S. 2008. “Arts-Based Research.” In Handbook of the Arts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives, Methodologies, Examples, and Issues, edited by J. G. Knowles and A. L. Cole, 29–40. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pellegrino, K. 2010. “The Meanings and Values of Music-Making in the Lives of String Teachers: Exploring the Intersections of Music-Making and Teaching.” PhD diss., University of Michigan. Pellegrino, K. 2012. “Becoming a Music Teacher:  Preservice Music Teachers Describe the Meanings of Music-Making, Teaching, and a Tour Experience.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, April 13–17. Pellegrino, K. 2013a. “Exploring the Intersections of Music-Making and Teaching for Four Student Teachers.” Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Instrumental Music Teacher Educators Mt. Sterling, OH, May 16–19.

324   kristen pellegrino Pellegrino, K. 2013b. “Student, Cooperating, and Supervising Teacher Perceptions of Educational and Musical Interactions During Student Teaching.” Journal of Music Teacher Education, first published on November 22, 2013 as doi: 10.1177/1057083713508653. Pellegrino, K. Forthcoming a. “Examining the Intersections of Music-Making and Teaching for Four String Teachers.” Pellegrino, K. Forthcoming b. “Becoming a Music Teacher: Preservice Music Teachers Describe the Meanings of Music-Making, Teaching, and a Tour Experience.” In Advances in Music Education Research, vol. 6, edited by L. Thompson and M. Campbell. Reynolds, A. M. 2006. “Vocal Interactions During Informal Early Childhood Music Classes.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 168: 35–49. Sefton, T., and J. G. Bayley. 2009. “The Performing Professor: Issues of Identity and Work of Artist/Musicians in Academe.” Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference (AERA) in San Diego, CA, April. St. John, P. 2006. “Finding and Making Meaning: Young Children as Musical Collaborators.” Psychology of Music 34 (2): 238–61. St. John, P. 2010. “Crossing Scripts and Swapping Riffs: Preschoolers Make Musical Meaning.” In Vygotsky and Creativity:  A  Cultural-Historical Approach to Play, Meaning Making, and The Arts, edited by C. Connery, V. P. John-Steiner, and A. Marjanovic-Shane, 63–81. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Stanley, A. M. 2008. “Rose and Giancarlo:  Evidence of and for Musical Collaboration.” In Sociological Explorations: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on the Sociology of Music Education, edited by B. A. Roberts. St. John’s, Newfoundland: Binder’s Press. Weeks, P. A.  D. 1996. “Synchrony Lost, Synchrony Regained:  The Achievement of Musical Co-Ordination.” Human Studies, 19: 199–228. Wigram, T., I. N. Pedersen, and L. O. Bonde. 2002. A Comprehensive Guide to Music Therapy: Theory, Clinical Practice, and Training. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Wu, Chi-Hwa. 2010. “Meanings of Music Making Experiences among Second-Generation Chinese American String Students.” DMA diss., Arizona State University. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chapter 18

Sof t ware to Int e rro g at e Qualitative Data i n M u sic Educ at i on peter r. webster

18.1 Introduction Qualitative data analysis is becoming a prominent paradigm of choice for many music education/therapy researchers. An accounting of the 51 doctoral dissertations finished in the last year (2012) submitted to the ProQuest database in music education/ therapy revealed that over one third of the studies completed used some sort of qualitative methodology. This compares to less than 10 percent of the dissertations completed in 1994, the year of the first Qualitative Conference in Music Education at the University of Illinois. A recent study of the curricula at doctoral programs in the United States and Canada found that of the 52 responding schools, 38 required a course in qualitative methodology (Rutkowski, Webster, and Gossett 2012). All of the major research journals in the field of music education now publish qualitative studies, including the Journal of Research in Music Education. The attention now paid to qualitative empirical work in music teaching and learning in the United States has taken a long time to develop compared to other fields of education but nonetheless remains a remarkable achievement for our maturing profession. This very Handbook is testimony to the growing interest in qualitative inquiry as a full partner to quantitative, historical, and philosophical studies. What remains unclear is the extent to which the profession is using all of the tools at its disposal to accomplish the best qualitative work possible. What qualitative work we have prior to 1985 was often accomplished with scattered field notes, cumbersome tape recordings, and interview transcripts that were laboriously created and studied, often without the benefit of carefully crafted theoretical models or little technological support. The development of affordable and increasingly powerful personal computers in the decades at the end of the twentieth century to the present day supported much early

326   peter r. webster work in qualitative research. Database, word processing, and spreadsheet software supported and continue to support qualitative work. More specialized programs such as idea organizers (e.g., Mindmeister’s MindManager, http://www.mindmeister.com/education) and a large assortment of more generalized media production software for audio and video content have played a role in organizing the complexity of qualitative work. But starting in the mid-1980s, some of the first software products especially designed for the qualitative researcher began to emerge (Davidson and di Gregorio 2011, 630–31). The rationale for such specialized products was based on the obvious need for scholars to organize, code, and interpret many forms of observed data in ways that more completely supported research goals. A general-use word processing or spreadsheet program did not easily provide the ability for a researcher using digitally rendered content to “see” and clearly document interconnections and associations. By the end of the next decade, much more sophisticated programs of this sort emerged that not only allowed for text retrieval, but provided ways to manage other data types in an organized whole. Flexibility was offered for viewing, juxtaposing, and reflecting on data. In more recent times this same software has embraced video and audio data sources and provided links to multimedia files as well as possible geo-coding of media objects. Today, hyperlinking between project components has become common, and researchers are allowed to place reflective memos connected to data sources where appropriate. Interestingly, such developments mirror the development of recent Internet affordances offered by blogs, wikis, and other social networking elements to an extent that they may be partners with specialized qualitative analysis software (Davidson and di Gregorio, 2011, 637). This kind of software, designed particularly for qualitative researchers to “interrogate” qualitative data, has been labeled either Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) or Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS). Its use by music education researchers is relatively rare, but is growing quickly. The major purpose of this chapter is to review some of the features of this software that might be of interest to music education researchers. I will also summarize some of the frequently cited concerns about such software and note why, even within the larger qualitative community, such software is seen as less than desirable. Sample studies in music education that have successfully used these products in the last 10 years will be reviewed and some speculation for the future will be offered. The chapter is designed as a partner to Tobias’s ­chapter 16 in this volume, which describes more custom solutions for multimodal and multimedia data.

18.2 What Are QDAS Programs? A good place to start in understanding such software is to identify qualitative data and its analysis. For most music education researchers, qualitative data are in nonnumeric form and often include: (1) text sources such as interview transcripts, field notes,

Software to Interrogate Qualitative Data  327 documents (reports, meeting minutes, e-mails), (2) still images, (3) video, (4) audio, and (5) music scores. Such data usually involve people and their activities, signs, symbols, artefacts [sic] and other objects they imbue with meaning. The most common forms of qualitative data are what people have said or done. . . . Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) is the range of processes and procedures whereby we move from the qualitative data that have been collected into some form of explanation, understanding or interpretation of the people and situations we are investigating. QDA is usually based on an interpretative philosophy. The idea is to examine the meaningful and symbolic content of qualitative data. (Taylor and Gibbs 2010)

Such analysis usually entails the “interrogation” of data by exploring, organizing, integrating and interpreting information. These four components require that researchers retrieve, rethink, compare subsets, and identify patterns and relationships. Various QDAS program features support analysis tasks including linking and grouping, annotating and searching, writing and making connections, and incorporating references and combining or converting findings. These are the same tasks researchers using traditional methods perform except that without the power of the computer, it is difficult to retrieve data, so you are limited in comparing subsets and identifying patterns, which then have a limiting effect on your ability to rethink data. (Davidson and di Gregorio 2011, 628)

Lewins and Silver (2007) have written extensively about qualitative research software and have identified main tasks of analysis that work well with a wide variety of QDAS programs on the market today. Table 18.1 is adapted from their writing and provides a workflow that might be useful for the reader in thinking about the adoption of a QDAS program for possible use with a music education project. Chapters in their book are useful in guiding researchers through stages of use with software programs. It should be clear from Table 18.1 that an important function of QDAS programs is to act as a content manager—a kind of command central for the many pieces of the puzzle the researcher must face as the goals for analysis are met. A large-scale “project” is identified, boundaries are established, and work can begin with the aid of digitization. The work becomes portable and shareable as well, so that collaboration is facilitated and approaches to trustworthiness are enhanced. Depending on the program’s design, databases can be internal to the program or linked to outside resources that can be accessed for analysis. Multiple projects can also be accomplished if a large array of data needs be studied with different methodologies. Modern QDAS programs are not necessarily designed to favor one methodology, such as an ethnography as opposed to multiple case studies, or grounded theory. Researchers must come into the process of use with their thinking clearly established as to how the QDAS resources will be used for their purposes.

328   peter r. webster Table 18.1  Main tasks of analysis using QDAS resources Task

Analytic Rationale

Planning and managing a project

Keep together the different aspects of work. Aid continuity, and build an audit trail. Later, illustrate the process and rigor. Discover and mark interesting aspects in the data.

Reading, marking and commenting on data Searching (for strings, words, phrases, aspects of audio and video files) Writing analytic memos

Developing a coding schema

Coding

Retrieval of coded segments

Hyperlinking Recoding

Organization of data

Mapping Searching the database and the coding schema Generating output

Adapted from Lewins and Silver (2007, 9).

Explore data according to their content, discovering how content differs, how it helps with understanding. Manage the developing interpretations by keeping track of ideas as they occur, and building on them as progress is made. Manage ideas about data, in themes, concepts, etc. Structure and function may depend on methodology and style. Capture what is going on with the data. Bring together similar data according to themes, concepts, etc. Generate codes from the text level or according to existing ideas as necessary, define the meaning and application of codes— especially in light of multimedia sources of data. Revisit coded data to assess similarity and difference, to consider how coding is helping analysis, and ”where to go next” Link data to other data segments and/or to other files to track process, contradiction, etc. Recode into broader or narrower themes or categories if appropriate and necessary. Perhaps bring data back together and think about them differently. Organize data according to known facts and descriptive features to allow consideration of how these aspects play a role in understanding. Manage analytic processes by visualizing connections, relationships, patterns, processes, ideas. Test ideas, interrogate subsets for similarity and difference, or generate another level of coding. Report on different aspects of progress and the project at any stage. Save as files to capture status at an analytic stage, or to work in other applications. Print out materials to get away from the computer and think and work in more “traditional” ways.

Software to Interrogate Qualitative Data  329

18.3 Major QDAS Programs: Their Use and Special Features At this writing, there are seven major QDAS programs that are worth consideration by music education researchers. Each, with the exception of Transana, provides the basic functionality that is portrayed above, including all of the steps in analysis that are noted in Table 18.1. Transana is included here because of its extensive support for video and audio analysis. It is worth noting that programs of this sort are in constant change as each vendor strives to respond to feedback from users. Table 18.2 provides a comparative analysis of basic information as of the date of publication and readers are encouraged to check the website for each software program for changes that are the result of new versions of each product. The website for each product provides ample displays of user interfaces and offers comment on the strengths of each offering. Unfortunately, a careful survey of independent analyses of each product from published sources does not provide a contemporary perspective that is current. Researchers will need to download the trial versions of each program and decide for themselves as to the product’s worthiness for their research needs. Each program provides its own special strengths for methodological approaches. For example, MAXQDA, QDAMiner, and Qualrus offer interesting options for mixed methods approaches since they include statistical functionality and ways to export data to quantitative tools. MAXQDA, for example, supports the importing of data from interviews, focus groups, online surveys, web pages, images, audio and video files, spreadsheets, and RIS data that use specialized tags. QDAMiner 4 offers integrated statistical and visualization tools, such as clustering, multidimensional scaling, heat maps, correspondence analysis, and sequence analysis. None of these software products offer the statistical capabilities of major quantitative packages such as R or SPSS, but they do offer excellent support for the integration of mixed approaches if the discoveries warrant such an approach. For certain requirements in discourse analysis, search features offered by QSRNVivo, including “fuzzy” searches, might be of interest. For example, if investigating dense text that might contain multiple ways of expressing an idea, a fuzzy search strategy that uses wildcard characters can be used to maximize the likelihood of a hit. Because of the requirements of multiple data sources in ethnography, the multiple data types allowed in ATLAS.ti, HyperRESEARCH and Qualrus could be compelling. ATLAS.ti offers extensive flexibility in coding segments of video and audio that can be seen in relation to text files. Certainly for detailed work with video and audio, Transana is worth a careful look, perhaps in tandem with other more text-based/mixed methods programs such as Qualrus. If a methodology requires strong collaboration capabilities, QSRNVivo and ATLAS. ti might be important because of tools designed for collaborative work and the offering of the software in many languages (German, French, Spanish, Japanese, and Chinese).

Table 18.2  Descriptive information for QDAS programs

Software

Website

OS Support Cost (US)

ATLAS.ti 7

www.atlasti.com/

Win*

HyperRESEARCH 3.5 www.researchware.com/

Mac/Win

MAXQDA 11

www.maxqda.com/

Win

QDA Miner 4

http://provalisresearch.com/ products/qualitativedata-analysis-software/ http://www.qsrinternational. com/default.aspx http://www.ideaworks.com/ qualrus/index.html http://www.transana.org/ index.htm

Win

QSRNVivo 10 Qualrus Transana 2.5

Win Win Mac/Win

$99 student $670 education $199 student $495 education $99 student $620 education $590 education

$670 education $215 student $399 education $179 student $65 education discount Wisconsin-based institution

Download Trial

Multimedia Data Types in Addition to Modeling/ Text Visualization

Collaboration

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Limited

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Images only

No

Yes

Yes

Audio only

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Limited

Yes

Video and audio only

No

Yes

*Windows-only software will run on Macintosh platform when the Win OS is installed as an option.

Software to Interrogate Qualitative Data  331 Major QDAS titles are moving toward shared server spaces in the “cloud” so that teams of researchers might be able to assemble and code data in various parts of the world. As of this writing, two web-based qualitative platforms that feature collaboration were identified (Saturate (http://www.saturateapp.com/) and dedoose (http://www.dedoose. com/)). Such programs might be very useful for teams of music education researchers investigating problems concurrently. Use of these web-based approaches might be especially attractive when used in combination with the more sophisticated, stand-alone applications. In addition, support for multiple platforms such as iPads and other mobile devices can be found in ATLAS.ti and other software. With the continued use of more powerful mobile devices in the field, this trend will likely continue in coming years. Cost and platform support can be determining factors in choice. In all cases, educational pricing is available and student prices are available as options. Video demos of the software can be found both at the website for the product and online in the expected outlets such as YouTube. Trial versions vary in their capability but most are fully functional for a trial period and technical support from the vendor is offered for nearly all products noted here. A caution about use of such software is important to note: in all cases, QDAS packages that are profiled in this chapter are not always immediately intuitive. In fact, they are complicated programs that will require some time to learn. Much like an extensive music notation program or a full-featured music sequencing package, the options are many and the paths to follow in their use are varied. For these reasons, support in the form of video demos, manuals, and training courses is important. The decision on the part of the researcher to use such software should be coupled with a willingness to invest time and effort in understanding the complexities. Investment of time and effort might be well worth it given the quality of return. The software will of course not interpret the findings and derive meaning for the research being done, but may well open pathways to the complexity of phenomena that might not otherwise be found.

18.4  QDAS Programs Used by Music Education Researchers A study of the published literature in music education in the United States in the last ten years reveals that some researchers have used QDAS programs in their work. This section reviews a sampling of these studies in order to offer the reader a profile of their use. This is not meant as a comprehensive listing but does provide useful information for how researchers in our field have begun to use this kind of specialized software. Regrettably, not all accounts of the research in published form provide detail on how the particular software was used; a personal contact with the researcher might be necessary to answer more detailed questions about the options employed for the analysis.

332   peter r. webster Researchers in music education might be advised to be more complete in their description of how QDAS programs were used in order to help readers understand the work accomplished and to add to their research creditability.

18.4.1 QSRNVivo Carlow (2004) used QSRNVivo in a dissertation study completed at the University of Maryland. The purpose of the study was to explore the musical experiences of immigrant students in an American high school choral classroom. Data collection methods included: semi-structured and in-depth interviews, student and teacher surveys, observations, focus groups, and dialogue journal writing collected over a 10-month period. She imported Microsoft Word files into QSRNVivo and coded text to discover themes. In a study of young students’ music preferences, Roulston (2006) used QSRNVivo in a similar way. She used the results of field notes and transcripts of interviews with children and parents to create codes that led to the identification of themes that were reported in the findings. Hunt (2009) studied the voices of rural and urban music teachers in order to develop a model of cultural awareness for music teaching. Interview data were coded in what appears to be a similar fashion to other researchers noted above. Turner (2009) completed a dissertation at Teachers College Columbia that offered more detail in her use of QSRNVivo. In this case study of mentoring music educators in gospel music, Turner describes the way she used the coding options to create hierarchies of coding structure and explained the use of researcher memos to help clarify her data. Using a computer program to code large amounts of data has both benefits and problems . . . All files were imported and coded electronically, thereby eliminating the use of paper; this advantage saved space and was environmentally-friendly. I was able to find a file or code by searching for a word in the title. The memos feature was one of the most-used aspects of the program. I captured my thoughts midstream without having to exit NVivo 8 to use another program. Also I could refer back to the memo at a later time and continue my thoughts or revise and use the text for later inclusion in my dissertation. All memos and data files could be exported as Microsoft Word documents, which allowed me to access them without having to own NVivo 8. (92–93)

Tsugawa’s (2009) work at Arizona State University on meaning construction in two New Horizon Band ensembles chronicles his decision to use QSRNVivo after struggling with more conventional ways to keep track of qualitative data. The purpose of this study was to investigate music learning, motivation, and meaning construction among members of two senior adult music ensembles. A qualitative, multiple case study design, was used. His use of codes was similar to other researchers, but this study is more explicit on the codes used and how they formed the results. Keeping data organized throughout the coding process proved to be a difficult task. Given the large amount of data, distilling the data and codes into broader

Software to Interrogate Qualitative Data  333 categories and themes became time consuming as I  electronically copied and moved scraps of data from the raw transcripts to various folders and subfolders on my computer. In order to manage the large volume of data collected in this study, I  used NVivo 8, a qualitative data analysis software program. My initial data management and coding procedure allowed me to label data by specific categories. I was able to code, label, and categorize particular informant statements within the context of each individual informant’s transcript. In order to compare and analyze individual informant statements with similar statements from other informants, I made multiple copies of each statement and placed these statements in separate NVivo files labeled by category, group, and participant. NVivo allowed me to expedite the analysis process by quickly organizing and connecting data by site, informant, and theme. (69–70)

18.4.2 Atlas.ti Six studies were identified that used the Atlas.ti software in music education (Jaramilloa 2008; D. Kokotsaki 2011; D. Kokotsaki and Hallam 2007; D. Kokotsaki and Hallam 2011; Norgaard 2011; Walls 2008). All six of these studies simply indicated that they used the software and provided no details in how the features were used beyond the coding of text. This is disappointing because the software is quite powerful and provides a number of tools and techniques that can be used for good advantage in music education research.

18.4.3 HyperRESEARCH Studies by Teachout (2004), Freer (2009), Barnes (2010), and Koops (2011) all used HyperRESEARCH for their data analysis. Again, few details were provided about how the software was used other than to suggest that codes were assigned to assist in analysis. Kelly-McHale (2011) completed a dissertation at Northwestern University on the subject of music identity in a general music classroom. Her use of HyperRESEARCH involved the recoding of transcriptions, adding definitions for each code and checking this against literature. She added memos as needed. She used a report feature of HyperRESEARCH to provide a summary of the coding process before proceeding to the final solution.

18.4.4 HyperRESEARCH and Transana One study was identified that used multiple QDSA programs, an approach that allowed the desirable qualities of each product to be used effectively. Tobias (2010) completed a Northwestern University study that examined the musical engagement and learning of secondary students in a songwriting and technology class that focused on the creation, performance, recording, and production of original music. His use of

334   peter r. webster HyperRESEARCH was similar to Kelly-McHale, using codes and memos to help establish a report that could be studied. His use of Transana however was somewhat more complicated: The second analytical layer, transcription, focused on transcribing video and screencast data. Transana . . . was used to create two types of transcripts, one focusing on discourse and the other on actions. . . . Video data were first viewed with minimal manipulation to create a narrative transcript of gestures, forms of engagement, interactions, and events. In cases where little dialogue took place, discourse such as unstructured interviews between myself and the participant or conversation between participants was combined with the narrative transcript. The transcripts served as text-based descriptions or transformations of the digital video/audio data. Interviews were videotaped and treated the same as other video data with the focus on discourse except for situations when a particular action or visual cue was integral to the meaning of the discourse. (127)

In addition, Tobias used a number of additional software programs throughout his dissertation to explicate his data and to report findings. These included iMovie, Audacity, ScreenFlow, MindManager, DEVONThinkPro, and OmniFocus. This use of a number of software titles to complement QDSA products is an excellent model for researchers to consider, especially if their uses enhances the theoretical and methodological intent.

18.5 Decision to Use QDAS Clearly, qualitative music education researchers have been slow in adopting the use of QDAS. There are probably a wide range of reasons for this that relate to how such tools are somehow not in the “spirit” of the qualitative culture—that somehow the use of such tools makes one too quantitative. This, of course, is nonsense. Qualitative work is difficult, messy, and enormously challenging to do. Tools that bring order are not only desirable, but absolutely essential. Are such programs necessary for all qualitative work? The simple answer is “no.” Berg and Lind (2003) competed a qualitative study of preservice music teachers and portfolio use for reflective practice that used no such software. Blair (2007) used musical maps as narrative inquiry and Ellis (1996) used a layered analysis technique with video in studying children with special needs. These studies were completed without the reported aid of any QDAS assistance, but this does not preclude the fact that complicated sources of data do present themselves in many studies and the aids that QDAS provide could be a welcomed approach. One view is that software of this sort gives the illusion of “doing the analysis” and that the products tend to channel the researcher into methodologies that are not intended. Davidson and diGregorio (2011) take a decidedly different tack:

Software to Interrogate Qualitative Data  335 We recognize that there is strong resistance to the notion that elements of analysis are common among diverse methodological approaches to qualitative research. This resistance is a residue, we believe, of the tough battles of legitimacy qualitative researchers fought to gain a position in academic and other circles. It is time, however, to put this one to rest. As the pressure for participation in the digital world increases, it is critical that qualitative researchers get beyond these artificial and self-imposed barriers they have erected and get on with more important tasks. (639)

QDAS programs are tools to assist in analysis and are not meant to dictate analytical solutions. Some aspects of certain programs might be more suited to one sort of methodology or another as was noted above, but the decisions to use the features of software are always in the hands of the researcher. Perhaps part of the reason that such software programs are not more often considered is that the teaching of qualitative research in our field typically does not include it. As younger professors who have more experience with technology in general and with QDAS programs in particular move into positions of authority as teachers of qualitative research, this may change. Finally, QDAS software remains expensive and, in some cases, challenging to use. As social networking becomes a driving force for greater sharing, more collaboration, and enhanced creative thinking, the vendors of QDAS may well improve interfaces and reduce cost. Cloud-based solutions are likely to emerge and the use of smaller and more powerful hardware devices will become prevalent. The large emphasis on text analysis will be balanced with much more evidence based on audio and video records—thus changing and improving the functionality of the software and its use in the study of the arts in particular. Researchers studying the complexities of music teaching and learning and who imagine approaching their problems qualitatively in some form are encouraged to consider such software for organizing, managing, and finding meaning.

References Barnes, G. 2010. “Teaching Music: The First Year.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 185 (Summer): 63–76. Berg, M., and V. Lind. 2003. “Preservice Music Teacher Electronic Portfolios Integrating Reflection and Technology.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 12 (2): 12–28. doi:10.1177/10 570837030120020104 Blair, D. 2007. “Musical Maps as Narrative Inquiry.” International Journal of Education and the Arts 8 (15): 1–19. http://www.ijea.org/v7n9/. Carlow, R. 2004. “Hearing Other’s Voices:  An Exploration of the Musical Experiences of Immigrant Students Who Sing in High School Choir.” PhD diss., ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. UMI No. 3152852. Davidson, J., and S. di Gregorio. 2011. “Qualitative Research and Technology.” In Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th ed., 627–43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

336   peter r. webster Ellis, P. 1996. “Layered Analysis:  A  Video-Based Qualitative Research Tool to Support the Development of a New Approach for Children with Special Needs.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 130: 65–74. Freer, P. 2009. “Boys’ Descriptions of Their Experiences in Choral Music.” Research Studies in Music Education 31 (2): 142–60. doi:10.1177/1321103X09344382. Hunt, C. 2009. “Perspectives on Rural and Urban Music Teaching:  Developing Contextual Awareness in Music Education.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 18 (2):  34–47. doi:10.1177/1057083708327613. Jaramilloa, M. 2008. “The Music Educator’s Professional Knowledge.” Music Education Research 10 (3): 347–59. doi:10.1080/14613800802280084. Kelly-McHale, J. 2011. The Relationship between Children’s Musical Identities and Muisc Teacher Beliefs and Practices in an Elementary General Music Classroom. UMI No. 3456672. Kokotsaki, D. 2011. “Student Teachers’ Conceptions of Creativity in the Secondary Music Classroom.” Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(2), 100–113. Kokotsaki, D., and S. Hallam. 2007. “Higher Education Music Students’ Perceptions of the Benefits of Participative Music Making.” Music Education Research 9 (1), 93–109. doi:10.1080/14613800601127577. Kokotsaki, D., and S. Hallam. 2011. “The Perceived Benefits of Participative Music Making for Non-Music University Students:  A  Comparison with Music Students.” Music Education Research 13 (2): 149–72. doi:10.1080/14613808.2011.577768. Koops, L. H. 2011. “Perceptions of Current and Desired Involvement in Early Childhood Music Instruction.” Visions of Research in Music Education 17 (1): 1–22. Lewins, A., and C., S. (2007). Using software in qualitative research:  A  step-by-step guide. London: Sage Publications. Norgaard, M. 2011. “Descriptions of Improvisational Thinking by Artist-Level Jazz Musicians.” Journal of Research in Music Education 59 (2): 109–27. doi:10.1177/0022429411405669. Roulston, K. 2006. “Qualitative Investigation of Young Children’s Music Preferences.” International Journal of Education and the Arts 7 (9): 1–22. http://ijea.org/v7n9/. Rutkowski, J., P. Webster, and J. Gossett. 2012. “A Further Examination of Doctoral Programs in Music Education.” Presented at the meeting of the Biennial Music Educators National Conference, St. Louis, Missouri. Taylor, C., and G. Gibbs. 2010. What is Qualitative Data analysis (QDA)? http://onlineqda.hud. ac.uk/Intro_QDA/what_is_qda.php. Teachout, D. 2004. “Factors Affecting Individuals’ Decisions to Enter Music Teacher Education Doctoral Programs.” Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 3 (3): 1–25. Tobias, E. 2010. “Crossfading and Plugging in: Secondary Students’ Engagement and Learning in a Songwriting and Technology Class.” ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. UMI No. 3402496. Tsugawa, S. 2009. “Senior Adult Music Learning, Motivation, and Meaning Construction in Two New Horizons Ensembles.” ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. UMI No. 3392131. Turner, P. E. 2009. “Mentoring Music Educators in Gospel Music Pedagogy in the Classroom.” ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. UMI No. 3391753. Walls, K. 2008. “Distance Learning in Graduate Music Teacher Education Promoting Professional Development and Satisfaction of Music Teachers.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 18 (1): 55–66. doi:10.1177/1057083708323137.

pa rt  i v

QUALITATIVE R ESEA RCH WITHIN SELECTED A R EAS OF MUSIC EDUCATION

Chapter 19

Qualitative Re se a rc h i n E arly Childh o od Mu si c Edu cati on alison m. reynolds

Would it not be salutary for them and for music if our children, having lived a free musical life . . ., could grow into adults who are able and accustomed to create such intimate music for themselves and for the delight of others, within social groups that music may help to integrate into unassuming but principled creative societies? Might we not hope then to hear new kinds of music, new ways of using the limitless language of sound—a language that can be used with creative freedom only by those . . . who do not allow the voice of tradition to prevent them from hearing the voice that speaks within them?1

In February, 1937, a pair of individuals who thought of children as spontaneous music-makers embarked on a multi-year journey with 14 young children2 and a few other adults. With today’s equivalent of a million dollars’ funding from the Pillsbury Foundation for the Advancement of Music Education, along with advice from conductor Leopold Stokowski, they started the Pillsbury Foundation School. Their initial focus? Creating a fluid, music-object-rich environment to facilitate young children’s musical play and study their spontaneous music-making (Wilson 1981). As facilitator-observers, the pair extensively chronicled children’s musical, expressive play through data sources now familiar to qualitative music education researchers: text, music notation, audio recordings, and photographs. Their results? First, evidence from their long-term, systematic documentation that, while in a preschool setting three hours daily3—young children express emergent musicality through individual and socially interactive moments of spontaneous music-making. Second, a historically important moment for early childhood music education qualitative researchers, most of whom now know the individuals relative to The Pillsbury Foundation Studies (1937–1945), even if only by name: Moorhead and Pond.

340   alison m. reynolds Though Moorhead and Pond were not trained as early childhood music teachers or qualitative researchers, their work represents the first early-childhood music-education qualitative research in the United States. In 2013, just over 75 years after they began, their work continues to represent overlapping contextual considerations for early childhood music education qualitative researchers:  philosophical, historical, political, ethical, methodological, musical, and technological. Within this chapter, I trace events supporting the intersections of early childhood music education and qualitative research, celebrating the continued relevance of Moorhead and Pond’s contributions. I offer points of view about expanding notions of adults’ and young children’s roles in the research processes and honoring young children’s capacities to collaborate as both music-makers and researchers. Finally, after surveying qualitative approaches and topics in publications in early childhood music education research in the twenty-first century,4 I offer how the collective professional experience within the profession might continue to propel qualitative research in early childhood music education forward.

19.1 Early Childhood, Music Education, and Qualitative Research: Interdependent Histories Though researchers have offered evidence that music for young children has been of interest long before the settling and colonization of the United States (e.g., Humphreys 1985), their systematic study of its history has been infrequent. Alvarez (1981) completed a comprehensive dissertation chronicling in separate chapters the history of early childhood music education in the United States from 1900 to 1980, and early childhood music education as practice and a research focus. A contemporary review of those histories (with the goals of considering the interdependence of those histories alongside understanding who music educators had included in those histories) provides a backdrop to begin to understand the emergence and applications of qualitative research within early childhood music education. In 1874, when the National Education Association formally established nursery school for children three and four years old, and kindergarten for children five years old, children typically began formal schooling when six years old (Alvarez 1981). In the late 1880s, G. Stanley Hall began studying young children quantitatively by age groups, influencing researchers in psychology to study young children systematically and scientifically (Humphreys 1985), and report general characteristics of children based on age ranges for various stages of development. Practitioners in early childhood education accepted researchers’ recommendations about children’s needs, believing “that research . . . on the development of young children was directly relevant to early childhood education” (Spodek and Saracho 1998, viii). As structured models for day care

Early Childhood Music Education  341 and curriculum within schooling began to emerge in the 1900s, education scholars also began to categorize and study children by age (Beatty 1998) rather than studying them in contexts of mixed ages. Meanwhile, music teachers used the “personal experience method” (Barr, Davis, and Johnson 1953; as cited in Mark 1992, 48) rather than research (Draper and Gayle 1987) to guide their work with children. Moorhead and Pond’s research in the late 1930s and early 1940s marks the first evidence of music-specific research in early childhood settings in the United States, championed as the beginning of a “new phase in the history of early childhood music education” (McDonald and Simons 1989, 15). At that time, Moorhead and Pond’s specific interests in documenting children’s spontaneous music-making fit well with tenets in the prominent Progressive Education movements, which valued play and music-making as integral to nurturing young children’s creative self-expression and social and emotional development (Alvarez 1981). As the 1930s and 1940s were unfolding, however, music educators began to weigh in about striking a balance between unstructured tenets of those movements and increasing structured experiences to ensure children’s achievement of specific music concepts such as singing, listening, and playing instruments. Additionally, music educators focused on developing curriculum based on those concepts, evaluating programs and course content, and measuring individuals’ music achievement (Alvarez 1981). In 1949—four years after The Pillsbury Foundation Studies (The Studies) ended, recordings of the children’s music-making while attending the Pillsbury School were released. By then, music educators might have known about “the four Pillsbury Foundation Studies, the recordings, and a pamphlet made by the Pillsbury Foundation” (Kierstead 1994, 214). That same year, the Music Education Research Council (MERC) publically declared the importance of music in the lives of preschool children (Morgan 1949 as referenced in Alvarez 1981). MERC supported music education for children between two and six years old, described mothers’ music-making with their children as well as children’s music–making on their own, recommended 20 minutes of daily music activities, and called attention to the need for teachers to teach music to preschool age children (Alvarez 1981). By 1951, music educators acknowledged that young children under six years old were being cared for in various settings: “nursery schools, kindergartens, church and community groups, and in the home” (Alvarez 1981, 30). Although educators needed to begin considering appropriate music education practices for that age group as different from practices appropriate for elementary general music, and their music-learning contexts as more diverse before elementary school than when in elementary school, the profession concentrated on teachers’ needs to direct activities to ensure children’s achievement of music skills demonstrating understanding of music concepts. Throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s, combined challenges of replicating aspects of the Pillsbury School and the incompatibility of the Pillsbury School tenets with the concept movement seemed to have silenced interests in any practice or qualitative research resembling Moorhead and Pond’s work. In 1965, the U.S. government funded the national preschool program Head Start for children three and four years old, partly a response to the increasing numbers of young

342   alison m. reynolds children whose mothers had entered the work force after two world wars, and partly a reflection of the increasing awareness of educational needs among impoverished children (Spodek and Saracho 1998). Even though children younger than three years old were not included in the initial Head Start movement (Perkins-Gough 2007), the program created opportunities for music education researchers and teachers, as the young children attending Head Start preschools came from different socio-economic backgrounds from the children to whom music educators previously had access. Two years later, participants from the Tanglewood Symposium convened, forming the subcommittee Music for Early Childhood. They agreed that music programs and teacher preparation should include preschool and very young children (Mark 1999). Specifically, the Committee on Critical Issues stated . . . We recommend that MENC,5 recognizing the unrealized potentials of education in general and particularly of music in the lives of children from the ages of three to eight, (a) establish a commission that would cooperate with recognized leaders in the field of early childhood education and of Head Start and of other programs to develop a systematic plan of action and content for the effective use of music; (b) apprise college and university music departments of the necessity to . . . prepare music education students to teach music to three- to eight-year-old children from all economic, social, and cultural backgrounds; and (c) charge its Music Education Research Council with the responsibility of defining areas of research related to the use of music for this age group. (Choate 1968, iii)

MENC adopted goals and objectives after Tanglewood, including “[to involve] people of all ages in learning music” (Mark 1999, 19). Music educators delegated only ages 3 to 11 years as “the optimum ages for developing musical interest, skills, and attitudes of young children” (Choate 1968, 136). Perhaps because children younger than three typically were not in settings with music educators, they were excluded from their decree music for all ages. In 1971, Moorhead and Pond surfaced in a published research-focused article. Zimmerman (1971/2011) published an article bridging research and practice, focusing mostly on elementary school-aged children. In it, she referenced Moorhead and Pond’s original publication once, under the musical characteristic manipulative development: “Some researchers view the imaginative playing of instruments as an extension of sounds made by their own body” (25–26). Roughly throughout the 1970s, scholars published practical texts for teachers working with children in kindergarten or younger (e.g., Andress 1980; Aronoff 1969; Boardman and Andress 1981; Choate 1970; Leonard 1968; Marsh 1974; McDonald 1979). Greenberg (1979) appears to have been the first to describe in early childhood music texts the ways a developing baby in utero responds to sounds. Greenberg also described music behaviors for children between birth and three years old. Although many authors stitched narratively descriptive vignettes into their texts, providing realistic glimpses of young children’s music-making within music activities and perhaps foreshadowing the profession’s adoption of ethnographic and narrative approaches to describe learning

Early Childhood Music Education  343 and teaching interactions in early childhod music education, through the mid 1970s, Moorhead and Pond’s continued to be the only qualitative study in early childhood music. Music scholars seemed to be unaware of, were unsure how to apply, or perhaps discounted Moorhead and Pond’s work.6 Shirley Shelley and Bruce Wilson, colleagues at University of Maryland, began to change that. When one of Shelley’s graduate students wrote about The Studies for an assignment, Shelly became curious (Kierstead 2006). Together, Shelley and Wilson began a quest to understand more about Moorhead and Pond’s study of children’s spontaneous music-making. Their pursuit led them in 1975 to stakeholders in the School: “an original trustee, some parents of former students” (Wilson 1981, 20)—one of whom “[transcribed] the Daily Observation Notes” (Kierstead 1994, 214), which were the index cards on which Moorhead or Pond wrote text, notation, and (in Moorhead’s case), invented notation. The contemporary pair, Shelley and Wilson, conducted interviews with pioneers Moorhead and Pond. By 1978, Wilson had completed the process of archiving artifacts from the School, and its trustees approved housing them at the MENC Archives at the University of Maryland (Wilson, 1981).

19.1.1 Sparking Interest in Early Childhood Music Education Qualitative Research In 1978, a few events occurred that, together, represent another pivotal moment in defining early childhood within qualitative music education research. First, Pond spoke at the annual MENC convention, “breaking a self-imposed silence of thirty-three years” (Kierstead 2006, 285). Second, the Pillsbury Foundation, in response to music educators’ heightened interest, re-published the four original studies as Music of Young Children (Wilson 1981). Third, Pond began a period in which he would publish additional responses to and reflections about his work at the School. Fourth, Shelley (1981) began a qualitative project studying spontaneous music-making among children ages three to five years. She reported that Moorhead and Pond’s findings from The Studies continued to be relevant in a “contemporary music setting” (29). Aside from Moorhead and Pond’s studies, she cited philosophical contributions from two additional sources as related research:  “the Contemporary Music Project on Creativity (1966), and the Manhattanville Music Curriculum Program (Thomas, 1970)” (27). She seems to have been the first to cite Pond’s then-recent MENC speech as related research. After this point, scholars increasingly included Moorehead and Pond’s work among their references within early childhood texts and research. Shelley (1981) essentially highlighted a need for researchers to study children’s music culture using qualitative techniques. Influenced, perhaps, by Pond’s comments in the introduction of the re-publication of The Studies (1978), she acknowledged children’s “self-initiated music activity can be misleading to adult musicians” (26) who might characterize the activity as “undisciplined” and “lack[ing] purpose” (26). She encouraged the

344   alison m. reynolds profession to understand young children have their “own music.” Additionally, Shelley referred to Pond’s MENC address, reminding the profession: Children must be free to make their own music in their own ways. They need freedom to move, freedom to play instruments, freedom to make choices, and freedom to construct sounds. . . . We should encourage children to acquire improvisational skills and techniques, for it is through such participation that the child develops aural discrimination, knowledge of sound, and the ability to think sound. (27)

Finally, Shelley offered evidence from her studies that Moorhead and Pond’s observations of young children—from a different setting and decade—were transferrable to her situation: “children pursue[d]‌musical activities on their own during a free activity period” (29). Amidst Pond’s reemergence, Shelley’s and Wilson’s re-presenting The Studies, and Shelley’s qualitatively based studies, researchers had a newly laid path to study young children’s music-making in context, as fluid, flexible, and spontaneous. Wilson reflected on the dry spell of research preceding this “rediscovery” (Kierstead 2006, 285) of Moorhead and Pond, observing that the original research “came and went when the music education profession was not ready for [it]. . . Very few musicians specialized in early childhood music and the profession was ill-equipped to study the musical development of the very young. Graduate research in music education was in its infancy. . . . [and] few people [were] looking for the answers suggested in the Pillsbury Foundation School . . .” (Wilson 1981, 15). In contrast to the dry spell during the previous 35 years, the 1980s would represent a watershed moment in the United States for early childhood music education qualitative research. In 1980, members of the Music Educators National Conference officially founded the Early Childhood Special Research Interest Group (EC SRIG). Members of the EC SRIG notably declared that early childhood encompasses children infancy through at least six years old. They sought to promote early childhood research by encouraging research and collaborations, identifying appropriate measurement tools, and disseminating findings—including through meetings and publications. Five Task Groups formed to direct activity into understanding needs assessment, the nature of teaching, the identification of children’s social and musical behaviors, the nature of musical development in infants, and music development relative to early childhood development (L. M. Walker 1991).7 Despite a lack of models for qualitative approaches to research, members chose language that, in hindsight, could accommodate them. Apparently, Pond’s conference appearance and the re-publication of The Studies in 1978 stirred controversy. In 1981, Pond addressed the profession, opening his article with the following statements. I want to make it perfectly clear . . . what I was not doing—what I did not set out to do. There were in the beginning misunderstandings (some of them no doubt genuine) thirty-three years ago, and they have persisted even to the present time. (1)

First among the things he hoped to clarify? His intentions to document what he learned from and with the children musically rather than to test, measure, or evaluate children

Early Childhood Music Education  345 based on music variables determined a priori. The remainder of the address represents his restorying—taking a reflexive look at—his journey that led him to discover, to his surprise, that young children are spontaneous, creative music-makers and his challenges documenting evidence of that. Pond’s reemergence coincided with the emergence of doctoral students who chose qualitative methodologies to study music in early childhood. Researchers from over a dozen universities across the United States produced dissertations using a variety of approaches, such as case study (Fox 1982), ethnography (J. R.  Zimmerman 1983), or naturalistic observation (Metz 1986; Miller 1983). Two dissertation researchers featured both qualitative data and quantitative data (Bedsole 1987; Bennett 1981); and one specifically inquired into and described the benefits of using multiple methods within one research project (Fiedler 1982).8 Not long after, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) established age parameters for the term early childhood as the years from at least birth through eight years old (Bredekamp 1987). Andress asserted that the starkly different general developmental characteristics within such a broad age group made it difficult for music practitioners to apply “early childhood” research results. She proposed distinguishing among preschool and primary age children, suggesting that preschool encompass “neonate/infant (0–18 mo.); toddler (18–36 mo.); three year old; four year old; [and] kindergartner (5–6 yrs)” (11), and primary encompass “children six through eight years of age” (1986, 11). She recommended researchers study children within those age groups to learn more about characteristics of typical music development. Tuition-based early childhood music-specific programs, many with university affiliations, provided venues for parents to introduce music education to their children. Most offered weekly classes for children 18 months or older in age groups similar to those Andress suggested. Defining early childhood music programs by their curriculum, methodologies, or age groups (introducing programs with infants in the early 1990s) inspired a few studies during the early-mid-1990s, in which researchers studied aspects of those programs qualitatively (e.g., Collier-Slone 1991; Hicks 1993; Reynolds 1995; Yang 1990).

19.1.2  Reporting on Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Music Education In the mid-1980s, early childhood music education researchers promoted studying young children’s music “in dynamic natural contexts” (M. P. Zimmerman 1984, 75) using naturalistic, observational, ethnographic, narrative, and interprative approaches. Peery, Peery, and Draper (1987) published early childhood music education qualitative and quantitative research chapters side-by-side. J. C. Peery described the collection as “systematic studies” (vii) about music’s role in young children’s lives. He shared the editors’ collective hopes that “beyond [contributing to] academic research, [the studies will encourage] an occasional teacher, or even possibly a parent, . . . to consider broader implications, and perhaps

346   alison m. reynolds broader involvements of music in children’s lives” (viii). Peery recognized, perhaps, that the research in the United States described a very narrow slice of children as well as contexts for music education. As the 1980s were drawing to a close, McDonald and Simons (1989) published a practical text for adults working with young children birth through six, within which they summarized The Studies. Their publisher’s formatting style offered readers citations of Moorhead and Pond alongside recommendations for teaching creativity and improvisation, sound exploration and timbre, children’s music preferences, and use of instruments in the classroom. Additionally, they cite Shelley (1981) and her observations about learning environments that nurture children’s music creativity. In 1992, in a chapter summarizing early childhood music-learning research, Scott-Kassner (1992) planted early childhood squarely between the years birth to age 8, citing NAEYC. She described qualitative studies by Moorhead and Pond, Shelley, Metz, and Miller amidst a “generally clinical” (634) landscape in which qualitative research is “often viewed with suspicion by traditional, trained researchers” (634). J. C. Peery (1993) noted the profession lacked a “specific conceptual or editorial method or approach that separates early childhood material from the broader context [of music development]” (207). Not long after, MENC (1994) published music standards for students kindergarten-to-12th grade; and, another year later, standards for children two to four years old (MENC 1995). During the 1990s, the number of qualitative early childhood music education dissertations more than doubled as compared to the 1980s, without the authors subsequently publishing research articles based on their dissertations. By the end of the 1990s, though, the landscape in general early childhood education research had shifted again. Scholars referred to a wider and more rapid acceptance of “studying children in context” (Graue and Walsh 1998) using qualitative research techniques, and these studies gained visibility in the field through qualitative conferences (Hatch and Wisniewski 1990) and publications (e.g., Hatch 1995b; Spodek, Saracho, and Pellegrini 1998). The beginning of the twenty-first century would be the next watershed moment. In 2002, The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (Colwell and Richardson 2002) featured early childhood music teaching and research—including qualitative references—more prominently than in the first. By 2010, the number of qualitative early childhood music education dissertations again increased over the last decade, and the combined number in 2010 through 2011 already had approached half the total number from the 2000s. Overall, variety in approaches persisted. Specifically, researchers (e.g., Schonauer 2002; Dansereau 2005; and Hardy 2011) increasingly collected both qualitative data and quantiative data. Time will tell the extent to which and ways twenty-first-century early childhood, music education qualitative researchers subsequently publish their dissertation studies. Just over 75  years after The Pillsbury Foundation Studies, and 30-plus years since Moorhead and Pond’s rediscovery, there is clear historical evidence that the profession increased its attention to early childhood music education and research (Alvarez 1981; Overland and Reynolds 2010). Music educators have made strides in offering definitions of both early childhood music education and qualitative early childhood music education research. Many music educators now embrace ages for early childhood endorsed by

Early Childhood Music Education  347 NAEYC (birth to eight years); and support National Association for Music Education’s (NAfME) call for musically rich environments for all children from birth, and Music Standards for children two years of age and older. At the time of this writing, NAfME is spearheading a revision of its music standards, which will contribute to the continued evolution of early childhood music education within the United States.

19.2 Stakeholders in Early Childhood Music Education: Considerations for Qualitative Researchers In 1966, Kodály shared, “I used to think the ideal age for beginning a child’s musical education was nine months before birth. Now I think it is nine months before his mother’s birth” (Salty Saint 1966, 41). His observation suggests consideration of several beliefs asserted within music education: each person—including those youngest and mostly invisible in the historical definitions of early childhood music education—is born musical (Blacking 1973)  or musically literate (Reynolds, Long, and Valerio 2007); makes music spontaneously (Moorhead and Pond 1978); occupies a “cultural and historical” space relative to others (Graue and Walsh 1998, 9); lives as an active agent in her music education; and possesses powerful epistemological orientations to policy, research, and practice. Also, Kodály’s observation challenges music educators to consider that each member of society plays a role in the music education of the youngest children. Including each person as integral to another’s music education suggests value in featuring voices of all stakeholders in early childhood music education research, including children, parents, general and music-specific preservice and inservice teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, and policymakers. Specifically, it makes sense to include them, as they are “the very people . . . who say they want to see children develop fully as thinkers, ‘feelers,’ and doers, [so] they may fulfill their potential—now, in their childhoods, and later, in their maturity” (Campbell 1999, 8). Early childhood qualitative research scholars have reminded researchers that early childhood is an adult construction (e.g., Graue and Walsh 1998; Hatch 1995a). As illustrated in the previous section of this chapter, teachers and researchers have most influenced construct notions of early childhood within music education. In addition to defining children by their chronological age, adults define children “physically, developmentally, socially, culturally, discursively, historically, linguistically, [and] politically” (Graue and Hawkins 2005, 45) from a “generational perspective” (Mayall 2002). That means adult qualitative researchers enter a site with a different role to fill, organized in part by their research purpose and questions relative to the children and context. In those sites, they interact with other adults. Each carries a unique perspective about children as individuals. Each also carries a unique perspective of the construct music education in early childhood. With multi-faceted combinations for defining children come

348   alison m. reynolds multi-faceted ways to learn from and about children in research. Recognizing the confluence of perspectives emphasizes qualitative researchers’ needs to adopt consistent reflexivity (Davis 1998). One’s research purpose and questions position adults and children within the research and its dissemination, even when projects lack children’s voices. The purpose and questions also suggest roles for the researcher in early childhood settings. Lahman (2008) collected researchers’ descriptions of various roles they adopted or felt were applied to them when entering the research site, such as Corsaro’s (2005) “reactive role” to describe waiting to be invited before interacting with children; Thorne’s (1993) “adult visitor” role in relation to the research site, including attempts to avoid being defined as “mother or teacher”; Fine and Sandstrom’s (1988) “adult friend” role; Mandell’s (1988) “least adult role”; Christensen’s (2004) “an unusual type of adult or a different type of adult who is interested in children’s perspectives”; or Wolcott’s (1972) “teacher as an enemy.” To summarize, “the positioning of researcher as [constituting] a variety of adults in relation to the children they research allows for multi-faceted, changeable relationships in the research site with a variety of children who will [in turn] invariably perceive adults in different ways” (Lahman 2008, 290). Lahman’s reference to “children they research” (2008, 290) reflects a frequent scenario among researchers: adults respectfully conduct research on children. Adults typically make all decisions throughout a study; attain consent from other adults (children ages seven to seventeen years old could refuse to assent); and collect, analyze, and disseminate the research. Although children generate the data, they have not owned them. In such research, children would be easy to locate (Janzen 2008). That is, adults position children as the focus in research reports, yet have chosen which words children will “speak.” They have “othered” children (Lahman 2008, 282). Researchers reflexively work to be mindful in such adult-centric settings “whether [their] capturing a moment in time is capturing the child’s reality or whether it is the researcher’s representation of the child’s reality, given his or her own filter and assumption” (Jipson and Jipson 2005, 42). After all, “we who work with children are no longer children ourselves” (Campbell 1999, p.7). How, then, do researchers ensure “[children’s direct engagement] in the process of meaning making and knowledge production?” (Jipson and Jipson 2005, 42). How do researchers avoid making children objects they are studying (e.g., Christensen and James 2000)? Scholars have considered potential answers to those questions, some of which are in the section that follows.

19.3  Researching within a Qualitative Early Childhood Music Education Landscape MacNaughton, Smith, and Davis (2007) suggest reconsidering children’s roles in research. They recommend researchers shift from the traditional adult-centric research

Early Childhood Music Education  349 process toward at least a more equal process. Liberally, they favor tipping the process in favor of a child-centric research process in which “children initiate and direct research. Children have the initial idea . . . and decide how the project is to be carried out. Adults are available to the children but do not take charge” (172). Adults—as providers of primary care—do choose or prepare the setting that offers possibilities to children as researchers and guide or scaffold children’s research processes. Teachers adopting the Reggio Emilia philosophy embrace the view that adults create an environment in which children’s natural inquisitiveness, collaborative spirits, and active agency as co-constructors of knowledge thrive. In Reggio-inspired settings, young children’s inquiry, coupled with adults’ provision of materials and availability for scaffolding children’s learning, enriches the experience of co-construction of knowledge for all (e.g., Kim 2012). Children, early childhood teachers, parents—even the environment, the “third teacher”—collaborate on projects. Children use their “hundred languages” (Infant-Toddler Centres 2010) to express themselves and to make learning visible. Projects require virtually every aspect of qualitative research, with two chief distinctions. First, adults offer provocations based on children’s initiations of inquiry. The adults become co-researchers with children. Second, teachers typically document and display results of the co-constructed research only within the school community. How did Moorhead or Pond view their adult roles as teachers or researchers? Did they view children as children, students, collaborative researchers, or subjects? We know more from Pond than from Moorhead about potential answers to those questions.9 Reflecting on his time at the School, Pond (1980) described being with children for “almost eight years of creative companionship” (39), ready to listen and watch, “to discover how creative music activity was provoked and generated in young children” (39). “I was always ready, when invited, to join in the children’s music making . . . not so much as a teacher, but as a musician and composer . . . available but never [imposing]” (39); “by collaborating with them in their improvising whenever they asked me to—which was frequently” (Pond 1981, 10); or “help[ing] them to learn to read and write musical notation, in a manner . . . agreeable to their perceptions and not inhibitory of their spontaneity, [and only] after they had told me they wanted to learn” (11). Moorhead and Pond created text and notation to share children’s musicing. Children have a prominent position throughout The Studies. Hence, readers can easily locate children as most important in the reports. Though evidence suggests the music environment moved from child-initiated to more teacher-centered as early as fall 1938 (Kierstead 2006), it seems Moorhead and Pond strived to honor viewpoints important in contemporary qualitative research:  children’s “authentic voice and participation,” “young people [as] valuable experts in their cultures . . . and therefore integral partners in the research process” (Janzen 2008, 289). It seems possible, at least, that children at The Pillsbury Foundation School felt integral to the project. Pond quoted one child as having said, “Everybody stand up and raise your hands to the sky. That means you’re all members of this music; we’re all members of that tune we were playing” (Wilson 1981, 20).

350   alison m. reynolds A researcher’s report of children’s music-making, movement, or conversation— especially the youngest—has most often represented children’s voices within early childhood qualitative music education research (See ­chapter  18 in this volume). Reports and audio documentation of research in the United States that stems from purposeful intentions similar to those behind Moorhead and Pond’s research are nonexistent in peer-reviewed journals or books. Reasons for that seem simple: early childhood music education researchers—typically full-time music teacher educators—have lacked opportunities (and funding) to spend unstructured music time with children longitudinally in a context established primarily with a belief that children are spontaneous music-makers. Contemporary early childhood music education qualitative research examples approaching Moorhead and Pond’s experiences resonate with researchers using tenets of Project Zero and Reggio Emilia, settings in which adults work with children to “make learning visible” (Harvard 2006). In Reggio Emilia projects, early childhood researchers adopted the roles of Music Pedegogues or Music Atelieristas, listening for and scaffolding child-initiated and child-directed music and music projects—or offering music-based provocations for children to consider (Burton 2011; Reynolds, Cancemi, et al. 2012; Reynolds, Filsinger, et al. 2012; Smith 2011). In each study, researchers provided evidence to support children as capable of initiating and developing projects when adults spend extended lengths of time with children, accept that the youngest of children indeed initiate music-making and music-based inquiry, facilitate and scaffold children’s music-learning interests as their music-making and music-focused projects unfolded over time—including children’s documentation of their music-making or music-focused projects, and ensure children’s thoughts and feelings are represented alongside the music-making or other music-based data that unfolds. Pushing beyond Moorhead and Pond’s accomplishments, examples are emerging of children successfully providing initiation, design, and presentation10 of research. To date, although children are featured as co-constructors of inquiry in early childhood settings (e.g., Clark 2007), they remain invisible as co-authors. Until we create venues for them to be co-authors and co-disseminators, we only can imagine the powerful influence their voices could have. In 2012, researchers may be alternately relieved and overwhelmed by resources specific to early childhood qualitative research.11 Prominently, authors emphasize the necessity for adults to listen to children’s voices. Listening to children’s voices through spoken or musical expression requires adults to spend extended time in context with children as they play naturally. Doing so honors the children and their natural interests, and fosters relationships with them, a critical component for both the child and the adult. “Data must be generated before it can be collected” (Graue and Walsh 1998, 91). Otherwise, researchers must realize that children “who sense marginalization have often become experts at illusion, telling investigators what they want to hear but possibly little of what they might be thinking at any moment in time” (Malewski 2005, 220).

Early Childhood Music Education  351 As children generate data, using video recordings to collect that data is both easier as technology improves, and continuously fraught with technical challenges (e.g., Walsh, Bakir, et al. 2007)—including ones identified by Shelley (1981) over 30 years ago. Even so, video provides ways to re-view many (but not all) details about actors in complex contexts. Pond likely would have valued using video recording devices in his work, as he took copious observation notes “to have an intelligible picture of the music of these young children, to consider the social and individual activities as a related background, and to observe the fringing activities of speech, physical movement and any production of sound” (Moorhead and Pond 1978, 8), and had only audio-recordings of children’s music-making. Likely, too, he would have agreed that when studying children’s music-making in dynamic contexts, inevitably, amounts and types of data are time-consuming to organize, analyze, and write up. Qualitative early childhood music education researchers typically rely on various technologies to provide evidence for their findings as they analyze, triangulate, and audit data. Increasingly, they use technology to share, store, and report data, particularly for presentations and, more recently, for disseminating via online publishing. As technologies evolve, researchers must work to ensure file formats remain accessible yet secure. Researchers and their readers may find data collected as pictures are worth a thousand words, in audio files data worth double that of pictures, and in video, triple. Many children already are experts at using diverse applications on computers and portable devices like iPhones, iPods, and iPads, a skill that will help them as they assume more sophisticated roles as researchers. Their data generation, collection, sharing, and more formal dissemination—whether through text, notation, photographs, audio files, or video files—will be priceless. Regardless, everyone’s use of such files continues to require utmost sensitivity to the children (see ­chapter 30 in this volume).

19.3.1 Surveying Twenty-First-Century Qualitative Approaches to Early Childhood Music Education Research A survey of journals and edited books featuring twenty-first-century early childhood music education qualitative research reveals that researchers most frequently select theoretical approaches to orient their research (see ­chapter 5 in this volume). Researchers have addressed multi-faceted considerations from various stakeholders in early childhood music education using diverse models in their reports, such as an ethnomusicological/phenomenological study illuminating complex dimensions of children’s musical cultures (Campbell 2010); a phenomenological study about interactive improvisation between adults and children (Custodero 2007); a phenomenological, particularistic case study regarding preservice music teachers’ perceptions of teaching children with special needs (Hourigan 2009); a mixed methods study about students with special needs and conditions that best support their music learning (Gerrity, Hourigan, and

352   alison m. reynolds Horton 2013); an heuristic study from a three-year music-play-based relationship among a music teacher educator/researcher, mother, two music education graduate students, and a child with autism (Valerio, Sy, Gruber, and Stockman 2011); narrative accounts from early childhood or general music teachers (Neely 2007; Reynolds 2012; L. N. Walker 2009); case studies in which teachers notice music’s influence on children with special needs (McCord 2009; Taggart, Alvarez, and Schubert 2011); and case studies describing parents’—and sometimes children’s—engagement with the early childhood music teacher via social media networks (Koops 2011, 2012). Researchers have applied Denzin’s steps of interpretation to learn about singing practices in families (Custodero 2006); content analysis to describe ways parenting magazines feature music information (Sims and Udtaisuk, 2008); conversation analysis to describe vocal and movement-based music interactions (Reynolds 2006); Csikszentmihalyi’s flow to their own teacher/researchers’ reflections (Custodero and St. John 2007); and symbolic interactionism as elementary general music teachers consider the meaning of music aptitude (Reynolds and Hyun 2004) or reflect on their teaching (Valerio 2009; Valerio and Freeman 2009) or service-learning fieldwork (e.g., Reynolds, Jerome, Preston, and Haynes 2005). Researchers have also applied community of practice (e.g., Gruenhagen 2009; Hornbach 2011); philosophical inquiry (e.g., Ilari 2011); play theory (e.g., Berger and Cooper 2003; Koops 2011); caregiving theory (Custodero and Johnson-Green 2008); Super and Harkness’s (2002) developmental niche framework (Custodero 2009); theories of language acquisition (Burton 2002, 2011); Gordon’s (2003) Music Learning Theory for Newborn and Young Children (Reynolds 2006; Valerio, Seaman, Yap, Santucci, and Tu 2006); or developmentally appropriate practice (e.g., Miranda 2004) as they apply to music acquisition, early childhood music teaching, or early childhood music-teacher education. Occasionally, researchers share techniques for analyzing their data, rather than articulating a codified theoretical approach (e.g., Cooper and Cardany 2011; Kastner 2011; McCord 2009; Scott, Jellison, et al., 2007).12 And, when relevant, researchers consistently reference Moorhead and Pond.

19.4 The Future: Considerations for Early Childhood Music Education Qualitative Researchers Early childhood has long been a collection of diverse constructions, constituting multiple realities in diverse settings during a time when children typically develop and change most rapidly. Since The Pillsbury Foundation Studies, the profession increasingly agrees that “music happens to children, . . . much of it is ‘visible’—and surely audible—in many settings and circumstances” (Campbell 1999, 7), and is of importance to children. The profession also increasingly agrees that qualitative research is viable for learning more

Early Childhood Music Education  353 about children’s music-making in dynamic contexts (McCarthy 2010). What Pond said about The Studies in 1981 resonates in 2013: “I believe this research . . . may continue to be useful to researchers who are working today” (Pond 1981, 11). In addition to The Studies, early childhood music education qualitative researchers have books, journal articles, and dissertations within and outside the United State to guide them. What might be their next steps? As music educators grapple generally with the relevance of out-of-school music to music education, researchers might help communicate that, until children are required to attend school, and then, until required schooling requires music, all of children’s music-making and music education happens out-of-school. As Pond (1981) and, subsequently, researchers who have documented children’s emergent and co-constructed music have reported, children are musical long before they reach school music settings. Continuing to use qualitative approaches to document ways diverse stakeholders successfully validate and extend children’s predispositions will help practitioners guide children to “create . . . intimate music for themselves and for the delight of others, within social groups that music may help to integrate into unassuming but principled creative societies” (Pond 1978, 4). Collaborative research among stakeholders in children’s lives (including children themselves) across disciplines and across the globe likely will help the profession better articulate research into how all children—from at least birth—fit in the relevance, context, and best practices within music education, music-teacher preparation, music-researcher preparation, and teaching in higher education curricula. As technologies for collecting data generation, their analyses, and dissemination advance, researchers should think about advancing their research sensibly, yet creatively—“not allow[ing] the voice of tradition to prevent them from hearing the voice that speaks within them” (Pond 1978, 4). Qualitatively, researchers can gather the profession’s collective early childhood initiatives, seek consistency within the profession by using the term early childhood as encompassing children from at least birth to eight years old, establish research collaboratives, construct broad-scale studies in which researchers unify the purpose and essential research questions, and increase efforts to study diverse settings to learn about diverse children. Generally, they should prioritize the continued dissemination of their research—particularly dissertations—with authentic, compelling, articulate, persistent, and far, up-reaching voices. United efforts to feature audio, video, and photographs in research dissemination likely will advance understandings about early childhood music education among children, parents, teachers, and policymakers. In closing, the combined economic, environmental, and political climates in the United States make the future of music education for our nation’s youngest children difficult to predict. Very recent successful efforts among advocates petitioning the elimination of school music education programs suggest that, when children and stakeholders directly deliver messages about the meaning of music and music education in their lives, decision-makers listen. Maintaining rigor and adding cohesion to qualitative dissemination efforts that prominently feature diverse children’s and stakeholders’ musical and spoken voices about music in relation to their health, education, and welfare may deliver powerful insights that, in turn, may strengthen policymakers’ cohesive commitments to

354   alison m. reynolds the music education of each person in the United States—from the age of “nine months before [the child’s] mother’s birth” (Salty Saint 1966, 41). “There is still very much to be done” (Pond 1981, 11); qualitatively, there is much we could accomplish together.

Notes 1. Pond, 1978, 3–4. 2. Children in the first study were 1.5 to 8.5 years old (Moorhead and Pond 1978, 7). 3. Moorhead and Pond, 1978, 79. 4. Excluding dissertations. 5. The Music Educators National Conference (MENC) changed its name in 2011 to the National Association for Music Education (NAfME). 6. Aronoff (1969) and M. P. Zimmerman (1971/2011), for example, are exceptions. 7. In 1991, the Sengstack Educational Foundation provided funding to the EC SRIG for their creation of an academic journal. After one issue—with citations of qualitative research, publications ceased. 8. See ­chapter 12. 9. Wilson (1981) describes Pillsbury Study materials, which are archived at the MENC Historical Center at the University of Maryland. 10. Although this example is with co-researchers slightly older than eight years, note Filsinger 2011. 11. See, for example, Aubrey, David, et  al. 2000; Christensen and James 2000; Graue and Walsh 1998; Greene and Hill 2005; Hatch 1995b, 2007; Heath, Hindmarsh, and P. Luff 2010; MacNaughton, Rolfe, and Siraj-Blatchford 2001; Nutbrown 2002; Soto and Swadener 2005; Spodek and Saracho 2005; Spodek, Saracho, and Pellegrini 1998; and Tisdall, Davis, and Gallagher 2009. 12. See Hatch (2007b, 230) for remarks on this topic, specifically in relation to early childhood qualitative research.

References Alvarez, B. J. 1981. “Preschool Music Education and Research on the Musical Development of Preschool Children: 1900 to 1980.” PhD diss., University of Michigan. Andress, B. 1980. Music Experiences in Early Childhood. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Andress, B. 1986. “Toward an Integrated Developmental Theory for Early Childhood Music Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 86: 10–17. Aronoff, F. W. 1969. Music and Young Children. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Aubrey, C., T. David, R. Godfrey, and L. Thompson, eds. 2000. Early Childhood Educational Research: Issues in Methodology and Ethics. London: Routledge/Falmer. Barr, A. S., R. A. Davis, and O. Johnson, eds. 1953. Educational Research and Appraisal. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott. Beatty, B. 1998. “From Infant Schools to Project Head Start: Doing Historical Research in Early Childhood Education.” In Yearbook in Early Childhood Education, vol. 8:  Issues in Early Childhood Educational Research, edited by B. Spodek, O. N. Saracho, and A. D. Pellegrini, 1–29. New York: Teachers College Press.

Early Childhood Music Education  355 Bedsole, E. A. 1987. “A Descriptive Study of the Musical Abilities of Three- and Four-Year-Old Children.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Bennett, P. D. 1981. “An Exploratory Study of Children’s Multi-Sensory Responses to Symbolizing Musical Sound through Speech Rhythm Patterns.” PhD diss., University of North Texas. Berger, A. A., and S. Cooper. 2003. “Musical Play: A Case Study of Preschool Children and Parents.” Journal of Research in Music Education 51 (2): 151–65. Blacking, J. 1973. How Musical is Man? Seattle: University of Washington Press. Boardman, E., and B. Andress. 1981. The Music Book:  Teacher’s Reference Book, Grade K. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bredekamp, S., ed. 1987. Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8. Washington, D.C: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Burton, S. L. 2002. “An Exploration of Preschool Children’s Spontaneous Songs and Chants.” Visions of Research in Music Education 2. Burton, S. L. 2011. “Language Acquisition: A Lens on Music Learning.” In Learning from Young Children: Research in Early Childhood Music, edited by S. L. Burton and C. C. Taggart, 23–38. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Campbell, P. S. 1999. “The Many-Splendored Worlds of Our Musical Children.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 18 (1): 7–14. Campbell, P. S. 2010. Songs in Their Heads: Music and Its Meaning in Children’s Lives. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Choate, R. A., ed. 1968. Documentary Report of the Tanglewood Symposium. Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference. Choate, R. A. 1970. New Dimensions in Music: Music for Early Childhood. New York: American Book Co. Christensen, H. 2004. “Children’s Participation in Ethnographic Research: Issues of Power and Representation.” Children and Society 18: 165–76. Christensen, H., and A. James, eds. 2000. Research with Children: Perspectives And Practices. London: Routledge/Falmer. Clark, A. 2007. “A Hundred Ways of Listening: Gathering Children’s Perspectives of Their Early Childhood Environment.” Young Children 62 (3): 76–81. Colwell, R., and C. Richardson, eds. 2002. The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning:  A  Project of the Music Educators National Conference. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Collier-Slone, K. 1991. “The Psychology of Humanistic Life Education: A Longitudinal Study.” PhD diss., The Union Institute. Contemporary Music Project. 1966. Experiments in Musical Creativity. Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference. Cooper, S., and A. B. Cardany. 2011. “The Importance of Parents in Early Childhood Music Program Evaluation.” In Learning from Young Children: Research in Early Childhood Music, edited by S. L. Burton and C. C. Taggart, 95–112. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Corsaro, W. 2005. The Sociology of Childhood. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Custodero, L. A. 2006. “Singing Practices in 10 Families with Young Children.” Journal of Research in Music Education 54 (1): 37–56. Custodero, L. A. 2007. “Origins and Expertise in the Musical Improvisations of Adults and Children:  A  Phenomenological Study of Content and Process.” British Journal of Music Education 24 (1): 77–98.

356   alison m. reynolds Custodero, L. A. 2009. “Musical Portraits, Musical Pathways: Stories of Meaning Making in the Lives of Six Families.” In Musical Experiences in Our Lives: Things We Learn and Meanings We Make, edited by J. L. Kerchner and C. R. Abril, 77–92. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Custodero, L. A., and E. Johnson-Green. 2008. “Caregiving in Counterpoint:  Reciprocal Influences in the Musical Parenting of Younger and Older Infants.” Early Childhood Development and Care 178 (1): 15–39. Custodero, L. A., and A. St. John. 2007. “Actions Speak: Lessons Learned from the Systematic Observation of Flow Experience in Young Children’s Music Making.” In Listen to Their Voices: Research to Practice: A Biennial Series, 3rd ed., edited by L. R. Bartel (series ed.) and K. Smithrim and R. Upitis (vol. eds.), 211–27. Waterloo, ON: Canadian Music Educators Association. Dansereau, D. R. 2005. “The Musicality of 3-year-old children within the Context of Research-Based Musical Engagement.” PhD diss., Georgia State University. Davis, J. M. 1998. “Understanding the Meanings of Children: A Reflexive Process.” Children and Society 12: 325–35. Draper, T. W., and C. Gayle. 1987. “An Analysis of Historical Reasons for Teaching Music to Your Children.” In Music and Child development, edited by J. C. Peery, I. W. Peery, and T. W. Draper, 194–205. New York: Springer-Verlag. Fiedler, S. K. 1982. “A Methodological Study of Three Observation Techniques—An Observation Schedule, Participant Observation and a Structured Interview—In Two Elementary Music Classrooms.” PhD diss., Northwestern University. Filsinger, K. B. 2011. Side-by-Side:  Guiding Young Composers. Workshop co-presented with research participants at the NYSSMA Winter Conference, Rochester, NY, December 2–4. Fine, G. A., and K. L. Sandstrom. 1988. Knowing Children: Participant Observation with Minors. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Fox, D. B. 1982. “The Pitch Range and Contour of Infant Vocalizations: Volumes I and II.” PhD diss., The Ohio State University. Gerrity, K. W., R. M. Hourigan, and P. W. Horton. 2013. “Conditions That Facilitate Music Learning among Students with Special Needs:  A  Mixed-Methods Inquiry.” Journal of Research in Music Education 61 (2): 144–59. DOI: 10.1177/0022429413485428. Gordon, E. E. 2003. A Music Learning Theory for Newborn and Young Children. Chicago: GIA. Graue, E., and M. Hawkins. 2005. “Relations, Refractions, and Reflections in Research with Children.” In Power and Voice in Research with Children, edited by L. D. Soto and B. B. Swadener, 45–54. New York: Peter Lang. Graue, M. E., and D. J. Walsh. 1998. Studying Children in Context: Theories, Methods, and Ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Greenberg, M. 1979. Your Children Need Music: A Guide for Parents and Teachers of Young Children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Greene, S., and M. Hill, eds. 2005. Researching Children’s Experience: Approaches and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gruenhagen, L. M. 2009. “Developing Professional Knowledge about Music Teaching and Learning through Collaborative Conversations.” In Research perspectives:  Thought and Practice in Music Education, edited by L. Thompson and M. Campbell, 125–51. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Hatch, J. A. 1995a. “Studying Childhood as a Cultural Invention: A Rationale and Framework.” In Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Settings, edited by J. A. Hatch, 117–33. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Early Childhood Music Education  357 Hatch, J. A., ed. 1995b. Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Settings. Westport, CT: Praeger. Hatch, J. A., ed. 2007. Early Childhood Qualitative Research. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Hatch, J. A., and R. Wisniewski, eds. 1990. “Qualitative Studies in Early Childhood Contexts.” Special Issue, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 3: 209–302. Hardy, W. L. 2011. “Arts in Early Childhood Education and the Enhancement of Learning.” PhD diss., Walden University. Harvard Graduate School of Education. 2006. Making Learning Visible:  Understanding, Documenting, and Supporting Individual and Group Learning. Boston: Project Zero. http:// www. pz.harvard.edu/mlv/. Heath, C., J. Hindmarsh, and P. Luff. 2010. Video in Qualitative Research:  Analysing Social Interaction in Everyday Life. Los Angeles: SAGE. Hicks, W. K. 1993. “An Investigation of the Initial Stages of Preparatory Audiation.” PhD diss., Temple University. Hornbach, C. M. 2011. “Building Community to Elicit Responses in Early Childhood Music Classes.” In Learning from Young Children: Research in Early Childhood Music, edited by S. L. Burton and C. C. Taggart, 63–78. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Hourigan, R. M. 2009. “Preservice Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Fieldwork Experiences in a Special Needs Classroom.” Journal of Research in Music Education 57 (2): 152–68. Humphreys, J. 1985. “The Child-Study Movement and Public School Music Education.” Journal of Research in Music Education 33 (2): 79–86. Ilari, B. 2011. “Twenty-First-Century Parenting, Electronic Media.” In Learning from Young Children:  Research in Early Childhood Music, edited by S. L. Burton and C. C. Taggart, 195–214. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Infant-Toddler Centres and Preschools Istituzione of the Municipality of Reggio Emilia. 2010. Indications:  Preschools and Infant-Toddler Centres of the Municipality of Reggio Emilia. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children. Janzen, M. D. 2008. “Where Is the (Postmodern) Child in Early Childhood Education Research?” Early Years 28 (3): 287–98. Jipson, J., and J. Jipson. 2005. “Confidence Intervals: Doing Research with Young Children.” In Power and Voice in Research with Children, edited by L. D. Soto and B. B. Swadener, 35–43. New York: Peter Lang. Kastner, J. D. 2011. “Elementary Music Teachers’ Role-Identities in and Perceptions of Teaching Prekindergarten Students with Special Needs.” In Learning from Young Children: Research in Early Childhood Music, edited by S. L. Burton and C. C. Taggart, 113–31. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Kierstead, J. K. 1994. “The Pillsbury Foundation School (1937–1948) and Beyond.” The Bulletin of Historical Research in Music Education 15 (3): 183–219. Kierstead, J. K. 2006. “Listening to the Spontaneous Music-Making of Preschool Children in Play: Living a Pedagogy of Wonder.” PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park. Kim, B. S. 2012. “Shades of Pink: Preschoolers Make Meaning in a Reggio-Inspired Classroom.” Young Children 67 (2): 44–50. Koops, L. H. 2011. “Music Play Zone: An On-Line Social Network Site Connecting Parents and Teacher in an Early Childhood Music Class.” In Learning from Young Children: Research in Early Childhood Music, edited by S. L. Burton and C. C. Taggart, 181–94. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

358   alison m. reynolds Koops, L. H. 2012. “‘Now Can I  Watch My Video?’ Exploring Musical Play through Video Sharing and Social Networking in an Early Childhood Music Class.” Research Studies in Music Education 34 (1): 15–28. DOI: 10.1177/1321103X12442994. Lahman, M. K. E. 2008. “Always Othered: Ethical Research with Children.” Journal of Early Childhood Research 6 (3): 281–300. Leonard, C. 1968. Discovering Music Together: Early Childhood. Chicago: Follett. MacNaughton, G., S. A. Rolfe, and I. Siraj-Blatchford. 2001. Doing Early Childhood Research:  International Perspectives on Theory and Practice. Buckingham UK:  Open University Press. MacNaughton, G., K. Smith, and K. Davis. 2007. “Researching with Children: The Challenges and Possibilities for Building ‘Child Friendly’ Research.” In Early Childhood Qualitative Research, edited by J. A. Hatch, 167–84. New York: Routledge. Malewski, E. 2005. “Epilogue:  When Children and Youth Talk Back:  Precocious Research Practices and the Cleverest Voices.” In Power and Voice in Research with Children, edited by L. D. Soto and B. B. Swadener, 215–22. New York: P. Lang. Mark, M. 1992. “A History of Music Education Research.” In Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell, 48–59. New York: Schemer. Mark, M. 1999. “MENC: From Tanglewood to the Present.” In Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music Education, edited by C. K. Madsen. Reston, VA: MENC. Marsh, M. V. 1974. The Spectrum of Music with Related Arts: Kindergarten. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Mayall, B. 2002. Towards a Sociology of Childhood: Thinking from Children’s Lives. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. McCarthy, M. 2010. “Researching Children’s Musical Culture: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives.” Music Education Research 12 (1): 1–12. McCord, K. A. 2009. “Improvisatory Musical Experiences in the Lives of Children with Severe Disabilities.” In Musical Experiences in Our Lives: Things We Learn and Meanings We Make, edited by J. L. Kerchner and C. R. Abril, 127–43. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. McDonald, D. T. 1979. Music in Our Lives:  The Early Years. Washington, DC:  National Association for the Education of Young Children. McDonald, D. T., and G. M. Simons. 1989. Musical Growth and Development: Birth through Six. New York: Schirmer Books. Mendel, N. 1988. “The Least Adult Role in Studying Children.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 16: 433–37. DOI:10.1177/0891241688164002. Metz, E. R. 1986. “Movement as a Musical Response among Preschool Children.” PhD diss., Arizona State University. Miller, L. B. 1983. “Music in Early Childhood: Naturalistic Observation of Young Children’s Musical Behaviors.” PhD diss., University of Kansas. Miranda, L. M. 2004. “The Implications of Developmentally Appropriate Practice for the Kindergarten General Music Classroom.” Journal of Research in Music Education 52 (1): 43–63. Moorhead, G. E., and D. Pond. 1978. Music of Young Children. Santa Barbara, CA: Pillsbury Foundation for Advancement of Music Education. Morgan, H. B.  N., ed. 1949. Music Education Source Book. The Music Educators National Conference. Music Educators National Conference. 1994. The National Standards for Arts Education. Reston, VA: MENC. Music Educators National Conference. 1995. Performance Standards for Music: Prekindergarten. Reston, VA: MENC.

Early Childhood Music Education  359 Neely, L. 2007. Musical ConverSings with Children. New York: Noval Science Publishers. Nutbrown, C., ed. 2002. Research Studies in Early Childhood Education. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham Books. Overland, C., and A. M. Reynolds. 2010. “The Role of MENC: The National Association for Music Education in Early Childhood Music Education, 1980–2007.” Journal of Historical Research in Music Education 32 (2): 99–117. Peery, J. C. 1993. “Music in Early Childhood Education.” In Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children, edited by B. Spodek, 207–24. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. Peery, J. C., I. W. Peery, and T. W. Draper, eds. 1987. Music and Child Development. New York: Springer-Verlag. Perkins-Gough, D. 2007. “Giving Intervention a Head Start:  A  Conversation with Edward Zigler.” Early Intervention at Every Age 65 (2): 8–14. Pond, D. 1978. “Introduction.” In Music of Young Children, eds. G. E. Moorhead and D. Pond, 3–4. Santa Barbara, CA: Pillsbury Foundation for Advancement of Music Education. Pond, D. 1980. The Young Child’s Playful World of Sound. Music Educators Journal 66 (7): 38–41. Pond, D. 1981. “A Composer’s Study of Young Children’s Innate Musicality.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 68: 1–12. Reynolds, A. M. 1995. “An Investigation of the Movement Responses Performed by Children 18 Months to Three Years of Age and Their Caregivers to Rhythm Chants in Duple and Triple Meters.” PhD diss., Temple University. Reynolds, A. M. 2006. “Vocal Interactions During Informal Early Childhood Music Classes.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 168: 35–49. Reynolds, A. M. 2012. “General Music Teachers Talk Professional Development: Kindling the Spark, Fanning the Flame, and Keeping an Eye on the Fire.” In Narrative Soundings: An Anthology of Narrative Inquiry in Music Education, edited by M. Barrett and S. Stauffer, 275–86. Dordrecht: Springer. Reynolds, A. M., J. Cancemi, C. Weston, B. Folliett Children . . . at the Early Learning Center, Yokohama International School. 2012. “Musical Moments in a Reggio-Inspired Preschool.” Paper Presentation, Yokohama International School, Yokohama, Japan, April 27. Reynolds, A. M., K. R. Filsinger, K. Chayot, and K. Goldenberg. 2012. “Co-Constructing Music-Rich Environments.” Research-Based Workshop Presentation at the Early Childhood Education Commission Conference, International Society for Music Education, Corfu, Greece, July 9–13. Reynolds, A. M., and K. Hyun. 2004. “Understanding Music Aptitude: Teachers’ Interpretations.” Research Studies in Music Education 23: 18–31. Reynolds, A. M., A. Jerome, A. L. Preston, and H. O. Haynes. 2005. “Service-Learning in Music Education: Participants’ Reflections.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 165: 79–91. Reynolds, A. M., S. Long, and W. H. Valerio. 2007. “Language Acquisition and Music Acquisition: Possible Parallels.” In Listen to Their Voices, Research to Practice: A Biennial Series, vol. 3, edited by L. R. Bartel (series ed.) and K. Smithrim and R. Upitis (vol. eds.), 211–27. Waterloo, ON: Canadian Music Educators Association. “Salty Saint of Budapest.” 1966. Time 88 (9): 41. Schonauer, A. L. M. 2002. “Teaching at the Foundation: Role Development and Identification among Elementary General Music Teachers.” PhD diss., University of Oklahoma. Scott, L. P., J. A. Jellison, E. W. Chappell, and A. A. Standridge. 2007. “Talking with Music Teachers about Inclusion: Perceptions, Opinions and Experiences.” Journal of Music Therapy 44 (1): 38–56.

360   alison m. reynolds Scott-Kassner, C. (1992). “Research on music in early childhood.” In Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell, 633–50. New York: Schirmer Books. Shelley, S. 1981. “Investigating the Musical Capabilities of Young Children.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 68: 26–34. Sims, W., and D. B. Udtaisuk. 2008. “Music’s Representation in Parenting Magazines: A Content Analysis.” UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education 26 (2): 17–26. Smith, A. 2011. “The Incorporation Of Principles of the Reggio Emilia Approach in a North American Preschool Music Curriculum.” In Learning from Young Children: Research in Early Childhood Music, edited by S. L. Burton and C. C. Taggart, 79–93. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Soto, L. D., and B. B. Swadener, eds. 2005. Power and Voice in Research with Children. New York: Peter Lang. Spodek, B., and O. N. Saracho, eds. 1998. “Introduction: Reflections on the Past.” In Yearbook in Early Childhood Education, vol. 8: Issues in Early Childhood Educational Research, edited by B. Spodek, O. N. Saracho, and A. D. Pellegrini, vii–xiii. New York: Teachers College Press. Spodek, B., and O. N. Saracho, eds. 2005. International Perspectives on Research in Early Childhood Education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Spodek, B., O. N. Saracho, and A. D. Pellegrini, eds. 1998. Issues in Early Childhood Educational Research. New York: Teachers College Press. Super C. M., and S. Harkness. 2002. “Culture Structures the Environment for Development.” Human Development 45 (4): 270–74. Taggart, C. C., J. Alvarez, and K. Schubert. 2011. “The Role of Early Childhood Music Class Participation in the Development of Four Children with Speech and Language Delay.” In Learning from Young Children: Research in Early Childhood Music, edited by S. L. Burton and C. C. Taggart, 245–58. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Thomas, R. B., ed. 1970. Manhattanville Music Curriculum Program. (OE-HEW Final ReNo. 6-1999), ED 045865. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Thorne, B. 1993. Gender Play:  Girls and Boys in School. New Brunswick, NJ:  Rutgers University Press. Tisdall, E. K. M., J. M. Davis, and M. Gallagher. 2009. Researching with Children and Young People: Research Design, Methods and Analysis. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Valerio, W. H. 2009. “From the Teacher’s View:  Observations of Toddlers’ Musical Development.” In Musical Experiences in Our Lives:  Things We Learn and Meanings We Make, edited by J. L. Kerchner and C. R. Abril, 39–58. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Valerio, W. H., and N. K. Freeman. 2009. “Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of Early Childhood Music Teaching Experiences.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 181: 51–69. Valerio, W. H., M. A. Seaman, C. C. Yap, P. Santucci, and M. Tu. 2006. “Vocal Evidence of Toddler Music Syntax Acquisition: A Case Study.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 170: 33–45. Valerio, W. H., A. Sy, H. Gruber, and C. G. Stockman. 2011. Examining Music Experiences with Anthony, a Child Who Has Autism. In Learning from Young Children: Research in Early Childhood Music, edited by S. L. Burton and C. C. Taggart, 259–81. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Walker, L. M. 1991. “Historical Overview of the Early Childhood Special Research Interest Group (SRIG).” Music in Early Childhood: A Research Journal for the Early Childhood Special Research Interest Group 1 (1): 1–2.

Early Childhood Music Education  361 Walker, L. N. 2009. “Stories from the Front.” In Narrative Inquiry in Music Education: Troubling Certainty, edited by M. S. Barrett and S. L. Stauffer, 179–94. Springer. Walsh, D. J., N. Bakir, T. B. Lee, Y-H. Chung, K. Chung, and Colleagues: H. Campuzano, Y-T. Chen, Y. Kedem, W. Liu, Y. Ozturk, S. Sung, A. Tufekci, and N. Waight. 2007. “Using Digital Video in Field-Based Research with Children: A Primer.” In Early Childhood Qualitative Research, edited by J. A. Hatch, 43–62. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. Wilson, B. 1981. “Implications of the Pillsbury Foundation School of Santa Barbara in Perspective.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 68: 13–25. Wolcott, H. F. 1972. “The Teacher as Enemy.” Practical Anthropology 19 (5): 226–30. Yang, I. Y. 1990. “The Influence of Music Instruction on Two-Year-Old Children’s Responses to Unfamiliar Music Stimuli.” PhD diss., the University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music. Zimmerman, J. R. 1983. “The Musical Experiences of Two Groups of Children in One Elementary School: An Ethnographic Study.” PhD diss., The Ohio State University. Zimmerman, M. P. 1971/2011. “Musical Characteristics of Children.” Visions of Research in Music Education, 17. Retrieved from http://www--usr.rider.edu/vrme~/. Zimmerman, M. P. 1984. “State of the Art in Early Childhood Music and Research.” In The Young Child and Music: Contemporary Principles in Child Development and Music Education, edited by J. Boswell, 65–78. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.

Chapter 20

Qua litative Re se a rc h i n Ge neral M u sic E du c at i on ann marie stanley

In 1979, then president of the Music Educators National Conference James Mason issued a statement calling for the formation of a National Council for Elementary General Music within MENC.1 He wrote: Persons working in the elementary general music area provide the basic foundations upon which a musically and culturally sensitive citizenry is developed. Many within our profession feel that such a base in music education must be systematically planned for, supported in its development, and carefully evaluated. (Kenney 2010, 12)

General music is arguably the most diverse, inclusive component of music education in the United States. The “heart of the school music program” (Hoffman 1981) general music is indeed general, or not confined to any particular specialization, and foundational, meaning a thorough, comprehensive general music education is a crucial building block for other types of musical endeavors. General music, especially in elementary school, is perhaps the only segment of a typical music education curriculum offered to all children and may reach the largest number of students. No auditions, private lessons, or instrument purchases are required; as Hoffman (1981) wrote: “We don’t screen children out of a program because they are not the best. We are the single most democratic part of music education because we say it’s for everybody” (42). Because general music is the way music education provides foundational musical knowledge for an entire population, its importance warrants a careful, research-based approach to curriculum planning and evaluation. To that end, researchers have consistently sought new and more effective ways to investigate general music teaching and learning. In 1991, Atterbury criticized the lack of research basis evident in the general music textbooks and curriculum documents. She suggested researchers could make maximum impact on teaching practice by studying how and when to teach musical concepts,

General Music Education  363 singing techniques, rhythm syllables, and listening. She advocated attention to student assessment, and criticized the lack of research on various methodologies. Atterbury also criticized researchers’ over-reliance on student reading, writing and motor skills in participant response methods, especially in the early grades. She faulted researchers’ tendencies to ignore variables and include inadequate numbers of subjects, as well as their failure to allow enough time for their interventions to make a difference. While Atterbury’s article was an effective reminder that general music practice should be research-based, she took a decidedly positivist stance, asking for attention to control of all variables, the need for replication, and external validity in general music research. In contrast, Boardman (1990) asked for a global change in the way researchers approached general music education. She advocated for research that would go beyond specifics of method and techniques. She cited a shortfall in research on why there was such a pervasive gap between the stated goals of general music education and related student musical achievement: Studies dealing with specific aspects of general music would seem to offer great potential, yet it will be essentially impossible to implement their results in a way that will significantly change the profile of general music from what it is today until we understand why there is such a chasm between ideal and real (8).

Boardman asked for “sophisticated research techniques . . . holistic in intent and design,” versus the prevailing “reductionist research strategies” (14). Qualitative researchers have played an important part in answering Boardman’s call for more sophisticated, holistic depictions of general music. Researchers’ diverse methodological approaches—paired with increased attention to the complex diversity of general music classroom activities—have in the last quarter century resulted in a more complete understanding of music teaching and learning in general music. The studies reviewed in this chapter represent an attempt at an inclusive view of how general music curricula intersect with teaching practice, the learning environment, and the developmental level, desires, and propensities of students.

20.1 Organization of Chapter and Definition of General Music In this chapter I first select representative research to illustrate ways qualitative researchers have examined music teaching and learning within the panorama of typical elementary general music classroom activities. One choice researchers have made is between the insider and outsider viewpoints: the authors of studies reviewed here often straddled the emic and etic perspectives. I divide section 2 according to the positioning and identity of the researcher vis-à-vis the researched phenomenon. The groups are arranged

364   ann marie stanley depending on whether the research involved (a) outsider observers studying students; (b)  outsider observers studying teaching practice; (c)  insider/outsiders, defined as teachers studying students; and (d) insiders: teachers studying their own students. I contrast the studies in the first part of section 2 with those in which researchers have examined musical behaviors out of the classroom, in order to focus on the nature of student learning without the need to account for classroom unpredictability. These studies fall into two groups: those that present (a) an outsider perspective, outside the classroom or (b) an insider-outsider hybrid viewpoint. In section 3, I include research on the general music teacher, in terms of her unique working conditions and needs. I summarize selected research on teachers’ general music content knowledge and teaching practice, including a brief discussion on the interesting phenomenon of teachers studying teaching practice and how some of these music education researchers (experienced teachers themselves) dealt with their preconceived notions or value judgments about teaching practice. In sections 4 and 5, I  further deconstruct methodological and epistemological considerations. To bridge Boardman’s chasm between “ideal and real,” researchers have chosen particular stances along the etic-emic perspective continuum, depending on the research questions and the specific general music phenomenon being studied. The issue of researcher stance plays a complicated and important role in the interpretation of general qualitative research. It would be easy, but inaccurate, to assert that out-of-the-classroom studies performed by outsiders—or those adopting a removed, disinterested viewpoint—represent an “ideal” or pure look at children’s learning in general music tasks. Likewise, studies at the other end of the continuum are not automatically more “real,” even though teachers doing research in their own classrooms may make pedagogical decisions based on naturally emerging data from the authentic complexity of the classroom. Analysis techniques in these qualitative studies generally tend toward the personal, situated, and recursive as opposed to objective, impartial, and strictly sequenced. Each researcher in this chapter has chosen a balance between embracing classroom complexity and isolating individual student or teacher actions; these decisions are discussed at length in sections 4 and 5. In section 6, I make recommendations for future research given the issues unique to qualitative inquiry. First, some definitions and boundaries for this chapter: Boardman (1990) wrote, “General music will refer to those aspects of the total school music curriculum that focus on outcomes to be attained by all students . . . the primary objective of the general music class is not demonstration of accomplishment through public performance” (5). While public performances are not unusual in general music, typically general music is focused on music teaching and learning processes inside the classroom. At the elementary level, general music may be called, variously, “elementary general music,” “classroom music,” “vocal music,” “vocal-general.” In grades 6–12, these curricula are called “secondary general” and often encompass all other musical offerings not included under the broad umbrella of “ensembles” (e.g., music appreciation, composition classes, music technology). Due to space limitations, I  will

General Music Education  365 exclude many studies on children’s musical life outside of the general classroom (e.g., Harwood 1998; Lum and Campbell 2007), studies about music integration within general education (e.g., Bresler 1993, 1995, 1996; Miller 1996, 2003; Whitaker 1996), and studies on specific courses like technology or guitar (e.g., Ruthmann 2006; Tobias 2010).

20.2 The Panorama of Elementary General Music Activities: Seeking a “Slice of Life” Qualitative researchers have sought ways to delve deeply into the real world of the music classroom. By investigating the panoramic array of typical elementary general music activities and gathering data on music teaching and learning within these experiences, researchers have captured moments that illuminate the intrinsic nature of general music learning. Reese (1981) performed one of the first qualitative studies in general music. He wrote a cogent explanation for the need for his research methodology to encompass the entire classroom milieu: “Since [Reese’s] study was more concerned with developing a comprehensive understanding of a complex setting—with obtaining a ‘slice of life’—than with causal explanations of human behavior, it was important to preserve the naturalistic context to the maximum degree possible” (9). In this section, I look at ways various researchers have approached capturing Reese’s “slice of life” in general music. Studies are categorized according to the placement and orientation of the researcher. I also categorize the studies based on whether the research questions focused more on student or teacher actions and characteristics. Section 2.1: “Outside Observers Studying Students” and 2.2: “Outside Observers Studying Teaching Practice” concern those researchers who are not connected with the classroom or phenomenon under investigation. Section 2.3:  “Insider/ Outsider: Teachers Studying Students” concerns researchers who are intimately connected with—and are usually the teachers themselves of—the classroom or phenomenon under investigation but who wrote from a more neutral, detached perspective. Section 2.4: “Insiders: Teachers Studying Students” relates to teachers researching their own students and teaching settings; in several cases these researchers write about how the process of doing research affected their teaching decisions during the study itself. Section 2.5: “Outsider Perspective, Outside the Classroom” details studies performed by outsider researchers in laboratories or in other settings outside the classroom milieu. Section 2.6: “Insider-Outsider Hybrid” studies are those in which researchers chose methodologies that enabled views of general music teachers and activities both inside, and removed from, the classroom.

366   ann marie stanley

20.2.1 Outside Observers Studying Students DeLorenzo’s (1989) research was one of the first forays into naturalistic, non-laboratory settings of children’s musical creativity, including students’ classroom environment and social interaction. She sought to understand creative problem-solving and decision-making in sixth-grade general music classes in four different schools, by observing and analyzing classroom videotapes. DeLorenzo’s work was unique in that she examined not only individual students’ creative processes, but the context: the classroom and the teacher-directed activities. DeLorenzo maintained an outsider stance throughout; while she conducted some informal interviews with the students, she characterized student responses as “guarded” (193), indicating she probably did not have, nor seek, a personal relationship with student participants. Holdridge used the word naturalistic in the title of her 1991 dissertation “Music in Our Lives:  A  Naturalistic Study of Three High School General Music Classes.” Like DeLorenzo, Holdridge relied on outsider observations and teacher interviews as she examined implementation of a general music curriculum in New  York. Holdridge observed classrooms for a year and collected data on classroom aspects such as student ability and interest, the learning climate in the school, and student-teacher respect. Like Holdridge (1991), Wayman (2004) took an outsider’s look at secondary general music, but put the spotlight on student voice in her study. She interviewed three middle school general music students for 60 minutes each about their attitudes toward music education, general music class, and the importance of music in their lives. She did not know the participants before her study and selected them based on their teacher-perceived ability to speak compellingly about their experiences. Claire (1993–94) investigated how social interactions influence student creativity. She observed three fifth-grade classes in different elementary schools, and wrote about the need for researchers to attend to all elements of classroom functionality when studying student work: “It would be a great folly to disregard the interactive complexity inherent in classroom life when attempting to gain an understanding of learning environments conducive to creative activity in any discipline” (26). Kaschub (1997) also investigated group processes in her study of a high school choir and sixth-grade general music class. Both groups, led by professional composers, collaboratively composed pieces. Kaschub wrote she had few models to guide her in documenting group interaction in the classroom: “Further research is needed to address group learning in music settings. Only a handful of studies examine how students work together in group composition projects or examine the role of the individual in collaborative processes” (26).

20.2.2 Outsider Observers Studying Teaching Practice Brummett’s 1993 dissertation investigated two teachers’ use of a process-oriented assessment framework in sixth-grade general music. Brummett’s research perspective was etic; her data were derived from interviews, field notes, classroom observations, and

General Music Education  367 school district documents. She also studied the classroom context to understand teachers’ assessment practice within actual music classroom activity. Three researchers in this chapter used case study methodology to examine the intersection of teaching practice and student learning. Miranda (2004) took an outside observer view in a multiple case study of aspects of developmentally appropriate teaching practice (DAP) by three kindergarten music teachers. Data included 90 videotaped observations, field notes, interviews, and classroom artifacts. Individual lapel microphones worn by two children in each class recorded certain students’ talk during free time. Miranda sought feedback on her analysis from knowledgeable outside reviewers: their questions helped confirm or disconfirm her initial findings. Kelly-McHale (2011) examined how an elementary general music teacher’s practices and beliefs influenced the musical identity of four immigrant students. Kelly-McHale looked at students’ interaction with their teacher’s curriculum:  students became fluent in notation, singing, and playing instruments, but the teacher’s practice lacked cultural responsiveness that could have helped the children integrate their musical- and self-identities. Kelly-McHale used observation and interview data but set a boundary based on maintaining an etic perspective: “I felt that if I became a part of the music classroom as a participant-observer, my role as researcher would become biased because my identity as a music teacher would begin to influence how I viewed the actions and reactions in the music classroom. Based on these insights, I did not feel that it was professionally or ethically advisable for me to position myself as another teacher in the music classroom” (136). Salvador (2011) likewise collected “naturalistic observation” data about three elementary music teachers’ assessment practices by observing those teachers instructing selected music classes for one- to two-month periods. In her collective case-study dissertation, Salvador wrote, “I attempted to be as unobtrusive as possible in order to have the least impact, but I recognized that my presence in the classroom had the potential to change the classroom climate” (72.) So while Salvador does not further interrogate her etic perspective by pursuing the idea of whether her presence did in fact change the atmosphere of the research site, she does elsewhere in her dissertation write thoughtfully about her own personal background as vocalist, music teacher, music therapist, and assessment scholar, in an effort to help the reader understand that her own history helped her interpret the data and findings meaningfully and sympathetically.

20.2.3 Insider/Outsider: Teachers Studying Students The three studies in this section are characterized by researchers’ attempt to examine phenomena within their own classrooms (as insiders) yet simultaneously maintain a distance from the study (as outsiders). Emmons (1998) shifted between teacher/ researcher roles in a multiple case study examining the compositional process of five of his own seventh-grade general music students. Emmons-as-researcher collected data in the forms of open-ended interviews with students, parents, and classroom teachers, transcribed lesson videotapes, and artifacts. Expert observers provided a viewpoint yet

368   ann marie stanley another step removed: two other general music teachers had access to all the data and commented on Emmon’s analysis. Emmons also collected insider data in the form of his own teacher and student journals—the latter documenting student voice through their reflections on the composition lessons—and his notes on his in-the-moment decisions. He also asked students to watch videotape of their own composition and comment on their ideas and process. Emmons noted his instruction throughout the study had an observable effect on student composition, especially in “students making creative decisions in order to please the teacher . . . they were conscientious students” (170). This is similar to effects mentioned by Perconti (1996) and Gromko (1996), written about in this chapter’s Sections 2.4 and 2.5. In a study of her own fourth- and fifth-grade students’ expressive movement to music, Ferguson (2004) took a hands-off approach to data collection, a tactic which she wrote made her role as teacher-as-researcher difficult. The students did not work at their highest developmental level—nor did they emulate their most highly skilled peers—when she moved into an observational, less instructional role. She also repeatedly negotiated the research space between studying individual students and their interactions with peers; in data analysis she alternated between the larger perspective of analyzing videotape of entire classes over long periods and a more microanalytic view of individual and small groups. This recursive process of analysis is a hallmark of qualitative general music research. In this case, the back-and-forth between narrow and wide foci broadened Ferguson’s understanding of movement in general music. Looking at certain students’ movements increased her awareness of elements she needed to look for in the entire group: “This study began with questions about individual listeners in relation to a classroom context but as the study progressed, the questions about individual learners seemed impossible to answer without first studying classroom groups” (84). Hamilton (1999) shadowed six children in their normal routine of student composition, interaction, and musical play in three sixth-grade music classrooms. She wrote: “I was curious about what and how my students were learning in the context of the classroom as I taught it. I was not satisfied that looking at the products of their work gave me the kind of insight I was seeking” (261). Hamilton let the data collection unfold as naturally as she could and avoided letting the study affect her pedagogical decisions: “After I completed data collection and analysis I examined my teaching practice and let the results of the research inform my future teaching” (63, emphasis added). However, Hamilton wrote that researchers working in their own classrooms could use the results of data collection right away to affect their teaching practice, a process she referred to as “closing the teacher-researcher loop.” Next, I describe studies that do close that loop. In studies reviewed in the following section, researchers used data to immediately inform pedagogy.

20.2.4 Insiders: Teachers Studying Students In contrast to the above researchers’ removed stances as the observant other, Wiggins (1993, 1994, 1994/1995, 1995, 1999/2000) completely embraced the insider viewpoint

General Music Education  369 in papers she published about research in her own general music classroom. She asserted: “As a profession we must begin to look at more than discrete activities in a laboratory setting in order to develop effective music education practice” (Wiggins 1995, 72). For studies published in 1993,1994, and 1994/1995, Wiggins collected five months worth of videotape, audiotape, field notes, interviews and artifacts from everyday happenings in her music classroom. She wrote that observing the situation from her vantage point as teacher and involved participant gave her a different view of the data, a slant which she could not definitively characterize as positive or negative. She wrote, “my intense involvement in the situation may have made it difficult to see what needed to be seen . . . that same close involvement may have made it possible to see more than an outsider might have seen” (1994/1995, 32). Wiggins continued to explore insider immersion through qualitative research in her own classroom. Her studies are pioneering efforts to account for the role of classroom interactions between learner, peers, and teacher, as students work to gain musical understanding. Wiggins drew a sharp contrast between the situated perspective of her research and that which preceded: The studies on which these [prior] theories [of musical understanding] are based have been conducted under laboratory conditions . . . In looking at learners’ interaction with music, it is important to also consider the potential impact of interaction with other people on an individual’s musical learning. In music education, the influences of such interaction on musical learning has only begun to be investigated. (Wiggins 1994, 233)

Wiggins also explored the idea of shadowing, or tape-recording with lapel microphones, the verbal and musical statements of one or two children throughout their experience in music class. To study collaboratively how teacher expertise and student learning interact, Wiggins and Bodoin (1998) examined multiple audio- and video-tapes of typical activities in Bodoin’s second-grade music classroom. To provide an observer’s view, a stationary camera was used to videotape nine class periods over four months. To generate data about how the typical student in her class might learn, Bodoin had two students wear lapel microphones and carry mini-tape recorders. The researchers sought a multidimensional understanding through documenting researcher, student, and teacher perspectives; Bodoin as teacher-researcher wrote that the 18-month collaborative data analysis provided her an in-depth opportunity to examine her own practice. In some of her studies, Wiggins acknowledged that the line between teacher-researcher roles grew faint: in fact, her actions as researcher were similar to what she habitually did as a teacher. She wrote that during the five-month study (1993,1994), she re-evaluated children’s needs and developed lessons in the moment. However, in Wiggins’ (1999/2000) in-depth look at six representative instances of elementary general music students’ interactions within group improvisation or composition, she was able to darken the teacher-researcher boundary. In this study, she took a macro-look back at video- and audio-taped evidence of student musical creative processes from five

370   ann marie stanley of her previous studies, three of her graduate students’ research projects, and over 600 sample creative projects collected in her own classrooms. Like Wiggins, Perconti (1996) also made a multi-year study of the processes of composition and active learning in her general music classes. She wrote, “qualitative inquiry allowed the study to take place in the natural setting where the interrelationship between classroom opportunities and student progress as well as the process and meaning of composing in the early elementary general classroom could be investigated” (44). Perconti also attended to the representation of the students’ voice in her study. She periodically asked students to reflect in writing to questions like “What did you learn in music class today?” She collected 190 reflections to analyze participants’ views. Perconti freely admitted how her questions, assistance, and prompting altered and affected student composition and student work, which in turn affected her teaching. Student voice and the sense of the real classroom atmosphere resonate strongly throughout Greher’s (2002) study. She examined the creation and use of music listening software intended to capture the interest of inner-city middle school general music students in three classes. While she was not the formal teacher for these classes, she took on teaching responsibilities for several months to instruct and guide the students’ use of the software. She was participant-observer in this study and actively sought formal and informal input from the student participants in the creation, revision, and use of the software. Student viewpoint vis-à-vis teacher-researcher questioning is also a salient feature of Beegle’s (2010) classroom-based study. Beegle examined student interactions within small-group improvisation in her weekly general music classes. Over three months, teacher-researcher Beegle focused on students’ musical and social roles in four-student “focus groups” (222) engaged in constructivist learning tasks. Like other researchers in this chapter, Beegle collected data in the form of audio- and video-taped observations, her own reflections and field notes, and questionnaires. However, Beegle also garnered the children’s viewpoint through individual and small-group interviews. As students watched video excerpts of their group improvisations, she asked broad, probing questions such as, “ ‘Do you have anything you want to tell me about that performance?’ and ‘What were you thinking about as you were performing?’ ” (222). Miller (2004) wrote about practical considerations of designing developmentally appropriate compositional tasks for her own elementary general music students’ “wide intellectual and emotional diversity” (61). Calling her work “naturalistic action research,” Miller engaged in a cycle of planning lessons, evaluating the resultant student work (alone and with colleagues), and then re-teaching similar lessons to numerous classes. Miller called the project “ongoing” and representative of her “continued professional growth” (62): maintaining an orientation toward research as useful for the reflective practitioner seeking feedback on the success of her own classroom initiatives. While Miller writes about her research from a “contextualized . . . personal” stance (67), she also reminds readers that her teaching situation is so similar to many general music teachers’ settings that these developmentally appropriate compositional activities—shaped through many cycles of teaching, observation, and reflection in one classroom—likely would have wide applicability.

General Music Education  371 Like Miller, Strand (2005) studied a cycle of developing, field-testing, and evaluating her own curriculum, intended to promote transfer of conceptual learning in listening and performing lessons to composing. She sought to “examine a theory-based curriculum in a real classroom” (33). While Strand studied this curriculum in a somewhat atypical setting—eight students between ages 9–12 attended music class together for 32 hours one summer—she nonetheless completed four, four-step cycles of planning, teaching, observing results, and reflecting on results: a reasonable replication of what a general music teacher would do in the school year. Her data collection methods were similar to Emmons (1998) in that she created a balance between obtaining data available only to the teacher insider (her own daily field notes and reflections), as well as that observable by expert outsiders (compositional artifacts and videos). Interestingly, Strand wrote about “tempering” (20) her analysis during reflection and planning by using the input of two expert observers and a third person who independently analyzed the coding of the transcript data. Strand wrote she sometimes disagreed and debated instructional strategies with each of the three; these outsiders had a distinct impact on Strand’s implementation of her own curriculum. She wrote: “I adopted a revision to instruction only after I and the expert observers agreed that the revision would change instruction for the better” (20). Strand eventually found evidence for the theory of learning transfer, and wrote about ways teachers might enhance learning based on transferral of deep concepts.

20.2.5 Outsider Perspective, Outside the Classroom In her dissertation, Barrett (1990) used a structured interview/task setting outside the classroom for her study of fourth-grade students’ mental processes and strategies for melody recall and reproduction. She stated that studying students’ musical explorations had the possibility to yield rich data, but that at the time of her study, “few models for this qualitative view of cognitive phenomena in music were available” (199). To help future researchers, Barrett wrote about several methodological strategies to manage the quantity and depth of data associated with qualitative inquiry. She suggested using a small sample size in order to pursue longer, more detailed interviews or observations. She also recommended techniques to aid in data analysis, such as recording time markers within interviews, and using software to easily record students’ musical maneuvering. Gromko (1996) published a study of young children’s compositions and musical manipulations. Five children, ages six to nine, worked with Gromko in individual interviews in her office. Gromko’s study did not utilize the “natural setting” of Perconti’s (1996); however, like Perconti, Gromko took care to collect data on the individual experience of each student as they worked one-on-one with her to compose. Gromko pointed out one disadvantage of the side-by-side-with-researcher compositional work: the language used to shape student ideas was too often affected by researcher inquiries: “my questions often led them where they would otherwise not have gone” (49). Younker (2000) examined the musical thought processes and patterns of 8-, 11-, and 14-year-olds in compositional decision-making. In decisions congruent with Barrett’s

372   ann marie stanley (1990) suggestions, she used a small sample size (nine) in composing/interview sessions, and used music software to capture the students’ musical experimentation. She studied the students’ verbal responses in a “think-aloud” setting while composing, to distinguish age-specific thought processes and to identify any developmental patterns that might emerge. Because Younker was able to closely interact with her few participants outside the classroom, she was able to observe them in a detailed, almost microscopic way as they made manifest their musical thinking. In an example of how an outside-of-school environment provided richer answers to certain research questions than a classroom-based methodology could have, Stauffer (2002) researched sixth-graders’ musical compositions. Building on her earlier study of the creativity of one student in a computer laboratory (Stauffer 2001), Stauffer used the same setting for this work. Six students came weekly to after-school computer music sessions at the university music education computer lab. These students were “faithful participants” (304) for nearly three years in this after-school computer music experience. Stauffer (2002) wanted to study the connection between students’ musical and life experiences and their compositions. In order to garner the purest look at student composition and to trace influences between their “real life” and their compositions in the most uncomplicated way possible, Stauffer used a “non-intervention protocol” (303). She provided no compositional instruction and assigned no tasks. Stauffer found that socio-cultural context was influential on student composition: students composed music they liked, in response to inspiration from wide swaths of their life. It is likely that Stauffer’s ability to trace these influences would have been sharply limited had students been composing in the classroom and undoubtedly would have been affected by the immediate influence of peers and teachers. However, Stauffer said her unfettered-by-teaching methodology hindered the ability of two students to express themselves compositionally: their lack of experience in “musical ways of thinking” (318) may have inhibited their work.

20.2.6 Insider-Outsider Hybrid Another way to examine general music has been to blend both the insider and outsider approaches. Kerchner (2000) used an innovative hybrid methodology for a study of her own second- and fifth-grade music students’ listening processes. This methodology enabled her to effectively use classroom elements and a more individual, focused look at students performing musical tasks outside the classroom. She conducted individual listening tasks/interviews outside the classroom milieu, yet in a way that was familiar to students. The tasks were similar to regular class activities, and the person prompting them was Kerchner, their regular music teacher: “I considered it important that the students felt comfortable in performing the music listening tasks in the presence of a familiar person” (34). In “a familiar educational setting for both the researcher and participants” (34), students provided multisensory responses to express their perceptions of musical examples in two individual sessions with Kerchner. In an additional, seamless bridging between research and the classroom, Kerchner wrote that these opportunities, for students to reflect on listening

General Music Education  373 and learning in multiple ways, were not rarefied laboratory-style actions: they could easily be reproduced within the classroom. She also wrote about the value of general music teachers using “research skills”—interviewing and questioning—in practice: “Asking children to tell their story about their music experiences . . . can be quite revealing. Yet, I found that children only provided rich answers to well-constructed questions. The amount of information that I received was often the reflection of the quality of the question that I posed” (48). Bartolome (2009) studied the practice strategies of successful beginning recorder students. The teacher-researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with her third-grade recorder students about their self-regulation of practice. Like Kerchner’s, Bartolome’s study is unique in its attention to participant voice and the resultant clarity of the nine-year-olds’ explanations of their practicing, due to Bartolome’s practice of re-stating responses for confirmation and asking probing, clarifying questions of her participants. Like Bartolome, I  sought a hybridized insider-outsider perspective in my own research. Stanley (2009, 2012) is a hybrid in two ways: 1) The social constructivist methodology enabled all participants and the researcher to adopt insider and outsider viewpoints at various times; and 2) the study was a look at student and teacher learning. I formed and facilitated a collaborative teacher study group (CTSG) which met seven times to discuss elementary music student collaboration by analyzing video from each participant’s classroom. The three elementary music teacher members of the CTSG toggled between insider and outsider, depending if they were analyzing the teaching practice and student learning in video from their own classroom or from that of the other participants. Using a discussion protocol helped orient the participants’ discussion toward either viewpoint. The group was able to summarize the role of collaboration in student general music learning in three principles of collaboration. I investigated teacher learning, as well as changes in my own perceptions of student musical collaboration, by tracing the evolution of the teachers’ viewpoints within statements they made in the group meetings and individually. One of my most important findings was that the process of learning together in a group combated isolation often felt by general music teachers. The following section begins with the work of selected researchers who also sought to understand the isolation and need for support often inherent in the general music teacher’s job. I then write about research on teacher learning and teacher knowledge.

20.3  Research on the General Music Teacher In this section I write about how researchers have investigated general music teachers’ unique working conditions, particular pedagogical content knowledge and ways of teaching, and ways in which researchers have written about bias toward certain types or styles of teaching during studies.

374   ann marie stanley

20.3.1  General Music Teachers’ Need for Support Robbins (1994/1995) studied the formation of a general music teacher network for support in implementing new concepts from an Orff-Schulwerk teacher training course. She wrote: “For music teachers, talking together is a rare and unfamiliar event that they simultaneously fear and crave” (48), and in her group of teachers (dubbed OrffSPIEL) she combated isolation and established conversation through common goals of inquiry and reflection. Using journals and meeting transcripts to examine the OrffSPIEL experience, Robbins found participants considered the experience empowering and validating. I (2011, 2012) drew upon Robbins’ work in examining how collaborative teacher study groups (CTSGs) can support elementary general music teachers in increasing their confidence, expertise, and disposition toward reflection. Several researchers have characterized the work of general music teachers as isolated. By virtue of often being the only music teacher at their site, many general music teachers lack access to collegial support or the wisdom of other general music teachers. Tagg (1997) and Morrissey (2004) commented on isolation and marginalization as well as issues of elementary music teacher burnout, scheduling, and vocal health in their single case studies of elementary vocal music teachers.

20.3.2 Teacher Knowledge A group of researchers have examined qualitatively how a general music teacher organizes and uses her knowledge of music and teaching. Duling (1992) studied two exemplary secondary general music teachers to determine factors contributing to their acquisition of “pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)” (Shulman 1987, cited in Duling 1992, 5). Through interviews, observations, examining lesson plans, and by asking questions while viewing video of participants’ teaching with them (stimulated recall), Duling created a detailed image of not only how these teachers acquired and used PCK, but of the teachers’ classrooms and teaching styles: knowledgeable, organized, and enthusiastic, yet serious. Alig (1992) investigated how six general music teachers used knowledge and skill to develop into national leaders in general music education. In his multiple case study, Alig was able to use interview data to connect events in participants’ lives with their growth in leadership. Both Duling and Alig treated participants as portrait subjects, and the “voice and vitality” of each participant (Alig 1992, 173) was strongly present. Eshelman (1995) examined the beliefs, practices, and types of knowledge of four exemplary general music teachers through interviews, videotaped observations, and field notes. Eshelman documented and illustrated the relationship between content and pedagogical instructional knowledge and how these components related to Elliott’s (1995) model categories of music teacher knowledge. Eshelman created the Model of Exemplary Elementary Teachers’ Instructional Knowledge, which included interwoven examples from these teachers’ everyday lives in the classroom.

General Music Education  375 Like Eshelman, Anderson-Nickel (1997) sought to identify different types of teacher expertise but emphasized how musical and pedagogical knowledge places teachers on a novice-expert continuum. Like Duling, Anderson-Nickel used data collection methods of videotaping classes and stimulated recall, and interviews focused on reflective responses. Anderson-Nickel connected teaching practice with level of expertise and found the relationship paralleled prior researchers’ findings about the continuum of expertise. Expert teachers employed reflective self-awareness, smoother routines, and more efficient use of information in the moment. Delaney (2011) analyzed the content of teachers’ commentary on video of music classrooms. She used stimulated recall in individual interviews, during which teachers viewed three of their own videos, stopping freely to discuss aspects of teaching practice. Teachers also viewed one video of another teacher outside the study. Delaney found the process motivated reflective conversation about the art of teaching. Several researchers have found the storytelling capabilities of narrative inquiry methodology helpful in drawing rich pictures of music teacher life. Niebur (1997) used narrative inquiry (based on ethnographic techniques of observations, teacher shadowing, group meetings with the participants, and interviews) to write colorful stories about four general music teachers and how they assess students. Lemons (1998) also used narrative inquiry based on researcher observation and participant interviews while watching videos of their own teaching, to study how teacher knowledge is affected by teachers’ history, perceptions, assumptions, and previous experience.

20.3.3 Teachers Studying Teachers When researchers knowledgeable about general music observe general music teaching, they choose to handle their preconceived notions and beliefs in different ways. Lemons (1994/1995) wrote about how her subjectivity underwent a “process of taming” (58) to move past her prior beliefs about teacher quality. On the other hand, Chen (2000) embraced her subjectivity in a stance as “researcher-as-instrument” (39) when she studied one exemplary teacher’s reflective practice and constructivist elementary general music classroom. Chen’s prolonged presence in the classroom for interviews led her eventually to interacting with specific students, assisting the teacher, and answering student questions. Her “personal perspectives and perception inevitably influenced the construction and re-construction of this teacher’s lived experience” (Chen 2000, 35). McDonald (2001) examined the value of guided critical reflection with peers on the topic of classroom management in general music. In a collective case study, McDonald analyzed results of her “Creating Positive Discipline and Management” (35) workshops with 100-plus teachers over several years. McDonald wrote about the influence of the workshop on the participants’ practice, and how her presence affected the findings: teachers enrolled in these workshops to seek help with classroom management and then formed a relationship with the classroom management expert who was also the researcher. Like Stanley (2009, 2012)  and Robbins (1994/1995), McDonald was

376   ann marie stanley concerned about teachers’ lack of supportive networks in their own school sites: “participants may have left the workshop having received personal attention and constructive suggestions . . . yet will not be offered further opportunities for dialogue or critical reflection about their concerns at their school settings” (44)

20.4 Discussion of Researcher Perspectives The issue of “insider” versus “outsider” perspectives is a perdurable one in qualitative research, and a useful framework for a discussion of literature reviewed in this chapter. Each researcher cited here has written about his or her rationale for choosing a certain etic or emic vantage point from which to scrutinize the phenomenon under study; in the following section I offer commentary on the epistemological implications of such choices.

20.4.1 A Slice from the Outside, A Slice from the Inside Some authors in this chapter presented the “slice of life” from a distance. For them, this removal may enhance objectivity and perhaps result in more truthful, accurate findings. Even researchers who took great care to place themselves at a significant distance from their participants often chose to confirm findings with outside auditors, seeking a once-removed and ostensibly less subjective “other” to evaluate the researchers’ conclusions. However, not being a member of a community, school, or classroom is not a guarantee of objectivity. Being outside a situation does not automatically mean one is not still intimately acquainted with it. Most of the authors in this chapter had a background in general music teaching before they became researchers on general music, and many understandably were curious about and sought to examine research questions in situations that bore close resemblance to former teaching assignments. This deep, empathetic understanding of the field of general music precludes true outsider-ness. For example, Kelly-McHale (2011) wrote about her struggle to honestly situate herself as an outside “observer,” given that she herself was a veteran general music teacher who 1) taught in the same district as the participant teacher she was studying, and 2) had years of experience using the same methodology—Kodály—with comparable student populations. Kelly-McHale chose to make her inner conflict as transparent as possible by writing extensive autobiographical notes along with her data analysis: [M]‌y experience in this closely related setting could potentially influence my descriptions and data analysis based on a tendency to evaluate the teacher’s instructional

General Music Education  377 delivery or the performance of the students. I became aware of the need to continuously reflect on my experience as a general music teacher in order to interrogate my analysis of the data as it emerged. I engaged in several conversations with my advisor that helped me recognize when I was allowing my personal feelings to drive assumptions and to ensure that I was allowing the data to speak for itself. I also kept autobiographical notes to better understand the role that my feelings and actions played in the research setting. (142)

Objectivity was not the goal of some researchers discussed in this chapter who took the outsider viewpoint. For example, I chose a hybrid stance of omniscient observer, facilitator, and group member in my research. My observer role was not adopted to seek objectivity, but rather, to provide knowledgeable commentary on our group’s interactions from one more perspective. I wrote, “there is no superior vantage point from which to survey the intrinsic beliefs, perceptions, and learning of an individual or a community, I knew that my roles . . . would privilege me to understand what happened in our meetings, or as a result of our meetings” (Stanley 2009, 4). Other authors mentioned in this chapter took on the ultimate insider role, by examining their own work in their own classrooms. However, being closely involved in a situation does not guarantee a full understanding of all elements within, nor is that understanding necessarily deeper than what an outside researcher could obtain. Consider Wiggins, who wrote: “Despite my active role both in interacting with the children and in determining the environment for the study, my view as teacher-researcher was still really that of an outsider. Although I was not an outsider to the situation, I had no choice but to be an outsider to the children’s thought processes” (1994, 236–237). And Beegle (2010) explained that although she was using the teacher-as-researcher paradigm in order to “provide insight that is difficult or impossible for a researcher from outside the classroom to obtain” (221) she thought that same insight, her prior knowledge of the students as their teacher, might even “jeopardize” her ability to understand exactly what the children meant to do. Therefore, she asked the students to confirm or dispute her conclusions. Hammersley (1993), writing about the insider-outsider continuum, recommended “a judicious combination of involvement and estrangement . . . no position, not even a marginal one, guarantees valid knowledge; and no position prevents it either.” (145). It appears that most researchers discussed in this chapter tried to combine both angles thoughtfully, albeit in varying proportions, and write clearly and convincingly about their choices.

20.4.2 Writing about Researcher Positioning “I now accept that I can use the insider/outsider situation to my advantage, if through a process of self-reflection, I understand who and what I am” (Richardson 2000, 929). The most important aspect of researcher positioning is how the author reflects on and comes to know her stance in the context of the study, and then how she explains it in her

378   ann marie stanley writing. Perhaps it is time to add more personal and less static, oppositional terms than “insider-outsider,” to our considerations of stance. In 2002, Labaree published a review of the literature analyzing the insider-outsider issue. He wrote, “Many contemporary researchers are focusing on their desire to look beyond this methodological dichotomy . . . This conceptualization of research creates a polarizing effect that undermines the ability of the researcher to move beyond understanding insiderness and outsiderness as an either/or proposition” (99,101). But even placing the stance on a continuum to avoid dichotomy is problematic. Hellawell (2006) wrote, “We are . . . not talking about one continuum but about a multiple series of parallel ones. There may be some elements of insiderness on some dimensions of your research and some elements of outsiderness on other dimensions” (490). What is important is the researcher’s ability to make measured decisions regarding her inside/outside stance(s) and parse these judgments for the reader in precise ways to better illuminate the researcher’s identity as situated within the particular project. See Tobias 2010 for a detailed discussion of researcher portrayed as the “least adult” presence, (118), someone who “credibly maintained ignorance as to what [participants] were doing” (119), and was therefore able to access insider data about students’ understanding of their own creative projects without inserting himself. Tobias also took effort to describe shifts between stances using one of three lenses: “monological, subjective, and dialogical” (119). The increased visibility of these processes and judgments within published research reports would be extremely valuable. However, inclusion of discussion related to these topics would require qualitative projects be given more space and words to do justice to the issues: certainly more than the one or two sentences about “researcher orientation” that have become boilerplate. Perhaps the insider-outsider notion could be reconceptualized as “researcher visibility-invisibility” within the text. The reader needs to know explicitly how and when the role of the researcher was made visible, or hidden, at points throughout the study. Researchers would benefit from more precise analysis and reflection about insider/outsider identities throughout all phases of the project—from proposal to the final report—rather than one decision made in the very beginning as just one of many methodological choices. These decisions should be given space in qualitative reports of research. For example, often reading a dissertation yields a more nuanced understanding of shifts in researcher stance than does the 20-page distillation of the study published in research journals (cf. Younker 1997, 2000; Miranda 2002, 2004). Younker (1997, 2000) called her study “descriptive” and transcribed carefully what her participants said and did while they composed. Because of this care, she did not choose to seek triangulation from an outside source, other than a short comparative analysis performed by her advisor. Younker (2000) wrote convincingly and in detail about what the students did and said while they composed; for her, it appears no more corroboration was necessary in her journalistic, storied view of participants’ compositional strategies. However, in her 1997 dissertation, Younker wrote about her need to encourage students during their process of using unfamiliar software, during which she asked them to explain what they were thinking and doing. At this point, Younker described herself as “facilitator” (1997, 30) versus

General Music Education  379 outside researcher. Similarly, in her dissertation, Miranda (2002) described her study as “constructivist,” necessitating an immersion viewpoint (2002, 74) and situated herself as “observer/observer-participant” (2002, 75). These descriptions represent a much finer distinction of stance than emerges from the 2004 short journal article about her dissertation study. Likewise, regarding trustworthiness: a single sentence is currently commonplace in journal articles, one about how “outside experts” reviewed the data for confirming/disconfirming ideas, and that triangulation was used to verify the credibility of the analysis. The reader deserves more: the issue of goodness and accuracy being monitored and substantiated by “outsiders” is problematic. “Outsiders” coming to the same or different conclusions as the “insider”—or, for that matter, the other “outsider,” the researcher—is not automatically good, nor inevitably bad. Rather, the process that led to confirmation or disconfirmation deserves serious, robust treatment in the paper so the reader can understand the fine shades of identity and meaning that qualitatively affect these judgments. Those responsible for the dissemination of qualitative research in general music could explore ways to include detailed descriptions of this practice.

20.5 The Researcher’s Footprints Another perennial question in qualitative research, related to the insider-outsider discussion, is, “How does the act of being observed change the ‘observed one’?” The studies in this chapter varied, but most were not intended to change or alter the phenomenon under study (except perhaps the work in section 2.4: Insiders: Teachers Studying Students). Much research in general music is intended to offer readers that “slice of life” as it exists in a given moment, not changing it in the process of presentation. However, it seems that most researchers acknowledge their research had some sort of influence—even unintentional—on the participants. We can infer ways in which research in section 20.3.2 affected the teachers being studied. Anderson-Nickel (1997) stated she did not interact at all with participants: “the study was not experimental and was not intended to intervene or influence the classroom environment” (44). She did, however, state she “acknowledged concerns. . . . relating to the dignity and self-respect of the teachers” who may have had “concerns” about being videotaped (45). It seems logical, too, that in addition to videotape effects, the teachers who experienced Anderson-Nickel’s research protocol (responding to stimulated recall prompts while watching video of their own teaching, and answering open-ended interview questions designed to elicit reflective thinking) likely experienced a change in thinking about teaching practice, or in their perceptions of their own teaching. While these changes might have been profound, or not, tracing them was outside Anderson-Nickel’s inquiry. While Duling (1992) wanted to merely observe the teachers in his study, his presence affected them. One teacher-participant drew him into participatory dialogue as he was

380   ann marie stanley observing the class, stating later Duling served as her surrogate for a close co-teacher colleague who had been transferred to another school. One teacher, with whom Duling had no interaction while observing, nonetheless stated that Duling’s presence fueled in him “an energy I need to apply to my teaching” (80) and that he was always more “on” on days when Duling was there, even after he left: “My work with the whole set of morning classes is influenced even after you [leave for the day]. I think a little more clearly—keep my focus” (99). Delaney (2011) wrote honestly about her efforts not to influence participants:  “As this researcher observed the videotape . . . [she] attempted to refrain from commenting on the instruction, but at times, these thoughts were discussed with the teachers. This researcher’s experience and education influenced the questions asked and the direction of the discussion” (47). On the other hand, researchers Chen (2000), McDonald (2001), and Stanley (2009, 2012) all embraced the effect they had on participants. McDonald and Stanley wrote of their concern that anything their participants learned by being in the study would not last if they were not supported in their classroom environments by colleagues and administrators. Consider one of Lather’s (2003) “goodness criteria:” validity as catalyst, assessed through the value of the findings for instigating action. Lather defines catalytic validity as “the degree to which the research process re-orients, focuses, and energizes participants . . . respondents gain self-understanding, and, ideally, self-determination through research participation” (191). Lather’s lens gives us a way to look at the reaction of participants to research: were they affected by being in a study? How? And what lingering role does the research play in their self-understanding or self-determination? If we ignore this aspect of doing qualitative research in general music, we may lose important insights.

20.6  Recommendations for Future Research 20.6.1 Let All Voices Be Heard Future researchers should find ways to strengthen all voices within qualitative research on general music. The voice of the researcher will be made stronger and increasingly trustworthy if researcher processes, decision-making, and shifts in attitude are more explicitly written about. The voice of the participants—general music teachers and students—could be fortified in terms of (a) researchers’ efforts to determine the effect of research on participants and write about it; and (b) researchers’ seeking student perspective on general music education. In terms of the effect of research on participants, I reject the view that the background knowledge, or participation, of the researcher threatens validity. Rather,

General Music Education  381 I argue in favor of mediating bias through an increased inclusion of two perspectives currently missing from the literature: the participant view of the insider/outsider positioning of the researcher, and the participant view of the researcher’s role in the production of knowledge. Qualitative researchers could probe, through a variety of means, the participants’ outlook on researcher stance, researcher involvement, and researcher effects on the phenomena of music teaching and learning under study. To omit these views seems to eliminate valuable glimpses of the interactions, relationships, relative distance or closeness, hierarchy, or power differential between researchers and their participants. Regarding the second point, student perspective, Griffin (2010) wrote a review of the literature connecting children’s school music experiences with their daily lives. She asked for a stronger “linkage between children’s perspectives on their musical activities and what actually occurs in elementary music education” (p. 47): a child-oriented connection between research and practice: Children’s perspectives need to be heard and their voices acknowledged as a central catalyst in shaping the planning, enacting, and experiencing of music curricula . . . up until now their voices have not played as important a role as may be possible. (48)

This voice-as-catalyst comparison recalls Lather’s “catalytic validity” construct. One way to gauge the success of qualitative research in general music is if and when researchers can confirm that their projects instigated needed curricular innovations, and that those innovations heeded the voiced needs of students. (See Reynolds, c­ hapter 19 in this volume, for more on children’s voice in research.)

20.6.2 Investigate Culturally Responsive, Age-Appropriate Pedagogy The topic of culturally responsive pedagogy is a rich one for qualitative investigation, especially as “culture” pertains to contemporary views of music, or even “youth” (Tobias 2010, 116). Recent calls for a reformed general curriculum that incorporates elements of popular or specific ethnic cultures relevant to students’ lives might be strengthened by more research in this area (e.g., Abramo 2011). The relationship between secondary general music and music education reform warrants further study: is secondary general music a “catch-all” course, a required fine arts credit, or “a recasting of curricular options beyond large ensembles to address needs of students marginalized from traditional music programs” (Tobias 2010, 4)? There is little qualitative research in secondary general music environments. Tobias wrote, “Although a growing number of music educators are calling for expanded curricular offerings beyond the secondary large ensemble context, few empirical studies of such curricula exist” (2010, 83).

382   ann marie stanley

20.6.3 Conclusion: Meaningful Investigations Our profession needs to ask more questions about the relationship between commonly used general music classroom activities and student musical achievement. Especially in the current era of high-stakes teacher accountability for student learning, the connection between the activities children do in music class and what they learn from them is a crucial one. For example, how does classroom singing affect children’s ability to match pitch, audiate, and understand the basic harmonic building blocks of music? Or does classroom singing teach children more about community, teamwork, and democracy? How do movement and circle games affect children’s deep and enduring understanding of music? How do creative music-making activities like composition and improvisation factor into students’ acquisition of lifelong musicianship skills? We actually know very little about the three-way connection or intersection between a) many common general music activities, b) how they are taught, and c) how children learn from them. Qualitative research, with its varied methodologies and potential for creative, insightful exploration of the intersection of music teaching and learning, can offer an in-depth, powerful picture of student musical skills and behaviors. Researchers should investigate what defines lasting musical learning in general music, and whether we are achieving that through some of the activities we are currently using and believe to be valuable. Similarly, qualitative researchers should seek different lenses through which to view and understand the musical growth that occurs throughout the multiple years students are usually involved in general music. For example, Younker (1997, 2000) offers a longer-term developmental perspective. Longitudinal, collaborative efforts to examine student learning are especially needed, recognizing of course that these types of lengthy multi-researcher qualitative studies require a combination of resources, time, and money. Perhaps it is a matter of being more realistic about how long meaningful qualitative inquiry may take. Kleinknecht, Puddephatt, and Sanders (2012) wrote, “No matter how tempting new and trendy methods and conceptual styles may be, there is never any good substitute for the long periods of time required to sufficiently immerse oneself into, and collect rich and rigorous data about, the social worlds of others” (8). Snapshots of musical learning in one moment, or over the course of one unit, are illuminating. However, to realize general music classes’ potential as—recalling Mason’s significant claim in 1979—the “basic foundations upon which a musically and culturally sensitive citizenry is developed,” researchers now need to focus their work on deeper issues of student musical learning and achievement that will confirm the extraordinarily important, foundational nature of general music, and secure its place as the basic building block for all future musical endeavors.

Note 1. Now the National Association for Music Education (NAfME).

General Music Education  383

References Abramo, J. M. 2011. “Gender Differences of Popular Music Production in Secondary Schools.” Journal of Research in Music Education (59) 1: 21–43. Alig, K. J. 1992. “Factors in the Development of Leading General Music Educators.” PhD diss., Arizona State University. Anderson-Nickel, J. D. 1997. “Teacher Expertise among Elementary General Music Teachers.” PhD diss., Arizona State University. Atterbury, B. W. 1991. Some Directions for Research in Elementary General Music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 109: 37–45. Barrett, J.R. 1990. “Melodic Schemata, Forms of Representation, and Cognitive Strategies Used by Fourth-Graders in the Recall and Reproduction of Familiar Songs.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison. Bartolome, S. J. 2009. “Naturally Emerging Self-Regulated Practice Behaviors among Highly Successful Beginning Recorder Students.” Research Studies in Music Education (31) 1: 37–51. Beegle, A. C. 2010. “A Classroom-Based Study of Small-Group Planned Improvisation with Fifth-Grade Children.” Journal of Research in Music Education (58) 3: 219–39. Boardman, E. 1990. Needed Research in General Music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 104: 5–15. Bresler, L. B. 1993. Music in a Double-Bind:  Instruction by Non-Specialists in Elementary Schools. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 115: 1–14. Bresler, L. 1995/1996. “Curricular Orientations In Elementary School Music: Roles, Pedagogies and Values.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 127: 22–27. Brummett, V. M. 1993. “The Development, Application, and Critique of an Interactive Student Evaluation Framework for Elementary General Music.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Chen, C. D. 2000. “Constructivism in General Music Education:  A  Music Teacher’s Lived Experience.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Claire, L. 1993/1994. “The Social Psychology of Creativity:  The Importance of Peer Social Processes for Students’ Academic and Artistic Creativity in Classroom Contexts.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 119: 21–28. Delaney, D. W. 2011. “Elementary General Music Teachers’ Reflections on Instruction.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education (29) 2: 41–49. DeLorenzo, L. C. 1989. “A Field Study of Sixth-Grade Students’ Creative Music Problem-Solving Processes.” Journal of Research in Music Education (37) 3: 188–200. Duling, E. B. 1992. “The Development of Pedagogical-Content Knowledge: Two Case Studies of Exemplary General Music Teachers.” PhD diss., The Ohio State University. Emmons, S. E. 1998. “Analysis of Musical Creativity in Middle School Students through Composition Using Computer-Assisted Instruction:  A  Multiple Case Study.” PhD diss., University of Rochester: Eastman School of Music. Eshelman, D. A. 1995. “The Instructional Knowledge of Exemplary Elementary General Music Teachers:  Commonalities Based on David J.  Elliott’s Model of the Professional Music Educator.” PhD diss., University of Oklahoma. Ferguson, L. S. 2004. “I See Them Listening:  A  Teacher’s Understanding of Children’s Expressive Movements to Music in the Classroom.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

384   ann marie stanley Greher, G. R. 2002. “‘Picture This!’ 1997: An Interactive Listening Environment for Middle School General Music.” PhD diss., Teacher’s College, Columbia University. Griffin, S. M. 2010. “Inquiring into Children’s Music Experiences: Groundings in Literature.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education (28) 2: 42–49. Gromko, J. E. 1996. “In a Child’s Voice: An Interpretive Interaction with Young Composers.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 128: 37–58. Hamilton, H. J. 1999. “Music Learning through Composition, Improvisation and Peer Interaction in the Context of Three Sixth Grade Music Classes.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota. Hammersley, M. 1993. “On Practitioner Ethnography.” In What’s Wrong with Ethnography, edited by M. Hammersley, 135–58. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Harwood, E. 1998. “Go on Girl! Improvisation In African-American Girls’ Singing Games. In In the Course of Performance: Studies in the World of Musical Improvisation, edited B. Nettl, 113–25. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hellawell, D. 2006. “Inside out:  Analysis of the Insider-Outsider Concept as a Heuristic Device to Develop Reflexivity in Students Doing Qualitative Research.” Teaching in Higher Education 11 (4): 483–94. Hoffman, M. E. 1981. “The Heart of the School Music Program.” Music Educators Journal 68 (1): 42–43. Holdridge, J. R. 1991. “Music in Our Lives: A Naturalistic Study of Three High School General Music Classes.” PhD diss., New York University. Kaschub, M. 1997. “A Comparison of Two Composer-Guided Large Group Composition Projects.” Research Studies in Music Education (8) 1: 15–28. Kelly-McHale, J. L. 2011. “The Relationship between Children’s Musical Identities and Music Teacher Beliefs and Practices in an Elementary General Music Classroom.” PhD diss., Northwestern University. Kenney, S. 2010. “A History of the Society for General Music.” General Music Today, 24 (1), 4–14. Kerchner, J. L. 2000. “Children’s Verbal, Visual, and Kinesthetic Responses: Insight into Their Music Listening Experiences.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 146: 31–50. Kleinknecht, S., A. Puddephatt, and C. B. Sanders. 2012. “Introduction to the Special Issue. Qualitative Analysis Conference 2011:  Contemporary Issues in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Sociology Review 8 (1): 6–9. Labaree, R. V. 2002. “The Risk of ‘Going Observationalist’: Negotiating the Hidden Dilemmas of Being an Insider Participant Observer.” Qualitative Research 2 (1): 97–101. Lather, P. 2003. Issues of Validity in Openly Ideological Research. In Turning Points in Qualitative Research: Tying Knots in a Handkerchief, edited by Y. S. Lincoln and N. K. Denzin, 185–215. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Lemons, M. L. 1998. “Image, Context, and Knowledge in the Practice of Two Elementary Music Teachers.” PhD diss., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Lemons, M. L. 1994/1995. “Curriculum in Elementary Music:  A  Critical Reflection on Subjectivity.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 123: 53–58. Lum, C. H., and P. S. Campbell. 2007. “The Sonic Surrounds of an Elementary School.” Journal of Research in Music Education: (55) 1: 31–47. McDonald, N. L. 2001. “Reflective Practices: Collective Case Studies of Selected K–8 General Music Teachers in Peer Problem-Solving Discipline and Management Workshop Settings.” PhD diss., University of San Diego. Miller, B. A. 1996. “Integrating Elementary General Music: A Collaborative Action Research Study.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 130: 100–115.

General Music Education  385 Miller, B. A. 2003. Integrating Elementary General Music Instruction with a First Grade Whole Language Classroom. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 156: 43–62. Miller, B. A. 2004. Designing Compositional Tasks for Elementary Music Classrooms. Research Studies in Music Education (22) 1: 59–71. Miranda, M. L. 2002. “The Seasons of Kindergarten: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in the Kindergarten Music Classroom.” PhD diss., Arizona State University. Miranda, M. L. 2004. “The Implications of Developmentally Appropriate Practice for the Kindergarten General Music Classroom.” Journal of Research in Music Education 52 (1): 43–63. Morrissey, M. L. 2004. “Intensification and the Vocal Health of an Elementary General Music Teacher.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison. Niebur, L. L. 1997. “Standards, Assessment, and Stories of Practice in General Music.” PhD diss., Arizona State University. Perconti, E.S. 1996. “Learning to Compose and Learning through Composing: A Study of the Composing Process in Elementary General Music.” PhD diss., University of Idaho. Reese, S. 1981. “An Implementation of the CEMREL Aesthetic Education Program by Elementary Classroom Teachers:  A  Qualitative Observation.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Richardson, L. 2000. “Writing: A Method of Inquiry.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 923–48. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Robbins, J. 1994/1995. “Levels of Learning in Orff SPIEL.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 123: 47–53. Ruthmann, S. A. 2006. “Negotiating learning and teaching in a music technology lab: Curricular, pedagogical, and ecological issues.” PhD diss., Oakland University, Rochester, MI. Salvador, K. 2011. “Individualizing elementary general music instruction: Case studies of assessment and differentiation.” PhD diss., Michigan State University, Lansing, MI. Stanley, A. M. 2009. “The Experiences of Elementary Music Teachers in a Collaborative Teacher Study Group.” PhD diss., University of Michigan. Stanley, A. M. 2012. “What is Collaboration in Elementary Music Education? A  Social Constructivist Inquiry within a Collaborative Teacher Study Group (CTSG).” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 192: 53–74. Stauffer, S. L. 2001. “Composing with Computers: Meg Makes Music.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 150: 1–20. Stauffer, S. L. 2002. “Connections between the Musical and Life Experiences of Young Composers and Their Compositions.” Journal of Research in Music Education (50) 4: 301–22. Strand, K. 2005. “Nurturing Young Composers: Exploring the Relationship between Instruction and Transfer in 9–12 Year-Old Students.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 165: 17–36 Tagg, B. M. 1997. “The Jane Rand Story: A Case Study of an Elementary Vocal Music Teacher.” PhD diss., Syracuse University. Tobias, E. 2010. “Crossfading and Plugging in: Secondary Students’ Engagement and Learning in a Songwriting and Technology Class.” PhD diss., Northwestern University. Wayman, V. E. 2004. “An Exploratory Investigation of Three Middle School General Music Students’ Beliefs about Music Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 160: 26–37. Whitaker, N. L. 1996. “Elusive Connections: Music Integration and the Elementary Classroom.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 130: 89–99.

386   ann marie stanley Wiggins, J. H. 1993. “The Nature of Children’s Musical Learning in the Context of a Music Classroom.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Wiggins, J. H. 1994. “Children’s Strategies for Solving Compositional Problems with Peers.” Journal of Research in Music Education 42 (3): 232–52. Wiggins, J. H. 1995. “Building Structural Understanding: Sam’s Story.” The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning 6 (3): 57–75. Wiggins, J. H. (1994/5). “Teacher-Research in a General Music Classroom:  Effects on the Teacher.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 123: 31–35. Wiggins, J. H. 1999/2000. “The Nature of Shared Musical Understanding and its Role in Empowering Independent Musical Thinking.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 143: 65–90. Wiggins, J., and K. Bodoin. 1998. “Painting a Big Soup: Teaching and Learning in a Second Grade General Music Classroom.” Journal of Research in Music Education 46 (2): 281–302. Younker, B. A. 1997. “Thought Processes and Strategies of Eight, Eleven, and Fourteen Year Old Students While Engaged in Music Composition.” PhD diss., Northwestern University. Younker, B.A. 2000. “Thought Processes and Strategies of Students While Engaged in Music Composition.” Research in Music Education 14: 24–38.

Chapter 21

Instrum enta l Mu si c ( Winds, B ras s , Percu ssi on) chad west

While American school band programs have been around for a century, it was only as recent as the 1980s that such programs have been explored through qualitative research methods. The first qualitative study examining American school band programs1 appeared in 1980 as an article in the Journal of Band Research that described the characteristics of five college band directors. Since that first study, approximately 50 published qualitative studies have addressed American school band programs. Of those, 36 have been dissertations and 14 have been journal articles. Within the peer-reviewed music education journals, six have appeared in the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education (BCRME), three have appeared in the Journal of Research in Music Education (JRME), two were published in the Journal of Band Research (JBR), two were published in Music Educators Journal (MEJ) and one appeared in Contributions to Music Education (CME). This chapter explores the qualitative band studies published as dissertations and journal articles from 1980 through 2011,2 The first part of this chapter, “Teaching Band,” presents findings related specifically to documenting band teaching practices, jazz band, teaching students with special needs, composition, band students’ learning, and band student perspectives. The second part of this chapter, “Beyond Teaching Band,” presents findings from studies that have explored broad facets of band programs such as the social aspects of band, gender, adult learners, histories, and the lives of band directors.

21.1 Teaching Band Much of the quantitative band research through the years has examined aspects directly related to teaching and learning—mainly student cognition and teaching techniques.

388   chad west Since the 1980s qualitative band researchers have begun studying similar topics, albeit with a different worldview, using different methods and suggesting different implications. Since the first qualitative band study in 1980, researchers have documented effective teaching practices, looked at ways of teaching jazz and composition, brought attention and understanding to band students with special needs, conducted action research in their own classrooms, and sought to understand student perceptions of band.

21.1.1 Documenting Band Teaching Practices Through personal interviews and document examination, Yarberry3 explored the previous music experiences, commitment to the profession, philosophies, and professional education of five outstanding college band directors. While the author did not identify his study as qualitative and used language that today we associate with quantitative research, his method of interviewing participants regarding their perceptions was indeed consistent with what we identify today as qualitative research. The researcher even went so far as to examine (presumably with permission) the diaries and personal letters of these directors. With research techniques still dominated by a quantitative worldview in 1980, the author was careful to defend the interview as a valid form of data collection: “The research interview appeared to be a powerful instrument for the study . . . particularly the involvement of the conductor with the development of his own band!” (24). Jachens4 interviewed six well-known band directors who taught during the 1920s and 1930s regarding their teaching techniques, materials they used, and their philosophies and goals in teaching band. Additionally, the researcher studied artifacts such as newspaper clippings and concert programs. The author presented findings according to how the participants taught tone, intonation, technique, and interpretation. In addition, Jachens suggested that these band directors felt that in the 1920s and 1930s, the focus was on technique rather than tone, intonation, and expression. In 1988, Casey5 sought to identify successful teaching practices for preparing students to sight-read at band festivals and competitions. The researcher observed and video-recorded the comments and behaviors of successful band directors in simulated sight-reading sessions. After each session, the researcher then interviewed each director regarding his/her means of organizing time and use of teaching strategies to prepare students for the contest sight-reading session. Based on the recorded observations and interviews, Casey constructed a composite conductor profile that band directors could use to prepare students for contest sight-reading. Looking at band pedagogy more broadly, Buell6 examined effective teaching and conducting practices within high performing symphonic band and wind ensemble settings. Through observing band rehearsals and interviewing the band directors and their students, the researcher found that effective teaching and conducting was not linked to any single factor, but rather a combination of positive learning environments,

Winds, Brass, Percussion  389 the appropriate linking of teaching strategies to instructional goals, and using varied instructional techniques according to individual differences in students. Continuous development of personal musicianship and thorough score-study were also found to aid effectiveness in teaching band. Similar to Buell, in an effort to identify common factors of success, Dugle7 observed rehearsals and interviewed the parents, administrators, students, and staff of three high-achieving band programs in Illinois. The researcher found common characteristics such as teacher traits, teacher teamwork, adequate financing, private lessons, the community arts environment, and parental and administrative support. Students perceived the reason for success of the programs were the social aspects afforded by participation in band. In 1993, Prather8 interviewed and observed a college band director and his two graduate student protégés. The researcher described patterns of personal and professional mentoring practices between the director and his mentees, including how the mentor passed on information to the protégés regarding warm-ups, concept of tone quality, teaching of rhythm, use of literature, approach to discipline, baton technique, structure of the band program, team concept, personal mannerisms, and philosophies. Six years later, Conway9 interviewed four experienced band directors (one elementary, two middle school, and one high school) and observed their teaching practices to develop teaching cases for use in instrumental music education courses. Specifically, the researcher documented the participants’ daily interactions, decision-making skills, and use of pedagogical content knowledge. Within the cases, Conway described and discussed curricula and objectives, program administration, recruitment and balanced instrumentation, scheduling, literature choices, classroom management strategies, motivation, assessment techniques, musicianship, and rapport with students. Similar to Buell, Dugle, and Conway, Gonzalez10 examined the philosophies and rehearsal procedures of three public school band directors and three college band directors known for their strong programs and excellent reputations. The researcher video-recorded each participant during a typical rehearsal and surveyed each regarding his/her rehearsal procedures and philosophy. Gonzalez coded the data according to areas where the philosophy and procedure aligned and found that these conductors all utilized effective pacing, systematic rehearsal formats, timely interjections of instructional comments, and a philosophically based plan for the use of rehearsal procedures. Using both qualitative and quantitative techniques, Schopp11 studied the use of improvisation and composition among high school band directors in the state of New York. For the qualitative portion of the study, the researcher observed five high school band programs and interviewed their directors to identify possible teaching strategies for incorporating improvisation and composition into the high school band program. Findings from both data sets suggest that while band directors generally supported the teaching of improvisation and composition, most offered little regular instruction in these areas. The researcher found that this is most often the result of lack of time due to rehearsal and performance commitments, as well as teacher and student anxiety when engaging in these experiences. Schopp suggested that successful programs

390   chad west use approaches that begin simply, foster non-threatening environments, and incorporate student improvisations and compositions into performances. The researcher also found that while teacher education programs are preparing new music educators to teach improvisation and composition, band directors are often unable to incorporate such instruction into their direction of large ensembles such as concert band. In another mixed methods study, Bazan12 sought to describe teaching strategies of band directors who reported a student-directed teaching style. Bazan used quantitative techniques to identify such teachers and invited three of the most student-directed teachers to participate in the qualitative portion of his study. The researcher then observed and video-recorded five rehearsals of each participant and interviewed each participant after each rehearsal. Bazan found that even the teachers who self-reported the highest usage of student-directed teaching strategies still most frequently utilized teacher-directed instruction. Other findings described potential student-directed band rehearsal strategies and the challenges these band directors faced when implementing them. Perhaps the qualitative band literature on teaching practices could be grouped into two categories:  (a)  studying the general thoughts and actions of high-performing band directors, and (b) studying band directors through a specific lens. For instance, researchers such as Yarberry, Jachens, Buell, Dugle, Prather, Conway, and Gonzalez explored and documented general thoughts and actions of high performing band directors. More specifically, Casey examined a band director through the lens of preparing a band for sight-reading, Schopp looked at how band directors in New York were teaching composition and improvisation, and Bazan observed ways that band directors used student-directed teaching styles.

21.1.2 Jazz Band The earliest qualitative study examining school jazz band was Leavell,13 who explored middle school students’ perceptions of jazz band, including their views about playing individualized parts, improvising, and interpreting and articulating swing rhythms. Leavell found that students struggled with the musical differences between concert band and jazz band, such as (a) the playing of individualized parts, (b) swing and straight patterns within the same song, (c) changes in articulation, and (d) improvisation. With regard to student perceptions, students felt that (a) group improvisation and rhythmic embellishment of familiar melodies were relatively non-threatening forms of improvisation, (b) they could more freely express themselves in jazz band, and (c) the most effective instructional strategies were student-centered activities. Leavell also found that a clique formed between the students who were the most willing improvisers. Ten years later, Dyas14 examined the students, directors, curricula, repertoire, and instructional techniques in two exemplary high school jazz programs. The researcher found that the students (a) became interested in playing jazz by being inspired by a jazz musician (whether professional or student), (b)  listened to jazz and practiced often,

Winds, Brass, Percussion  391 (c) took private lessons, (d) played local professional gigs, (e) felt that they learn most in the combo setting as opposed to the large ensemble, (f) learned most from their peers, and (g) planned to become professional musicians. One year after Dyas’s study, Goodrich15 used ethnographic techniques (prolonged engagement in the field, interviews, artifacts) over the course of one academic year to explore the culture within a successful high school jazz band. The researcher observed and interviewed student jazz band members, the director, the assistant director, adult mentors, a guidance counselor, a principal, parents, and non-jazz band students. Five themes emerged:  (a)  mentoring from the adult perspective, (b)  peer mentoring for musicianship, (c)  mentoring in rehearsals, (d)  mentoring outside jazz band rehearsals, and (e) social mentoring. Much of the motivation to practice and get better came from younger students modeling themselves after older students. Mentoring also occurred when high school students played for junior high students. Using the same research site and ethnographic techniques, Goodrich16 examined whether elements of historic jazz culture could be fostered in a traditional school jazz band setting. The researcher suggested that under the supervision of the director, such a culture could be fostered in terms of listening for style, improvisation, and learning the lingo. Rummel17 studied music educators within different subgroups regarding their experience in jazz-related activities. Using quantitative techniques, the researcher found one’s primary instrument to be significantly correlated to one’s previous experience and that self-directed study was the primary source of jazz improvisation experience. To better understand the quantitative findings, Rummel then interviewed eight participants from different subgroups. Qualitative findings both confirmed and clarified the quantitative correlation between instrument choice and experience with jazz; specifically, that when one plays a typical or traditional jazz instrument there are more opportunities to learn to improvise and thus more opportunities to participate in jazz activities. In a mixed methods study, West18 observed and interviewed two veteran and expert middle school band directors (one of them being a noted middle school jazz educator) three times each to explore their experiences, thoughts, and actions regarding middle school jazz. Similar to Rummel, findings suggested that among the previous experiences that most prepared these band directors to teach middle school jazz was their professional playing experiences outside of their college preparation. Findings regarding these directors’ thoughts and actions about middle school jazz were compared and contrasted in relation to the following themes: (a) the value of middle school jazz, (b) differences and similarities with concert band, (c) teaching the rhythm section, (d) teaching style, (e) modeling, (f) improvisation, (g) peer mentoring, (h) literature, (i) non-traditional jazz instruments, and (j) student difficulties. The thread that can be seen throughout all of these qualitative studies on school jazz is people have tended to learn the most about jazz outside of school, or at least apart from the school band director. Leavell indicated that students preferred self-guided learning, Dyas and Goodrich indicated that students learned most from their peers, and Rummel and West indicated that experiences playing outside of school were those that

392   chad west most prepared band directors in their studies to teach jazz ensemble. Certainly, school jazz ensembles are where many students are introduced to jazz and which provide an opportunity for students to come together and play jazz, but the research thus far seems to indicate that the most valued experiences in learning jazz come outside of the band room and apart from the band director.

21.1.3 Teaching Band Students with Special Needs The earliest qualitative study to examine students with special needs was Tooker,19 who in 1995 presented a case study of eight students within a high school special education beginning band class. The teacher-researcher video-recorded 15 weeks of classroom instruction, used each student’s individualized education program to develop individual music objectives, solicited feedback from four music educators and four special education professionals who observed the band class, and interviewed school and district level administrators. Tooker found that when adjusting the pace of instruction, modifying notation and classroom management strategies, and maintaining high expectations, some of the special learners were able to perform at levels commensurate to their general education peers. Ten years later, Lapka20 studied the inclusion practices of a high school band in which one-quarter of its members had severe disabilities. Through observing rehearsals and interviewing faculty, staff, students, and parents, Lapka documented the inner workings of this program and described relationships between the students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers. In particular, the researcher found that (a) both general education and special education teachers in the school embraced the band program’s inclusion practices, (b)  inclusion was implemented gradually, (c) there was much parental and peer support, (d) the band had to be creative and flexible in solving problems, and (e) some modification of band curriculum was needed to accommodate these students. To document the challenges of a child with special needs in band, and to do so through the eyes of the participant, Hourigan21 presented a case study of a child (Jason) who suffered from traumatic brain injury syndrome. Specifically, the author described the interactions between Jason, his classmates, his band director, his parents, and his school district from Jason’s perspective. The author suggested that many of the issues that emerged are critical to all students, rather than just those with special needs. Hourigan offered the following suggestions to band directors for fostering an inclusive social atmosphere: (a) model appropriate social behavior, (b) initiate icebreaker activities at the beginning of the year to help students break down social barriers, (c) utilize opportunities for peer teaching, (d) carefully monitor for signs of bullying or hazing, and (e) remember that you do not have to shoulder the responsibility alone. Evidence from Tooker, Lapka, and Hourigan all suggests that two of the keys to educating band students with special needs are modification of materials and collaboration between parents, administrators, faculty, and staff.

Winds, Brass, Percussion  393

21.1.4 Composition in Band Whereas most of the qualitative research previously discussed (i.e., teaching techniques, jazz band, and students with special needs) has focused on band director actions, most of the qualitative research on composition in band has dealt with student perceptions. For instance, Tutt22 examined the specific criteria used by four high school band members to evaluate compositions they had previously rehearsed or performed. The researcher observed these students and interviewed them, their parents, and the band director. Tutt found that students evaluated compositions based on the variety of musical components used, the technical challenge and complexity, and their own personal connection with the composition. One year later, Allsup23 examined the composition processes of two groups of band students through the lens of democracy. Over the course of three months, the researcher met with the students 11 times for two-and-a-half-hour meetings. Utilizing the students in the design, delivery, and analysis of the study, Allsup recorded all interactions and interviewed students at different stages in the process. One group of students chose to create music for electric guitar, bass, synthesized piano, and drums, while the other chose to create music using traditional concert band instruments. Findings suggested that whereas participants found classical music unsuitable for group composing or community making, they perceived composing in jazz or popular styles to be fun, nonobligatory, self-directed, personally meaningful, and suitable for cultivating interpersonal relationships. For the qualitative portion of a mixed methods study, Stringham24 explored personal perspectives about improvisation and composition among high school band students in a program in which the curriculum emphasizes singing, moving, and playing by ear to learn melodies, bass lines, tonal patterns, rhythm patterns, and voice leading. Focus-group findings suggested that these students believed that the nature of their curriculum was helpful in learning to improvise and compose. Through class observations, Stringham suggested that teaching improvisation and composition in high school band is a practical, meaningful, and musical objective, and suggested that individual musicianship, understanding of music teaching and learning, interaction, making connections, and a positive learning environment are important factors in achieving this objective.

21.1.5 Action Research The vast majority of published qualitative band research has been conducted by researchers outside the context of K–12 education (e.g., college professors and doctoral students); relatively missing are studies conducted by band directors with their own students. In one such publication, a collaborative action research study, Conway and Jeffers25 examined the implementation of new assessment procedures in a beginning band class. Through a teacher’s log, a student instrumental music questionnaire,

394   chad west a parent evaluation of the assessment report, telephone interviews with parents, focus group interviews with students, a teacher interview, and the collaborative researcher’s log of study interactions, the researchers documented the perceptions and suggestions of the students, challenges of implementation, and the connections between curriculum and assessment. While the main objective was to document and describe the collaborative action researcher process, findings from the study suggested that while most parents appreciated seeing a detailed report of their child’s development in band rather than just a letter grade, some parents still wanted to see a letter grade since “that is easier for [them] to understand” (4). Interested in incorporating informal learning processes into the formal music classroom, Davis26 conducted an action research study to explore the learning strategies used by her students to create their own musical meaning. Over the course of six months, the researcher observed the music learning processes of her fifth-grade beginning band students. Davis found that enabling students to discuss their own musical connections, even when seemingly unrelated to the task, encouraged students to make meaning of their understanding and take ownership of their learning.

21.1.6  Band Student Perspectives One of the earliest studies to explore student experiences of band was Owens,27 who observed and interviewed 12 middle school and college band students (6 from each group) regarding their perceptions of what makes appealing and effective band rehearsals. The researcher found that a majority of the middle school students preferred to receive instruction visually, while the majority of the college students expressed a kinesthetic preference. All of the students believed that the most appealing and effective rehearsals consisted of a variety of instructional strategies, direct involvement for a majority of time, and expressive use of language and metaphors. Eleven years later, Kraus28 explored if and how students in a university wind ensemble setting experience Csikszentmihalyi’s notion of flow. In addition to observing rehearsals and interviewing students, the researcher solicited information from eight students about their immediate psychological states at various points during rehearsal. Kraus found that these students did indeed experience the dimensions of flow in the wind ensemble rehearsal; specifically, students experienced them late in rehearsals and, similar to Owens, during extended periods of performance activity uninterrupted by frequent stops in the rehearsal. Findings indicated that experiencing flow in this setting is also dependent on the traits, actions, experience levels, and abilities of others in the group. Curious about the “average” student’s perceptions of middle school band, Scheib29 studied one such student’s (“Lindy’s”) perspective. Over the course of two months, the researcher observed Lindy in small group and ensemble settings and interviewed her and her band director regarding her perceptions of band. Scheib found Lindy to be highly achievement-oriented and motivated primarily by a competition for chair

Winds, Brass, Percussion  395 placements. Void from her perceptions of the band experience were any musical, artistic, or aesthetic descriptions. Regarding student practice, Oare30 studied goal setting and self-assessment within the personal practice sessions of six middle school band students. The researcher analyzed three videotaped practice sessions of each student and interviewed each student after the practice sessions. In addition, the researcher conducted focus group interviews both before and after the observation cycle and interviewed the participants’ band director. Oare found a cyclical practice process in which students moved from motivation, to goal setting, to strategy use, to assessment, and back to motivation. The researcher also found that students who were motivated by learning the material employed more effective practice techniques than students who were motivated by performance objectives, although all students’ practice goals tended to lack specificity and direction. Also interested in student motivation, Legutki,31 as part of a mixed methods study, interviewed nine high school students regarding their motivation for participating in band and organized the qualitative findings according to (a)  performing, (b) outside-of-school experiences, (c) musical motivators vs. extra-musical motivators, (d) types of music that these students enjoy playing, (e) the role of competition, (f) early feelings of success and other seminal moments, and (g) the role of music in their future careers. The author suggested that music teachers should focus on student-centered approaches that provide support for psychological needs and intrinsic motivation in order to help them develop meaningful long-term engagement in music activities. Buck32 explored band students’ perceptions of the use of recorded aural models for practicing. The researcher first supplied eight students with sheet music along with a recording to serve as an aural model, then surveyed and interviewed the participants regarding their experiences using the aural model as a practice aid. Buck found that although students enjoyed using the aural models and felt that they increased their confidence, most of them expressed no increased motivation to practice; instead, most students viewed the aural models simply as a definitive source of how their sheet music should be interpreted. When we ask our students about their perceptions of band, their responses can often surprise us. From the qualitative research conducted thus far, band directors are reminded that the band experience often extends well beyond the intrinsic or aesthetic. Though we teach an aural art, Owens, Oare, and Buck all remind us that our students may learn and be motivated by factors other than sound. While we want our students to experience and enjoy music for its expressive possibilities, Kraus, Scheib, and Legutki remind us that our students often value extra-musical elements of the band experience. Being a band director requires understandings and skills beyond teaching techniques and an understanding of student cognition. Extra-musical elements such as social interactions and gender influences also play into the mix of the band experience. Teaching band can extend beyond the K–12 setting into areas such as New Horizons bands, and even teaching music to the incarcerated and hospitalized. Other areas of interest to qualitative band researchers have included topics such as band directors’ professional and personal lives, perceptions of their roles, stresses and challenges of their jobs, and

396   chad west elements that make up a band culture and band-directing culture. The next section of the chapter examines the research done in those areas that goes “beyond teaching.”

21.2  Beyond Teaching Band 21.2.1 Social Aspects of Band In addition to collecting artifacts and completing field observations, Albrecht33 interviewed three band student leaders, three non-band student leaders, three lead teachers, the principal, and the band director within a single high school to extrapolate participants’ shared beliefs, values, and traditions regarding high school band; specifically, the researcher examined perceptions of band service activity within the school culture. Albrecht found (a) that both the band director and the principal accepted the band’s role as a service activity in school culture, (b) school culture is a present phenomenon frozen in memory upon graduation, and (c) whereas the band director, and to some extent, band students, viewed band as an instructional class, the principal, teachers, and non-band students viewed the band simply as service activity. Using what he called “naturalistic form of inquiry” Robinson34 explored high school band students’ perceptions of band. Specifically, the researcher wanted to see if there was a difference in perception among students in the upper band and students in the lower band. The researcher observed and administered a questionnaire to 45 high school band members from the same program and interviewed five students: three from the lower band and two from the upper band. Robinson found that students in both groups valued their high degree of social standing within the school community, similar to winning sports teams in the school. Students from both groups also valued the division of players into two separate groups, although for different reasons: members from the upper group valued the challenge and pursuit of higher performance standards, whereas students from the lower group valued the social nature of band. Using discourse analysis and participant observation, Dobbs35 studied how the naturally occurring talk within a band class shaped the teaching and learning of music and the social community. The author observed, video-recorded, and analyzed both large group band ensemble classes and small group instruction for which the following themes emerged: (a) teacher talk and actions, (b) student talk and actions, (c) talk and actions related to music, (d) talk and actions related to social/community building, and (e) talk and actions related to carrying on school/administrative business. The author further coded each utterance according to whether they occurred as representatives, directives, commissives, expressives, or miscellaneous speech acts. Findings suggested a discursive feedback loop illustrating student knowledge and comprehension of musical concepts, and a repetition device reinforcing both curricular knowledge and the building of social relationships within the classroom. The author found differences in discourse patterns between the ensemble and small group contexts, as well as between teacher and students.

Winds, Brass, Percussion  397 Three years later, Hoffman36 explored the intergroup processes and role identities of six middle school band students. Students were from the same band class but all played different instruments. The researcher collected data over a period of nearly six months in the form of classroom observations, open-ended interviews, and weekly student journals. Hoffman found that these middle school band students made choices of whether to continue in band based on influences (rejection or affirmation) of those around them. These students initially chose to enroll in band because friends, teachers, and family members encouraged them to do so. Then, based on others’ affirmation or rejection of their competency in such roles, they reevaluated whether they felt they belonged in the band; those who felt rejected or less competent chose to quit band. The students who felt like successful contributing members within the band identified with the group more strongly.

21.2.2 Gender Jackson37 studied the experiences of 12 female college band directors from across the country representing various age groups and experience levels. Through telephone interviews with each participant, the researcher found that the older women band directors in her study encountered overt discrimination while the younger directors encountered more subtle types of discrimination, if any. The respondents perceived the gender imbalance among college band directors to be partially due to the military heritage of the college band program. Regarding gender and instrument choice among students, Conway38 interviewed 37 high school band students and found that all of them perceived certain associations between gender and instrument choice. Students who had broken gender stereotypes did so in an attempt to be different from their peers. Students who played instruments traditionally stereotyped with their gender cited family and peers as the most common influences. While students were generally supportive of females playing traditionally stereotyped male instruments, many were less supportive of males playing traditionally stereotyped female instruments, especially the flute. When asked about the influences for choosing a particular instrument, students often cited the characteristics of the instrument itself including size, sound, volume, and its role in band. Fourteen years after Jackson’s study, Sears39 examined how 11 female high school band directors perceive and engage with issues of isolation, discrimination, and stereotyping and how perceptions of gender roles have influenced their teaching identities. The researcher found that to succeed in the profession, participants often developed and projected a powerful, tough, assertive, competitive, and confident persona and felt they must work harder than their male counterparts to earn respect. While some participants felt that there are qualities unique to female directors, others rejected the idea that gender had any affect on their teaching. Participants felt that the masculine history of the profession, the struggle to balance work and family, and the belief that administrators may question a woman’s ability to handle the job were reasons contributing to an

398   chad west underrepresentation of female band directors. Sears suggested that transparent hiring practices in combination with increased visibility of female role models, guest conductors, and festival adjudicators can help secondary instrumental music education to become a more gender equitable profession.

21.2.3 Adult Learners Interested in the practice habits of adults, Rohwer40 video-recorded three adult beginning saxophone players for three weeks while they practiced at home. Among these adult beginners, the researcher found a lack of systematic rhythm skill practice. Repetition was the main strategy for addressing errors, as players generally did not understand how to break the remediation of errors into smaller steps. Even after practice, players also could not always accurately judge whether an error had been corrected. Alfano41 studied the experiences of adults who participate in an intergenerational band program. Specifically, the researcher sought to understand ways in which these adults interacted musically, socially, and educationally both with their own age cohort and with the adolescents in this co-learning environment. Through observations, interviews, and document analysis, the researcher described the personal, social, and intellectual benefits reported by the participants and concluded that these adults felt that the intergenerational co-learning experience resulted in a greater understanding, acceptance, care, respect, and appreciation of one age group for another.

21.2.4 Lives of Band Directors Since at least 1993, when Wohl42 described the recurring events and daily routines in the life of a small town band director, qualitative band researchers have tried to capture essences of the profession through documenting the perceptions, actions, and stories of its professionals. One of the first was Thompson,43 who interviewed experienced band directors regarding their perceptions of their roles as marching band directors. Thompson found that the participants viewed their roles as producers, directors, and managers of student behavior, and saw themselves as responsible for the band’s public relations. Five years later, Lamkin’s44 phenomenological study explored the question, “what does it mean to be a high school band director?” The method included recalling and documenting the author’s own lived experiences as a band director, exploring the profession through the etymology of the term, “band director,” unpacking the idiomatic phrases associated with the term, “band director,” and interviewing and documenting the lived experiences of a retired band director. The author described what it means to be a band director through these lived experiences as they relate to the ways the participants experienced time, being with others (including band students), and their world in general.

Winds, Brass, Percussion  399 Peterson45 studied the challenges and experiences of three first-year band directors. Over the course of the participants’ first year of teaching, the researcher regularly interviewed them by phone, observed them, and had them keep journal records of their experiences. The researcher also interviewed parents, administrators, mentors, and students. Peterson found that common among these beginning band directors was the desire to be liked by the students. Common challenges were working with band parents, selecting appropriate music for their ensembles, and setting limits for student behavior. Conway, Eros, Hourigan, and Stanley46 observed and interviewed four beginning music teachers regarding their experiences in college secondary instrument methods classes to determine the most valuable experiences of those classes and suggest changes that would have made these classes more valuable in preparing these individuals to become band directors. The researchers found that (a) such classes prepared them to teach beginners more than they prepared them to teach high school students, (b) they regularly referred to and valued their course notebooks, (c) participants were split on whether performance faculty or education faculty should teach such classes, (d) the participants valued both playing the instruments and learning to teach them, and (e) the participants felt that on-the-job training was needed beyond the methods courses. Concerned by a 2005 study indicating declining enrollment in Texas band programs, Jolly47 interviewed eight Texas music educators regarding their perceptions of the reasons contributing to the decline. Jolly found scheduling demands, over-emphasis of band competition, decreasing family support, and the inability of many band programs to remain relevant to modern-day students to be the most perceived challenges and barriers to band enrollment. The same year, Vandivere48 studied the nonverbal communication behaviors and role perceptions of preservice band directors, and whether participation in theater seminars enhanced those behaviors and perceptions. After participating in three theater seminars, participants were asked to journal and communicate with their peers online regarding their teaching. The researcher then video-recorded their classroom teaching and interviewed the participants. Findings suggested that these preservice band directors felt that participating in theater seminars enhanced their awareness of nonverbal communication behaviors in the classroom and had the potential to influence their perceptions of their roles as teachers. Interested in how band directors acquire successful rehearsal techniques, Chaffin49 examined the perceptions of two third-year band directors. Over the course of three days, the researcher observed both band directors, interviewed them, and interviewed their colleagues. Chaffin found that participants in his study credited their colleagues, reflection-on-action, and recording their rehearsals as the most influential factors in helping them acquire effective planning, pacing, repertoire selection, and classroom management skills. Henry50 examined the history of the Prairie View Interscholastic League (PVIL), which was created for black high school bands to participate in band contests from 1938–1970. Through interviews with 15 band directors who participated in the PVIL, the researcher documented and described the structure of the PVIL band contests,

400   chad west repertoire, preparation of the contests, and the importance of the PVIL to its participants and to the local black community. Henry also described the effects of segregation on these directors’ band programs, in particular with regard to equipment and facility inequities. That same year, Samuels51 interviewed, observed, and participated with Alfred Watkins, Director of Bands at Lassiter High School, to describe the components that have contributed to the success and national recognition of his high school band program. To provide a model for practicing high school band directors, Samuels described Watkins’ philosophy of the program, curriculum, organization, and other unique qualities that have contributed to the success of the program. The researcher suggested that the findings from this study could inform practicing band directors and could be used to help shape the curriculum of undergraduate music education programs. To both create a historical narrative and provide a model for college band directors navigating social, political, and economic changes, Bouldin52 documented the career of former Auburn University director of bands, Dr.  Billy G.  Walls. Through semi-structured interviews with Dr.  Walls and his former colleagues and students, Bouldin described the social, economic, and political issues that affected the Auburn band program and Dr. Walls from 1961–1991. The author also described the change that Dr. Walls brought to music education in Alabama and throughout the southeast, including the SEC’s (Southeastern Conference) first African-American drum major, the first female drum major, the first wind and percussion ensembles, and the first band graduate assistant.

21.2.5 Discussion Although neither Yarberry or Jachens, authors of the first two qualitative band studies, used terminology we now associate with qualitative research and neither described their studies as qualitative, they each, nevertheless, explored band from a qualitative worldview and used qualitative research techniques, and thus might be considered the pioneers of early qualitative band research. Yarberry’s study was published as an article derived from his dissertation completed six years earlier, indicating that qualitative band research was being conducted as early as 1974. The first three qualitative studies in band research that were self-described as such occurred within three years of one another, were all doctoral dissertations, and all focused on documenting effective teaching practices (see Table  21.1). The first self-described qualitative band journal article, Conway,53 did not appear until 11 years and 11 dissertations after the first self-described qualitative band dissertation.54 This may have been because the research journals within the profession were slow to welcome qualitative methodology, because senior researchers were not conducting and submitting qualitative studies, or due to some combination of the two. The first self-described qualitative band study published in a journal that was not derived from a dissertation was Conway’s phenomenological study on gender and instrument choice, published in

Winds, Brass, Percussion  401 Table 21.1  Chronology of qualitative band research studies Author

Date

Topic

Design

Publication

Yarberry Jachens Casey Buell Dugle Owens Prather Albrecht Wohl Tooker Jackson Leavell Robinson Thompson Conway Conway Gonzales Tutt Allsup Kraus Lamkin Conway, et al. Lapka Dobbs Rohwer Peterson Schopp Dyas Scheib Conway, et al. Bazan Goodrich Oare Goodrich Davis Hoffman Jolly Vandivere Alfano Hourigan Henry Samuels Chaffin Sears Bouldin Legutki Rummel West Stringham Buck

1980 1987 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 1993 1993 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2003 2003 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011

Teaching Practices Teaching Practices Teaching Practices Teaching Practices Teaching Practices Student Perspectives Teaching Practices Social Lives of Band Directors Special Needs Gender Jazz Social Lives of Band Directors Teaching Practices Gender Teaching Practices Composition Composition Student Perspectives Lives of Band Directors Action Research Special Needs Social Adult Learners Lives of Band Directors Teaching Practices Jazz Student Perspectives Lives of Band Directors Teaching Practices Jazz Student Perspectives Jazz Action Research Social Lives of Band Directors Lives of Band Directors Adult Learners Special Needs Lives of Band Directors Lives of Band Directors Lives of Band Directors Gender Lives of Band Directors Student Perceptions Jazz Jazz Composition Student Perceptions

Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative Case Study Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative Case Study Case Study Case Study Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative Case Study Case Study Phenomenology Case Study Case Study Ethnography Case Study Phenomenology Action Research Case Study Discourse Analysis Case Study Case Study MM (Case Study) Case Study Case Study Self-Study MM (Qualitative) Ethnography Case Study Ethnography Action Research Case Study Qualitative Case Study Case Study Case Study Case Study Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative MM (Qualitative) MM (Qualitative) MM (Case Study) MM (Qualitative) Qualitative

JBR JBR Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation Abstract (BCRME) Dissertation JRME BCRME Dissertation Dissertation JRME Dissertation Dissertation BCRME Dissertation Dissertation CME Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation MEJ BCRME Dissertation JRME Dissertation BCRME Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation MEJ Dissertation Dissertation BCRME Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation Dissertation

402   chad west the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education (2000). After Conway’s two studies, we see a more regular stream of qualitative band research published in music education journals. Still, it seems that senior researchers were either reluctant to conduct qualitative band research or unable to publish it in the professional journals as we can see that only five journal articles have been published that were not derived from dissertations (i.e., Conway; Conway and Jeffers; Rohwer; Scheib; and Chaffin). Another possibility for the relative scarcity of such articles may be that researchers were more inclined to conduct studies that explored a topic from a broader perspective not limited specifically to band. In addition to Yarberry, there are several other authors that could be considered “pioneers” in qualitative band research in that they were the first to explore a particular topic. The first qualitative band study to examine student perspectives was Owens, who in 1992 interviewed students regarding their perceptions of what makes appealing and effective band rehearsals. The first of its kind to study the lives of band directors was Wohl in 1983, who described the recurring events and daily routines in the life of a small town band director. In 1995, Tooker was the first qualitative researcher to study band students with special needs. The very next year, Jackson and Leavell were the first to study gender and jazz respectively. In 2002, Tutt and Allsup were the first to qualitatively study composition in band, Conway and Jeffers in 2004 were the first qualitative band researchers to publish an action research study, and Rowher in 2005 was the first to qualitatively study older adults’ participation in band. We have seen a wide variation of the use of terminology among qualitative band researchers when describing or classifying their methodologies. Many researchers referred to their studies simply as “qualitative” and some did not classify their study by any name, but rather described the (qualitative) methods used. It was not until 12 years after the first self-described qualitative band study that we find research (Conway’s phenomenological study in 2000) described as something other than “qualitative” or “case study.” After this study in 2000, we see the inverse from the previous 12 years; from 2000–2011 qualitative band researchers began using terms such as phenomenology, ethnography, action research, discourse analysis, and mixed methods. Buell, in 1990, was the first qualitative band researcher to classify his study as a “case study.” Other pioneers include Conway in 2000, who classified her study as phenomenological; Allsup in 2003, who published an ethnography; Conway and Jeffers in 2004, who conducted action research; Dobbs in 2005, who used discourse analysis; and Schopp in 2006, who used mixed methods. The qualitative band studies since 1980 have examined topics as diverse as program profiles, social aspects, gender, lives of band directors, teaching practices, conducting and rehearsal techniques, assessment, student perspectives, jazz, student mentoring, students with special needs, identity construction, composition, democratic learning, practice habits, and adult learners. Topics that have not been studied qualitatively as they apply specifically to band include teaching for democracy in band, the role of popular music in schools, and non-band students’ perceptions of band, to name a few. Future qualitative band reseachers could ask questions such as (a) what could teaching

Winds, Brass, Percussion  403 for democracy look like in school band?; (b) what are perceived obstacles to teaching for democracy?; (c)  what perceptions do band directors, band students, and preservice music teachers hold about including vernacular music making activities and ways of learning into the school band program?; and (d) how can music teacher education change to better prepare future band directors to deliver a product more relevent to twenty-first-century students?

Notes 1. G.A. Yarberry, “An Analysis of Five Exemplary College Band Programs,” Journal of Band Research 15, no. 2 (1980). 2. Studies were searched using terms such as the following: qualitative, case, ethnography, narrative, phenomenological, grounded theory, and naturalistic. Studies that (a) were not qualitative, (b) were not conducted in the United States, or (c) were broader than just “band” (e.g., “instrumental” including strings) were not reviewed in this chapter. Last, for instances in which a journal article is derived from a dissertation, only the article is presented in this chapter. 3. Yarberry, “An Analysis of Five Exemplary College Band Programs.” 4. D. L.  Jachens, “The Pedagogical Approaches of Eight Important Midwestern Band Conductors During the Late 1920s and 1930s,” Journal of Band Research 22, no. 2 (1987). 5. J. Warren Casey, “An Analysis of Band Conductor Sight Reading Behavior and Ensemble Preparation for Sight-Reading” (PhD diss., The University of Oklahoma, 1988). 6. Donald SeCheverell Buell, “Effective Rehearsing with the Instrumental Music Ensemble: A Case Study” (PhD diss., The University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1990). 7. Jon Richard Dugle, “An Assessment Profile of Quality Secondary Band Programs in Illinois” (EdD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1991). 8. Belva Worthen Prather, “Are There Identifiable Patterns of Personal and Professional Mentoring Relationships between Instrumental Music Educators and Their Students?” (EdD diss., University of Arkansas, 1993). 9. Colleen M.  Conway, “The Development of Teaching Cases for Instrumental Music Methods Courses,” Journal of Research in Music Education 47, no. 4 (1999). 10. Luis Samuel Gonzalez, “Rehearsal Effectiveness:  An Analytical Study of Rehearsal Philosophies and Procedures of Selected Public School and Postsecondary Wind Band Conductors” (DMA diss., University of Cincinnati, 2001). 11. Steven Edward Schopp, “A Study of the Effects of National Standards for Music Education, Number 3, Improvisation and Number 4, Composition on High School Band Instruction in New York State” (EdD diss., Teachers College, Columbia University, 2006). 12. D. Bazan, “Teaching and Learning Strategies Used by Student-Directed Teachers of Middle School Band” (PhD diss., Case Western Reserve University, 2007). 13. Brian Keith Leavell, “ ‘Making the Change’ ”: Middle School Band Students’ Perspectives on the Learning of Musical-Technical Skills in Jazz Performance” (PhD diss., University of North Texas, 1996). 14. J. B. Dyas, “A Description, Comparison, and Interpretation of Two Exemplary Performing Arts High School Jazz Programs” (PhD diss., Indiana University, 2006). 15. Andrew Goodrich, “Peer Mentoring in a High School Jazz Ensemble,” Journal of Research in Music Education 55, no. 2 (2007).

404   chad west 16. ———, “Utilizing Elements of the Historic Jazz Culture in a High School Setting,” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, no. 175 (2008). 17. Jason Robert Rummel, “Perceptions of Jazz Improvisation among Pennsylvania Music Educators” (DMA diss., Boston University, 2010). 18. Chad West, “Teaching Middle School Jazz: An Exploratory Sequential Mixed Methods Study” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 2011). 19. Paul Arthur Tooker, “A Case Study of a High School Special Education Beginning Band Class” (EdD diss., Columbia University Teachers College, 1995). 20. Christine M.  Lapka, “A Case Study of the Integration of Students with Disabilities in a Secondary Music Ensemble” (EdD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2005). 21. Ryan M. Hourigan, “The Invisible Student: Understanding Social Identity Construction within Performing Ensembles,” Music Educators Journal 95, no. 4 (2009). 22. Kevin Joseph Tutt, “High School Band Members Criteria for Evaluating Performed Music: A Collective Case Study” (PhD diss., The Pennsylvania State University, 2002). 23. Randall Everett Allsup, “Mutual Learning and Democratic Action in Instrumental Music Education,” Journal of Research in Music Education 51, no. 1 (2003). 24. D. Stringham, “Improvisation and Composition in a High School Instrumental Music Curriculum” (PhD diss., University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music, 2011). 25. Colleen M.  Conway and Tom Jeffers, “Parent, Student, and Teacher Perceptions of Assessment Procedures in Beginning Instrumental Music,” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, no. 160 (2004). 26. S. Davis, “Fostering a Musical Say: Enabling Meaning Making and Investment in a Band Class by Connecting to Students’ Informal Music Learning Processes” (PhD diss., Oakland University, 2008). 27. Garry Wright Owens, “Student Perceptions of Appealing and Effective Music Rehearsals: Toward Retention and Transfer of Learning” (PhD diss., The University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1992). 28. Barry Neal Kraus, “Musicians in Flow:  Optimal Experience in the Wind Ensemble Rehearsal” (DMA diss., Arizona State University, 2003). 29. John W.  Scheib, “Lindy’s Story:  One Student’s Experience in Middle School Band— Do Students Perceive School Music to Mean Simply Competition, Achievement, and Discipline? Or Can Teachers Communicate Music’s Intrinsic Attributes?,” Music Educators Journal 92, no. 5 (2006). 30. S. Oare, “Goals and Self-Assessment in the Middle School Learner:  A  Study of Music Practice Habits” (PhD diss., Michigan State University, 2007). 31. A. Legutki, “Self-Determined Music Participation:  The Role of Psychological Needs Satisfaction, Intrinsic Motivation, and Self-Regulation in the High School Band Experience” (PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2010). 32. Wayne A. Buck, “Rural Band Students’ Perceptions of Practice Aids Created by Music Notation Software” (EdD diss., Northcentral University, 2011). 33. Gary L. Albrecht, “Administration of Service Activity in the School Band Program within School Culture” (PhD diss., The University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1993). 34. M. Robinson, “Band: A Qualitative Study of Students’ Perceptions of the High School Band Experience,” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 131 (1997). 35. Teryl L. Dobbs, “Discourse in the Band Room: How Talk Shapes Teaching, Learning, and Community in a Middle School Instrumental Music Classroom” (PhD diss., Northwestern University, 2005).

Winds, Brass, Percussion  405 36. A. Hoffman, ““Like Who You Are”: Socially Constructed Identity in the Middle School Band” (PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park, 2008). 37. Cheryl Ann Jackson, “The Relationship between the Imbalance of Numbers of Women and Men College Band Conductors and the Various Issues That Influence the Career Aspirations of Women Instrumental Musicians” (PhD diss., Michigan State University, 1996). 38. Conway, Colleen M.  “Gender and Musical Instrument Choice:  A  Phenomenological Investigation.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education no. 146 (2000): 1. 39. C. Sears, “Paving Their Own Way: Experiences of Female High School Band Directors” (EdD, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2010). 40. Debbie A. Rohwer, “A Case Study of Adult Beginning Instrumental Practice,” Contributions to Music Education 32, no. 1 (2005). 41. Christopher J.  Alfano, “Seniors’ Participation in an Intergenerational Music Learning Program” (PhD diss., McGill University (Canada), 2008). 42. Mark Alan Wohl, “The Small Town Band Director: A Descriptive Case Study” (PhD diss., University of Oregon, 1993). 43. Gerald Wayne Thompson, “Responses of Marching Band Directors to Their Professional Roles and to an Instructional Framework for Teaching Marching Band Shows” (EdD, University of Maryland College Park, 1998). 44. John R.  Lamkin, II, “Beyond the Podium:  A  Phenomenological Investigation of the Lifeworlds of Experienced High School Band Directors” (PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park, 2003). 45. E. Peterson, “Expectations and Experiences: Case Studies of Three First-Year Instrumental Music Teachers” (DMA diss., Shenandoah University, 2005). 46. C. M. Conway et al., “Perceptions of Beginning Teachers Regarding Brass and Woodwind Instrument Techniques Classes in Preservice Education,” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 173 (2007). 47. D. Jolly, “Music Educator Perceptions of Declining Enrollments in Texas Band Programs” (EdD diss., Stephen F. Austin State University, 2008). 48. Allen Hale Vandivere, “An Investigation of the Nonverbal Communication Behaviors and Role Perceptions of Pre-Service Band Teachers Who Participated in Theatre Seminars” (PhD diss., University of North Texas, 2008). 49. Charles R.  Chaffin, “Perceptions of Instrumental Music Teachers Regarding the Development of Effective Rehearsal Techniques,” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, no. 181 (2009). 50. John P. Henry, Jr., “The Prairie View Interscholastic League Band Contests from 1938–1970, with an Emphasis on Black High School Bands and Band Directors in Texas” (DMA diss., University of Houston, 2009). 51. Sue Samuels, “Alfred Watkins and the Lassiter High School Band: A Qualitative Study” (PhD diss., Auburn University, 2009). 52. Thomas Gordon Bouldin, “Dr. Billy G. Walls and the Auburn University Bands, 1961– 1991:  A  Story of Impact, Influence and Innovation” (PhD diss., Auburn University, 2010). 53. Conway, “The Development of Teaching Cases for Instrumental Music Methods Courses.” 54. Casey, “An Analysis of Band Conductor Sight Reading Behavior and Ensemble Preparation for Sight-Reading.”

406   chad west

References Albrecht, Gary L. 1993. “Administration of Service Activity in the School Band Program within School Culture.” PhD diss., The University of Wisconsin-Madison,. Alfano, Christopher J. 2008. “Seniors’ Participation in an Intergenerational Music Learning Program.” PhD diss., McGill University (Canada). Allsup, Randall Everett. 2003. “Mutual Learning and Democratic Action in Instrumental Music Education.” Journal of Research in Music Education 51, no. 1: 24–37. Bazan, D. 2007. “Teaching and Learning Strategies Used by Student-Directed Teachers of Middle School Band.” PhD diss., Case Western Reserve University. Bouldin, Thomas Gordon. 2010. “Dr. Billy G. Walls and the Auburn University Bands, 1961– 1991: A Story of Impact, Influence and Innovation.” PhD diss., Auburn University. Buck, Wayne A. 2011. “Rural Band Students’ Perceptions of Practice Aids Created by Music Notation Software.” EdD diss., Northcentral University. Buell, Donald SeCheverell. 1990. “Effective Rehearsing with the Instrumental Music Ensemble: A Case Study.” PhD diss., The University of Wisconsin - Madison. Casey, J. Warren. 1988. “An Analysis of Band Conductor Sight Reading Behavior and Ensemble Preparation for Sight-Reading.” PhD diss., The University of Oklahoma. Chaffin, Charles R. 2009. “Perceptions of Instrumental Music Teachers Regarding the Development of Effective Rehearsal Techniques.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education no. 181: 21–36. Conway, C. M., J. Eros, Ryan Hourigan, and A.M. Stanley. 2007. “Perceptions of Beginning Teachers Regarding Brass and Woodwind Instrument Techniques Classes in Preservice Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 173: 39–54. Conway, Colleen M. 1999. “The Development of Teaching Cases for Instrumental Music Methods Courses.” Journal of Research in Music Education 47, no. 4: 343–56. Conway, Colleen M. 2000. “Gender and Musical Instrument Choice:  A  Phenomenological Investigation.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education no. 146: 1. Conway, Colleen M., and Tom Jeffers. 2004. “Parent, Student, and Teacher Perceptions of Assessment Procedures in Beginning Instrumental Music.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education no. 160: 16. Davis, S. 2008. “Fostering a Musical Say: Enabling Meaning Making and Investment in a Band Class by Connecting to Students’ Informal Music Learning Processes.” PhD diss., Oakland University. Dobbs, Teryl L. 2005. “Discourse in the Band Room: How Talk Shapes Teaching, Learning, and Community in a Middle School Instrumental Music Classroom.” PhD diss., Northwestern University. Dugle, Jon Richard. 1991. “An Assessment Profile of Quality Secondary Band Programs in Illinois.” EdD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dyas, J. B. 2006. “A Description, Comparison, and Interpretation of Two Exemplary Performing Arts High School Jazz Programs.” PhD diss., Indiana University. Gonzalez, Luis Samuel. 2001. “Rehearsal Effectiveness:  An Analytical Study of Rehearsal Philosophies and Procedures of Selected Public School and Postsecondary Wind Band Conductors.” DMA diss., University of Cincinnati. Goodrich, Andrew. 2007. “Peer Mentoring in a High School Jazz Ensemble.” Journal of Research in Music Education 55, no. 2: 94–114.

Winds, Brass, Percussion  407 Goodrich, Andrew. 2008. “Utilizing Elements of the Historic Jazz Culture in a High School Setting.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education no. 175: 11. Henry, John P., Jr. 2009. “The Prairie View Interscholastic League Band Contests from 1938– 1970, with an Emphasis on Black High School Bands and Band Directors in Texas.” DMA diss., University of Houston. Hoffman, A. 2008. “ ‘Like Who You Are’: Socially Constructed Identity in the Middle School Band.” PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park. Hourigan, Ryan M. 2009. “The Invisible Student: Understanding Social Identity Construction within Performing Ensembles.” Music Educators Journal 95, no. 4: 34–38. Jachens, D. L. 1987. “The Pedagogical Approaches of Eight Important Midwestern Band Conductors During the Late 1920s and 1930s.” Journal of Band Research 22, no. 2: 44–55. Jackson, Cheryl Ann. 1996. “The Relationship between the Imbalance of Numbers of Women and Men College Band Conductors and the Various Issues That Influence the Career Aspirations of Women Instrumental Musicians.” PhD diss., Michigan State University. Jolly, D. 2008. “Music Educator Perceptions of Declining Enrollments in Texas Band Programs.” EdD diss., Stephen F. Austin State University. Kraus, Barry Neal. 2008. “Musicians in Flow:  Optimal Experience in the Wind Ensemble Rehearsal.” DMA diss., Arizona State University. Lamkin, John R., II. 2003. “Beyond the Podium:  A  Phenomenological Investigation of the Lifeworlds of Experienced High School Band Directors.” PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park. Lapka, Christine M. 2005. “A Case Study of the Integration of Students with Disabilities in a Secondary Music Ensemble.” EdD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Leavell, Brian Keith. 1996. “‘Making the Change’: Middle School Band Students’ Perspectives on the Learning of Musical-Technical Skills in Jazz Performance.” PhD diss., University of North Texas. Legutki, A. 2010. “Self-Determined Music Participation:  The Role of Psychological Needs Satisfaction, Intrinsic Motivation, and Self-Regulation in the High School Band Experience.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Oare, S. “Goals and Self-Assessment in the Middle School Learner: A Study of Music Practice Habits.” PhD diss., Michigan State University, 2007. Owens, Garry Wright. 1992. “Student Perceptions of Appealing and Effective Music Rehearsals:  Toward Retention and Transfer of Learning.” PhD diss., The University of Wisconsin-Madison. Peterson, E. 2005. “Expectations and Experiences: Case Studies of Three First-Year Instrumental Music Teachers.” DMA diss., Shenandoah University. Prather, Belva Worthen. 1993. “Are There Identifiable Patterns of Personal and Professional Mentoring Relationships between Instrumental Music Educators and Their Students?” EdD diss., University of Arkansas. Robinson, M. 1997. “Band: A Qualitative Study of Students’ Perceptions of the High School Band Experience.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 131: 38–39. Rohwer, Debbie A. 2005. “A Case Study of Adult Beginning Instrumental Practice.” Contributions to Music Education 32, no. 1: 45–58. Rummel, Jason Robert. 2010. “Perceptions of Jazz Improvisation among Pennsylvania Music Educators.” DMA diss., Boston University. Samuels, Sue. 2009. “Alfred Watkins and the Lassiter High School Band: A Qualitative Study.” PhD diss., Auburn University.

408   chad west Scheib, John W. 2006. “Lindy’s Story: One Student’s Experience in Middle School Band—Do Students Perceive School Music to Mean Simply Competition, Achievement, and Discipline? Or Can Teachers Communicate Music’s Intrinsic Attributes?” Music Educators Journal 92, no. 5: 32. Schopp, Steven Edward. 2006. “A Study of the Effects of National Standards for Music Education, Number 3, Improvisation and Number 4, Composition on High School Band Instruction in New York State.” EdD diss., Teachers College, Columbia University. Sears, C. 2010. “Paving Their Own Way: Experiences of Female High School Band Directors.” EdD diss., Teachers College, Columbia University. Stringham, D. 2011. “Improvisation and Composition in a High School Instrumental Music Curriculum.” PhD diss., University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music. Thompson, Gerald Wayne. 1998. “Responses of Marching Band Directors to Their Professional Roles and to an Instructional Framework for Teaching Marching Band Shows.” EdD diss., University of Maryland College Park. Tooker, Paul Arthur. 1995. “A Case Study of a High School Special Education Beginning Band Class.” EdD diss., Columbia University Teachers College. Tutt, Kevin Joseph. 2002. “High School Band Members Criteria for Evaluating Performed Music: A Collective Case Study.” PhD diss., The Pennsylvania State University. Vandivere, Allen Hale. 2008. “An Investigation of the Nonverbal Communication Behaviors and Role Perceptions of Pre-Service Band Teachers Who Participated in Theatre Seminars.” PhD diss., University of North Texas. West, C. 2011. “Teaching Middle School Jazz: An Exploratory Sequential Mixed Methods Study.” PhD diss., University of Michigan. Wohl, Mark Alan. 1993. “The Small Town Band Director: A Descriptive Case Study.” PhD diss., University of Oregon. Yarberry, G. A. 1980. “An Analysis of Five Exemplary College Band Programs.” Journal of Band Research 15, no. 2: 23–45.

Chapter 22

Instrum enta l Mu si c ( Strin g s ) margaret h. berg

22.1 Introduction Over the past decade, there has been an increased number of venues for the distribution of research on stringed instrument teaching, learning, and performance. Syntheses of research focused on stringed instrument instruction, study, and performance include Kantorski’s (1995) content analysis of doctoral research in string education between 1936–1992 and Barnes (2003) edited book Applying Research to Teaching and Playing Stringed Instruments. The String Research Journal (formerly the Journal of String Research) was created in 2000 for the publication of investigations of a philosophical, historical, or scientific nature that contribute to the understanding of the teaching and learning of strings. To date, published qualitative research on stringed instrument teaching, learning, and performance is limited, with the String Research Journal/Journal of String Research having published only two articles, or 9 percent of the total number of articles, that use qualitative methodology. However, given the increased number of research poster sessions at the National American String Teachers Association (ASTA) Conference, several of which use qualitative research design, we might expect an increase in the number of published qualitative studies on stringed instrument teaching and learning in this journal and other music education research journals. This chapter is a review of extant research on American stringed instrument instruction, study, performance, program models, and curriculum. More specifically, studies are clustered into the following topic areas: teacher socialization, lived experience, models, and approaches; students’ experience of learning to play a string instrument; professional and amateur performers; and school orchestra and alternative styles program components and curriculum. Studies that focused on preservice string teacher education are reviewed in ­chapter 24 of this Handbook.

410   margaret h. berg

22.2 Teachers: Socialization, Lived Experience, Models, and Approaches 22.2.1 Teacher Socialization and Lived Experience The majority of studies reviewed were focused on string teachers and/or string teaching. Studies on teacher socialization and lived experience explored role stressors, the impact of significant others (e.g. parents, teachers, peers, and professional colleagues) on teacher socialization, the impact of music-making activities on identity development and teaching, and novice orchestra teachers’ focus of attention. Utilizing concepts from work organization stress research, Scheib (2003) explored the role stressors of four Midwestern high school music teachers, one of whom was an orchestra teacher. Data were collected via observation, interviews, and document analysis. While role ambiguity and nonparticipation issues were less of a concern for the participants, issues related to role conflicts, role overloads, and resource inadequacy were substantial. The burden of administrative responsibilities, the constant need for music education advocacy, conflicts between personal and professional roles, and tension created by scheduling conflicts due to the increasingly busy schedule of students were among the most significant stressors. Notably, the orchestra teacher participant focused his efforts on recruiting and seemed to report less tension and stress than the other participants. However, inter-role conflict was experienced with respect to student retention, as the teacher attempted to balance “making orchestra fun” and performance demands. In 2008, Cox investigated the impact of significant others on the socialization of three experienced school orchestra teachers. Through in-depth interviews, Cox identified specific individuals who encouraged participants toward music involvement and teaching during pre-college, college, and post-college years. During primary socialization, mothers or fathers especially encouraged participants to become musicians and teachers, and high school ensemble directors and private music teachers were also sources of encouragement for seeking a college education, as well as for majoring in music education. During college years, the influence more often came from an ensemble director, from oneself, or from a private teacher. In post-college years, participants noted the impact of colleagues, other classroom teachers, administrators, parents, and family. Music-making activities have also been found to impact teachers. Pellegrino (2010) described the identity development and teaching of a maximum variation (with respect to participant background) sample of four full-time, public school orchestra teachers. Utilizing a phenomenological case study design, data were generated through background surveys, three interviews with each individual, videotaped classroom observations, a focus group interview that included music-making and conversation, a researcher self-interview, and researcher journals. For the researcher self-interview, Pellegrino read interview questions aloud, then responded while simultaneously audiotaping. Individual participant music backgrounds and current music-making values

Strings  411 and activities were presented as well as a within-case and cross-case analysis of the intersection of music-making and teaching. Participants connected music-making to the formation of identity and with their well-being. Music-making intersected with teaching in multiple ways by reminding participants why they valued playing, providing insight into pedagogical issues, and helping them be more compassionate towards their students. Teachers used performance while teaching to remain focused, to inspire and gain credibility with students, to address classroom management, and to model technique, musicality, and their love of music-making. Pellegrino’s dissertation is an exemplar based on the richness of the data presented and the application of various frameworks to the interpretation, including Wenger’s (1999) Community of Practice model. First-year orchestra teachers’ focus of attention was the topic of Barnes’ (2010) study. Data were collected over the course of one year through journals and in-depth interviews with five teachers. Overall, participants focused on students, administrators, and the self. Within these categories, participants attended to student behavior, music learning, administrative support, personal relationships with students, classroom discipline skills, and teaching efficacy. Barnes noted a need for increased preparation to teach in diverse contexts as well as the need for effective administrator support. While Barnes’ findings illustrate general beginning teacher issues rather than string teaching specific issues, this study provides useful information on first-year orchestra teachers’ lived experiences.

22.2.2 Teaching Models and Approaches 22.2.2.1  Studio Setting Five studies of studio teaching models and approaches examined teacher-student interpersonal dynamics, the impact of Suzuki method instruction, and teaching strategies of artist-level teachers, including Dorothy DeLay and Donald McInnes. One study was an analysis and application of nine respected teachers’ (Brian Lewis, Stephen Shipps, Shi-Hwa Wang, Kathryn Plummer, Marilyn Seelman, Tanya Carey, Jeffrey Solow, Lawrence Hurst, and William Ritchie) tone production exercises. Using Freud’s concept of “defence mechanisms,” Gustafson (1986) analyzed the interpersonal dynamics during studio lessons of four violin teachers and eight of their aged 11–17 students. Data were collected via videos of twelve lessons and teacher interviews. Four vignettes displayed instances of lesson content and interactions being dominated by unconscious aims of either or both members of the dyad. Diagnostic and remedial content were impacted by projection, ineffective interaction patterns, and latent personal agendas. The only study to use a phenomenological design, Collier-Slone (1991) examined the perceived impact of Suzuki method instruction on students’ life experience. In-depth interviews were conducted with 28 adults (ranging in age from 25–62) who participated in Suzuki-based instruction from preschool through high school as students or parents.

412   margaret h. berg Three themes were aggregated from 14 meaning clusters including: the contribution of Suzuki Method instruction to the development of significant interpersonal relationships with parents, peers, and teachers; the impact on the internal self (e.g., self-esteem, attitudes and values, spirituality, awareness of the existential nature of music) of Suzuki Method participation; and the integration, internalization, and professional benefit of developing musical skills and discipline via the Suzuki Method. One of three studies focused on artist-level teaching, Gholson (1998) identified and characterized patterns of DeLay’s teaching practice. Over a period of 13 months, field notes (with accompanying audiotapes) of 65 lessons, teacher interviews, and artifacts were collected. A theory of proximal positioning, based on Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development, was posited. Preparatory (e.g., getting acquainted, creating goals, and probing for student frame of reference) and facilitative (e.g., goal development, cognitive magnification, use of metaphor, and creation of a comforting atmosphere to encourage risk-taking) strategies emerged as global patterns of teaching practice. Gholson’s dissertation (1993), on which this article is based, includes a thorough description of coding and validation procedures, as well as the creative application of Schenkerian analysis to coding procedures. Duke and Simmons (2006) examined 25 hours of private lesson video recordings by three artist-teachers, one of whom was renowned viola teacher Donald McInnes. Following the creation of narrative descriptions for each lesson, 19 elements were identified in each teacher, which were organized into three categories: goals and expectations, effecting change, and conveying information. While interviews with the teachers could have served as another data source, video excerpts of the elements for each teacher are viewable on the Center for Music Learning website (http://cml.music.utexas.edu), thus serving as a valuable resource. In the third study of artist-level teaching, Moss (2006) identified favored sound production exercises of selected contemporary violin, viola, cello, and double bass studio teachers. Exercises were then adapted and field-tested with middle and high school orchestra students from nine programs. Sound production exercises were gathered during interviews and email exchanges with studio teachers while data on the need for and effectiveness of the exercises was gathered via a questionnaire and interviews with orchestra directors. Selected exercises from studio teachers and literature formed the basis for three areas of focus in the adapted exercises: (1) developing right-hand finger flexibility; (2) focusing the tone; and (3) varying the bow’s speed. Participating school orchestra directors used exercises as a warm-up activity, applied them to repertoire students were learning, and perceived improved tone production as a result of using the exercises.

22.2.2.2  School Setting Six studies focused on aspects of beginning- and intermediate-level school orchestra teacher approaches including motivation techniques, sequence of instruction, rehearsal priorities, instructional approach, postural teaching techniques, and precollegiate guitar teaching methods. Parker (2001) examined the motivation strategies of an exemplary middle school orchestra teacher. Data were collected during five observations,

Strings  413 an in-depth teacher interview, two student focus group interviews, interviews with ten students, and a researcher journal. Findings suggest that the teacher’s unique personality and genuine care for his students contributed to his success in motivating his seventh-grade orchestra students. Noteworthy motivation strategies were his lack of competition in the classroom in order to avoid student comparison, sense of humor, ability to make his students feel valued and respected in and out of the classroom, inviting accomplished performers into the class, relating concepts to repertoire, and choosing appropriate literature based on student level and variety. The researcher also noted the impact of teacher longevity in the position and accompanying success on local community support of the music program. Lyne (1991) explored the sequence of instruction used by the researcher while teaching 19 beginning strings classes in six elementary schools. The teacher incorporated principles and activities from Rolland, Orff, and Kodaly in the teaching approach. A model of a teaching sequence was developed that included teacher assessment, diagnosis, and prescription. Areas of learning that were the focus of instruction were students’ playing technique, understanding of musical concepts, and intrinsic motivation with regard to pacing. Questions were used by the teacher to determine student skill level, prescribe developmental or remedial teaching, and evaluate the prescription results. The sequence used by the researcher might be used by others who lack a mentor with music teaching expertise to foster professional growth. In a related study, Kotchenruther (1998) investigated the rehearsal priorities of twelve middle school teachers. The design and analytical approach are indicative of the study publication date. Data were collected via two interviews and three rehearsal videos of each teacher as well as written evaluations of videotaped student performances completed by the participants. Videos were analyzed using the researcher-constructed Rehearsal Priorities Analysis Form based on the Flanders’ Interaction Analysis System. Results based on stated and demonstrated priorities indicated that teacher rehearsal priorities divided into four areas: (1) notes/intonation, rhythm, posture; (2) ensemble, bowing, technique, note reading, dynamics; (3)  tone, style, musicality, articulation, expression, phrasing, vibrato, balance; and (4) following conducting gestures, precision/ clarity, interpretation, theory/history, independence, tempo, blend, energy, and unique problems. Findings suggest that middle school string teachers prioritize fundamental criteria highest, followed by physical criteria, then expressive and interpretive criteria. Scruggs (2009) examined whether and in what ways a learner-centered classroom environment nurtured musical growth and independence in four suburban middle-school orchestra classrooms over four months. Using a mixed method triangulation design convergence model (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011), quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed separately, followed by a comparison of results leading to a final interpretation that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative findings. Qualitative data were collected via bi-weekly classroom observations, student focus group interviews, teacher interviews, and weekly journal entries by teachers. Several themes emerged including “I vs. They”; Teacher Transformation; Development of Student Leaders, How Students Prefer to Learn, and Striking a Balance. While no differences in

414   margaret h. berg music performance outcomes between learner-centered and teacher-centered ensembles were found, students in learner-centered classrooms exhibited greater musical independence and indicated having more choice and leadership opportunities in their classrooms. Learner-centered teachers reported increased engagement and leadership skills from their students. Although the findings from this study suggest positive outcomes of learner-centered teaching, further study is needed on the implementation of this approach in diverse environments by teachers at various career stages. Using a mixed methods design defined by the author as constructivist grounded theory, Hudnall (2012) administered an online survey to 230 middle or high school orchestra teachers’ on postural teaching methods and students’ performance-related problems. Follow-up interviews and observations were conducted with three teachers during implementation of a researcher designed postural teaching techniques program. Individual and cross-case analysis highlighted the importance of postural awareness, consistent definitions of postural elements, the impact of equipment, and common techniques used to teach relaxed posture. Researcher-designed techniques, with the exception of one exercise, were found to increase student and teacher awareness of posture and possible to integrate into rehearsals. Of these six studies, the only research on guitar teaching was by Merry (2010), who studied two precollegiate classical guitar methods—one at a public charter school utilizing a Suzuki method approach and the other in a private studio based on traditional pedagogy. Based on observations of and interviews with teachers, both teachers had defined goals and selected high-quality and age-appropriate repertoire. While both models were effective, differences in emphasis on sight-reading, tone production and listening, parent involvement, and age of beginners were found.

22.2.2.3  Chamber Music Setting Although the chamber music ensemble was the unit of analysis in other studies, only one study focused on chamber music coaching, specifically the strategies used by the Cavani Quartet to foster collaborative student rehearsals. Cotter-Lockard (2012) collected data via interviews with Cavani String Quartet and student quartet members. Also, post-coaching interviews that included review of video excerpts of the coaching session were conducted with select participants. The concept of chamber ensemble as a generative team was created to characterize the environment, communication, and ensemble member ability to consider various perspectives fostered during coaching sessions.

22.3 Students Studies that focused on students’ experience of learning to play a string instrument clustered by grade level (elementary school, middle school, high school, and collegiate).

Strings  415 While the participants in some studies included band and orchestra students, the findings discussed below will focus on orchestra students.

22.3.1 Elementary and Middle School Level Four studies investigated factors that contributed to beginner or elementary-school-level orchestra students’ motivation to participate, fifth-grade instrumentalists’ descriptions of music, sixth-grade instrumentalists’ self regulation, and seventh-grade student practice strategies. Over nine months, Stofko (2002) collected field notes and interviews (with teachers and students) during beginning band and orchestra rehearsals. Data were initially coded deductively using sports socialization agents concepts. Normative vignettes were created to illustrate the presentation of themes. While students joined the ensemble for a variety of reasons, the most influential factor in selecting an instrument was family influence, followed by timbre preferences. Band students reflected a greater degree of gender stereotyping of instruments than orchestra students. Although both band and orchestra instructors used similar pedagogical techniques, the personality of the instructors was a factor contributing to the effectiveness of each teaching technique. Differences between band and orchestra were also the result of the unique characteristics of the school setting. One study explored eight fifth-grader instrumentalists’ (four band, three string, one both) categorization and descriptions of 15 excerpts from unfamiliar music (Johnson 2003). Data were collected using a Q-sort technique, interviews, and written descriptions of pieces. Four categories of descriptors emerged: Elemental Music, Extramusical Associative, Affective, and Other (comparison to other pieces). The participants used elemental music terms most often, yet also included a substantial number of extramusical associations and affective descriptors. Two studies explored beginning students’ practicing. Using a mixed method triangulation design, Austin and Berg (2006) explored 224 band and orchestra students’ practice motivation and regulation. A validating quantitative data model was used (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011), where quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed separately, followed by an elaboration on quantitative results based on qualitative findings. Sixth-grade instrumentalists completed a 36-item practice inventory and produced two narratives depicting a typical practice session and a practice episode involving a difficult piece of music. Written narratives revealed that some students employ a range of practice and regulatory strategies, while others follow practice routines that are not considered strategic. Practice motivation was reflected in student comments about personal interest, effort, and emotional responses experienced while practicing. In a follow-up study, Berg (2008) used a case study design to describe the practice strategies and function of music practice for two seventh-grade string students. Data were collected over 14 weeks during 56 videotaped practice sessions and audiotaped interviews with the participants, parents, and school orchestra teacher. Although both participants were motivated by a practice time requirement, the use of different practice

416   margaret h. berg routines, strategies, environments, and behaviors, as well as motivational catalysts, contributed to varied practice effectiveness. Findings suggest music practice served multiple and varied functions for these two adolescent-aged instrumentalists.

22.3.2 High School and Collegiate Level High school- or collegiate-level string students were the focus of five studies on the following subjects: musical experience during orchestra rehearsals, improvisation experiences in two alternative style ensembles, musical experiences of six arts magnet high school students, All-State orchestra member self-efficacy sources and other influences on changes in music competence perception, and college string majors’ self-regulated practice behaviors. Through observation, interviews, questionnaire administration, and analysis of three videotaped rehearsals, Johnson (1990) identified three aspects of musical experience (psychosocial, teacher role, and awareness) during orchestra rehearsals, each encompassing several dimensions. Given the diversity of student perspectives found in this setting, students’ musical experience in the secondary orchestra classroom is likely to be multidimensional and varied. Lasinger (2006) investigated the impact of improvisation on the learning experiences of string players in two high-school-level alternative (primarily fiddling or Celtic) style ensembles. Study participants included 32 (violin, viola, bass guitar, or acoustic guitar) students from the two ensembles, ensemble directors, and an undergraduate student who was a former member of one of the ensembles. Data were collected over a period of six weeks via individual interviews; two focus group interviews (which included researcher-student improvisation and discussion) with students; a student background survey; and rehearsal field notes. Students reported being more comfortable improvising during individual rather than group practice. When improvising during individual practice, students fused styles. Students were found to have three areas of focus when improvising: perception of improvisational ability by the self and/or peers; memory of the repertoire; and a focus on right arm/left hand technique. Although each director advocated establishing safe environments for students during improvisation, many participants still struggled with comparing themselves to their peers. Students who were comfortable with improvisation were more likely to report coordinated focus on their left hand and right arm through consideration of the key signature and meter, while students who were uncomfortable with improvisation often shifted their focus toward the left hand because of their concern for playing the “right” notes. Varied student motivations for alternative ensemble participation included being able to play relevant music and the challenge of performing alternative style music. A unique contribution to extant research on American students’ string instrument learning, Thibeault (2007) studied the musical experiences of six arts magnet high school students. Over the course of a school year, 219 observations with accompanying informal interviews were conducted during rehearsals and performances in multiple

Strings  417 settings, including school ensembles (orchestra, chamber ensemble, and jazz band); youth orchestras; garage bands; and bluegrass jam sessions. Eight hours of video, 329 digital photos, CD recordings of three students, Internet data, and artifacts (concert programs and handouts) also served as data sources. A distinction emerged between score-centered and setting-centered musical practices. Score-centered practices organize musical experiences around a fixed musical work, while setting-centered practices organize musical experiences around the musicians and context, allowing the musical work to be changed based on features of the setting. Thibeault’s (2009) subsequent narrative presentation of one of the 2007 study participants highlighted tensions experienced between classical and bluegrass music performance and the associated instructional approach (guided vs. opportunity for exploration). Thibeault offers a vision of music education that embraces both score and setting-centered practices, thus affording more creative opportunities for orchestra students. Thibeault’s (2007) study is an excellent model of an ethnography given prolonged engagement, use of multiple data sources and substantial methodological (research question development, data management, and data collection) information included in an appendix. In another study of high school students, Hendricks (2009) examined All-State orchestra member self-efficacy sources and other contextual and intrapersonal influences on changes in music competence perception. A  concurrent nested, semi-integrated mixed method design (Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann and Hanson 2003)  was used for simultaneous collection of qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data were used to enhance the quantitative analyses, while inferences from qualitative analyses led to further statistical analysis. Qualitative data were collected by six researchers via observation of rehearsals and post-rehearsal discussions with students. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with all students following seating auditions, while follow-up interviews were completed with selected students based on initial interview and questionnaire responses and observed behaviors including emotional reactions. Data from observations and interviews were used to illustrate findings from the quantitative analyses as well as to provide more nuanced illustrations of sources of self-efficacy. Analyses suggest that students with higher self-efficacy beliefs were influenced by the sources of self-efficacy, with a primary influence from enactive mastery experience. Students with high self-efficacy beliefs were also positively influenced by (a) positive and negative conductor feedback; (b) encouragement from other students; (c) seeing other students succeed; and (d) issues of fatigue. Students with low self-efficacy beliefs felt more capable after seeing that other students were struggling. Variations in self-efficacy perceptions were also based on gender, orchestra placement, section in the orchestra, and relative number of same-school peers at the festival. While the findings seem to indicate that self-efficacy perceptions in a socially comparative environment are most closely associated with the ability to impress others and least associated with the ability to perform expressively, students can be taught to act as agents of their own cognition, motivation, and musical development. Hendricks’s dissertation is a strong example of mixed method design given the detailed description of methodology and findings.

418   margaret h. berg One of two studies that focused on collegiate-level students, Kim (2010) described four college string majors’ self-regulated practice behaviors that promoted efficiency and independence. Data were collected over a period of two weeks via a researcher-constructed semi-structured practice diary and two interviews with each participant. Participants demonstrated a range of self-regulatory skills, although some similar characteristics in the ways college music students self-regulated their learning during practice were noted. Age-related development in skillful self-regulation was identified. Furthermore, the semi-structured practice diary seemed to be an effective tool to investigate self-regulated learning in instrumental practice as well as to encourage self-regulated learning, particularly for less regulatory students. Although Black (2012) also explored collegiate-level student experience, data were collected post-hoc during interviews with 11 professional multistylists. Aspiring multistylists’ unique needs as well as the perceived impact of collegiate program configuration (university-based, monostyle conservatory, or multistyle conservatory) on participants’ professional performing career preparation were topics explored in this study. Eight needs were identified that clustered into three categories: supportive teachers, mentoring and environment; relevant and flexible repertoire and performance opportunities; and opportunities to develop creative skills. Each program configuration was found to have strengths and limitations for pre-professional preparation.

22.4  Professional/Amateur Performers Three studies focused on professional or amateur performer learning influences, improvisational thinking, socialization via significant others, or identity and self-efficacy development. Heaney (1994) explored educational background variables that contributed to the development of professional orchestra performers. In-depth interviews with seven Philadelphia Orchestra string section members and one former professional orchestra member (for the pilot study) were conducted. Findings were presented by variable categories and realist tales, with transcript excerpts included in each tale. An 11-variable model of string music education was created that included sub-variables. The 11 variables were: parent, teacher, listening, performance, age, independence, lessons, practice, social, peers, and repertoire. Variables not common to all participants included: values, expectations, talent, discipline, neighbor’s support, and personal satisfaction. The changing roles of the teacher and parent over time and impact of this change for promoting active student learning were noted. In the only study of professional jazz performers, Norgaard (2011) described the improvisational thinking of seven artist-level jazz musicians, two of whom were string instrument performers (Darol Anger and Rufus Reid). After recording an improvised blues solo, participants simultaneously listened to the recording and looked at the notation of their solo as they were interviewed about the thinking processes that led to their improvisations. In order to focus verbal comments on decision-making and structure, each interview

Strings  419 began with the same prompt. As phrases of the solo were played, the artist described each phrase and other aspects of the performance. When necessary, the researcher asked clarification and elaboration questions. Artists described making sketch plans, which outlined one or more musical features of upcoming passages, monitoring and evaluating their output as they performed, and making judgments that often were incorporated into future planning. Four strategies for generating the melodic content of the improvisations emerged: recalling well-learned ideas from memory and inserting them into the ongoing improvisation, choosing notes based on a harmonic priority, choosing notes based on a melodic priority, and repeating material played in earlier sections of the improvisation. Norgaard’s (2008) dissertation is an important contribution to the literature not only for its unique focus on improvisational thinking, but also as an excellent model of creative research design and detailed description of analysis procedures. The first of two studies of amateur performers, Cox (2009) explored the impact of significant others on the socialization of amateur string quartet members. Individual interviews were initially conducted in a group setting as the group traveled to and from performances, with follow-up interviews carried out via email. The researcher, a participant in the quartet, described her contrasting experiences as a more-skilled quartet member while noting her role in their socialization. Participants were able to report both positive and negative influences during their pre-college years from influential family members. However, all reported negative influences from parents, the self, or degree requirements (e.g., having to play a recital) when choosing a college degree. Once a college degree was determined, influential persons and reference groups from non-music fields of study were identified. The socialization of these amateurs was characterized as evolving over time and growing into the role through successful performances. Eaton (2013) explored the impact of string music performance on the development and maintenance of identity, self-efficacy, and well-being of six adult community music program participants. Data were collected via interviews and participant observation during orchestra rehearsals, a chamber music workshop, and self-structured chamber ensemble rehearsals. Participants conceived of themselves as amateur musicians who played regularly for emotional, cognitive, and social benefits. Family support, a variety of performance opportunities, and goal-setting contributed to participants’ personal identity, perceived self-efficacy, and overall sense of well-being.

22.5 School Orchestra and Alternative Styles Programs and Curriculum Studies focused on school orchestra and alternative styles program components and curriculum included case studies of an award-winning program, a parent education class, chamber ensembles, peer tutoring, an alternative concert format, implementation

420   margaret h. berg of composition, a school-based Celtic ensemble, a summer alternative styles program, and a summer fiddling and dance camp. The development and features of the award-winning Upper Arlington, Ohio, orchestra program was the focus of Fu’s (2009) research. Data were collected over the period of one month during four observations of elementary, middle school, or high school classes; teacher interviews; and curriculum document review. The history, structure (funding, teacher schedules, performance calendar, teacher qualifications, curriculum, enrichment activities), and current participation and attrition rates of the program were presented. Faculty qualifications with respect to being able to teach all levels of string classes contributed to the creation of an organized curriculum and the design of goal-directed instructional plans that were aligned with district curriculum documents. The ability to teach collaboratively helped to sustain this successful program. Moss (1991, 1992) designed and implemented a class for parents of beginning elementary string students. The goals of the class were to give parents an opportunity to play an instrument, help parents become more involved in their child’s music education, and foster positive public relations. Ten parents with a range of educational, occupational, and musical backgrounds volunteered to meet weekly for eight weeks. Parents learned necessary skills to perform “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star” as well as home-based activities. Parents were recognized at the first concert where they were given the opportunity to perform alongside their child. Data were gathered via videotaped class sessions, parent and student interviews, a teacher-researcher class observation diary, and questionnaires. The adult class was found to be an effective way to educate and motivate parents and their children. Parent perceptions of the class program were positive, expressing value in this shared experience with their child, with most parents being interested in additional instruction. Students were also positive about parent participation in the class, as they appreciated the parent’s ability to assist at home, as well as the student’s ability to offer critique to the parent. Orchestra teachers noted the positive impact of parent class-participation on students’ attitudes toward learning to play a stringed instrument. In the first of two studies on chamber music programs and related student experiences, Berg (1997) explored how students in two chamber music ensembles reached conclusions about musical interpretation through social interaction. Two chamber music ensembles from different programs—a quartet and a violin, piano, horn trio—were observed over a period of five months during 33 student rehearsals, coaching sessions, and performances. Additional data were collected during 11 semi-structured interviews with ensemble members (some of which included reviews of rehearsal videos) and coaches, and informal interviews. Four global patterns of musical thought and action were identified. These included: (1) musical topics covered in rehearsals; (2) amount and nature of the music rehearsed during each rehearsal; (3) types and frequency of verbal and nonverbal activity used by participants; and (4) use of a sequence of student activity during rehearsals, including orienting and assisted-learning activities. The analysis revealed several similarities between the two ensembles. Ensemble members challenged each other to work at a higher developmental level by requiring peers to clarify, elaborate on, or justify a problem solution. Also, the use of varied social participation structures

Strings  421 as well as others’ rehearsal strategies and musical ideas facilitated learning. Differences were noted in ensemble member role exchange and use of unique rehearsal strategies. Gendered use of language and status within the group contributed to a student’s ability to assume a leadership role (Berg, 2000). Intersubjectivity was found to develop in unique ways given the nature of musical problems. This study demonstrated that collaborative learning in a musical context can be multi-faceted, complex, and filled with the potential to both encourage and hinder growth in musical understanding. In another case study of a high school student chamber ensemble, Hendricks (2010) described the impact of accompanying music history and theory instruction on student chamber ensemble engagement and expressive performance. Two diverse teaching approaches were introduced sequentially by the teacher-researcher as students learned two movements of Schubert’s “Death and the Maiden” Quartet. The first movement was taught using performance-based instruction only, while the second movement was taught with a combination of performance-based instruction and music history and theory lessons. Twenty-four coaching sessions were videotaped for subsequent analysis by the researcher and weekly questionnaires were completed by students. Student comments and teacher observations revealed that the incorporation of music history and theory lessons into performance instruction was motivational to students, a catalyst for expressive performance, and an effective use of rehearsal time given the rating for performances of each movement by an independent adjudicator. Hendricks recommended that teachers balance time spent on music history and theory as compared to technical performance instruction by spending more time playing than talking or listening during coaching sessions, using homework assignments to teach historical and theoretical aspects of a work, and gauging student readiness when introducing music history. Although similarly focused on peer learning, Webb (2012) explored the instructional choices, thought processes, and knowledge construction of four high school-aged peer tutors who taught middle school students from within the school districts’ orchestra program. Concepts from constructivism, motivation research and Vygotskian theory contributed to the theoretical framework. Data were collected through observation and video-recording of twelve 30-minute private lessons, initial and post-lesson interviews, and short post-lesson journal reflections. Findings for each participant were presented through four vignettes, while cross-case analysis resulted in five themes, including pedagogical choices based on prior experiences, reorganization and communication of musical concepts, enjoyment and value of tutoring, tutor perception of roles, and tutor’s pedagogical comfort zone. Several suggestions for tutor preparation and guidance were provided, thus contributing to the application of this study to teaching. The only study to focus on a concert experience, Berg’s (2009) narrative display of an alternative middle school concert format depicted a model (titled “Strings Attached: The Reality Show”) of a first concert of the year created by a middle school orchestra director. Based primarily on interviews and artifact collection, realist tales of associated events (writing a script, concert set-up), and the concert precede a theme-based analysis of the narratives. This analysis includes a discussion of the unique features of the model, including the use of a lottery to determine concert order, the informal atmosphere,

422   margaret h. berg audience participation (including parent performance), and varied student participation based on musical skills and dispositions. This concert model promoted student ownership and community development. While this model has many positive outcomes, challenges of this concert model with respect to logistics and teacher role are also identified. Chartier (2009) designed and implemented a 10-week composition project (distributed over approximately 400 minutes of instruction) into an eighth-grade orchestra curriculum. Student-determined groups (based on like instrument and friendships) of two to three students composed an original theme and one to three variations utilizing upper positions. Data included field notes (made during direct observation, video review of classes, and a final performance of compositions), student compositions, student reflections, and assessment rubrics. Overall, students had positive attitudes about composing and working in groups, which was manifested in a perceived increase in enthusiasm during orchestra class. Patterns were noted in group dynamics, more effective use of class time over the course of the project, the need for additional time to complete composition activities, and student challenges with playing their compositions. While the project helped some students improve shifting skills, the researcher suggested that the time used to compose during rehearsals may have had a negative impact on the orchestra’s overall intonation, technical facility, and sound, due to the decrease in rehearsal time. However, caution must be used when applying these findings, given that quantitative measures were not used to substantiate findings related to individual student motivation and performance achievement. Still, Chartier’s study does point out the challenge orchestra teachers face when attempting to offer varied experiences for students during rehearsals, given time constraints. Also focused on creative activity, albeit through an alternative ensemble offering, Oare (2008) described the Chelsea House Orchestra (CHO), a Celtic folk ensemble offered within a respected traditional orchestra program. Research questions centered on the value of the CHO to the school’s music program, development of the CHO, teacher musical background, and how the CHO incorporated principles of democratic education. Data were collected over four months through weekly observations of the CHO and traditional orchestra rehearsals, five interviews with the orchestra teacher, and a focus group interview with four CHO students. Four themes were identified in the data: social music-making, the balance between classical and folk music education, evolving authenticity and the creolization of musical transmission. Social music-making consisted of the development of a community of learners, collaborative student empowerment, having creative freedom, and experiencing musical enjoyment. While the orchestra teacher thought his primary purpose was to teach music from the classical Western European tradition, given CHO students’ preference for classical music, participants valued multiple styles of music, as evident in the variety of styles played by the traditional orchestra. The teacher and student did not learn Celtic music in the way the style is traditionally taught through immersion, but rather incorporated aspects of traditional school pedagogy and folk methods. This study is a model of a multicultural instrumental ensemble for teachers interested in developing an ensemble that aligns with the cultural backgrounds of their

Strings  423 students. The impact on student retention and learning when incorporating an alternative ensemble into a traditional orchestra program was noted. In another study of an alternative styles program, Fetter (2011) examined whether String Jam, a one-week alternative styles summer camp, can be framed as a model of postmodern curriculum design while also exploring identity development in two adolescent participants. Following an in-depth discussion of String Jam program design and implementation, Fetter noted how classical string technique from the past was used to connect students to the present String Jam experience to help students “try on” various ways of being musical. Criterion-sampling was used to identify two students who participated in String Jam consecutive years, and who were still in secondary school and involved in music. Data were collected via in-depth interviews with accompanying descriptions of home practice environment and resources. Four themes were identified:  complexity of and influences on musical identities, engaging in exploration through improvisation and experimentation, challenges of an alternative styles experience, and future musical activities. Private teachers and String Jam were found to influence current music activities and identity construction. Postmodern curriculum theory concepts of self-organization and proleptic vision were evident in the impact of String Jam on one student’s continued experimentation and openness to diverse musical styles. At the same time, lack of adult high-level musician role models who continue to play while having a career was noted for one participant. Implications included teacher openness to development of varied student musical identities, fostering exploration and learning by ear, addressing challenges surrounding implementation of alternative styles in a public school orchestra program, and nurturing possible musical selves for students through presentation of a variety of adult musician role models and postsecondary musical involvements. Fetter’s dissertation is an excellent and unique model, given the analysis of a program via curriculum theory and case study design as well as the integrated presentation of literature review, researcher background, and findings. Similar to Fetter, given its focus on an extracurricular alternative styles program, Dabczynski’s (1994) study of the 1991 Northern Week at Ashokan, a fiddle and dance summer workshop, explored fiddle teaching and learning characteristics, motivational features of the camp, and aspects of the camp experience and repertoire that could be incorporated into a school music program. Data were collected via a questionnaire, field notes on various camp events, three formal interviews with each of the three focus participants, informal interviews with teachers and other participants, and documents. Videos of teaching sessions were analyzed using a modified version of the Master Teacher Profile observation form designed by Robert Culver. Stylistic competence was primarily acquired through oral-based learning although growing acceptance of printed music was noted. Participants were motivated to not only learn new repertoire and improve as fiddlers, but also to participate in a community that included frequent social and musical interactions, shared growth and support, opportunity for lifelong learning, interaction with highly competent teaching models, and aesthetically gratifying experiences. Features recommended for adoption into school settings included

424   margaret h. berg building community through the development of a collective sense of purpose and musical connection and use of non-coercive leadership.

22.6 Conclusion A review of extant qualitative research in the American string/orchestra setting included studies on teacher socialization, lived experience, and models, including approaches and instructional strategies used by studio teachers, school teachers, and chamber music coaches; beginning through advanced student practice, retention, description of music and musical experience, self-efficacy, and varied school and extracurricular performance experiences; adult professional or amateur performer skill, identity, and/or self-efficacy development, improvisational thinking, and socialization; school orchestra program development, ensemble offerings (including alternative styles ensembles and chamber music); and unique peer tutoring, concert, parent class, composition and alternative styles programs that resulted in multifaceted learning experiences for students. Of the 44 studies that were reviewed, the majority of studies focused on string teaching and teachers, followed by students, then school orchestra and alternative styles programs and curriculum, and finally professional or amateur performers. This distribution is contrasted with Kantorski and Stegman’s (2006) content analysis of qualitative dissertations written between 1998–2002, where multicultural curriculum implementation was the most researched topic, followed by school music programs, teacher education, curricular integration, instructional strategies, ensemble members, and learning process. Some topics that were the focus of research reviewed for this chapter (for example, composing, adults, private lessons and practicing, teaching process) appeared in Kantorski and Stegman’s content analysis, but were less frequently the focus of doctoral research. These differences in frequency distribution of research study topics may be the result of varying foci for dissertation vs. post-dissertation research. At the same time, researchers engaged in qualitative research in the school orchestra setting may tend to focus on multicultural offerings vis-à-vis nontraditional ensembles or extracurricular alternative styles programs. Furthermore, the more frequent study of string teaching and teachers may be a result of our tendency as string teachers to focus on teaching instrument technique, as well as to frequently consider expert models of instruction. Given the relatively few number of studies on American stringed instrument instruction, study, performance, school orchestra and alternative styles programs, and curriculum, most topics were addressed by one study with the noted exception of artist-level teaching strategies or exercises (Duke and Simmons 2006; Gholson 1998; Moss 2006), student practice (Austin and Berg 2006; Berg 2008; Kim 2010), and unique musical experiences provided by various nontraditional curricular and extracurricular or community-based offerings (Berg 2009; Black 2012; Chartier 2009; Dabczynski 1994; Eaton 2013; Fetter 2011; Oare 2008; Moss 1991; Thibeault 2007, 2009; Webb 2012). Researchers have a prime opportunity to add to this corpus of qualitative studies for topics that have been the focus of prior research in order to begin to establish a larger

Strings  425 body of research on American string/orchestra teaching and learning. At the same time, given the increased frequency of performance-related injuries, school guitar classes, and students with multistyle backgrounds, these topics warrant further research. In addition, topics related to those already examined outside of the string teaching, learning, and performance context might be explored, perhaps in conjunction with prior quantitative studies. For example, while there are some qualitative studies on expert teachers and successful programs, there are few qualitative studies of new string teachers and no qualitative studies on the development of new school orchestra programs. Follow-up case studies of teachers or programs could provide additional perspectives on quantitative results. (For an example of a quantitative study of new school orchestra programs, see Gillespie and Hamann, 2010.) Other topics related to string teaching and learning that might be addressed using a qualitative research design as recommended by other authors (Heaney 1994; Kantorski 1995; Kantorski and Stegman 2006) include: string program evaluation; viola and double bass teaching; the role of parents; listening activities; social activities in string student learning; string teacher professional development; and use of technology. In particular, use of technology during instruction as a means for offering a broader educational experience seems a relevant and fertile topic for future research. In addition to considering the topics addressed in the reviewed research, the reviewed research can also be categorized based on the qualitative methodology used. Similar to Kantorski and Stegman’s (2006) review of qualitative dissertations and Merriam’s (2009, 22) assessment of the corpus of qualitative research in education, case study design was used in the majority of studies. Action research or narrative research methods were used in three studies while ethnography, phenomenology, and grounded theory were only used in one study each. In comparison with Kantorski and Stegman’s (2006) review, a smaller percentage of the total number of qualitative studies in the American string/ orchestra setting used ethnography and phenomenology. While methodology used may reflect the breadth of methodological training received during doctoral program study, the string music education researcher community has an opportunity to begin asking different types of questions about American string instrument teaching, learning, and performing that are aligned with various methodologies (Creswell 2006). In addition, the breadth and depth of discussion on design in published qualitative studies in the American instrumental (string) setting overall can be expanded. In particular, researchers need to provide more detailed descriptions of sampling strategies, researcher background, researcher role and its impact on reflexivity, trustworthiness strategies (beyond member checks of transcripts and triangulation), and coding procedures. Some of these suggested improvements were also identified by Lane (2011) in a review of qualitative research published in two eminent music education research journals. As the string music education research community matures, we might expect not only an increase in the quantity and quality of published qualitative research, but also the emergence of more varied presentation formats beyond text, even within the confines of the traditional journal format. Certainly, there is a need and ample opportunity for additional qualitative research that will contribute to our understanding of the status and complexity of string teaching, learning, and performance.

426   margaret h. berg

References Austin, J. R., and M. H. Berg. 2006. “Exploring Music Practice among 6th-Grade Band and Orchestra Students.” Psychology of Music 34 (4): 535–58. Barnes, G. V., ed. 2003. Applying Research to Teaching and Playing Stringed Instruments. Reston, VA: ASTA. Barnes, G. V. 2010. “Teaching Music: The First Year.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 185: 63–76. Berg, M. H. 1997. “Social Construction of Musical Experience in Two High School Chamber Music Ensembles.” PhD diss., Northwestern University. Berg, M. H. 2000. “Thinking for Yourself:  The Social Construction of Chamber Music Experience.” In On the Sociology of Music Education II: Papers from the Music Education Symposium at the University of Oklahoma, edited by R. Rideout, 91–112. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. Berg, M. H. 2008. “Getting the Minutes in:  A  Case Study of Beginning Instrumentalists’ Music Practice.” In Advances in Music Education Research, edited by L. Thompson and M. Campbell, 45–65. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Berg, M. H. 2009. “Strings Attached:  The Reality Show. In Musical Experience in Our Lives: Things We Learn and Meanings We Make, edited by J. Kerchner and C. Abril, 165–81. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Black, M. E. 2012. “Forging Musical Paths:  The Experiences of Multistyle String Players in Undergraduate Programs.” PhD diss., Teachers College, Columbia University. Chartier, K. 2009. “Integrating Composition into One Eighth-Grade Orchestra Classroom.” MME thesis, University of Massachusetts-Lowell. Collier-Slone, K. (1991). “The Psychology of Humanistic Life Education: A Longitudinal Study.” PhD diss., The Union Institute. Cotter-Lockard, D. 2012. “Chamber Music Coaching Strategies and Rehearsal Techniques That Enable Collaboration.” PhD diss., Fielding Graduate University. Cox, P. H. 2008. “Professional Socialization of Arkansas Music Teachers: A Follow-up Study.” In Sociological Explorations: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium On The Sociology of Music Education, edited by B. Roberts, 81–95. St. John’s Newfoundland: The Binder’s Press. Cox, P. H. 2009. “The Socialization of Members of a String Quartet towards Their Roles as Musicians.” Research Presentation: 6th International Symposium on the Sociology of Music Education, Limerick, Ireland. Creswell, J. W. 2006. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W., and V. L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W., V. L. Plano Clark, M. L. Gutmann, and W. E. Hanson. 2003. “Advanced Mixed Methods Research Designs.” In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, 209–40. Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications. Dabczynski, A. H. 1994. “Northern Week at Ashokan 1991:  Fiddle Tunes, Motivation and Community at the Fiddle and Dance Camp.” PhD diss., University of Michigan. Duke, R. A., and A. L. Simmons. 2006. “The Nature Of Expertise: Narrative Descriptions of 19 Common Elements Observed in the Lessons of Three Renowned Artist-Teachers.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 170: 7–19.

Strings  427 Eaton, K. G. 2013. “Finding the Fountain Of “You”: A Case of Older Adult String Players’ Identity, Self-Efficacy and Wellbeing as Community Musicians.” PhD diss., New York University. Fetter, J. P. 2011. “Alternative Styles in String Music Education:  Identity Development and Curriculum Design in the Postmodern Era.” PhD diss., University of Rochester. Fu, W. M. 2009. “A Case Study of an Award Winning Public School String Program.” MM thesis, Bowling Green State University. Gholson, S. A. 1998. “Proximal Positioning: A Strategy of Practice in Violin Pedagogy.” Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, (4): 535–45. Gholson, S. A. 1993. “Proximal Positioning: A Strategy of Practice in Violin Pedagogy.” PhD diss., University of Cincinnati. Gillespie, R., and D. Hamann. 2010. “An Investigation of New String Programs Established in American Schools between 1999 and 2009.” String Research Journal, 1: 25–38. Gustafson, R. I. 1986. “Effects of Interpersonal Dynamics in the Student-Teacher Dyads on Diagnostic and Remedial Content of Four Private Violin Lessons.” Psychology of Music, 14 (2): 130–39. Heaney, M. F. 1994. “Developing a String Research Agenda by Identifying the Components of a String Education: A Qualitative Study of Selected Members of the Philadelphia Orchestra String Section.” PhD diss., The Florida State University. Hendricks, K. S. 2009. “Relationships between the Sources of Self-Efficacy and Changes in Competence Perceptions of Music Students During an All-State Orchestra Event.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Hendricks, K. S. 2010. “Investing Time: Teacher Research Observing the Influence of Music History and Theory Lessons upon Student Engagement and Expressive Performance of an Advanced High School String Quartet.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 184: 65–78. Hudnall, C. R. 2012. “Teaching Relaxed, Healthy Posture:  An Investigation of Pedagogical Approaches and String Musicians’ Performance-Related Problems.” PhD diss., Mercer University. Johnson, D. C. 2003. “Fifth-Grade Instrumentalists’ Descriptions of Music.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 158: 81–95. Johnson, S. R. 1990. “A Description of Selected Aspects of Musical Experience from the Students’ Perspective within the Context of a Secondary Orchestra Rehearsal: A Qualitative Case Study.” PhD diss., Northwestern University. Kantorski, V. J. 1995. “A Content Analysis of Doctoral Research in String Education, 1936-1992.” Journal of Research in Music Education, 43 (4): 288–97. Kantorski, V. J., and S. F. Stegman. 2006. “A Content Analysis of Qualitative Research Dissertations in Music Education, 1998-2002.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 168: 63–73. Kim, S. J. 2010. “A Study of Self-Regulated Learning in College String Majors.” String Research Journal, 1: 39–54. Kotchenruther, M. J. 1998. “A Descriptive Study Of The Rehearsal Priorities Of Middle School String Teachers.” PhD diss., University of Michigan. Lane, J. 2011. “A Descriptive Analysis of Qualitative Research Published in Two Eminent Music Education Research Journals.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 188: 65–76. Lansinger, K. 2006. “A Study of Improvisation in High School Alternative String Ensembles.” MME thesis, University of Michigan.

428   margaret h. berg Lyne, J. K. 1991. “Beginning Strings Class Instruction: Practice and Theory.” EdD diss., University of Arizona. Merry, R. 2010. “A Paradigm for Effective Pre-College Classical Guitar Methodology: A Case Study of Two Models of Effective Instruction.” DA diss., University of Northern Colorado. Moss, K. D. 1991. “The Design, Conduct, and Study of an Adult Beginning String Class for Parents of Beginning Elementary String Students.” MME thesis, University of Cincinnati. Moss, K. D. 1992. “Involving Today’s Parents.” Music Educators Journal, 79 (2): 44–46. Moss, K. D. 2006. “Favored Sound Production Exercises of Selected Violin, Viola, Cello, and Double Bass Pedagogues: An Analysis and Adaptation.” PhD diss., University of Florida. Norgaard, M. 2008. “Descriptions of Improvisational Thinking by Artist-Level Jazz Musicians.” PhD diss., University of Texas-Austin. Norgaard, M. 2011. “Descriptions of Improvisational Thinking by Artist-Level Jazz Musicians.” Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(2): 109–27. Oare, S. 2008. “The Chelsea House Orchestra: A Case Study of a Non-Traditional School Instrumental Ensemble.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 177: 63–78. Parker, J. M. 2001. “The Motivation Techniques of an Exemplary Orchestra Teacher: A Case Study.” MME thesis, Michigan State University. Pellegrino, K. 2010. “The Meanings and Values of Music-Making in the Lives Of String Teachers: Exploring The Intersections of Music-Making”. PhD diss., University of Michigan. Scheib, J. W. 2003. “Role Stress in The Professional Life of the School Music Teacher: A Collective Case Study.” Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(2): 124–36. Scruggs, B. B. 2009. “Learning Outcomes in Two Divergent Middle School String Orchestra Classroom Environments: A Comparison of a Learner-Centered and a Teacher-Centered Approach.” PhD diss., Georgia State University. Stofko, D. L. 2002. “A Comparative Study of the Beginning Band and Beginning Orchestra Experience.” DMA diss., Arizona State University. Thibeault, M. D. 2007. “Music Making Lives: Score and Setting in the Musical Experiences of High School Students.” PhD diss., Stanford University. Thibeault, M. D. 2009. “Violin and Fiddle: Narratives of Music and Musician in a High-School Setting.” In Musical Experience in Our Lives: Things We Learn and Meanings We Make, edited by J. Kerchner and C. Abril, 255–74. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. “Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Webb, R. S. 2012. “Construction of Musical Understandings: An Exploration of Peer Tutoring in the School Orchestra Program.” PhD diss., Northwestern University. Wenger, E. 1999. Communities of Practice:  Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 23

Qualitative C h ora l M u sic Rese a rc h bridget sweet

23.1 Introduction If we wish for singing and choral music to become part of the “self ” of adolescent boys and girls, we must listen to the experiences of young adolescents as expressed through their words and stories. Then, we can reflect what we learn from them in our teaching and rehearsing as the culmination of a constantly renewing cycle of inquiry, theory, research, and practice. (Freer 2006, 77)

A comprehensive review of qualitative choral music education research conducted in the United States revealed diverse examinations that have created a valuable foundation for choral music educators and the music education profession. Research included in this chapter shares a core focus of choral music education, regardless of individual purpose statement or selected participant. Studies placed within a choral setting but focused on elements other than choral music have been excluded from this discussion. For example, Krueger’s (1985) groundbreaking qualitative research explored the influences of hidden curriculum on perspectives of student teachers of music. Although a choral classroom was the setting for Krueger’s study, the inquiry truly focused on student teacher perspectives and not choral music. The following section examines research pertaining to choir as a safe place; section 3 explores various facets of participation in choral music, from student perspective to teacher participation. The final section of this chapter offers a brief summary and identifies areas of need in qualitative choral research.

430   bridget sweet

23.2 Choir is a Safe Place Students experience conflict in many ways, “overt and covert, obvious and subtle, individually prompted and institutionally embedded” (Stengel 2010, 524). As a result, teacher awareness of student fears provides opportunity to better meet student needs through actions of appropriate interpretation and response within a safe environment. A safe place defuses student fear and establishes a sense of safety (Stengel 2010); a safe place empowers students to take control of their own lives (Toraiwa 2009). Many researchers consider the choral classroom to be a safe place (Adderley, Kennedy, and Berz 2003; Freer 2009c; Kennedy 2004; Mills 2008; Parker 2009, 2010; Sweet 2008, 2010). Some students and teachers will go as far as to regard choir as a home away from home (Adderley et al. 2003; Borst 2002; Huff 1989), a place of escape (Borst 2002), or as a place of sanctuary (Kennedy 2004; Mills 2008). “Chorus is a place that never produces stress. It is a good place to come and say, ‘Oh, good I have chorus . . . it is a good place to let things go’ ” (Parker 2010, 348). Within this section of the chapter, choral music research that clearly established a conversation about a safe classroom environment is presented; research that also pertained to issues of participation in choir will be discussed in section 3. Our discussion begins with Borst (2002), who used observations, interviews, and thick and rich description to determine and discuss how two high school teachers’ personal attributes influenced their processes of teaching choral music. Through cross-case analysis, five themes emerged regarding qualities of the two exemplary choral teachers: personal professionalism, class climate, relationship with students, discipline strategies, and teaching strategies. Themes did not exist independently, but rather “the themes form a web of choral music teacher qualities that coexist within a single complex. They coalesce to the extent that each thematic category blends with the others, forming an amalgamation of effective choral teaching” (117). In addition to upholding high musical expectations and standards, the two teachers fostered hospitable classroom environments, which the teachers and their students considered a sort of home or family. Borst (2002) posited that a healthy classroom atmosphere encourages choral members to feel good about their tasks and abilities, potentially resulting in desires to participate more fully. “Because of the positive feeling-tone of the classroom environment in which they interact, the choral students behave in most any way to achieve the excellence for which the teacher-conductor is striving” (123). Although technically accurate choral behavior is possible without teacher-student relationships, it is incomplete. “Without the cultivation of positive human relationships and personal identities, technically proficient choirs may be missing a key ingredient in the recipe for artistic excellence” (124–25). Through phenomenological inquiry, Haywood (2006) provided the perspective of Deborah, a 15-year old choral student who alternately used a walker and a wheelchair for mobility due to a physical challenge. An effervescent teenager who loved to sing, Deborah struggled with participation in school choirs as a result of her inability to access

Choral Music Research  431 rehearsal spaces (i.e., no elevator at the School for the Arts) and choral director bias and ignorance. The bulk of data emanated from semi-structured interviews; grounded theory assisted in the interpretation of all data sources gathered throughout the case study, including interview transcriptions, field notes, and historical documentation. Deborah’s journey toward participation in an inclusive community choir was influenced by three emergent categories of data: barriers to inclusion, creating inclusive environments through advocacy, and building relationships (Haywood 2006). The third category, building relationships, pertained specifically to Deborah’s musical and social bond with her present community choir director, “She was looking at me as a musician, as a singer. She was not looking at me physically which I find is just magnificent!” (414). As a result of her experiences in the inclusive choir environment, Deborah gained the musician identity that she openly desired. In Deborah’s words: Music in general has made me a person. Has defined me. But I’ve become more. I’m learning more, which will in turn help me vocally. And that’s how I’ve changed: I’ve become a person. I have my own identity. And that’s the truth! (415)

The Northridge Children’s Choir was the focus of Mills’ dissertation research (2008) and accompanying article (2010) for which she examined how experiences within this choir, as well as interactions with peers and the conductor, influenced the formation of choristers’ personal and musical identities. Data included two focus group interviews with six choir members (ages 12 to 14) and individual follow-up interviews with three focus group members and their parents, one adult former children’s choir member, and the choir’s conductor, as well as rehearsal observations, a choir background questionnaire, and observation field notes. Mills (2008) concluded that the Northridge Children’s Choir was a safe place for choral members, but the facilitation of this environment was a result of the students and not the director, Mrs. Talbot. Although Mrs. Talbot believed her choir to be a “place of sanctuary” (256), her goal was to be respected by students and to not develop close relationships with students. As a mentor and a model of beautiful singing . . . I hope I’m a model . . . When I think back on the teachers I  love most, they were mentors. They were models. They were by no means friends and I knew that. You would never call them by their first name. They were people to be respected. And the frosting on the cake for a few of them . . . they were loved. But the most important thing is to be respected, and so that’s all I care about (Interview, Mrs. Talbot, January 29, 2008). (Mills 2008, 264, emphasis in original document)

Mrs. Talbot, herself, recognized and acknowledged that the student choir leaders “are largely responsible for cultivating the atmosphere of love and acceptance that binds the choristers together in friendship” (267). In contrast to Mrs. Talbot, who wished to remain at a distance from her choristers, Sweet’s (2008) ethnographic case study of Deb Borton revealed a middle school choir

432   bridget sweet teacher who worked diligently to build connections and relationships with choir students. Although Deb maintained autocratic teaching practices, she unintentionally achieved democratic goals, including the establishment of a supportive environment and community, student awareness of others, and musical independence. “Safe Place” was cornerstone to Deb’s philosophy and classroom practice, and maintained as the official framework for her choral program. In her own words: And this whole concept of “Safe Place” that is so integral to my classroom—that not only when you are singing a solo, you get to be safe in here. You answer a question, we are respectful of you. Period. And nobody gets a second chance to hurt somebody’s feelings because it’s not ever accidental if you are unkind. (Sweet 2008, 91, emphasis in original document)

In addition to data collection through classroom observations, concert attendance, and formal interviews with Deb, a focus group was conducted with four eighth-grade female choir students and a separate group of five eighth-grade male choir students. Deb’s students recognized the efforts she made and, as a result of her classroom environment, student musicianship flourished. “I think Mrs. Borton has strong opinions on pressure because she had bad experiences with too much pressure and singing and it gets personal when you’re singing so she likes to keep as little pressure on us as possible” (100). This student comment supported Sweet’s (2008) finding that, within a safe middle school choral environment, students are provided opportunities “to be themselves without inhibition, in a culture of acceptance” (202). Through the framework of action research, Parker (2010) investigated high school choral students’ definitions of social belonging and the factors of membership that contributed to experiences of belonging. Participants included 26 tenth- through twelfth-grade choral students from the same northeastern high school, selected by intensity (students who demonstrated a noticeable, strong sense of belonging in choir) and purposeful random sampling. Within small groups of three to four students, choristers described their experiences of belonging within their choral ensemble. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed; data also included Parker’s notes of verbal and nonverbal interactions and body language between participants. “Chorus as safe space suggests that the psychological benefits of choral singing in schools have potential for significant stress reduction” (Parker 2010, 350). Participation in singing, as well as “regular and consistent interaction” (350) between students (especially participation in trips), contributed to students’ experiences of belonging in choir. In a school as sanctuary, students feel ready to learn because they are accepted as individuals, and are, as a result, more successful and relaxed in the classroom climate. Jackie and Tess seem to also indicate that chorus is a healthy and caring context where they can excel because they are accepted for who they are as individuals. (348)

Choral Music Research  433 Choral teachers in Parker’s study influenced student belonging, as well as the classroom environment and the establishment of a safe choral space.

23.2.1 Less Safe Places A discussion of choir and safe space would be incomplete without the acknowledgement of unfavorable spaces as well. Freer (2006) used memory pictures as autobiographical portraits of sequenced events (Fottland 2004) to share his self-story as a student, teacher, and researcher. His three autobiographical accounts, provided through the theoretical framework of narrative inquiry, offered insight into “understanding how the trivial, perhaps mundane, first encounter of an adolescent boy with his changing voice can potentially affect involvement in music later in life” (73). Upon his return to fifth grade, Freer’s (2006) voice began to change and “it was a particularly rapid, unwieldy, and not so subtle process” (73). His music teacher instructed him to “stand in the back of the choir and mouth the words. These were not instructions I wanted to hear. Believing that I could not sing, I immediately quit choir” (73). Although he eventually did pursue music in college, the negative influence of one elementary teacher—later followed by the positive influence of a college professor—impacted the course of his life as a musician and professor of music education. Teacher influence was also an emergent factor in research by Abril (2007), who provided perspective on three female elementary education majors’ anxieties about singing. Of the elementary majors enrolled in an elementary music methods course, three students “expressed serious concerns regarding taking this course because of their fear of singing and general lack of musical ability” (4). For this narrative inquiry, data involved structured interviews, participant journals, and field texts (observations of participants in the classroom setting, details of informal conversations, e-mail correspondence, and Abril’s interpretations of events). The three elementary majors individually revealed a poignant adolescent experience involving a choral director or teacher that caused each student to permanently fear or stop singing in front of peers and/or family. Although each of the women provided insightful vignettes, Melissa’s story reflected the kinds of experiences that negatively impacted them all: When I was in sixth-grade we had the option of being in the choir. I wanted to be in [it] so badly—I thought I  might be picked despite what my family said about me. For the audition, the teacher went around the room, knelt by each person, and took notes . . . I was terrified as he came to me because I knew it was all or nothing (I remember my heart thumping so loudly) . . .Well, I didn’t make the cut . . . and what made it worse was that all my friends did. I was devastated! I quit singing after that because I figured all these people must be right about me—my music teacher was the music expert! That really shattered my musical self-image. Since then I’ve felt pretty incapable. (Abril 2007, 6)

434   bridget sweet The implications of Abril’s (2007) findings about singing and social anxiety are glaring for choral teachers, especially in respect to constructing and maintaining a safe choral space. “While teachers should not coddle students, they might use caution when assessing students’ singing especially during the vulnerable period of adolescence. Assessment should focus on ways of helping students improve rather than assigning judgment” (13). The idea of safe space in the choral classroom—or lack thereof—reoccurs within all research reviewed thus far in this chapter. Perspectives of choral teachers are specifically examined in two studies (Borst 2002; Sweet 2008) and perspectives of choral students (whether prospective or actual participants) are examined in four studies (Abril 2007; Freer 2006; Haywood 2006; Parker 2010). Mills (2008, 2010) considered insight from students, parents, and the choral director in her examination of chorister identity development. Although methodologies varied among research, each of the reviewed choral studies employed observations and interviews as methods of data collection, with the exception of Freer’s (2006) self-study. It should be noted that, within the majority of reviewed research, efforts by the choir teacher or director were credited for the creation of a safe choral environment; the exception was Mills (2008, 2010), who reported that the choristers, themselves, fostered the safe choral environment of the Northridge Children’s Choir and not the choral director. In Abril (2007) and Freer (2006), actions by a choir teacher or director were identified as the reasons for adolescent choristers to discontinue their participation in choir or singing.

23.3  Perceptions of Participation in Choir Concerns about student participation in choir reach beyond matters of attrition and retention, as evident by lines of questioning in qualitative choral music research. “Why do students join choir?” and “Why do students stay in choir?” have given way to deeper inquiries such as, “What do students perceive about their participation in choir and singing?” and “How do various aspects of choral experiences impact student involvement?” The influence of social factors on choral participation has also become prominent in examinations of involvement in choir. The focus of this section will remain on different perspectives of participation in choir and involve a broad range of participants from high school students to intergenerational choir members to choral teachers. Current choir members provided perspective for the majority of qualitative choral studies. Although the perspective of former choir members has been encouraged in qualitative research (Conway and Borst 2001; Freer 2006; Parker 2009), only Freer (2009a, 2009b, 2009c) offered insight from non-choral students in his inquiries.

Choral Music Research  435

23.3.1 High School Participation in Choir Through action research, Conway and Borst (2001) examined both personal and non-musical factors that influenced continued participation in Borst’s choirs from middle school into high school. Of the high school students who studied with Borst for three years in middle school, six agreed to participate in this study and underwent individual interviews. In addition, the six students were interviewed as a six-person panel during Concert Choir rehearsal to measure potential peer-influence on interview responses. One parent of each of the six participants was interviewed about parental observations of their child, including observations of the meaningfulness of singing experiences between middle and high school. Students and parents found it difficult to articulate reasons for student participation in choir, but enjoyment of singing was identified as a primary motivation (Conway and Borst 2001). In addition, non-musical outcomes—including social reasons, personal gain, and entertainment—influenced student participation in choir, as did positive experiences with teamwork, camaraderie, and opportunities to work within a group. Borst, himself, acknowledged personal and professional gains from this study, including a greater understanding of his teaching methods and goals. He recognized the need to develop aesthetic-awareness strategies, foster student involvement, and maintain a focus on teamwork within the choral student body as well as within the music faculty. Adderley, Kennedy, and Berz (2003) broadened the scope of Conway and Borst’s (2001) study beyond the choral classroom and focused on choir, band, and orchestra ensembles to qualitatively examine student motivations and insights on participation. Structured, individual interviews with 20 participants from band, choir, and orchestra (a total of 60 students) provided a balanced perspective from the three disciplines. “Accessibility rather than randomness was the major determinant in choosing the participants” (195) and balance was also achieved between girls and boys, as well as students from 10th, 11th, and 12th grades. Although students placed great meaning and value on music participation and experiences, the importance of social aspects on participation in musical ensembles was significant. The social climate of these ensembles is important to each member and provides many with an outlet that they might not have had to meet others from within the larger school setting, or to form relationships away from the home environment that assist them in negotiating the often turbulent high school years. (Adderley, Kennedy, and Berz 2003, 204)

Findings aligned with earlier research regarding participation and meaningfulness of music ensemble experiences “providing a stronger case for the claim that students are intellectually, psychologically, emotionally, socially, and musically nurtured by membership in performing ensembles” (Adderley, Kennedy, and Berz, 2003, 204). Social identity development was the focus of Parker’s (2009) grounded theory research on adolescent choral singers. Data included 49 interviews with 36 different Mixed Choir

436   bridget sweet participants within three Midwestern high school choral ensembles; 13 participants completed a second interview for member check procedures. In selecting choral participants, Parker used purposive random sampling, snowball sampling, and intensity sampling; directors from each of the choral programs underwent interviews as well. Choral participation strengthened high school singers’ sense of self and supported their social development (Parker 2009). “Feelings of confidence and increased self-concept gave participants the desire to give back in the form of leadership and performance, as well as willingness to engage in the larger choral legacy at their schools” (256). As with Adderley et al. (2003), Parker’s participants “wore” their ensemble participation “as a badge to the larger school community” (257) and group excellence was important to the choral students. “Through the daily group goals of working together toward excellence, students leave class with feelings of competency and belonging to something bigger than themselves” (258). Perspective gathered from six male high school students on music, musical vs. school lives, effective instructional practice, and peer interaction initially contributed to a book chapter by Freer (2009a) and subsequently led to two qualitative journal articles (2009b, 2009c). The boys selected for participation attended the same private school in the southeastern United States and represented one of three categories: those who had sung in school choral ensembles continuously, those who sang but later withdrew from choral music, and those who did not sing at all. For his first article, Freer (2009b) examined narratives of the boys’ choral music experiences via flow theory and focused on “elements that enhanced their motivation to seek continued experiences in choral music” (143). Flow theory was defined as a “proximal theory of motivation” (146) through which students seek to replicate an experience because of the enjoyment they encounter as a result of the experience. By understanding how these boys’ comments reflected qualities of flow, it is hoped that choral music educators may be able to design pedagogy and rehearsal techniques that enable the emergence of these optimal experiences. (Freer 2009b, 147)

Several significant connections emerged between flow theory and the boys’ choral music experiences, including the importance of establishing clear and appropriate goals for students and the importance of an optimum balance between task challenge and student skill (Freer 2009b). In addition, Freer acknowledged the significance (and complexity) of feedback from the choral director in the development of student self-awareness within a choral ensemble. Three of the aforementioned six male high school participants were again interviewed on three occasions for Freer’s second article (2009c) about the construct of “possible selves” (Markus and Nurius 1986)—a notion about the kind of people we strive to become or fear becoming. One student was a current choral student, one a former choral student, and one had never participated in choral music. The boys discussed their previous musical experiences (past selves), current involvement (present self), and expectations for future involvement in music (possible selves).

Choral Music Research  437 Teenage singers—specifically male singers—may more successfully persevere through physical, social, academic, and musical transitions prevalent in adolescence through a focus on possible selves (Freer 2009c). Music educators can lay a foundation for this return to singing by purposefully encouraging their male choristers to develop conceptions of possible selves that involve choral music. These images, then, can be the focus of teacher-student conversations when boys decide to withdraw from choral music participation during secondary school. Such conversations need to reinforce—rather than diminish—the hoped-for possible self of each boy as an adult chorister. (351)

In response to his findings, Freer proposed a Possible Selves Program in Music for use specifically within the choral classroom. High school immigrant students provided insight on their experiences in a non-auditioned American choir for Carlow’s (2004) dissertation investigation of their acculturation process. The central research question for her collective case study, “What are the experiences of immigrant students who sing in high school choir?” (58) was supported by secondary questions: “What are the past and present musical experiences of immigrant students who sing in high school choir?” (58), “How do immigrant students perceive the repertoire, rehearsals, performance requirements, and traditions of high school choir?” (59), “To what extent and in what ways do immigrant students feel that they belong to, contribute to, and benefit from their high school chorus?” (60). During 10  months of data collection, Carlow interviewed four female choristers who had attended high school in the United States for no more than three years. Although each participant had prior experience with music, encounters were of oral traditions rooted in folk or religious music; no previous experiences involved Western classical choral music. As a result, these students acknowledged linguistic frustrations and culture shock within the American choral setting. However, the immigrant students also identified benefits from participation in an American choir as: feelings of belonging to a school group, opportunities to practice English text, a lower-stress mainstreamed environment, the ability to earn credit toward high school graduation, and the ability to enhance the attractiveness of their college applications by including their membership in an extracurricular school group. (Carlow 2004, 310)

The story of Irina Choi—a sixteen-year-old Russian immigrant from Korea—was especially poignant in Carlow’s (2004) dissertation and subsequently published in a separate journal article (Carlow 2006). Irina had been very involved with singing and her school chorus while living in Russia and Kazakhstan. However, since moving to the United States, she was incredibly unhappy and detached from others within her American high school choir. When I’m in the chorus, I know that I’m—like—I don’t have to sing. I don’t even have to open my mouth and sing. ‘Cause there are a lot of people, and they can sing for me (personal communication, January 12, 2004). (Carlow 2006, 71)

438   bridget sweet Contradictory to Irina’s participation in the American choir class was her involvement in the International Night show at the school, which featured student performers from the International Club. Through this venue, Irina focused heavily on her “identity as a solo pop singer” (71). In response to Irina’s story, Carlow (2006) encouraged music educators to acknowledge that students’ “previous experiential backgrounds provide both a point of departure and an anchor for new learning” (75). Also stressed was the need for choral teachers to recognize the “varying stages of culture shock” (2006, 75) experienced by foreign students as they acculturated to the class and school setting. By acknowledging differences between students, music teachers will more amply meet the needs of foreign students within traditionally structured choral programs. In examining adolescent choral singers’ philosophical ways of thinking regarding music-making, Parker (2011) focused on “adolescent beliefs regarding music and its role within their lives, how adolescents describe the experience of music-making, and how adolescent philosophical beliefs serve to reflect, challenge and/or elucidate prominent ideas within music philosophy” (306). A constructivist paradigm was used to investigate both the “how” and “why” of the formation of adolescent belief systems; a pragmatic paradigm was also employed under the guise of affecting change within the music education community. Participant interviews with 18 mixed choir members from three different mid-sized high schools in the Midwestern United States revealed four themes: (1) music-making as a simultaneously feelingful experience; (2) musical knowing as interpersonal knowing; (3) expressed music as expressed feeling; and (4) music-making as enlightening. In addition, commentary and insight from adolescent choristers connected with “aesthetic perception, expressiveness by convention, music-making as distinctly human, praxis as working understanding, art as self-unification, dialecticism, and individual’s embodiment of musical experiences” (Parker 2011, 314), thereby confirming writings of philosophers such as Dewey, Elliott, Jorgensen, Langer, Reimer, Sparshott, and Stubley.

23.3.2 Middle Level Participation Examination of choral research within middle grade levels begins with Kennedy (2002), who investigated the experiences and perceived benefits of participation in choir as reported by 11 junior high male choristers. Five questions guided this study: (a) What are the motivating factors that encourage boys to join junior high choral ensembles? (b) What musical skills, knowledge, and attitudes do they acquire while belonging to these groups? (c)  What are their perceptions of the “choral experience”—what do they like and what benefits do they reap? (d) What factors cause them to remain in choir year after year? (e) Is range-appropriate repertoire a factor in their enjoyment and participation in choir? (27).

Choral Music Research  439 Interviews provided the bulk of data, supported by observations, informal conversations, field notes, jottings, and material artifacts. Junior high boys have “varied reasons for belonging to the choir, but strong similarities exist among the group” (Kennedy 2002, 35). Three primary factors influenced the boys’ participation in choir: love of singing, teacher influence (in this case, a positive factor), and a cohort of friends. Students also expressed enthusiasm for their acquisition of musical skills and knowledge, but “by far the majority of comments concerned social aspects of the choir class” (33). Kennedy’s inquiry about range-appropriateness of choral repertoire and its influence on decisions of participation in choir revealed that the boys were quite clever at overcoming vocal range limitations and enjoyed participation in choir unanimously, regardless of stage of voice change. In fact, the boys found it more important to sing repertoire that they liked than to be concerned about vocal range. In 2004, Kennedy conducted a second qualitative study that also focused on middle-level male singers. Through ethnography, she examined the culture of boys at the American Boychoir School (ABS), where the goal was (and continues to be) to nurture boys through the physical stages of voice change. “The American Boychoir School attracts educators with a particular interest in nurturing boys through this transitional phase and dedicates large amounts of time to cultivating the adolescent male voice” (266). During her time at the ABS, Kennedy (2004) observed patterns of voice change among the students and witnessed the diligence of instructors to provide individual attention to the boys, in addition to keeping their best interests at heart. For example, one student was not allowed to participate in a concert cycle for the touring choir as a protective measure because of his particular stage of voice change. The music director explained, “Michael could go on the fall tour because he’s such a good musician. There’s a glorious instrument in there, a tenor voice, but I don’t want to push him. He’ll definitely go on the December tour” (271). Students at the ABS recognized the benefits of frequent vocal monitoring, education about good vocal technique, and healthy vocal exploration across the entire vocal range. “I think it was keeping everything alive because if you don’t use it, you lose it. Mr. Litton made my voice change a very good experience. I didn’t feel bad about losing my treble voice at all” (272). As each voice change experience is unique, special attention to male vocal needs and the provision of an all-male singing environment might be advantageous for male singers during voice change (Kennedy 2004). An intrinsic case study with her own male choir students allowed Sweet (2010) to examine their perceptions of singing and choral participation in an effort to learn more about her own middle school choral program. “My goal was to gain knowledge of this particular case. I did not conduct research to learn about other cases or about a general problem” (6). A group interview was held with five eighth-grade male choral students who participated in both the daily eighth-grade mixed choir and Choralier Men, an all-male, auditioned, after-school choir. Additional data included informal field notes, concert programs, difficulty level of choral music, and Sweet’s personal insights and observations as the boys’ teacher and participant observer.

440   bridget sweet Significant differences existed between student experiences in the daily mixed choir and Choralier Men, especially with regard to peer musical involvement and interactions; the boys consistently preferred Choralier Men. Contrary to Kennedy’s (2004) findings, Sweet’s male students placed no focus on the single-gender singing environment of Choralier Men, but rather emphasized the importance of teamwork and dedication in a choir or ensemble. Most important to the boys were “opportunities for middle school male singers to work with others who embody similar motivation, goals, and desires regarding singing” (11). As a result of this study, Sweet increased levels of student accountability—both musically and behaviorally—in all ensembles and maintained extracurricular choirs for male and female singers, resulting in a more comprehensive choral program.

23.3.3  Participation with the Music For his dissertation, Silvey (2002) studied the experiences and perceptions of four high school choral students as they prepared Rejoice in the Lamb (Britten), The Best of All Possible Worlds (Bernstein, arr. Page), Magnificent Horses (arr. Ling-Tam), La Foi (Rossini), Three Flower Songs (Beach), and Come Ye Makers of Song (Henderson). The choral music teacher’s role in this process was secondarily examined. Through the frameworks of phenomenology, ethnography, and case study, Silvey collected data through student journals, interviews, observations, and stimulated recall. The profundity and nature of experience gained by the students was dependent upon a combination of factors: (a) what each participant brought to the experience, (b) the characteristics of the composition itself, and (c) how the potential for understanding was pursued by the individual or fostered in the context of the classroom (Silvey 2002). The act of bringing the musical work to the students could be compared to the introduction of two strangers through a mutual friend. The teacher, who already knows the musical work at some level, introduces the work to the student. How the student responds to this initial meeting and subsequent interactions with the piece depends on the piece and the student. (352)

Ultimately, each student had a different multi-faceted encounter with each of the choral works; some students’ experiences were more musically meaningful than others. Experiences learning Benjamin Britten’s Rejoice in the Lamb for three of the aforementioned students were published in a separate article (Silvey 2005). Each of the students reported mixed feelings about learning Rejoice in the Lamb that resulted in “varying degrees of meaning in the music they were learning to sing” (115). Silvey suggested that the choir teacher’s approach to this specific work, as well as the level of complexity of the composition, may have kept students at a distance from the piece. “Perhaps their teacher could have selected repertoire better suited to student skill levels and therefore allowed the singers to have the heightened perspective that seems to allow for deeper levels of understanding” (116).

Choral Music Research  441 Through the framework of phenomenology, Conway and Hodgman (2008) studied the experiences of college and community choir members in a collaborative intergenerational performance project (CIPP). Two questions guided the inquiry:  “What were the perceived positive outcomes of the CIPP? What challenges did participants articulate regarding the collaborative performance project?” (221). For the CIPP, the Adrian College Choir and the Lenawee Community Chorus—both under the direction of Hodgman—prepared a performance of the Fauré Requiem for Carnegie Hall in New York, as well as a hometown performance in Michigan. Although all participants of each choir participated in the hometown performance, only 51 of the 103-member Adrian College Choir and 42 of the 55-member Lenawee Community Chorus were able to pay for the trip to Carnegie Hall. Research participants were choristers involved in both performances and were selected via intensity sampling. As the intergenerational chorus prepared the Requiem, Conway and Hodgman (2008) gathered chorus members’ perspectives during focus group interviews; one interview was conducted with eight members of the community chorus and another was conducted with eight members of the college choir. Participant journals, individual interviews, and the teacher-researcher’s personal log contributed additional data. Chorus members benefited from three overarching positive outcomes (heightened performance experience, a better understanding of others, and no signs of an age barrier) and experienced two primary challenges (importance of preparation for collaboration and issues regarding the placement of singers in the ensemble) (Conway and Hodgman 2008). However, the music itself was identified as the most important positive aspect of the CIPP. In a chorister’s words, “People are very different and it can be hard to find common ground. It’s the magnitude and value of shared music that made this happen. The love of music was strong. (Molly, final interview)” (227). Gackle and Fung (2009) documented the four-month process of an American youth choir preparing Chinese choral pieces for a performance in China through a participatory framework. Both researchers collaborated on research aspects of the case study in addition to sharing responsibilities of song selection and teaching the choir. Prior to this study the choir had performed non-English songs in German, Italian, Latin, Spanish, Russian, and French, but never a choral piece in Chinese. Data included documentation of strategies used to teach the intricacies of the choral works, input from choir members throughout the learning process, and evaluations of the youth choir’s performance by choral directors in China. Following the performance, the youth choir was praised for “a superb job in learning and performing the Chinese choral pieces” (Gackle and Fung 2009, 74). Therefore, the teaching strategies used in this study–teaching concepts and skills from parts to whole, the inclusion of both visual and aural demonstration and feedback, and focus on meaning and cultural context of lyrics–proved effective. From this experience, youth choir members benefitted from significant musical, pedagogical, cultural, and attitudinal and personal growth (Gackle and Fung 2009). “The music, the language, the travel, the people, and the immersion into another culture was an unimaginable once-in-a-lifetime experience for these students” (76). Further choral research involving an intensive cultural submersion component was highly recommended.

442   bridget sweet

23.3.4 Teacher Participation in the Choral Experience Research discussed thus far in section 3 has focused on the perspective of choir students and participants. In the following studies, the perspective of the choral teacher or choral director is provided. One of the first qualitative choral music education studies was concentrated on the influence of factors–such as personal biography and classroom role expectations–on the work of secondary choral music teachers (Huff 1989). Using ethnography, Huff observed and interviewed two choral music teachers from different demographics; one teacher taught at an all-black, metropolitan high school and the other worked with small-town, white, middle-class students. Data included observations; interviews; and historical, autobiographical, and program-related documents. A combination of the choral teacher’s personal experiences and past musical participation influenced each teacher’s decision-making processes regarding curriculum, methodology, and classroom practice (Huff, 1989). In addition, teaching assignment and school setting impacted curricular and methodological decisions, as details were customized for individual teaching settings. Huff found these findings to be problematic when considering that teacher education institutions usually referenced one traditional, professional model of music education based on cultural assumption. Programs in teacher preparation in secondary choral music education, through their affirmation of values, processes, and methodologies associated with the professional model of choral singing, may inadvertently perpetuate sets of beliefs and practices that lead teachers to contradictions once they enter the classroom. (287)

As a result of his findings, Huff encouraged choral teacher preparation programs to improve awareness of the influence and importance of biographical, institutional, and societal factors on operational and curricular decisions. For her dissertation and accompanying article, Grimland (2001, 2005)  analyzed teacher-directed modeling, defined as “an important instructional mode in music whereby teachers show students how something is done by doing it themselves as opposed to the mode of verbal instruction in which teachers tell students how something is done” (2001, 214). Secondarily, Grimland questioned whether teachers recognized their own behaviors as modeling. Participants were selected by snowball (or chain) sampling and maximum variation sampling; three choral teachers agreed to take part in the study. Data included observation, field notes, and interviews. Teachers chose modeling as an instructional strategy for three reasons: (a) to prepare students for a musical task; (b) to demonstrate the correct way to execute a musical task; (c) and to model simultaneously with student singing to guide or reinforce correct performances (2001, 206). In addition, Grimland labeled the three categories of teacher modeling as audible, visible, and process. “Audible models are instructional activities that require the students to listen; visible models rely on students watching the source of the model; process models are those that offer a step-by-step method for completing a musical task” (2001, 207).

Choral Music Research  443 Instructional methodology was also the focus of research by Broomhead (2006), who compared three choral teachers’ instructional techniques for achieving performance expression. “If students are to develop a well-rounded set of musical skills and understandings, expressiveness, as one of our most valued performance aspects, must be an instructional priority” (7). Choral teachers participants were selected as a result of their “reputations for producing expressive performances” (10). Instructional strategies utilized by the three teachers did not originate from a formal set of techniques or methods. In fact, instructional techniques regarding performance expression went beyond “verbal” or “nonverbal” cues; most were a unique combination of both. The source of the teachers’ strategies is unknown, and their behaviors had the feel and appearance of being quite instinctive and spontaneous. The question of instinct versus learned behavior is raised by this finding. If these behaviors were primarily instinctive, the implication is that teacher education has little to do beyond identifying individuals with such inborn talents and propensities. (Broomhead 2006, 17)

From these findings Broomhead identified seven new categories of instructional strategies: student-initiated input, teacher-inquiry, referential, demonstration, teacher feedback, detailing, and conducting. “Teachers might use this insight to reevaluate their own practices and become more purposeful in how they choose to teach expressiveness” (18). Butke’s (2003, 2006) dissertation and associated article examined the influence of a reflective process on five choral music teachers’ pedagogical and curricular approaches. The research framework was both descriptive and generative: As a descriptive study, the intention was to describe the ways in which teachers engage in a reflective process. As a generative study, the goal was to bring to the surface issues that arise in teaching, new ideas for pedagogy and curriculum, and new approaches of reflection. (2006, 57)

Overall, the reflective process allowed the choral teachers to closely examine their belief system by “confirming, denying, and challenging various pedagogical, curricular, personal/professional, and critical topics” (Butke 2006, 66) and five noteworthy findings emerged from data (2003, 2006). First, constructive dialogues proved helpful for choral teachers in reflecting upon teaching practice. Second, perfectionism influenced teacher reflective practice and “tended to manifest through frustration with their effectiveness and level of efficiency” (2006, 66). Third, concerns about time constraints for reflection only affected some participants, and not all. The fourth finding exposed emotional fluctuations during the reflective process as teachers reported both pleasure and pain while reflecting on their practice; “Reflection is not neutral, nor without emotional impact” (2003, 275). The fifth finding revealed that reflective practice effectively assisted change in teaching practice. Within section 3 of this chapter, participation and experiences in choir were examined through the perspective of high school and middle school students, as well as choral conductors and directors. Through a variety of research methodologies, from action

444   bridget sweet research (Conway and Borst 2001), grounded theory (Parker 2009), narrative and flow theory (Freer 2009b), and possible selves construct (Freer 2009c) to case study (Carlow 2004, 2006; Gackle and Fung 2009; Silvey 2002, 2005; Sweet 2010), ethnography (Huff 1989; Kennedy 2004; Silvey 2002, 2005), descriptive and generative frameworks (Butke 2003, 2006), philosophical framework (Parker 2011), and phenomenology (Conway and Hodgman 2008; Silvey 2002, 2005), researchers acknowledged that choral singers’ varied backgrounds and prior musical experiences dictate an array of musical and social needs that must be recognized and addressed by choral music educators. In addition, the reviewed research centered on positive choral experiences and participation; research did not overtly seek to address negative experiences or focus on reasons people elected to not participate in choir. Specifically within the final part of section 3, Teacher Participation in the Choral Experience, the four studies (Broomhead 2006; Butke 2003, 2006; Grimland 2001, 2005; Huff 1989) addressed a specific approach to teaching or an instructional technique aimed to increase the effectiveness of choral teaching practice. Each of the discussed techniques was found to be most effective when combined with teacher instinct and individual interpretation of a teaching situation.

23.4 Moving Forward Although it is the nature of qualitative research to not be generalized, broad trends emerged within this review of qualitative choral music education studies. Research revealed that safe spaces are valuable to choral teachers and students, choir members and directors. In addition, the choral environment and qualities of the teacher have power to positively and/or negatively sway choral participation, regardless of a chorister’s stage of life. From this review it is clear that participation in choral music can be a multi-faceted experience, as can benefits received from participation. Because of the small number of published qualitative choral studies, it is understandable that not every cross-section of the choral population is represented. That said, two groupings of people are clearly missing when previously selected participants are considered. The perspectives of adolescent male singers are strongly represented in published research; however, no qualitative research specifically focused on female adolescent choir students, even with urging from researchers such as O’Toole (1994, 2000, 2005). In fact, authors of studies on adolescent male choral students often suggested future research with adolescent female choristers, but nothing has yet been completed and published. Freer (2006) justified his focus on boys versus girls: I believe strongly that girls’ voices should not be excluded from our conversations, but I argue here that we have not adequately listened to boys’ perspectives, and we therefore do not really know what steps might be effective in attracting and retaining boys within school choral music programs. (70)

Choral Music Research  445 Also, as discussed in section 3, little qualitative research has been conducted with former choral students or non-singers—although it is often recommended for future inquiry. With the exception of Freer (2009a, 2009b, 2009c), former choral members or non-singers are underrepresented in qualitative choral research. In many ways, research in choral music education is still in its infancy leaving much for discovery and discussion. Through the work of current researchers, and by cultivating continued growth and interest in the profession, we benefit our educators and singers. As educators, we must continue to expand our music education worldview and endeavor to expand our research in choral music education.

References Abril, C. 2007. “I Have a Voice But I Just Can’t Sing: A Narrative Investigation of Singing and Social Anxiety.” Music Education Research, 9 (1), 1–15. Adderley, C., M. Kennedy, and W. Berz. 2003. “‘A Home Away From Home’: The World of the High School Music Classroom.” Journal of Research in Music Education, 51 (3): 190–205. Borst, J. D. 2002. “The Exploration and Description of the Teaching Life of Two Exemplary Choral Teachers: A Comparative Case Study.” PhD diss. ProQuest (Order No. 3064204). Broomhead, P. 2006. “A Study of Instructional Strategies for Teaching Expressive Performance in the Choral Rehearsal.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 167: 7–20. Butke, M. A. 2003. “Reflection on Practice:  A  Study Of Five Choral Educators’ Reflective Journeys.” PhD diss. ProQuest (Order No. 3093631). Butke, M. A. 2006. “Reflection on Practice:  A  Study Of Five Choral Educators’ Reflective Journeys.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education. 25 (1): 57–69. Carlow, R. 2004. “Hearing Others’ Voices:  An Exploration of the Musical Experiences of Immigrant Students Who Sing in High School Choir.” PhD diss. ProQuest (Order No. 3152852). Carlow, R. 2006. “Diva Irina: An English language Learner in High School Choir.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 170: 63–77. Conway, C. and J. Borst. 2001. “Action Research in Music Education.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 19 (2): 3–8. Conway, C. and T. M. Hodgman. 2008. “College and Community Choir Member Experiences in a Collaborative Intergenerational Performance Project.” Journal of Research in Music Education 56 (3): 220–37. Fottland, H. 2004. “Memories of a Fledgling Teacher: A Beginning Teacher’s Autobiography.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 10 (6): 639–62. Freer, P. K. 2006. “Hearing the Voices of Adolescent Boys in Choral Music:  A  Self-Story.” Research Studies in Music Education, 27 (1): 69–81. Freer, P. K. 2009a. “Boys’ Voices:  Inside and Outside Choral Music.” In Music Experience Throughout Our Lives: Expanding the Boundaries of Music Education, edited by J. L. Kerchner, and C. Abril, 219–36. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education. Freer, P. K. 2009b. “Boys’ Descriptions of Their Experiences in Choral Music.” Research Studies in Music Education 31(2), 142–60.

446   bridget sweet Freer, P. K. 2009c. “‘I’ll Sing with My Buddies’: Fostering the Possible Selves of Male Choral Singers.” International Journal of Music Education, 27 (4): 341–55. Gackle, L. and C. V. Fung. 2009. “Bringing the East to The West: A Case Study in Teaching Chinese Choral Music to a Youth Choir in the United States.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 182: 65–77. Grimland, F. H. 2001. “Characteristics of Teacher-Directed Modeling Evidenced in the Practices of Three Experienced High School Choral Directors.” PhD diss. ProQuest (Order No. 3073526). Grimland, F. 2005. “Characteristics of Teacher-Directed Modeling in High School Choral Rehearsals.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 24 (1): 5–14. Haywood, J. 2006. “You Can’t Be in My Choir if You Can’t Stand up: One Journey toward Inclusion.” Music Education Research, 8 (3): 407–16. Huff, D. M. 1989. The Impact of Interactions with Students, Community, Colleagues and the Institution of Schooling on the Teaching Practices of Secondary Choral Music Educators: Two Case Studies. PhD diss. ProQuest (Order No. 8923377). Kennedy, M. A. 2002. “‘It’s Cool Because We Like to Sing’:  Junior High School Boys’ Experience of Choral Music as an Elective.” Research Studies in Music Education 18 (1): 26–36. Kennedy, M. C. 2004. “‘It’s A Metamorphosis’: Guiding the Voice Change at the American Boychoir School.” Journal of Research in Music Education 52 (3): 264–80. Krueger, P. J. 1985. “Influences of the Hidden Curriculum upon the Perspectives of Music Student Teachers: An Ethnography.” PhD diss. ProQuest (Order No. 8511153). Markus, H., and P. Nurius. 1986. “Possible Selves.” American Psychologist 41: 954–69. Mills, M. M. 2008. “The Effects Of Participation in a Community Children’s Choir on Participant’s Identity: An Ethnographic Case Study.” PhD diss. ProQuest (Order No. 3312721). Mills, M. 2010. “Being a Musician: Musical Identity and the Adolescent Singer.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 186: 43–54. O’Toole, P. 1994. “I Sing in a Choir, But I Have ‘No Voice!’ ” The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning 4–5 (5–1): 65–77. O’Toole, P. 2000. Why I Don’t Feel Included in These Musics or Matters. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 144: 28–39. O’Toole, P. 2005. “I Sing in a Choir, But I  Have ‘No Voice!’ ” Visions of Research in Music Education 6. http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/. Parker, E. A. C. 2009. “Understanding the Process of Social Identity Development in Adolescent High School Choral Singers: A Grounded Theory.” PhD diss. ProQuest (Order No. 3350454). Parker, E. C. 2010. “Exploring Student Experiences of Belonging within an Urban High School Choral Ensemble: An Action Research Study.” Music Education Research, 12 (4), 339–52. Parker, E. C. 2011. “Uncovering Adolescent Choral Singers’ Philosophical Beliefs about Music-Making:  A  Qualitative Inquiry.” International Journal of Music Education, 29 (4), 305–17. Silvey, P. E. 2002. “Learning Music from the Inside: The Process of Coming to Know Musical Works as Experienced by Four High School Choral Singers.” PhD diss. ProQuest (Order No. 3070436). Silvey, P. E. 2005. “Learning to Perform Benjamin Britten’s Rejoice in the Lamb:  The Perspectives of Three High School Choral Singers.” Journal of Research in Music Education 53 (2): 102–119.

Choral Music Research  447 Stengel, B. S. 2010. “The Complex Case of Fear and Safe Space.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 29 (6): 523–40. Sweet, B. 2008. “Everybody’s Somebody in My Class: A Case Study of an Exemplary Middle School Choir Teacher.” PhD diss. ProQuest (Order No. 3348226). Sweet, B. 2010. “A Case Study: Middle School Boys’ Perceptions of Singing and Participation in Choir.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 28 (2): 5–12. Toraiwa, T. 2009. “Empowerment and Construction of a Safe Space in a Women’s Studies Classroom.” Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook 4: 67–78.

Chapter 24

A C ritical Ana lysi s of Qualitative Re se a rc h on Learning to T e ac h M usi c in Prese rv i c e Mu si c Teacher Edu c at i on mark robin campbell and linda k. thompson

In current scholarship on learning to teach music within preservice music teacher education programs, systematic synthesis or critique of existing studies drawn from the qualitative research paradigm is virtually nonexistent. What does exist are categorical reviews of studies that address music teacher education from a range of topics, including such things as reform-mindedness (Thiessen and Barrett 2002), student teaching (Rideout and Feldman 2002), programmatic structure (Boardman 1990), or instructional and evaluation processes (Verrastro and Leglar 1992). A syntopical reading of extant studies that draw from the qualitative paradigm, however, indicates several recurrent areas of interest and study contexts. Appearing frequently are (a) the study of preservice teachers’ beliefs related to education aspects and phenomena, and (b) the reporting of the perceived effects of various experiential learning activities associated with music teaching or learning. Despite the existence of these studies, much of the work remains uncoordinated, with many aspects of learning to teach music clouded or unclear. Our reading of these studies also indicates a need for the kinds of critique Colwell (2005) advocates for in his appeal to the research community to develop “critical friends.” What this plea calls for is a serious and sustained critique of the adequacy and quality of work done, including the breadth and depth of topics within music teacher education, and more particularly an interest in the topic of learning to teach music.

Preservice Music Teacher Education  449 Given the state of knowledge on learning to teach music—particularly within preservice programs—there is vital need for research to illuminate conceptual, empirical, and normative issues. The qualitative perspective—for both programmatic and practical reasons—allows us to focus particularly on the phenomenon in order to describe and analyze what is going on so that relationships between teacher education and teacher learning can be studied. Given also the pressing need for both literature synthesis and critique, this chapter examines qualitative research from 1990 to the present focused on how people learn to teach music in preservice music teacher education programs. Our primary goal is to coordinate and synthesize what is known currently about how people learn to teach music. Our second goal is to provide directions for future research and considerations for improving quality.

24.1 Theoretical Framework We draw our theoretical perspective regarding research in learning to teach from Carter (1990, 307) in that learning is a matter of framing how one conceives of “what is to be learned and how that learning might take place.” We do not define “learning to teach music” or create a specific description of it. Instead we identify incidences in the literature where characterizations have been given, asking the reader to situate the ideas within larger contexts such as program orientations and historic traditions that reflect different assumptions of how learning to teach transpires. Framing our review this way allows us to consider that all research is provisional and dependent upon the perspectives of the individuals involved in the endeavor. In addition, this perspective allows us to include any research within the qualitative paradigm that has the potential to contribute to understanding what learning to teach music means. Within music teacher education programs, learning to teach music can be said to occur within the specific courses and experiences afforded within a program, along with the specific practices found within them. According to Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon (1998, 132), it is within a programmatic setting that the “action of learning takes place.” Thus a program’s goals, expectations, orientations, and history also have an important function in characterizing learning to teach music. That current music teacher education programs can be characterized as a complex amalgam of overlapping, contradictory, and even theoretically opposed perspectives would not be an overstatement. Rather than parsing out particular theoretical orientation as a foundation for each study (e.g., positivist, progressive, or critical), we chose to look at study purpose, data selection, methodology, and results. Our look at the literature about learning to teach music was inductive; however, we did identify specific contexts in which each study took place.

450    mark robin campbell and linda k. thompson

24.2 Methodological Framework 24.2.1 Parameters We approached the review of studies systematically and relied conceptually on the methodological approach designed by Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon (1998) in their critical analysis of the research on learning to teach. As a starting point, we used the list of refereed and tiered journals in music education as constructed by music education research faculty at Northwestern University based upon survey responses from senior professors at “Big Ten” universities in 2006 (Committee on Institutional Cooperation 2006). Although this list contained both research and professional journals, we examined articles and titles from research journals only. A total of 24 research journals were listed with eight in tier 1, six in tier 2, and ten in tier 3. To expand our survey, we examined research publications sponsored by the American Educational Research Association and the National Association for Music Education (formerly known as MENC). Dissertations Abstracts and the ERIC databases yielded additional material. From these searches we selected studies that were (a) empirical, that is data were collected from preservice teachers’ experiences, (b) concerned with any aspect of learning to teach music, and (c) designed to capture any aspect of how preservice teachers learn to teach, including evaluative or action-oriented studies using qualitative methods. Using the 1994/1996 qualitative methodologies conferences at the University of Illinois as benchmarks, we set the study inclusion date at 1990, examining studies from that date forward. Our process identified 83 studies.

24.2.2 Procedures Studies were categorized according to type, using an amalgamation of (a)  Creswell’s (2008) system for classifying qualitative inquiry and design into phenomenology, ethnography, case study, grounded theory or historical studies; and (b)  Patton’s (2002) typology for addressing evaluation and action-oriented research studies. Mixed methods and narrative inquiry were added to our initial classification system as the search progressed. Studies were then classified according to fundamental purpose (or focus/ interest). Results of this procedure can be found in Table 24.1. Examination of column 1 of Table 24.1 shows overlap, as many studies had multiple purposes, focuses, interests, or contexts. Specific information regarding participants, methods of gathering data, data analyses procedures, and results for each study was recorded in a working table. In order to illuminate both conceptual and normative issues in learning to teach music, we purposefully chose to present primarily study results in order to preserve the conceptual framework of the review. In a few instances we did provide pertinent information about participants or data where clarification seemed necessary. Table 24.2 provides participant information. Figure 24.1 shows in aggregate form the kinds of data gathering procedures employed in the studies reviewed.

Preservice Music Teacher Education  451 Table 24.1  Emergent and analytic categories of interest and research type* Purpose/Focus/Interest

n

Type

n

Improvement/Interventions Perceptions or Attitudes Beliefs or Concerns Program Evaluations Co-operating Teachers/University Supervisors Mentoring Conducting Beginning Teachers

45 34 32 7

Case Study Evaluation Phenomenology Action Ethnography/Grounded Theory Mixed Methods Narrative

33 33 11 11 44 3 2

7 4 3 3

*Note: Column totals do not reflect total number of studies in that typologies and purposes overlapped in some instances.

Table 24.2  Studies by course specificity* Course

n

Ensemble

1

Methods  Instrumental  Choral   Unspecified Methods   General (elementary)

6 3 3 2

Practicum / Lab   General (elementary)   Unspecified Practicum   Instrumental Techniques   Instrumental Practicum   String Project—Practicum   Instrumental Teaching Lab

3 2 2 2 1 1

Field Experiences   Band Field Experience   Unspecified Field Experiences   Early Childhood   General (Elementary)

2 2 1 1

Other   Service Learning   Introduction to Music Education  Technology   Band-Theater Seminar   Wind-Band Literature   Cultural Immersion Class Student Teaching

4 3 3 1 1 1 18

*Table reflects only those studies specifying a particular course. Some studies involved multiple courses. Some studies involved participants over multiple years.

Cultural Artifacts Biographical Information Autobiographies Portfolio Generation

Other (10)

Informal

Interviews (40)

Practicum Transcript Analysis Conceptual Essay Responses

Semi-structured Exit

Seminar Recordings

In Field

Observations (15)

Study Team Meetings

In Course

Communications (10)

Conversations

Metaphor Generation

Discussion Transcripts

Lesson Plans

Correspondence

Research Report Self

Classroom Project Analysis

Instructor Feedback

Evaluation (9)

Peer Informal Feedback

Data Gathering Procedures

Student Input on Projects Student Comment Cards

Course Artifacts (31)

Student Written Cases Journals

Case Analysis Analysis of Teaching

Course Assignments

Video Recording (8)

Weekly Work Sessions Cognitive Map Generation

Descriptive Analysis Content Analysis Interviewers

Ethnographic Portraiture Project Analysis of Course Forms

Reflections (12)

Evaluation

Field Notes (7)

Informal

Surveys (11)

Open-Ended Questionnaires Pre-Post-Teaching Survey

Figure  24.1 Aggregate of data gathering procedures. Note:  the parenthetical number refers to studies reporting specific date gathering procedures.

Preservice Music Teacher Education  453

24.2.3 Analysis We conducted an inductive analysis of the entire set of studies, looking singularly at each study and then comparatively across all studies for themes, categories, links, and relationships. Analysis suggested three focus areas: (a) beliefs or concerns of preservice music teachers, (b) perceptions or attitudes of preservice music teachers regarding some aspect of learning to teach, and (c) specific course improvements/interventions by music teacher educators for evaluative purposes that would help preservice teachers learn to teach. Additional subcategories within each of these study foci included the arenas in which a study was carried out—student teaching, field experiences or individual courses (e.g., methods, laboratory experiences, practicums, technology course) (see Table  24.2). Evaluation studies could be further broken into formative or summative orientations, including action-oriented elements or broad program evaluation components. Both authors read each study in order to develop a common vocabulary and interpretive framework for the entire review and worked from an online-shared document work site that allowed for individual and simultaneous revision of the review. Running notes on different aspects of each study served as a basis for evaluation and critique; these notes were kept individually and discussed on an ongoing basis. Discussion was designed to (a) check each author’s theoretical perspectives and interpretations of preservice music teacher education research and literature, (b) critique the strengths and weaknesses of the studies, (c) articulate the substantive findings and interpretations of each study, and (d) articulate the major themes to emerge out of the analysis of the entire set of studies.

24.3 Mapping the Territory Figures 24.2, 24.3, and 24.4 present in graphic form the results of our review. Within the three themes to emerge are located subtopics. We realize that we had several options in representing the literature within each theme, but chose to focus on ideas as a structure for portraying how preservice music teachers learn to teach music. Another fruitful and pragmatic approach would be to represent the literature in a temporal structure—such as year one of a program through student teaching. We leave this for future work. Our main goal was to represent the literature in a conceptual way that furthered our understanding of what it means to learn to teach music.

Personal history, prior experiences affected classroom management more than course (Snyder1996) Beliefs and past experiences relevant in instructional decisionmaking (Burrack 2001)

Took identity-stance as efferent or aesthetic (Russell 1997) Showed strong link between beliefs (technical/ facilitator) and practices (formulaic/interactive) (Stegman 1996; 2001)

Entered program as dualistic thinkers (Towell, Snyder, and Poor 1995)

Articulated images of growth, transmission, production, and their relationships to teaching practice (Thompson and Campbell 2003)

Prior Knowledge/Experience

Conceptions of effective teaching built on beliefs about personal qualities, teaching/ musical knowledge and skills (Brewer 2009)

Feedback affected by personal beliefs, relationships, and existing frames of references (Ferguson 2004)

Valued student empowerment/human aspects over technical in beliefs about teaching (Thompson 2000) Cognitive structures of teaching did not connect with teacher effectiveness but could identify, interpret, and explain effective teaching concepts (Butler 2001)

Identified personal definitions of good teaching; tempered by prior beliefs and coursework (Schmidt 1998) Images of Practice

Performance experiences were prime (Arostegui 2004)

Identified images of musicianship built on performance; Images of student-teacher relationships built upon caring director; Images of successful teaching built on performance (Campbell 1999) Identified personal definitions of good teaching—tempered by prior beliefs and coursework (Schmidt 1998)

Created personal teaching metaphors to capture identity (Campbell 1999) Indicated struggles; Silencing of teacher; Need to be validated; Fear for job security; (importance of reflection) (Conway et al. 2005)

Beliefs or Concerns

Self-concerns replaced by pupil concerns; Occupational role identity increased (Broyles 1997)

Linked practice with images: technicalformulaic/facilitative-interactive (Stegman 2007)

Integration of course work and cultural immersion experiences influenced beliefs (Emmanuel 2005)

Caring, affective characteristics dominated images of teaching (Campbell and Thompson 2001)

Reflection developed deeper understanding of professional identity (Bernard 2009)

Linked knowledge to professional tasks (Paul 1998) Concerned most about technical, clinical, and personal issues with less concern about critical issues (Stegman 2007)

Self-Awareness

Indicated more concern with pedagogical execution than with personal characteristics or student impact (Berg and Miksza 2010) Followed Fuller's Theory of Concerns (Campbell 1999)

Self-assessment revealed autobiographical turning points (Benedict 2007) Normative expectations/preconceptions about diversity but beliefs/attitudes altered through teaching experience (Emmanuel 2005)

Concerned about "where to start;" what children needed to learn (Schmidt 2005) Expressed concerns about student-teacher rapport and classroom management ( Towell, Snyder, and Poor 1995)

Drew upon past experiences and beliefs, performance, related learning, and observations of past teachers as sources of PDK ( Gohlke 1994)

Self, Technical, Impact Issues

Metacognitive strategies showed awareness of instructional choices; Self-monitoring enhanced instructional thought and motivation (Burrack 2001) Indicated concern for more field experience; More practice in classroom management; More work with special needs students (McDowell 2007) Increased confidence/comfort with teaching; Disconnect between theory and practice (Townsend 2000) Made commitment to professional tasks—Fuller's Three Levels of Concerns (Paul 1998)

Figure  24.2  Preservice teachers’ beliefs or concerns about learning to teach  music.

Cooperating teachers expanded student teachers' identities; Commitment to tasks and reference group identification (Draves 2010)

Responded to TA with extensive teaching experience; High skill on many instruments perceived as having high confidence (Russell 2009)

Responded to situational factors in making curricular decisions; Learned from experience and mentors (Schlueter 1991) Apprenticeship of observation; Methods courses, cooperating teacher and intuition sources for PCK (Haston and Leon–Guerrero 2008) Instrumental students perceived themselves as different from other music students; Music ed perceived as different within SOM; Identities changed over time and experience (Conway et al. 2010a)

Held high level of confidence in own teaching abilities; Felt they would have fewer problems than average first-year teachers (Richards and Killen 1993) Issues of Confidence

Identity Development

Valued peer teaching for technical improvement; Valued field teaching for authenticity of context; Challenged by ability to predict students' achievement and communicate instruction; Were anxious (Powell 2011) Gained confidence; Classroom management concerns addressed (Bergee 2006)

Development highly individualized; Formative mentoring strengthen identities (Kerchner 2006)

Developed confidence with early childhood music; Adapted teaching to learners; Transferred skills, content, and activities from class and connected with community (Valerio and Freeman 2009)

Case writing by students strengthened teacher identity (Hourigan 2008)

Able to assess strengths/weaknesses and apply class knowledge; Developed positive attitudes toward teaching as skills improved in lesson delivery (Sienbenaler 2005)

Performance experiences were prime (Arostegui 2004) Indicated positive experiences using technology; Thinking more like a composer (Reese and Hickey 1999)

Engagement in Specific Actions

Indicated positive experiences with web-enhanced learning (Bauer 2001)

Learning meaningful when balanced between "doing" and "reflecting" (Schmidt 2010)

Perceptions or Attitudes

Demonstrated readiness to engage in class inquiry (Conway 2000)

Worked at establishing trust in collaborative endeavor (Berg 1997)

Valued stories of PhD students' recent teaching stories; Changed perspectives as they worked with PhD students (Conway et al. 2010b)

Attitudes toward cultural diversity altered through teaching experience (Emmanuel 2005)

Stated positive attitudes toward teaching; Motivation to learn more (Kerchner 1997) Indicated positive attitudes toward education courses (Mitchell 1997) Case study study perceived valuable along with observation, journaling, discussion and building relationships in working with special needs students (Hourigan 2009) Doctoral students as pen pals influenced undergraduate students' attitudes and thinking about teaching (Towell, Snyder, Poor 1995) In discovering connections between visual/musical arts, students showed deeper understanding of relationship; Aesthetic capacities expanded (Burrack 2006) Online mentoring increased composer thinking and abilities for giving feedback (Reese 2001) Portfolio development facilitated reflective practice and prompted goal setting (Berg and Lind 2003)

Students teaching inservice project made teaching decisions "on the fly;" Made limited transfer from course work; Exhibited diverse approaches to planning (Schmidt 2005)

Perceptions of elementary students and of teaching changed, along with expanded understandings of general music in a university-school partnership (Soto, Lum, and Campbell 2009)

Specific Strategies in Music Education Coursework Courses Reflecting Specific Designs

Preferred reflective model to lecture and test model; Indicated growth in confidence, skill and self-evaluation; Valued student teaching over peer teaching (Killian and Dye 2009) Service-learning partnership changed perceptions on how children learn (Reynolds 2003) Students in PDS looked for expert models; Problem-solved teaching performances; Sought feedback and support (Conkling 2003) Indicated enthusiasm for collaborative work regarding analysis and construction of observation tools (Walls and Samuels 2011) Service-learning experiences changed attitudes toward students (Reynolds and Conway 2003)

Figure  24.3  Perceptions or attitudes regarding learning to teach  music.

456    mark robin campbell and linda k. thompson Video analysis improved teaching skills and awareness of pupil learning (Broyles 1997) Lab school experiences provided quick and higher levels of proficiency (Snyder 1999) Specificity of verbal responses about score study corresponded to education/experience (Lane 2006) Skill Proficiencies

Use of narrative methodology facilitated student exploration of beliefs (Ferguson 2004)

Jazz improvisation analogy to learning to teach helped, but was dependent upon commitment and disposition of student teacher (Towell 1998)

Instructional experiences effective in overcoming previously held conceptions regarding elementary school music teaching (Gohlke 1994)

Individual feedback was beneficial when it reinforced the modeled procedures (Chafin and Manfredo 2010)

When analyzing evaluation observational tools, student exhibited higher order thinking in regard to attributes of good teaching and technical aspects of evaluation (Walls and Samuels 2011)

Stated appreciation for integrating national standards into ensemble; Increased conducting skill observed (Stamer 2000)

Ethnographic investigations done by students showed awareness of complexity of teaching; Nuanced reflection about their identities; Ability for analytical/critical descriptions (Miranda, Robbins, and Stauffer 2008)

Narrative methodology used for student self-evaluation (Ferguson 2004) Student teaching and field work most valued; Courses in College of Education least valued (Conway 2002)

Brainstorming, visually imagining model of planning helped decision-making process (Snow 1998) Nonverbal communication as experienced through a theater seminar increased selfawareness (Vandivere 2008)

When given specific intervention strategies, skill in improvisation improved (Della Pietra and Campbell 1995)

Analytical, Reflective, Critical Thinking Self-Evaluation

When in collaborative video groups, students reflected on teaching and evaluated teaching using multiple criteria (Berg 1997)

Reflective practice was possible and facilitated transformation from student to teacher (Reynolds et al. 2005) When using project-based learning, students gained insight into creative exploration and personal expression, using the strengths of self and others (Greher 2006)

Supervisors' communication style affected student teachers' development (Glass 1997)

Improvements or Interventions

When asked to engage in classroom research project, understanding and using learning theories was possible; Students differentiated prescriptive from research writing; Inquiry developed reflectivity and cultivated agency (Strand 2006)

Cooperating teachers indicated satisfaction with using developmental supervision regardless of student teacher development (Drafall 1991) Eagerness to learn from student, and willingness to act as a guide were useful criteria for cooperating teacher selection (placement) (Liebhaber 2003)

Demonstrated readiness to engage in class inquiry (Conway 2000)

TAs' experience, skill levels, and confidence influenced students' acceptance of information contrary to personal experience; Increased students' investment in course (Russell 2009)

Portfolio creation heightened awareness of connections between courses and reasons for teaching (Mitchell 1997)

Concerned most about technical, clinical, and personal issues with less concern about critical issues (Stegman 2007)

Built and used knowledge integratively; Instructional experiences effective in overcoming previously held conceptions regarding elementary school music teaching (Gohlke 1994)

Relationships defined in terms of power with collaborative the most desired (Draves 2008)

Transfer of prior music knowledge in score study not apparent (Lane 2006)

Student teacher identity strengthened by relationships with students (Draves 2010)

Identified disconnect between university and school-based experiences; Centered on authority, perception of role, planning and teaching, theoretical-pedagogical model (Abrahams 2009) Gained confidence; Classroom management concerns addressed; Noted disparity between course content and field settings (Bergee 2006) Limited transfer from university courses to teaching experiences (Schmidt 2005) Disconnect between and practice in field experience (Townsend 2000) Valued coursework, field experience and extra curricular experiences (Hourigan and Scheib 2002)

Self-evaluation of growth was possible when asked to reflect (Killian and Dye 2009) Activities of self-evaluation; Lab teaching, journal writing, observations were useful (Barry 1996)

Self-evaluation of growth was possible when asked to reflect (Killian and Dye 2009)

Course Connections

Relationships

Apprenticeship of observation; Methods courses, cooperating teacher, and intuition sources for PCK (Haston and Leon-Guerrero 2008) Valued stories of PhD students' recent teaching stories; Changed perspectives as they worked with PhD students (Conway et al. 2010b) Responded to TA with extensive teaching experience; High skill on many instruments perceived as having high confidence (Russell 2009) Peers influenced motivation and student investment in techniques course (Russell 2007) Doctoral students as pen pals influenced undergraduate students' attitudes and thinking about teaching (Towell, Snyder, Poor 1995) Responded to situational factors in making curricular decisions; Learned from experience and mentors (Schlueter 1991) Indicated struggles; Silencing of teacher; Need to be validated; Fear for job security; (importance of reflection) (Conway et al. 2005)

Figure  24.4 Improvements/interventions aimed at helping preservice teachers learn to teach  music.

24.4  Results of the Review 24.4.1  Preservice Teachers’ Beliefs or Concerns about Learning to Teach Music Four aspects situated in beliefs or concerns that contribute to understanding how preservice music education teachers learn to teach music are (a) relevance and influence of prior knowledge or experiences; (b) concerns about self, technical, and impact issues;

Preservice Music Teacher Education  457 (c) beliefs about teaching linked to images of practice; and (d) reflection on or in teaching that generates self-awareness.

24.4.1.1  Relevance and Influence of Prior Knowledge or Experiences It is clear that preservice music teachers’ prior knowledge and experiences play a key role in learning to teach. As Schmidt (1998) noted, experienced-based understandings act as a foundation upon which preservice teachers’ build, store, revise, reject, and refine their knowledge about teaching. Derived explicitly from and built upon their own experiences as students, these experiential understandings (supplemented with current learnings within the preparation program) act as “principles of education” (Schmidt 1998, 39) in constructing and evaluating past and existing images of teachers and practices. In addition, performance-related music learning experiences and musical orientations (instrumental or vocal performance) figure into their constructions of learning to teach music (Arostegui 2004; Campbell 1999; Ferguson, 2004; Gohlke 1994). Like their experiences as students, these orientations toward subject matter and images of teachers/ teaching tend to be potent, robust, and tenacious. For example, prior experiences working with school-age children along with personal notions of what constitutes a proper teaching role affect the extent to which preservice teachers are willing or able to adopt or adapt specific teaching techniques, particularly those related to managing a classroom during student teaching (Schmidt 1998; Synder 1996). The ability to articulate, monitor, or refine instructional thought while reflecting on teaching or during teaching has been linked to student teachers’ awareness of their own experiences as learners and the role it plays in their current thinking about pedagogy (Burrack 2001). In addition to their observations of teachers, Ferguson (2004) identified how preservice teachers use “personal frames of references” in responding to feedback and the role it plays in guiding future thoughts and actions, including decisions about their own behavior changes and the ways in which they provide feedback to their own students. In their work exploring the role past experience plays on learning to teach, Towell, Snyder, and Poor (1995) observed that preservice teachers often enter a program with “dualistic” thinking frameworks. That is, teaching is seen as good/bad; specific curricular experiences are seen as right/wrong. Over time and with critical reflection on past experiences, dualistic thinking tends to mitigate.

24.4.1.2  Concerns about Self, Technical, and Impact Issues Studies looking specifically at preservice music teachers’ concerns have used several different approaches. Among those drawing upon a priori theoretical frameworks, Fuller’s (1969) concerns theory of teacher development as well as symbolic interaction theory and role conceptualization are prominent. Naturalistic or evaluation frameworks have characterized others. In each of these studies, worry over self, technical, and impact issues related to teaching surfaced among preservice music teachers concerns. Although Paul (1998) and Campbell (1999) found a “weak” yet context-dependent linear path of developmental concerns among the preservice teachers they worked with (i.e., moving

458    mark robin campbell and linda k. thompson from self, to task, and then to student impact—as Fuller proposes), Schmidt (2005) noted a more complex nonlinear relationship among experience and professional knowledge when it came specifically to task skills such as planning. Studies reporting on self-concerns (not derived from Fuller’s model) or role identity noted that preservice teachers have a need for developing personal rapport with students (Berg and Miksza 2010; Thompson 2000; Towell, Synder, and Poor 1995), or a desire to be liked (Campbell 1999), or want to demonstrate a level of confidence or assertiveness (Stegman 2007). “Identifying as a teacher” (as a component of self-concern and/or occupational role identification) appears to be emergent, but is coupled with fears of failure derived from evaluation procedures within program experiences. Commitment to professional tasks and identifying with the profession likewise appear to be emergent and equally dependent upon program experiences (Paul 1998). Studies reporting technical (or job-task) concerns revealed specific worries over classroom management (Campbell 1999; Paul 1998; Stegman 2007; Towell, Synder, and Poor 1995); lesson planning, including general teaching strategies (Campbell 1999; Paul 1998; Schmidt 2005); making “musical mistakes” (performance errors) (Paul 1998); pacing, time usage, conducting, instrument- / age-appropriate pedagogy, repertoire selection (Berg and Miksza 2010); and sequencing instructional tasks and communicating clearly (Stegman 2007). Studies reporting concern for student learning indicated a focus on preservice teachers’ anxieties about or abilities related to diagnosing and evaluating student reactions to instruction (Paul 1998) or motivating students (Berg and Miksza 2010). Overall, the concerns that seem to characterize preservice students’ attentions while learning to teach tend to become more heightened as they use their abilities and knowledge in contexts more similar to those found in professional contexts rather than those found in university classrooms. Furthermore, concerns vary more or less depending upon context.

24.4.1.3  Beliefs about Teaching Linked to Images of Practice Similar to study of preservice teachers’ beliefs and images of practices in other areas of education (see Widen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon 1998), preservice music teachers hold a range of images linked to practice. Some studies described beliefs and images in terms of metaphors (Campbell 1999; Stegman 2001; Thompson and Campbell 2003). Others used the idea of stance (Russell 1997), while still others approached preservice teachers’ images of teaching through conceptual mapping (Butler 2001) or interactionist frameworks (Brewer 2009), or emergent processes obtained from fieldwork or coursework (Campbell 1999; Schmidt 1998; Stegman 2007; Thompson 2000). Through the use of metaphor analysis, Thompson and Campbell (2003) reported that preservice teachers hold expansive ranges of images about teaching roles and practices. Prominent teaching role images included teacher as transmitter, teacher as facilitator, teacher as collaborator, and teacher as mentor/motivator/leader. Prominent practices images, less frequently discussed, clustered around ideas of direct transfer of information, with “teacher as transmitter” most commonly mentioned. In her study of student teachers’ instructional successes/problems, Stegman (1996; 2007) found a strong link between student

Preservice Music Teacher Education  459 teachers’ images/beliefs about their roles and their actual teaching practices. Those who saw themselves as more technical (i.e., seeing oneself as a skillful musician and possessing aural images of technical perfection) thought about teaching in formulaic ways and assumed teacher- dominated/-centered approaches. Conversely, those who saw themselves as more facilitative (i.e., seeing oneself as a skillful musician and possessing aural images of musical expression) thought about teaching in more interactive teaching ways and assumed student-centered perspectives. Similarly, Russell (1997) in her study of musical conducting stances found that student conductors situated themselves within either “efferent” (i.e., conveying information) or “aesthetic” (i.e., conveying meaning/ expressive qualities) stances. Other studies looking at preservice teachers’ conceptions of effective teaching showed additional role and practice images. Butler (2001, 268), for example, found that preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching effectiveness incorporated elements of role, image, and personality. She noted that students envisioned an effective teacher in terms of a “persona.” That is, “someone who possesses information, personal characteristics, and the ability to carry out specific actions related to teaching.” Brewer (2009) found that preservice teachers’ conceptions of effective music teaching could be grouped according to skills, characteristics, and knowledge. Music teacher role-identities were seen to develop out of beliefs surrounding personal skills, musical skills and teaching skills, with individual teacher identity dependent upon occupational goals and interactions with peers and other teachers. Several studies showed that preservice teachers tend to value personal characteristics as “effective teaching,” including student empowerment, helping behaviors, developing positive self-concepts (Thompson 2000), caring and friendliness (Campbell 1999), sharing “love of music,” and being “personally involved” with students (Campbell and Thompson 2001).

24.4.1.4  Reflection on or in Teaching That Generates Self-Awareness Within the broad frameworks of professional development, occupational identity/ role socialization and reflective thinking, several researchers have examined preservice music teachers’ conscious awareness of their own thoughts and actions related to various aspects of learning to teach. A common theme running through these studies is that preservice teachers are more able to articulate their awareness of issues, struggles, concerns, and commitments when they are asked to make differentiations, look for situational relationships, and then “define” or “ascribe” for themselves some kind of (professional) identity. Researchers in music teacher education using occupational identity/role socialization frameworks, for example, contend that professional identity increases when students are placed in learning environments requiring identification and use of specific instructional skills, analysis of teaching tasks and skills, critique (from peers or more knowledgeable others), reflective journaling on practice and its impact on learners (Broyles 1997; Paul 1998). Researchers using developmental or emergent frameworks have painted a more diverse picture. Burrack’s (2001) work on the roles “self-confrontation,” metacognitive awareness, and articulation of beliefs/past experiences play in making instructional choices provides information

460    mark robin campbell and linda k. thompson on how self-monitoring and self-motivation contribute to teacher thinking and decision-making. Conway, Micheel-Mays, and Micheel-Mays’s (2005) comparison of the experiences of a student teacher and a first-year teacher provides information on how issues of time, job security, “silencing of voice,” and having a need for validation are common between the two situations, highlighting the importance self-reflection plays in navigating these tensions and struggles. The role reflection plays in developing preservice teachers’ intercultural competencies has been studied by Emmanuel (2005), who noted a need for guided field experiences in culturally diverse settings integrated into coursework. Other studies specifically drawing upon reflection (within the context of coursework or fieldwork) noted its importance in developing a deeper understanding of “self as music educator” (Bernard 2009) or identified autobiographical turning points in the stories students construct about themselves as musicians/music teachers (Benedict 2007) or in creating a sense of personal agency (Campbell 1999). A prevalent outcome from reflecting on field experiences prior to student teaching is the awareness of simply needing to know more about “everything” (e.g., classroom management, students, planning instruction, musical skills, repertoire selections, specific methodologies) (see McDowell 2007). Another finding from preservice music teachers’ reflections based in field- and course-related work is the notion of developing greater confidence (Townsend 2000), as well as articulating a disconnect between the university/school setting theory and practice (see Abrahams 2009; Townsend 2000).

24.4.2  Perceptions or Attitudes Regarding Learning to Teach Music Closely related to preservice teachers’ beliefs are their perceptions about, and attitudes toward, learning to teach music. An overview of the literature relating to this aspect of music teacher preparation yielded the following themes:  (a)  issues of confidence, (b) engagement in specific actions, (c) engagement in courses reflecting specific designs, (d) specific strategies in music education coursework, and (e) the development of music teacher identity. While we chose not to categorize studies based solely on context it is important to note that the majority of studies related to preservice music educators’ perceptions and attitudes about learning to teach took place in the context of field experiences, i.e., observations and/or student teaching.

24.4.2.1  Issues of Confidence The development of confidence in one’s ability to teach—essentially one’s self-efficacy for teaching—has an impact on teacher retention (Carter and Doyle 1995; Skaalvik and Skaalvik 2010), and with this knowledge researchers have increasingly focused on aspects of learning to teach that may encourage the development of this personal sense of confidence in one’s teaching. Richards and Killen (1993) explored this idea, discovering that students enter teacher education programs holding a high level of confidence in their own teaching abilities, feeling that they have fewer problems than the “average”

Preservice Music Teacher Education  461 first-year teacher. However, no further studies specifically confirm high levels of confidence in preservice music educators entering a teacher education program. Rather, confidence builds from experience, with prolonged opportunities for teaching in authentic contexts providing the greatest prospects for confidence to develop. Powell (2011) noted that preservice music teachers experiencing both peer teaching and teaching in a field experience context indicate a higher level of nervousness in the field experience setting, with three of the four participants classified in Stage 1 of Fuller’s Theory of Concerns (self-concern). The ability to communicate instruction and to predict students’ achievement proved challenging. However, these students valued the opportunity for technical improvement in the peer teaching setting, and authenticity of context in field experience teaching. Likewise, Valerio and Freeman (2009) documented that all but one of the preservice teachers in their early childhood music course experienced nervousness teaching in a field experience, but this abated as the children engaged in lesson activities. Feelings of anxiety ran parallel with increased teaching responsibilities, but more teaching opportunities resulted in increased confidence in their teaching abilities. However, Bergee (2006) related that while students in an instrumental field experience context reported an overall increased sense of confidence in their teaching abilities, the limited, brief opportunities for actual teaching did not allow for realistic skill development to occur. Interestingly, Russell (2009) identified that undergraduates’ perceptions of high levels of confidence displayed by graduate assistants teaching techniques courses created a greater investment in the course by the undergraduates. Extensive teaching experience and expertise on multiple instruments fostered these perceptions of the graduate assistants as being highly confident, i.e., more effective teachers.

24.4.2.2  Engagement in Specific Actions Shifts in attitudes and perceptions among preservice teachers often occur in relation to specific actions such as engaging in collaborative work (Berg 1997), teaching in service-learning projects (Schmidt 2005; Siebenaler 2005), and teaching in varied settings (Schmidt 2010). While the attitudinal or perceptual shifts reported were predominantly positive, Schmidt (2005) found that students teaching in a String Project held perceptions about teaching differing from those of the other participants and of the professor. These students tended to revert to planning from their own learning styles perspectives and/or their personal learning experiences. This disconnect between the instruction preparing students for the String Project and the actual teaching was evident for all students, to varying degrees. However, in a later study Schmidt (2010) followed a group of teachers through two years of varied teaching experiences and found that Dewey’s principles of interaction, continuity, and learning within community held true for these students as they developed and strengthened their perceptions of teaching through a balance of what Schmidt (2010, 142) referred to as “doing” (action), and “undergoing” (reflection). The opportunity for individual and collaborative reflection was meaningful for these students’ development as teachers.

462    mark robin campbell and linda k. thompson Siebenaler (2005) observed that students teaching in a service-learning project early in their teacher education program developed positive attitudes toward teaching as their skills in planning increased. Students developed the ability to assess their strengths and weaknesses, make connections with the content of their music education courses, and build confidence in their abilities to teach. Yet this early immersion into teaching in an actual classroom challenged these students as they dealt with issues of planning for student engagement, classroom management, and school bureaucracy.

24.4.2.3  Engagement in Courses Reflecting Specific Designs Reflection as the overarching aspect of curricular structure was documented by Killian and Dye (2009) when they introduced their music education students to a reflective model to follow as the students taught in courses (peer teaching) and in authentic contexts (field experiences and student teaching). This model, emphasizing a learner-centered approach, focused on developing students’ abilities for self-evaluation (plan/teach/archive/reflect) and the development of a high level of professional responsibility. Students responded positively to this model, preferring it to a lecture/test model, and expressed increased confidence in their teaching abilities. As with the participants in other studies, these students valued field experiences and student teaching. The notion of collaborative coursework influenced the development of “professionalism” for student teachers involved in a group analysis of video segments of their teaching episodes (Berg 1997). This analysis, using multiple criteria, promoted trust within the group as they reflected together on their individual teaching experiences. Likewise, preservice music teachers, working in collaboration, experienced a shift in attitudes toward observations when given the opportunity to design their own observation tools (Walls and Samuels 2011). As students made decisions about criteria for observations and had input into the evaluative process, their enthusiasm for, and investment in, the observation process grew. In addition, the instructors noted that students developed deeper understandings about the teaching process as a result of being fully involved in the process of making observations a powerful learning experience rather than a task obligation to complete. Expanding the idea of collaboration, courses designed as university-school partnerships and service-learning partnerships, allowing preservice music educators greater opportunities to teach in authentic contexts, have shown to have particular impact on students’ attitudes and perceptions about learning to teach. Because students believe that it is when they get into the schools that they will learn to teach (Thompson 2000), they find greater meaning in the partnerships that place them in schools for longer periods of time prior to their actual student teaching assignments. Students who participated in a year-long university-school partnership in a culturally distinctive community indicated their perceptions of elementary students and of teaching changed, as well as their ideas about the role of general music, since the majority of the participants were instrumental majors who had not given much consideration to teaching general music (Soto, Lum, and Campbell 2009). Similar positive shifts in thinking occurred for students involved in a service-learning partnership between a university and a public

Preservice Music Teacher Education  463 school where there was no music program, particularly in relation to perceptions about how children learn music (Reynolds 2003; Reynolds and Conway 2003). Being perceived by the children as “the music teachers” added to the growing sense of teacher identity for these preservice music educators. Emmanuel (2005) found that students in a culturally diverse service-learning immersion project entered with predictable attitudes about working with diverse students, but over the course of the project students’ attitudes were challenged and changed as their understandings of working in a culturally diverse context expanded. The Professional Development School (PDS) model provides another perspective on university-school partnerships. Students in a choral methods course regularly met at a public high school (PDS site) where they worked alongside the choral music educator from the school and their university methods professor (Conkling 2003). Over the course of the semester, Conkling sought to uncover students’ reflective thinking about their development as educators and their personal ideas and beliefs about pedagogies. Students valued the influence of expert models, and developed increased problem-solving skills. The influence of other practitioners and peers was significant as students sought feedback and support regarding their teaching opportunities.

24.4.2.4  Specific Strategies in Music Education Coursework A variety of instructional strategies have been identified as influencing music education students’ perspectives about learning to teach, including aspects of technology (Bauer 2001; Reese 2001; Reese and Hickey 1999), the use of cases prior to observations and journaling in a special needs field experience (Hourigan 2009), doctoral students as “pen-pals” (Towell, Snyder, and Poor 1995), a reflective model course (Killian and Dye 2009), portfolio development (Mitchell 1997), inquiry assignments (Conway 2000), integration of visual arts (Burrack 2006), and the inclusion of PhD candidates’ recent teaching stories (Conway et al. 2010b). Connections between undergraduate and graduate students strengthened preservice music teachers’ critical thinking skills as students engaged in a “pen-pal” type correspondence process (Towell, Snyder, and Poor 1995). Although the undergraduate students were found initially to exhibit dualistic thinking (good/bad; right/wrong) about teaching, through correspondence with PhD students a shift from the dualistic thinking to a more reflective analysis of teaching occurred. Students’ levels of writing also improved through this experience. Hearing the recent teaching stories of graduate students (Conway et al. 2010) also created a shift in thinking for undergraduate students as they experienced positive interactions with doctoral students. The idea of building relationships was also prominent in a field experience focused on students with special needs, and helped preservice teachers to value their observations in this context (Hourigan 2009). A thorough orientation process including analysis of cases led up to the observations, journaling, and reflections on the field experience, resulting in positive perspectives for the preservice music students’ thinking about teaching students with special needs. In studies incorporating strategies emphasizing technology undergraduate students also indicated positive experiences. When using technology in relation to composing

464    mark robin campbell and linda k. thompson (Reese 2001; Reese and Hickey 1999) preservice teachers showed an increase in their abilities to discuss their musical ideas and compositions in the manner of professional composers. Bauer (2001) asked students in an instrumental methods course to describe their experiences in a Web-enhanced learning environment. He found that overall, students expressed positive attitudes about this strategy, although they expressed concern over occasional time constraints due to Web access. However, the more they worked in an online environment the feeling of the Web as “impersonal” lessened. As noted earlier in this chapter, reflective practice prominently factors in preservice teacher development. This idea of reflective practice provides a connective thread between these final studies that look at specific instructional strategies. Conway (2000) sought to promote a mindset of inquiry among preservice music teachers by creating an assignment requiring students to describe action research projects they might envision doing. While students did not actually carry out the action research, the process of considering and reflecting on a research project and possible outcomes revealed that students were very willing to engage in processes of inquiry and to adopt a mindset of inquiry regarding classroom life. Music education students found portfolio development a positive and useful process (Berg and Lind 2003; Kerchner 1997; Mitchell 1997). As the students collected materials representing their work and growth as music educators, they became motivated to learn more and developed an increased awareness of their teacher education curriculum and the connections among various courses. Reasons for teaching became more explicitly clear for these students through the process of self-assessment and reflection on their cumulative work, and positive attitudes toward teaching were reinforced. A course connecting music students and visual artists (Burrack 2006) allowed students to reflect on the connections between instrumental music literature and works of visual art, resulting in deeper understandings of the shared principles in these two art forms, and an expanded sense of students’ aesthetic capacities.

24.4.2.5  Development of Music Teacher Identity The development of music teacher identity constitutes a critical component in teacher preparation programs (Broyles 1997). This programmatic goal, while not always identified explicitly, necessitates shifts in attitudes and perceptions from that of a student/ musician to one of educator/musician. Schleuter (1991) focused on the development of curricular thinking in preservice teachers, observing how music student teachers responded to situational factors in making curricular decisions. She found that this shift from student to teacher identity occurred as student teachers learned from experience and the influence of their mentor teachers. The role of the mentor or cooperating teacher served to expand student teachers’ identities (Draves 2010), strengthening their levels of commitment to the tasks of teaching and building a sense of identification with a reference group. Cooperating teachers also influenced the development of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as students engage in an “apprenticeship of observation” in methods courses and student teaching (Haston and Leon-Guerrero 2008). While student development throughout the undergraduate program was highly individual,

Preservice Music Teacher Education  465 formative mentoring also served to strengthen students’ developing teacher identities (Kerchner 2006). Conway, Eros, Pellegrino, and West (2010a) and Hourigan (2008) specifically examined teacher identity development in instrumental music education students. Conway et al. found participants perceived themselves as different from other music students and perceived music education students in general to be “different” within the school of music. Conway noted that for these students, their identities as both educators and musicians changed over the course of their experiences in the degree program. Hourigan (2008) noted that case writing by students resulted in stronger music teacher identities. Arostegui (2004), in his study of undergraduate instrumental music education majors enrolled in a Big Ten University, however, noted the primacy of performance in their constructions of being a good music teacher.

24.4.3 Improvements/Interventions Aimed at Helping Preservice Teachers Learn to Teach Music Five ideas aimed at helping preservice teachers learn to teach music situated in programmatic interventions include (a)  analytical, reflective, and critical thinking; (b) self-evaluation; (c) course connections; (d) skill proficiencies; and (e) relationships.

24.4.3.1  Analytical, Reflective, and Critical Thinking Although analytical, reflective, and critical thinking experiences implicitly underpin many of studies in this chapter, several studies explicitly focused on the development of skills within these interrelated areas and showed improvements toward increased skill. For example, higher levels of reflectivity, a greater sense of agency, and differentiation between prescriptive writing from writing research were promoted through inquiry (Conway 2000; Ferguson 2004; Strand 2006). Students’ abilities to use higher order thinking skills (Walls and Samuels 2011), think critically about the complexity of teaching and reflect on their own identities (Miranda, Robbins, and Stauffer 2007), and transition from student to teacher (Reynolds et al. 2005) were strengthened through analysis and reflection on observation and teaching experience. Project-based learning promoted creative exploration (Greher 2006), while opportunities for planning based on brainstorming and visually imagining helped choral music education students develop decision-making processes (Snow 1998). Vandivere (2008) found that engagement in a theater seminar allowed students to experience increased self-awareness through nonverbal communication. However, in all of these instances, learning directly connected to level of reflection (Gohlke 1994; Killian and Dye 2009; Reynolds et al. 2005).

24.4.3.2 Self-Evaluation Closely tied to analytical and reflective thinking is the process of self-evaluation. Fostering students’ abilities for self-evaluation has included use of narrative inquiry

466    mark robin campbell and linda k. thompson methods (Ferguson 2004), journal writing in conjunction with field experiences (Barry 1996), and video analysis (Berg 1997; Broyles 1997). An increase in students’ abilities to observe differences in growth resulted. Killian and Dye (2009) saw students’ self-evaluation abilities increase as they specifically followed a “plan/teach/archive/ reflect” model while teaching in various contexts.

24.4.3.3  Course Connections For university personnel engaged in developing curricular programs the relationships among courses and between courses and school-based experiences seem apparent, but studies indicate that for many students the connections between theory and practice are not apparent, a discrepancy or disconnect between university- and school-based experiences exists, and the transfer assumed to take place is often absent (Abrahams 2009; Bergee 2006; Lane 2006; Schmidt 2005; Townsend 2000). Students identified field experience and student teaching as having the most value, and courses in Colleges of Education as being the least valued (Conway 2002). Students valued particular skills, the usefulness of coursework and fieldwork, and the role extracurricular experiences played in the teacher education program (Hourigan and Scheib 2009). Portfolio development (Kerchner 1997; Mitchell 1997) was found to increase students’ perceptions of the relationships among courses and across contexts in their undergraduate programs.

24.4.3.4  Skill Proficiencies Although the need to foster a synthesis of course content is essential in developing a holistic picture of learning to teach, several studies have focused on the development of specific skills or the use of specific interventions aimed at improving general teaching skills, many which focus on the idea of specific feedback for students. For example, Broyles (1997) found that analyzing video recordings of teaching improved specific teaching skills in student teachers, but most importantly brought an increase in awareness of their own pupils’ levels of learning. Skills in the integration of national standards, conducting, repertoire selection, and curricular projects improved as students participated in a choral laboratory setting (Stamer 2000). Students teaching in a lab school (Snyder 1996, 1999) with an opportunity for immediate feedback were found to quickly develop higher levels of teaching skills. Individual written feedback along with modeling that demonstrated and reinforced instructional strategies and procedures has also been found to beneficial (Chafin and Manfredo 2010). Specific instruction in improvisation as a means of understanding improv both as a musician and as a teacher brought about increased sensitivity to the improvisation process, even though students’ backgrounds in improv were very different (Della Pietra and Campbell 1995). Using jazz improvisation as an analogy for teaching has had a positive effect on students’ processes of learning to teach, but specific skill development is still highly dependent on the commitment and disposition of the student teacher (Towell 1998).

Preservice Music Teacher Education  467

24.4.3.5 Relationships The importance of strong mentoring relationships is a dominant theme in the literature on preservice music teacher development (Draves 2008, 2010; Glass 1997; Haston and Leon 2008; Schleuter 1991; Stegman 2007). Undergraduates look to practicing teachers (Conway 2002; Draves 2010; Haston and Leon 2008), graduate teaching assistants with recent teaching experience (Conway 2010b; Russell 2009; Towell, Snyder, and Poor 1995), and peers (Russell 2007) as “significant others” in their development as teachers, valuing the immediacy of these individuals’ experiences. Interestingly, the influence of graduate music education students increased the undergraduates’ willingness to accept information that differed from their own personal experiences (Russell, 2009). Cooperating teachers also value the relationships with student teachers, displaying an eagerness to learn from them and viewing the cooperating teacher/student teacher dyad as reciprocal (Draves 2010; Liebhaber, 2003). Likewise, cooperating teachers expressed positive attitudes about working with university supervisors in using a developmental supervision model (Drafall 1991). Student teachers, however, sometimes struggled with the classroom relationships, feeling their needs for validation were not always met and that their voices were sometimes silenced (Conway, Micheel-Mays, and Micheel-Mays 2005).

24.5 Synthesis Figure 24.5 presents in graphic form a synthesis of the results of our review of studies. Although we would like to claim that our synthesis illustrates an interdependent ecological perspective and shows how learning to teach music is an ecosystem in and of itself, we cannot. What we can note, however, is the interconnectedness of the themes and the ideas that undergird the three primary themes. There is both overlap in study purposes and enough redundancy in results to suggest that learning to teach music is emergent, contextually sensitive, built on personal beliefs, concern/attitude driven, negotiated, and finally amenable to short-term influences, but tempered by individual historical and biographical experiences. A key connector among the various studies that contributes significantly to our understanding of learning to teach music is the explicit use of the idea of reflection on experience. A common component of many of the studies we examined involved some form of preservice teacher reflection on some aspect of self, teaching, student learning, or context. More frequently the kind of refection observed was “Deweyan” (reflection on experience) rather than “Schön” (reflection in experience) in conception (Dewey 1933; Schön 1987). The arrows drawn between different ideas in the themes in Figure 24.5 illustrate how one can make possible connections among the individual studies. For example, reflection generates self-awareness, resulting in more specific reflection on experiences and confidence. This, then, may lead to greater perception of self, learners, and teaching, which can lead to conceptualizing skill proficiencies,

Satisfactory "connections" and "communication" among participants affects ... Relationships

Significant others can act as support Video analysis of teaching Ethnographic approaches to studying teaching Feedback regarding targeted teaching modeling Improvisation as analogy for teaching Direct instruction Portfolios synthesize Explicit integration and connections among courses necessary

Specific, contextualized strategies (often reflective) contribute to ...

Learning to Teach Music Skill proficiencies

Specific, contextualized strategies contribute to ... Course connections

Analytical, reflective, and critical thinking contributes to ... Narrative methodology, self-evaluation contributes to ... Project-based learning, classroom inquiry/ action research, ethnographic investigations cultivate agency...

Understanding of self, instruction and learners

Self/group analysis of teaching tools used to scaffold learning contributes to ...

Figure  24.5  A synthesis of learning to teach  music.

Improvements or Interventions

A need to develop personal rapport

Self

Role negotiation/identification Concern of classroom management/control

Clustered around self, technical, and impact issues

Planning, repertoire selection, sequencing

Technical

Diagnosing learning Impact

Pacing, timing, time usage Student-centered/Teacher-Centered Technical/Facilitative Root metaphors - production, travel, transmission

Linked to images of teacher role and practice

Persona - amalgamation of personality, knowledge, and (musical/instructional) skills Affect, caring, fun

Immersion in teaching tasks, self-reflection, and self-critique creates struggles, concerns and construction opportunity for role socialization

Beliefs or Concerns

Meta-cognition contributes to understanding instructional Reflection generates selfawareness

Context throws into relief issues of time, security, and agency Intercultural competence in instructional thinking Disconnect between university/ K-12 schools Confidence, self-understanding, agency Serves as foundation and acts as "principles of education"

Based on prior knowledge and affects current thinking and actions

Music performance and musical orientations strong influences on identity and career goals Influences ability to articulate and modify instructional thought Anxiety, nervousness abated through experience - reflection on action

Reflection on experience generates confidence

Range and levels of confidence specific to setting, teaching tasks and individuals involved Collaborative work Open-ended /guided Inquiry

Positive/Altered attitudes emerge out of specific learning opportunities, such as ...

Perceptions or Attitudes

Service learning projects "Doing"/"Undergoing" in multiple contexts

Self-Assessment of strengths and weakness

Positive attitudes emerge out of specific actions Technology Perception of self, learners, and teaching is modified as a result of specific learning opportunities using ...

Case studying and journalling Reflective modeling

Inquiry assignments Story telling

Changes according to "task demands," course in program, "contexts demands" Self/Identity is constructed

Shifting and categorical

Mentors, cooperating teachers, curriculum tasks Musician Student Educator

470    mark robin campbell and linda k. thompson bringing the teacher back to a point of reflection. Looking for links among the studies using other “connecters” such as context or perceptual/conceptual change, for example, also produces sets of relational patterns. None of this kind of patterning or synthesizing claims causality, but rather strengthens credibility, dependability, and trustworthiness of assertions offered regarding the processes of learning to teach music while simultaneously reinforcing the transferability of ideas (Lincoln and Guba 1985) into curricular and pedagogical work in the music teacher education program. A productive way to look synthetically at the body of research as a whole and still retain a sense of uniqueness among the individual studies is to theorize learning to teach music as a process of connecting self-knowledge with social knowledge. Campbell, Thompson, and Barrett (2010, 30) in their articulation of learning to teach music as a matter of personal action refer to this as developing an awareness of self, learners, subject matter, and the profession while simultaneously cultivating an understanding of the complexity and interrelatedness of school contexts and teaching environments. From this stance, learning to teach music becomes a matter of role negotiation and identification, within some notion or cultivated idea of good practice, with perhaps an adumbration of issues related to power and politics (Benedict 2007; Britzman 2003).

24.6  Critique and Conclusion A key element in our review is a critique of current scholarship in the learning to teach music literature. Although we explored a number of published criteria for determining the “goodness” of a research study (see Creswell 2008; Guba and Lincoln 1994), we ultimately employed what we call a “model of coherence.” That is, empirical research in the qualitative arena should be characterized by coherence among its theoretical framework (including argumentation), clarity of purpose, situatedness in relevant literature, purposeful methodology with in-depth data collection, analysis, and reporting procedures. The extent to which the body of literature we examined met the “coherence criterion” is discussed below.

24.6.1 Issues of Quality in the Literature In critiquing each of the studies, we noticed two primary concerns related to design: (a) quality of reporting basic research elements, such as number of or descriptions of participants, or a description of the context; and (b) quality of establishing credibility, such as articulation of criteria used for informing methodological choices or sufficient delineation of procedures used in order to afford assurances that data were carefully handled (e.g., articulation of sources, triangulation, confirming/disconfirming during analysis and pattern/theme generation). A third concern, although related to design, had more to do with classification and type. In the first concern, for

Preservice Music Teacher Education  471 some studies it was difficult to match findings to data or data analysis; this resulted in a rather “informal” reporting of results. For studies using a qualitative framework (i.e., phenomenological, ethnography, case study, grounded theory, mixed methods, or narrative), expectations of situating questions, data gathering/analysis, and interpretations within a well-articulated conceptual or theoretical framework were often thwarted. In some studies interpretations and/or conclusions were construed as themes derived from observational or interview data, and not necessarily theoretical perspectives or derived relationships. Where conceptual frameworks were provided (both theoretical and relevant research reviews), situating analysis and interpretations within the framework was uneven (i.e., not all components connected so as to create coherence). In the second concern, primarily derived from our review of evaluation and action studies where a significant focus of research examined the efficacy or utility of specific approaches or learning experiences, it was difficult to determine the criteria used for assessing both the quality of the study and technical processes used to carry it out (see Patton 2002). In some studies, data appeared to be course assignments—collected somewhat “after the fact,” and not always tied into an analysis scheme built upon a systematic pattern analysis. In other studies, information regarding data analysis was either absent or sketchily described or lacked both scope and detail. We believe that all studies built upon a qualitative paradigm (including evaluation studies) should use a set of criteria for not only designing and carrying out research, but for reporting and finally evaluating its dissemination worth. Ultimately, research must be credible if it is to be trustworthy or have social utility (Lincoln and Guba 1985). Lastly, we found much difficulty in classifying studies by type, based upon the wide range and actual descriptions provided by the authors to characterize their work. Especially missing was explicit description of the traditions that informed the research undertaken. The notion of study type, we think, is related to both the use and articulation of conceptual frameworks and the criteria used to design and assess quality. Lack of clarity in classification of study type, however, may not be an actual problem, as we do not see the field moving toward clarification or consensus as regards the perspectives that inform research. Rather the move is likely to trend to more diverse study types, with the need to classify taxonomically considered less important (see Denzin and Lincoln 2011). However, we believe that presence of and clarity in articulating perspectives that inform studies should remain a hallmark of qualitative research and evaluation studies using qualitative methods of inquiry.

24.6.2 Avenues for Future Research Three avenues for future research that we see as powerful for adding to our understanding of learning to teach music include significant attention to the personal, the relational, and the critical. By the personal we mean exploring in greater depth the possibilities

472    mark robin campbell and linda k. thompson of narrative forms of knowing (Bruner 1985; 1990)  and the power narrative inquiry (Clandinin and Connelly 2000) has for making “public” personal understanding/meaning of “lived experiences.” Because of its emphasis on sense—particularity, situation, context, person, and feeling—and its esteem of metaphor, connotation, intention, and agency (Eisner 1998), we think narrative’s power to elucidate what it means to learn to teach music from the life experiences of those undergoing the process will yield great utility—not only for music teachers themselves, but for music teacher educators as well. Some of this kind of work has begun already (see Barrett and Stauffer 2009; Conway 2003; Ferguson 2009). By the relational we mean embarking on extended and integrated programs of research from ecosystems-ecological perspectives of inquiry. Here we draw upon Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon’s (1998) commentary on the learning to teach research in general education and note the importance of examining the dynamic relationships among individuals (including social institutions and forces) within a specific social situation/organization and the multiple perspectives they offer. Ecosystems-ecological perspectives address the roles that multiple environmental factors play in understanding a phenomenon; the environmental view is as important as the primary participants’ view. For example, the learning to teach music story must be told by at least the following:  preservice teachers, their peers and their teachers (including music teacher educators, academic professors in other areas of collegiate study, cooperating teachers, mentors inside/outside the teacher preparation program). Also, these stories require descriptions of the different landscapes in which learning takes place, including, for example, classrooms, practice rooms, buses, lunchrooms, residence halls, homes, etc. Furthermore, people and places cannot be extracted from the cultural and social policies that influence, inform and operate upon them, including notions of schooling, traditions, and innovations. The embeddedness of ecosystems-ecological perspectives of inquiry, we think, adds valuable information to improving the existing research and existing curriculum and practice within music teacher education programs. By the critical we mean embracing already established and new forms of qualitative research that derive their theoretical foundations from critical and emancipatory traditions with the explicit purpose of helping individuals and groups identify beliefs they have come to accept as “true” that “dis-empower” them and maintain the power of others (Wills 2008, 67). We believe that music education and music (teacher) education research is seriously undertheorized, underdeveloped, and marginally representative of studies within this qualitative research arena. Although our review did not exclude studies from within this tradition, our typology and classification scheme for categorizing study type and purposes did. This “disconnect” highlights the need for recognizing and increasing work within this area. Because our synthesis of studies suggests that one way to theorize learning to teach music is to think of it as a process of connecting self-knowledge with social knowledge, further examination of social knowledge using a critical lens seems particularly productive for displaying the role authority and power plays in the educative process of learning to teach music.

Preservice Music Teacher Education  473

References Abrahams, F. 2009. “Examining the Preservice Practicum Experience of Undergraduate Music Education Majors—Exploring Connections and Dispositions through Multiple Perspectives a Critical Grounded Theory.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 19: 80–92, doi:10.1177/1057083709344044. Arostegui, J. L. 2004. “Much More Than Music: Music Education Instruction at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.” In The Social Context of Music Education, edited by J. L. Arostegui 127–210. Champaign, IL: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation. Barrett, M. S., and S. L. Stauffer, eds. 2009. Narrative Inquiry in Music Education: Troubling Certainty. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, doi: 1007/978-1-4020-9862-8. Barry, N. H. 1996. “Promoting Reflective Practice in an Elementary Music Methods Course.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 5: 6–13, doi:10.1177/105708379600500203. Bauer, W. 2001. “Student Attitudes toward Web-Enhanced Learning in a Music Education Methods Class: A Case Study.” Journal of Technology in Music Learning 1, no. 1: 20–30. Benedict, C. 2007. “On the Narrative of Challenged Assumptions.” Research Studies in Music Education 29: 29–38, doi:10.1177/1321103X07087566. Bernard, R. 2009. “Uncovering Pre-Service Music Teachers’ Assumptions of Teaching, Learning, and Music.” Music Education Research 11, no. 1: 111–24. Berg, M. H. 1997. “Student Teacher Video Cooperatives.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 7: 16–22, doi:10.1177/105708379700700104. Berg, M. H., and P. Miksza. 2010. “An Investigation of Preservice Music Teacher Development and Concerns.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 20: 39–55, doi:10.1177/1057083710363237. Berg, M. H., and V. R. Lind. 2003. “Preservice Music Teacher Electronic Portfolios Integrating Reflection and Technology.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 12: 18–28, doi:10.1177/1057 0837030120020104. Bergee, M. J. 2006. “Description and Evaluation of Experiences at a New Early Field Site.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 15: 21–28, doi:10.1177/10570837060150020104 Boardman, E. 1990. “Music Teacher Education.” In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: A Project of the Association of Teacher Educators, edited by W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, and J. Sikula, 730–45. New York: Macmillan. Brewer, W. 2009. “Conceptions of Effective Teaching and Role-Identity Development among Preservice Music Educators.” DMA diss., Arizona State Univ. Britzman, D. P. 2003. Practice Makes Practice: A Critical Study of Learning to Teach 2nd ed. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Broyles, J. “Effects of Videotape Analysis on Role Development of Student Teachers in Music.” PhD diss., Univ. of Oklahoma, 1997. Bruner, J. 1985. “Narrative and Paradigmatic Modes of Thought.” In Learning and Teaching the Ways of Knowing, edited by E. Eisner, 97–115. Chicago: NSSE. Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burrack, F. 2006. “Collaboration within the Arts: A Project Involving a Band Literature Course and Studio Arts.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 15: 43–48, doi:10.1177/1057083706015 0020106. Burrack, F. 2001. “Using Reflection and Video Self-Confrontation to Uncover the Instructional Thought Development of Student Teachers In Instrumental Music.” PhD diss., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

474    mark robin campbell and linda k. thompson Butler, A. 2001. “Preservice Music Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching Effectiveness, Microteaching Experiences, and Teaching Performance.” Journal of Research in Music Education 49, no. 3: 258–72. Campbell, M. R. 1999. “Learning to Teach: A Collaborative Ethnography.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 139: 12–36. Campbell, M. R., and L. K. Thompson. 2001. “Preservice Music Educators’ Images of Teaching. In Desert Skies Symposium on Research in Music Education, edited by D. Hamann, 24–38. Tucson: Univ. of Arizona, School of Music and Dance. Campbell, M.R., L. K. Thompson, and J. R. Barrett. 2010. Constructing A Personal Orientation to Music Teaching. New York, NY: Routledge. Carter, K. (1990). “Teachers’ Knowledge and Learning to Teach.” In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: A Project of the Association of Teacher Educators, edited by W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, and J. Sikula, 291–309. New York: MacMillan. Carter, K., and W. Doyle. 1995. “Preconceptions in Learning to Teach.” The Educational Forum 59: 186–95. Chaffin, C., and J. Manfredo. 2010. “Perceptions of Preservice Teachers Regarding Feedback and Guided Reflection in an Instrumental Early Field Experience.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 19: 57–72, doi:10.1177/1057083709354161. Clandinin, D. J., and F. M. Connelly. 2000. Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Colwell, R. 2005. “Can We Be Friends?” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 166, 75–91. Committee on Institutional Cooperation. “Referred Journals in Music Education.” Unpublished document, 2006. Conkling, S. W. 2003. “Uncovering Preservice Reflective Thinking: Making Sense of Learning to Teach.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 155: 11–23. Conway, C., C. Micheel-Mays, and L. Micheel-Mays. 2005. “A Narrative Study of Student Teaching and the First Year of Teaching: Common Issues and Struggles.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 165: 65–77. Conway, C. M. 2000. “The Preparation of Teacher-Researchers in Preservice Music Education. Journal of Music Teacher Education 9: 22–30, doi:10.1177/105708370000900205. Conway, C. M. 2002. “Perceptions of Beginning Teachers, Their Mentors, and Administrators Regarding Preservice Music Teacher Preparation.” Journal of Research in Music Education 50, no. 1: 20–36. Conway, C. M. 2003. “Story And Narrative Inquiry in Music Teacher Education Research.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 12: 29–39, doi: 10.1177/10570837030120020105. Conway, C. M., J. Eros, K. Pellegrino, and C. West. 2010a. “Instrumental Music Education Students’ Perceptions of Tensions Experienced During Their Undergraduate Degree.” Journal of Research in Music Education 58, no. 3: 260–75. Conway, C., J. Eros, K. Pellegrino, and C. West. 2010b. “The Role of Graduate and Undergraduate Interactions in the Development of Preservice Music Teachers and Music Teacher Educators: A Self-Study in Music Teacher Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 183: 49–64. Creswell, J. W. 2008. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Della Pietra, C. J., and P. C. Campbell. 1995. “An Ethnography of Improvisation Training in a Music Methods Course.” Journal of Research in Music Education 43, no. 2: 112–26.

Preservice Music Teacher Education  475 Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln, eds. 2010. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dewey, J. 1933. How We Think. New York: D. C. Heath. Drafall, L. “The Use of Developmental Clinical Supervision with Student Teachers in Secondary Choral Music: Two Case Studies.” EdD diss., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1991. Draves, T. J. 2008. “‘Firecrackers’ and ‘duds’:  Cooperating Music Teachers’ Perspectives on Their Relationships with Student Teachers.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 18: 6–15, doi:10.1177/1057083708323140. Draves, T. J. 2010. “Fostering and Sustaining Music Teacher Identity in the Student Teaching Experience.” In Issues of Identity in Music Education: Narratives and Practices, edited by L. K. Thompson and M. R. Campbell, 15–35. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Emmanuel, D. T. 2005. “The Effects Of A Music Education Immersion Internship in a Culturally Diverse Setting on the Beliefs and Attitudes of Pre-Service Music Teachers.” International Journal of Music Education 23: 49–62, doi:10.1177/0255761405050930. Eisner, E. 1998. “Rethinking Literacy.” In E. Eisner, The Kinds of Schools We Need: Personal Essays, 9–20. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Ferguson, K. 2009. “Filtered through the Lenses of Self:  Experiences of Two Preservice Music Teachers.” In Narrative Inquiry in Music Education:  Troubling Certainty, edited by M.S. Barrett and S. L. Stauffer, 87–106. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:  Springer, doi: 1007/978-1-4020-9862-8 Ferguson, V. K. “Individual Differences in Responses to Feedback:  Case Studies of Two Preservice Music Teachers.” DMA diss., Arizona State Univ., 2004. Fuller, F. F. 1969. “Concerns of Teachers:  A  Developmental Conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal 6, 207–26. Glass, S. “The Role of the University Supervisor and its Influence on the Development of the Music Student Teacher: Two Case Studies.” EdD diss., Teachers College, Columbia Univ., 1997. Greher, G. R. 2006. “Transforming Music Teacher Preparation through the Lens of Video Technology.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 15: 49–60, doi:10.1177/1057083706015002 0107. Gohlke, L. “The Music Methods Class:  Acquisition of Pedagogical Content Knowledge by Preservice Music Teachers.” PhD diss., Univ. of Washington, 1994. Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1994. “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 105–17. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Haston, W., and A. Leon-Guerrero. 2008. “Sources of Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Reports by Preservice Instrumental Music Teachers.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 17: 48–59, doi:10.1177/1057083708317644. Hourigan, R. 2008. “The Use of Student-Written Cases in Music Teacher Education. Journal of Music Teacher Education 17: 19–32, doi:10.1177/1057083708317642. Hourigan, R. M. 2009. “Preservice Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Fieldwork Experiences in a Special Needs Classroom.” Journal of Research in Music Education 57, no. 2: 152–68. Hourigan, R. M., and J. W. Scheib. 2009. “Inside and Outside The Undergraduate Music Education Curriculum: Student Teacher Perceptions of the value of Skills, Abilities, and Understandings.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 18: 48–61, doi: 10.1177/1057083708327871. Kerchner, J. L. 1997. “Portfolio Assessment: Tracking Development.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 6: 19–22, doi:10.1177/105708379700600207.

476    mark robin campbell and linda k. thompson Kerchner, J. L. 2006. “Collegiate Metamorphosis:  Tracking the Cognitive and Social Transformation of Female Music Education Students.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 169: 7–24. Killian, J. N., and K. G. Dye. 2009. “Effects of Learner-Centered Activities in Preparation of Music Educators: Finding the Teacher Within.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 19: 9–24, doi:10.1177/1057083709343904. Lane, J. S. 2006. “Undergraduate Instrumental Music Education Majors’ Approaches to Score Study in Various Musical Contexts.” Journal of Research in Music Education 54, no. 3: 215–30. Liebhaber, B. “Mentoring in Music Education:  The Collaborative Relationship among the Student Teacher, Cooperating Teacher and College Supervisor. A  Qualitative Action Research Study.” EdD diss., Teachers College, Columbia Univ., 2003. Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:  Sage Publications. McDowell, C. 2007. “Are They Ready To Student Teach? Reflections from 10 Music Education Majors Concerning Their Three Semesters of Field Experience.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 16: 45–60, doi:10.1177/10570837070160020106. Miranda, M., J. Robbins, and S. L. Stauffer. 2007. “Seeing and Hearing Music Teaching and Learning: Transforming Classroom Observations through Ethnography and Portraiture.” Research Studies in Music Education 28: 3–21, doi:10.1177/1321103X070280010202. Mitchell, B. 1997. “Using Portfolios in Undergraduate Music Education. Journal of Music Teacher Education 7: 23–27, Doi:10.1177/105708379700700105. Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Paul, S. J. 1998. “The Effects of Peer Teaching Experiences on the Professional Teacher Role Development of Undergraduate Instrumental Music Education Majors.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 137: 73–92. Powell, S. R. 2011. “Examining Preservice Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Initial Peerand Field-Teaching Experiences.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 21:  11–26, doi: 10.1177/1057083710386751. Reese, S. 2001. “Integration of On-Line Composition Mentoring into Music Teacher Education.” Contributions to Music Education 28, no.1: 9–26. Reese, S., and M. Hickey. 1999. “Internet-Based Music Composition And Music Teacher Education.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 9: 25–32, doi:10.1177/105708379900900105. Reynolds, A. M. 2003. “Participants in a Service-Learning Partnership:  Agents of Change. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 157: 71–81. Reynolds, A. M., and C. M. Conway. 2003. “Service-Learning in Music Education Methods: Perception of Participants.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 155: 1–10. Reynolds, A. M., A. Jerome, A. L. Preston, and H. Haynes. 2005. “Service-Learning in Music Education: Participants’ Reflections.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 165: 79–91. Richards, C., and R. Killen. 1993. “Problems of Beginning Teachers: Perceptions of Pre-Service Music Teachers.” Research Studies in Music Education 1:  40–51, doi:10.1177/13211 03X9300100105. Rideout, R., and A. Feldman. 2002. “Research in Music Student Teaching.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. Richardson, 874– 886. New York: Oxford University Press.

Preservice Music Teacher Education  477 Russell, J. 1997. “Identifying Student Teacher-Conductors’ Stances in Practicum Settings.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 131: 39–41. Russell, J. A. 2007. “I Know What I Need to Know: The Impact of Cognitive and Psycho-Social Development on Undergraduate Music Education Major’s Investment in Instrumental Techniques Courses.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 171: 1–66. Russell, J. A. 2009. “Factors Influencing Undergraduate Music Education Majors’ Investment in Instrumental Techniques Courses taught by Graduate Student Instructors.” Music Education Research 11, no. 3: 335–48. Schleuter, L. 1991. “Student Teachers’ Preactive and Postactive Curricular Thinking.” Journal of Research in Music Education 39, no. 1: 46–63. Schön, D. A. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schmidt, M. 1998. “Defining ‘Good’ Music Teaching:  Four Student Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 138: 19–46. Schmidt, M. 2005. “Preservice String Teachers’ Lesson-Planning Processes: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Research in Music Education 53, no. 1: 6–25. Schmidt, M. 2010. “Learning from Teaching Experience:  Dewey’s Theory and Preservice Teachers’ Learning.” Journal of Research in Music Education 58, no. 2: 131–46. Siebenaler, D. 2005. “Music and Service Learning: A Case Study.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 15: 23–30, doi:10.1177/10570837050150010105. Skaalvik, E. M., and S. Skaalvik. 2010. “Teacher Self-Efficacy and Teacher Burnout: A Study of Relations. Teaching and Teacher Education 26: 1059–69. Snow, S. 1998. “Rehearsing in the Choral Context: A Qualitative Examination of Undergraduate Conductor/Teacher Planning Processes and Relationships to Emergent Pedagogical Knowledge Evidenced in Teaching.” PhD diss., Michigan State Univ.. Snyder, D. “Classroom Management and the Music Student Teacher.” DME diss., Univ. of Cincinnati, 1996. Snyder, D. W. 1999. “Metcalf Laboratory School: A Report on a Model for Preservice Music Teacher Field Experiences.” Research Studies in Music Education 12: 1–9, doi:10.1177/13211 03X9901200101. Soto, A. C., C.H. Lum, and P. S. Campbell. 2009. “A University-School Music Partnership for Music Education Majors in a Culturally Distinctive Community.” Journal of Research in Music Education 56, no. 4: 338–56. Stamer, R. A. 2000. “Preparing Future Choral Music Educators to Implement the National Standards.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 9: 7–13, doi:10.1177/105708370000900203. Stegman, S. “An Investigation of Secondary Choral Music Student Teachers’ Perceptions of Instructional Successes and Problems as They Reflect on Their Music Teaching.” PhD diss., Univ. of Michigan, 1996. Stegman, S. F. 2001. “Perceptions of Student Teachers in Secondary Choral Classrooms.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 11: 12–20 doi:10.1177/105708370101100104. Stegman, S. F. 2007. “An Exploration of Reflective Dialogue between Student Teachers in Music and Their Cooperating Teachers.” Journal of Research in Music Education 55, no. 1: 65–82. Strand, K. 2006. “Learning to Inquire: Teacher Research in Undergraduate Teacher Training.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 15: 29–42, doi:10.1177/10570837060150020105. Thiessen, D. L., and J. R. Barrett, 2002. “Reform-Minded Music Teachers: A More Comprehensive Image of Teaching for Music Teacher Education.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. Richardson, 759–85. New York: Oxford University Press.

478    mark robin campbell and linda k. thompson Thompson, L. “Freshmen Music Education Majors’ Preconceived Beliefs about the People and Processes Involved in Teaching.” PhD diss., Univ. of Arizona, 2000. Thompson, L. K., and M. R. Campbell. 2003. “Gods, Guides and Gardeners: Preservice Music Educators’ Personal Teaching Metaphors.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 158: 43–54. Towell, G. “Improvisation in Teaching: An Analogy from Jazz Performance.” DME diss., Univ. of Cincinnati, 1998. Towell, G. L., D. W. Snyder, and A. Poor. 1995. “Listening to the Past: Using Student Journals in a Music Education Course.” The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning VI, no. 3: 18–29. Townsend, R. D. 2000. “The Holmes Group: A Private College Plausibility Study.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 10: 24–31, doi:10.1177/105708370001000105. Valerio, W. H., and N. K. Freeman. 2009. “Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of Early Childhood Music Teaching Experiences.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 181: 51–69. Vandivere, A. 2008. “An Investigation of the Nonverbal Communication Behaviors and Role Perceptions of Pre-Service Band Teachers Who Participated in Theatre Seminars.” PhD diss., Univ. of North Texas. Verrastro, R., and M. Leglar. 1992. “Music Teacher Education.” In Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell, 676–96. New York: Schirmer Books. Walls, K. C., and S. Samuels. 2011. “Collaborative Design Processes for Authentic Preservice Music Teacher Observations.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 20:  24–39, doi:10.1177/1057083710371426. Wideen, M., J. Mayer-Smith, and B. Moon. 1998. “A Critical Analysis of the Research on Learning to Teach: Making the Case for an Ecological Perspective on Inquiry.” Review of Educational Research 68: 130–78. Wills, J. W. 2008. Qualitative Research Methods in Education and Educational Technology. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Chapter 25

Inservice Mu si c Teacher Profe s si ona l Devel op me nt colleen m. conway and scott N. edgar

Music teacher professional development has been a prominent area of discussion for almost two decades.1 Recent National Association for Music Education (NAfME) President Scott Shuler wrote about the importance of music teacher professional development in 1995: The [National] standards reinforce the need for collaboration between universities and state departments of education to encourage and provide avenues for teachers to continue lifelong professional growth . . . A teacher who first enters the classroom at the age of twenty-one might spend over forty years in the education profession. Certainly, over the span of a career of this length, there will be many changes in the nature of music, the nature of students, and the nature of schools. Even well prepared teachers must therefore learn to adapt to change. Old dogs must learn new tricks. (10)

Shuler suggested many possibilities that have now become standard practice in education: (a) doing away with lifetime teaching credentials and replacing them with expectations for continued study; (b) development of National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)2-sponsored professional development schools in collaboration with local K-12 school districts; (c) screening processes for teachers at a variety of career points, including admission to the university music school, admission into the teacher preparation program, admission into the teaching profession, and continuation in the teaching profession; and (d) the development of a national system for certifying teachers (10). Although many of these practices are standard, we have limited research that examines these practices and considers ways in which this complex phenomenon may be improved.

480    colleen m. conway and SCOTT N. EDGAR Although federal policy has addressed teacher professional development (referred to as PD from now on) over the past 10–15 years (i.e., No Child Left Behind, Race To The Top) only recently has the research community begun to seriously study the PD of inservice music teachers. Back in 1992, Verrastro and Leglar stated the following in the opening of their comprehensive review of literature on music teacher education: Inservice education, including graduate education, inservice conferences, and workshops has received less attention from the research community than the other categories [preservice teacher education] . . . Although these studies [four studies, none of which were qualitative] offer some insights, they do not provide a sufficient basis for drawing general conclusions and therefore will not be discussed further. (676)

Verrastro and Leglar made this statement in 1992 and it is still true today. Mark Robin Campbell and Linda K. Thompson had many more studies to review when examining qualitative research and preservice teacher education for ­chapter 24 of this volume than Scott Edgar and I did in preparing this chapter.

25.1  Research on Professional Development In her chapter in The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning dedicated to “Professional Development” Hookey (2002, 888) identified four distinct uses of the term Professional Development:

• • • •

a process of personal professional change the set of activities designed to promote personal professional change a lifelong project an overarching framework for professional change

Since this source is one of the primary sources on professional development in the literature, music education researchers have often used the Hookey definitions of professional development in their work. However, many researchers do not define professional development at all and this is a weakness within this body of literature. Hookey included six qualitative studies in her chapter, not presented in this chapter since they were previously reviewed (Dolloff 1996; Duling 1992; Junda 1994; May 1990; Robbins 1994/1995; and Wing 1977). She cited two quantitative studies on teacher PD; one a program evaluation of a specific PD program (Colwell 1996/1997) and the second, Price and Orman’s (1999) content analysis of topics of PD offerings at National MENC conferences from 1984–1998. The 14 other empirical studies in Hookey’s chapter examine other topics (teacher behaviors, teacher intensity, collaborative partnerships, integrated arts programs, lives of teachers research, and classroom teachers teaching

Music Teacher Professional Development  481 music) somewhat related to PD but not a part of the scope of our chapter as they will be addressed elsewhere in this Handbook. The acceptance of qualitative research within music education since the late 1990s allowed for more researchers to examine complex topics such as teacher PD. In his introduction to the teacher education section in the New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (2002), Raths (2002) suggested music teacher education had yet to really discover new research approaches and designs that might facilitate careful study of teacher education. This chapter will highlight the emergence of qualitative research since 1995 and will suggest that the availability of qualitative research has led to more researcher interest and ability to study teacher education and PD. However, we also highlight throughout the chapter the need for researchers to be more transparent in their use of definitions and designs. One can surmise what the context is and which definition fits, however, one real problem with qualitative research papers is that readers are often in the dark about how the design process and analysis process that was in place allowed the researcher(s) to reach their conclusions. We begin with a presentation of research on the PD of beginning music teachers defined as inservice teachers in the first and/or second year of teaching. Categories in this section include: (a) challenges faced by beginning music teachers; and (b) support for beginning music teachers in mentoring and induction. The second section includes studies of experienced music teacher (third year and beyond) PD presented within the following categories: (a) communities of practice; (b) music-making as PD; (c) graduate school as PD; and (d) action research and teacher research as PD. In the final section of the chapter we review studies examining PD in relation to teacher career cycle. We conclude with a summary and discussion with regard to how qualitative research has been used to study teacher PD and provide suggestions for future research.

25.2  Professional Development of Beginning Music Teachers 25.2.1 Challenges Faced by Beginning Music Teachers Beginning music teachers can face challenges unique from those experienced by veteran teachers. Krueger (1996) conducted an interview-only study with 16 music teachers for the purpose of documenting teachers’ perceptions of problems and challenges faced in the first year. Problems identified in this study (in order from most cited problem) included: student discipline, physical exhaustion, isolation, not teaching in primary area of expertise, scheduling, poor equipment/facilities, budget concerns, left out of decision-making, inadequate materials, and curriculum concerns. This was the first qualitative study in the literature to document the problems that beginning music teachers experience.

482    colleen m. conway and SCOTT N. EDGAR Individual case studies have been informative, detailing the challenges beginning music teachers encounter. I (Conway) published a descriptive case study with Mandi Garlock, in 2002 (Conway and Garlock 2002) describing the challenges Mandi faced in her first year as an urban K–3 general music teacher. Data included: (a) interviews and observations with/of Mandi, (b) interviews with Mandi’s building principals and mentor, and (c) daily journals regarding the first two years of her teaching. Findings were presented in Mandi’s own words: “I was not prepared to deal with a student death, an abduction, reporting abuse, a first grader with clinical depression, and so many who had taken on anger as their coping mechanism” (17). “Once I had my own classroom there was no blending into the back of the class when I wasn’t feeling well, skipping if I was too tired to get up, or even relaxing when I didn’t feel like being on” (18); “If music class is fun, why is everybody crying? It was my daily goal to make it through without someone crying, and a weekly goal to have no one bleed (not to mention wet pants, vomit, or endless trips to the bathroom)” (20). In another case study (Conway and Zerman 2004), Tavia Zerman and I provided more narrative findings regarding middle school instrumental music needs. Data included:  (a)  interviews and observations with/of Tavia, (b)  interviews with Tavia’s building principal and mentor, (c) Tavia’s written journal from September to December; and (d) an e-mail log documenting each e-mail communication between Tavia and her mentor for the entire first year. We concluded: The music teacher education community must inform policy-makers and program designers that music teachers face challenges that are not faced in other classrooms. Tavia’s classes are larger than classroom teachers so classroom management is different for her. She is the only instrumental music teacher in the building so isolation is even more severe. Success for many music teachers (Tavia included) is measured by their communities in terms of public performance and competitions. Choosing concert literature and planning lessons for music courses is driven by content. Generic beginning teacher programs alone do not provide the right kind of support. (82)

In a year-long inquiry in which three university researchers had nine elementary music teachers study their own classrooms, Roulston, Legette, and Lomak (2005) used teacher research (defined and expanded upon later in this chapter) to enhance the practices of participants. Group meetings and individual interviews were used as data sets. Challenges included lack of time, access to participants, lack of research knowledge, and lack of support. Benefits included providing a venue for collaboration, developing a sense of teacher reflection, and developing an identity as a teacher researcher. Conclusions suggest this sort of PD should be developed over a substantial period of time and be structured with specific goals for participants. In Conway and Christensen (2006), we examined Stephanie Christensen’s perceptions as a first-year middle school instrumental music teacher regarding PD, including: (a) in-service programs provided by the school district; (b) programs offered by the state music organizations; (c) programs attended by the teacher; and (d) informal

Music Teacher Professional Development  483 experiences that provided assistance to the teacher. Narrative inquiry was used and data included Stephanie’s daily journal, researcher observation and interview, and Stephanie’s written reflections regarding beginning teacher PD material. For this final data set, I provided Stephanie with information regarding teacher PD from Danielson’s (1996) model for teacher evaluation since this framework is commonly used in organizing PD in Michigan. Stephanie read the material and wrote about how the “generalizations” about teachers either did or did not resonate with her experiences. Findings were presented around the themes of: (a) views of professional development, (b) isolation, and (c) music festivals and competitions. Some of these findings speak to the fact that professional development can be alienating and unhelpful. Schmidt and Canser (2006) and Schmidt (2008) both present the story of a struggling novice teacher, Jelani (co-author Canser), and his successful improvement through proper mentoring. This study draws from self-study, as Schmidt was one of three mentors, as well as narrative analysis, as the presentation of data is largely Jelani’s story and the mentors’ story of support. Discussion with mentors about teaching strategies, lesson planning, assessment, classroom management, and pacing helped guide Jelani through his first years and the challenges he faced in these areas. Elements cited for Jelani’s improvement included increasing pedagogical content knowledge, addressing his self-confidence and persistence, giving him the opportunity to teach in the university’s String Project classes, and the supervisor’s mentoring style. Findings included newfound knowledge and skills and increased ability to better describe and assess his own teaching. In an effort to “contribute to the novice music teacher case literature by studying the prevalent themes in the experience of 5 first year teachers” (64) Barnes (2010) collected electronic journals from teacher participants. Barnes did not report how many of the five teachers sent e-mails nor how many pages of journals were generated in the study. She also conducted a phone interview with each of the teachers in January of their first year. Themes with the highest frequency counts included:  students (behavior); students (musical); administrative; students (personal); self-evaluation (discipline); and self-evaluation (personal). These findings are consistent with past research regarding beginning teachers, further solidifying our empirical base for understanding the experiences of beginning teachers. Table 25.1 presents a summary of the challenges beginning teachers faced, discussed above.

25.2.2 Supporting Beginning Music Teachers in Mentoring and Induction Despite the challenges beginning music teachers face, research on PD, mentoring, and induction of beginning music teachers suggest it is possible to aid these novice teachers in the beginning stage of their career. Programs focusing on the specific needs of those new to the profession may provide music teachers with the assistance they need to grow and learn as new teachers.

484    colleen m. conway and SCOTT N. EDGAR Table 25.1  Summary of findings—challenges faced by beginning music teachers Krueger (1996)

Conway and Garlock (2002)

Conway and Zerman (2004) Roulston et al. (2005) Conway and Christensen (2006) Schmidt (2008) Schmidt/Canser (2006) Barnes (2010)

Student discipline, physical exhaustion, isolation, not teaching in primary area of expertise, scheduling, poor equipment/facilities, budget concerns, left out of decision-making, inadequate materials, curriculum concerns Student death, an abduction, reporting abuse, a first-grader with clinical depression, student anger as a coping mechanism, too tired to get up Large class sizes, isolation, pressure of performance, choosing literature Lack of time, research access issues, lack of research knowledge, lack of support Isolation, music festivals, competitions Teaching strategies, lesson planning, assessment, classroom management, pacing Students (behavior), students (musical), administrative, students (personal), self-evaluation (discipline), self-evaluation (personal)

Mentoring, specifically, can help in minimizing the feeling of isolation common for beginning music teachers. Krueger (1999) conducted an interview-only study of 20 beginning music teachers to examine beginning music teacher induction and mentor practices. All participants were interviewed during the last month of their first year of teaching and were teaching instrumental, general, choral music, or some combination of the three. She found that new teachers frequently reported feeling isolated from other music teachers and other teachers. Only four of the participants in Krueger’s study had been assigned to experienced music teachers as part of a mentor program and these teachers reported feelings of isolation less than the teachers with no mentor program. Four participants (not the same as had experienced mentors) received district-supported release days to observe other music teachers and Krueger reported these observations were also perceived as helpful to them in their first years. Montague (2000) used collective case study design to examine the mentor and mentee interactions of four pairs of beginning teachers/mentors. Data included 90-minute, semi-structured interviews with each participant. Montague’s findings highlight the specific nature of the teaching context in relation to mentoring and are presented in the following categories: mentor and mentee background and influences, early influences, program perceptions, procedure and protocol, mentor, mentoring style, mentor availability, role and relationship and changing roles. He wrote: “Further analysis revealed the complex interrelated nature of the themes that combined within the novice teachers’ communities of practice and situational contexts to define the mentorship” (iv). Although this data set is limited to single interviews, this study represents an early qualitative research study in mentoring (2000).

Music Teacher Professional Development  485 The presence of a mentoring or induction program was not always successful in diminishing the challenges experienced by beginning music teachers. Conway (2001) examined beginning music teacher perceptions of district-sponsored induction programs. Induction for this study was defined as the PD provided to the teachers outside of or in addition to a mentor program. For most participants these constituted inservice days or release days with other beginning teachers in the school or county. Data included: researcher observations of the beginning teachers, beginning teacher interviews, teacher journals, focus group meetings, mentor interviews, administrator interviews, PD documents provided by the beginning teachers, responses on two beginning teacher questionnaires, and the principal investigator’s log. Profiles of the participants revealed inconsistency of induction programs, dissatisfaction with the most extensive induction programs, and the presence of music-specific beginning teacher issues. Suggestions for induction programs for music teachers include: guidance for administrative duties, help in choosing literature and in lesson-planning, observing experienced music teachers, receiving observations from music content specialists, attention to curriculum and assessment in the second year of induction, and involvement of higher education and state music organizations. Conway (2003) examined beginning music teacher mentor practices in 13 school districts in mid-Michigan. Data included: beginning teacher interviews, teacher journals, focus group meetings, mentor interviews, administrator interviews, and the principal investigator’s log. Profiles of the teachers show a lack of consistency in the types of mentor programs in the schools and varying degrees of teacher satisfaction with the programs. The lack of consistency is discussed in relation to the context of school, the teaching responsibility and classroom setting, the type of mentor assigned, and the degree to which that mentor was paid or trained. Teacher perceptions of the value of the program are discussed in relation to the degree and type of contact (i.e., weekly, informal, etc.) with the assigned mentor. The conversations between mentors and mentees often centered on the following issues: administrative duties, classroom management, parent interaction, building and district policies, and personal issues. The paper concludes with general suggestions for mentor practices including: early identification of mentor, scheduling so mentors can observe, and opportunities for getting to know one another informally. Group mentoring was an alternative explored in Stevanson (2005)’s collective case study examining three elementary music teachers in a mentoring program through the lens of three existing frameworks—The Stages of Concern (Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, and Hall 1987), The Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow 1970), and the Categories of Support (Merriam and Simpson 2000). Data included individual and focus group interviews. She found: (a) group mentoring has advantages over individual mentoring; (b) elementary music teachers have unique needs not typically met in generalized mentoring programs; (c)  elementary music teachers are often conflicted regarding their roles as teachers and performing musicians; and (d) there is a mismatch between mentoring programs and the novice teachers’ needs. In Jacobs (2007), five first-year high school band directors and their mentors were interviewed over a six-month period concerning their mentor-mentee relationships.

486    colleen m. conway and SCOTT N. EDGAR Citing Rodwell (1998) and Strauss and Corbin (1998), Jacobs suggested his inquiry used a “constructivist content analysis” (Jacobs 2007, 11) as he analyzed the mentor and mentee data separately. He presented his findings in a “multi-case study narrative” (Jacobs 11). Findings provide insight into mentor-mentee interaction and mentor program structure. Jacobs’ findings support the need for observation in mentoring. When done well, mentoring can help beginning music teachers through their first years in the profession. Blair (2008) examined mentoring experiences of five first-year elementary music teachers in the same district working with her as their mentor. Data included participants email correspondence with the researcher, end-of-the-year reflective journals for each teacher, the mentor/researcher’s journal and a focus group interview at the end of the year. Blair wrote: Two key issues arose during the year that profoundly affected the professional self-confidence of these novice teachers:  their struggles with classroom management, and issues that arose during their experiences with the district’s process of teacher evaluation. Within the context of these common problems, the teachers seemed to value the meetings as an opportunity to give and receive support in a safe, collegial environment, in which all those present understood the parameters of their unique jobs and cared about each other as individuals and music educators. What began as a group of individuals emerged as a community of practice. (99)

Continued investigation into thoughts of music teachers regarding PD as they progress through their careers offers insight into changing needs and perceptions. Conway (2012) examined reflections of experienced teachers (N = 7) on their past perceptions of induction as documented in Conway (2001). Data collected in 2010 included participant e-mail survey responses and individual interviews. Findings suggested: (a) Induction practices and professional development are still inconsistent in the field; (b) Participants now focus more on students than they did in their early years; (c) Participants feel as if they “understood schools” better now than they did as beginning teachers; (d) Findings were inconclusive regarding the notion that music content is necessary in induction and professional development. The purpose of Conway (2013) was to examine the current reflections of experienced teachers (N = 13) on their past perceptions of mentoring as documented in Conway (2003). Data included participant e-mail journals and individual interviews. In the e-mail journals participants were responding to the data gathered 10 years previously (journals, surveys, interviews, mentor and administrator interviews). Findings categories consistent with the 2003 investigation included: (a) lack of consistency in mentor programs and teacher perceptions of their value; (b)  curricular concerns; (c)  music teachers still need music mentors; (d) time for mentor/mentee interaction. New insights included: (a) mentoring can be valuable for the mentor; (b) concerns regarding who should mentor; (c)  new teachers must be proactive in finding answers to questions. Table 25.2 presents a summary of findings regarding supporting beginning music teachers in mentoring and induction.

Music Teacher Professional Development  487 Table 25.2  Summary of findings—supporting beginning music teachers in mentoring and induction Krueger (1999) Montague (2000)

Conway (2001)

Conway (2003) Stevenson (2005)

Jacobs (2007) Blair (2008)

Conway (2012)

Conway (2013)

Mentoring and induction helped beginning teachers combat loneliness Background influences, early influences, program perceptions, procedure and protocol, mentor, mentoring style, mentor availability, role relationship changing roles Documentation of induction programs provided, dissatisfaction with the most extensive induction programs, and documentation of what beginning teacher issues may be different for music teachers A lack of consistency in the types of mentor programs in the schools and varying degrees of teacher satisfaction with the program Group mentoring has advantages over individual mentoring; elementary music teachers have unique needs that are not typically met in generalized mentoring programs; elementary music teachers are often conflicted regarding their roles as teachers and performing musicians; there is a mismatch between mentoring programs the novice teachers’ needs Mentor-mentee interaction, mentor program structure, and support the need for observation in mentoring Struggles with classroom management and issues that arose during their experiences with the district’s process of teacher evaluation affected teacher self-confidence. Teachers valued meetings with mentor music educators. Induction and professional development are still inconsistent in the field, participants now focus more on student; participants feel as if they “understood schools” better now than they did as beginning teachers; findings were inconclusive regarding the notion that music content is necessary in induction and professional development Lack of consistency in mentor programs and teacher perceptions of value, curricular concerns, music teachers still need music mentors; time for mentor/mentee interaction, mentoring can be valuable for the mentor, concerns regarding who should mentor, new teachers must be proactive in finding answers to questions

25.2.3 Discussion and Suggestions Within the beginning teacher literature (challenges as well as mentoring and induction), qualitative research has provided the profession with descriptions, stories, and narratives of teacher experiences. There is some evidence to suggest that teacher research, mentoring, and induction may provide appropriate support; however, it seems as if we might know more about what does not work in supporting beginning teachers than what is useful. The research does not clearly indicate the value of mentoring and induction. Nor does past research define the different positive or negative influences of mentor-only as opposed to induction-only or combined mentor-induction beginning teaching models. It is also unclear how preservice teaching experiences interact with events in the early years of teaching.

488    colleen m. conway and SCOTT N. EDGAR Most of the researchers reported on the beginning teachers’ viewpoints, with the exception of Conway (2001, 2002), who included building administrator and mentor perspectives as well as those of teachers. It might be useful for the profession to continue to explore the perspectives of these stakeholders (i.e., administrators, more experienced teachers, mentors, parents, and P–12 students). It would be beneficial for researchers to begin to work to connect a research focus on challenges directly to ways of addressing them through mentoring and induction so we can begin to explore how or if beginning teacher programs can address the issues outlined in the challenges literature.

25.3  Professional Development of Experienced Music Teachers Studies of experienced teacher PD are presented within the following categories: (a) communities of practice; (b) music making as PD; (c) graduate school as PD; and (d) action research and teacher research as PD.

25.3.1 Communities of Practice Music teachers can perceive PD as more valuable if it is conducted in a group of similar stakeholders. Standerfer (2003, 2008)  conducted a multiple case study specifically addressing influences of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) process on three choral music teachers. Two of the teachers were high school choral directors and one taught choral and general music at a middle school. Seidman’s (1998) three-interview model was used and each teacher was interviewed in their school setting. Each teacher completed the requirements for NBPTS Early Adolescent through Young Adulthood Music Certification during the 2001–2002 school year, and had not received results of their submissions. Cross-case analysis led to themes related to the NBPTS process including motivation, benefits, and learning. All participants reported improvement in their knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Other issues arising for all three music teachers included a high stress level resulting from the intensity and time requirements of the process, as well as the need for personal and professional support systems. Even so, the researcher suggested the NBPTS process as a potential source of effective PD for music teachers. Gruenhagen (2008) utilized an instrumental case study to explore the role of collaborative conversations among early childhood music teachers as a form of PD. Observing conversations at 11 meetings and conducting individual interviews with the 12 participants provided insight into the growth of the group, individuals, and changes in practice. Findings suggest PD is a process and a journey, and collaboration could help this process.

Music Teacher Professional Development  489 Although communities of practice can be informal, a more formal arrangement can be beneficial as well. Stanley (2009) examined the experiences of three elementary music teachers and the researcher, in a collaborative teacher study group (CTSG) designed to focus on student collaboration in elementary music. The CTSG met seven times to discuss aspects of student collaboration by analyzing video from each participant’s classroom. The study was a social constructivist inquiry based on the researcher’s reconstruction and interpretation of participant views throughout the CTSG experience. Using interviews and CTSG meeting transcripts, Stanley investigated ways in which CTSG members’ perceptions were affected by their group interactions. She traced the evolution of their socially constructed definitions of elementary music student collaboration. Findings regarding the CTSG’s effect on teaching practice include: (a) increased confidence in professional knowledge through the opportunity to verbalize and share teaching expertise; (b) expanded vocabulary to analyze and describe student behavior; (c) more habitual reflective examination of teaching; (d) expanded understanding of the scope of student collaboration; and (e) greater knowledge of the teacher’s role in facilitating student collaboration. All of the studies in this section examined programs in which participants made a choice to participate, and all of the experiences studied in this section were collaborative ventures—not one-shot, isolated PD experiences. Researchers conducting this type of inquiry in the future might consider descriptions of one-shot or isolated PD events as a way of comparing types of PD experiences (Lyndon and King 2009 provide a model within general education). Considering that one-shot and isolated PD experiences are the most common for music teachers, it may be important for qualitative researchers to examine this phenomenon. The Professional Development Area for Strategic Planning with the Society for Music Teacher Education has issued a statement for music teacher professional development that supports this same suggestion (smte.org).

25.3.2 Music-Making as Professional Development As mentioned above in the “Communities of Practice” section, Stanley (2009) studied a collaborative teacher study group (CTSG). The experiences of this group (three elementary music teachers and her) led to transformative PD impacting participants’ teaching and the experiences of their students. Stanley suggested centering a future CTSG on chamber music performance. She wrote: I would like to reconvene a CTSG around the idea of chamber music collaboration, and have us perform as well as study together to see if the added layer of making music would add further dimension to our interactions. Also, I would like to incorporate some type of musicianship building exercises within a CTSG to see if the experience of being music learners together changes our dialogue . . . I wonder if getting in touch with each other’s music learner identities would give us additional things to talk about. (308–309)

490    colleen m. conway and SCOTT N. EDGAR Pellegrino’s (2010) phenomenological case study examined the meanings and values of music-making in the lives of four string teachers and explored the intersections of music-making and teaching. Data sets were generated through background surveys, multiple individual interviews, videotaped classroom observations, focus group interviews that included music-making and conversation, researcher’s self-interview, and researcher’s journals. Participant suggestions regarding the benefits of music-making as PD included learning literature and new genres of music that could be brought back to students, developing strategies for helping students while engaged in music-making, keeping teachers’ listening and playing skills at high levels so that they could provide excellent models for students and support their own musician identity, relating to the students as learners, becoming more empathetic to the issues learners are facing, helping teachers’ sense of well-being, and combating burn-out. Pellegrino (2011) suggests: My findings point to music-making as a potentially transformative professional development activity. Engaging in music-making was described as being inspirational and bringing a general feeling of excitement back to a teacher who was feeling burned-out as well as helping teachers be more present in the classroom. (85)

Oddly, only one researcher in music education has considered music and music-making as part of PD. There is clearly a need for much more information regarding how (making) music interacts with music education with regard to PD. Pellegrino (­chapter 18 in this Handbook) provides additional information regarding music-making as data in qualitative research.

25.3.3  Graduate School as Professional Development PD can occur beyond the teaching context as well. Continuing education at the tertiary level can be a valuable form of PD. Hanley and King (1995) described a graduate course instructed by co-author Hanley, the aims of which included addressing curriculum issues in music education and the musicianship of the participants. The domains outlined in ArtsPROPEL, which was a collaborative effort between Harvard’s Project Zero and the Pittsburgh public schools, guided the class and a domain project assignment. There was little attention to methodology in the empirical description of this course. It could be classified as self-study or teacher research, although there is no discussion of formal data collection or analysis methods. The anecdotal findings suggest that domain projects, originally designed for P–12 students, could be a beneficial learning activity at the university level as well. This activity was found as mutually beneficial for both students and instructors. The effects of PD on future teaching is a limited area of research; however, Conway, Eros, and Stanley (2009) examined teacher (N=9) perceptions of the effect of the master’s degree in music education degree (MM) on teaching practice and teacher

Music Teacher Professional Development  491 perceptions of student (P–12) achievement. Data included an online survey, participant journals, and individual interviews. All data sets were reviewed and coded for common themes. Although it was not an aim of the study to state whether graduate school was, in fact, PD or not for the participants, the researchers did find that some aspects of graduate education can have a transformative effect on music teaching and learning. Participants discuss music performance, connect research with practice, have “re-interaction” with undergraduate content as they make connections between their MM work and teaching practice. Participants believed there was a relationship between the graduate degree and student achievement; however, they were unable to pinpoint the direct link. Additional findings include: a) the thesis or exam as a powerful connection to teaching practice; b) the value of the community of learners in a MM program; and c) questions regarding the development of an identity as a teacher/scholar. Barrett (2006) pointed to graduate work’s potential for creating a productive two-way movement between teaching theory and practice. She wrote that masters degree courses “can be especially strong in their capacities to engage teachers in the study of music and music teaching, which builds disciplinary depth, and also in fostering teacher-directed inquiry” (26); however, we know little about how or if graduate study really accomplishes this. Graduate study as professional development is another area ripe for continued inquiry.

35.3.4 Action Research/Teacher Research as Professional Development The terms “action research” (and) “teacher research” are often used interchangeably due to shared characteristics. In both action research and teacher research, teachers seek answers to questions or situations they find puzzling (Conway and Jeffers 2004, Robbins, Burbank and Dunkle 2007) and this information is used to alter or transform their practice (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999). In a recent review of action research and teacher research methods, West (2011) suggested, “what is valuable about teacher research is one’s personal experience with the topic rather than reading about another’s experience” (90). Though action research and teacher research share commonalities, for the purpose of this chapter, we differentiate between the two. Lewin (1946) first described action research as a “spiral of steps” comprised of “planning, executing, and reconnaissance or fact-finding for the purpose of evaluating the results of the second step, for preparing the rational basis for planning the third step, and for perhaps modifying again the overall plan” (38). Similarly, Glanz (1998) described action research as a four-step process consisting of (1) selecting a focus, (2) collecting data, (3) analyzing and interpreting the data, and (4) taking action. Based on this description, we define action research as systematic inquiry, data collection, and analysis that results in a modification of practice leading to further investigation. Robbins, Burbank, and Dunkle (2007) defined teacher research as “when [teachers’] observations and records of classroom events and experiences are

492    colleen m. conway and SCOTT N. EDGAR done systematically and intentionally” (42). Thus, we use “action research” to describe a project that includes a “cycle” of data collection and immediate instructional change and the term “teacher research” when teachers are studying their own classrooms without a closed “cycle” of data collection and instructional change. Most action research germinates from a curiosity or a need to improve one’s own teaching and teaching environment. Conway and Jeffers (2004a/b) described a collaborative action research process used in an examination of assessment procedures in a beginning instrumental music class. Jeffers, a veteran elementary instrumental music teacher, wanted to develop and examine various assessment procedures supporting the teaching techniques he had learned in a summer workshop. As the university researcher, I (Conway) searched for past literature on the topic of assessment in beginning instrumental music. Jeffers and I discussed issues of data collection and design and developed research questions. Jeffers developed student and parent questionnaires and made arrangements for another teacher to conduct student interviews. I conducted phone interviews with parents. We both listened to the student and parent interview tapes and examined the student and parent questionnaire data. We published two articles from the study, one on the findings (2004a) and one of the “process” of doing teacher-research (2004b). One of the most interesting findings to emerge from the study concerned PD, described here by Jeffers: This research project presented a significant opportunity for my professional development. All of the previous professional development that I had experienced in my teaching career was dictated by administrators. They would choose what we would be studying or learning about. They would set up when we would do it, where we would do it, how long it would be for and what the proposed outcome(s) would or should be. All of the arranged in-services had little or no relevance to music teachers or to most other “special area teachers”. . . . When I contrast traditional professional development with the possibilities offered by collaborative action research I  find a wide range of opportunities for investigating areas that are interesting /or problematic to teachers. The teacher can have the opportunity to learn about or improve some aspect of teaching that pertains directly to his/her teaching /or classroom environment. If research is something a teacher is not familiar or comfortable with (most classroom teachers are not) then collaboration with a university professor is a way to initiate professional development that will be applicable to his/her teaching classroom situation. (Conway and Jeffers 2004b, 42)

Combining action research with collaborative PD (discussed above) can result in powerful PD experiences. Roulston et al. (2005) were involved in a music teacher-research community designed to contribute to the PD of early-career elementary music teachers. They wanted to investigate how a teacher-research community, involving both university educators and teachers, could be structured around a “practice-based orientation to research” (4) in which group members would design and conduct individual research projects. The group consisted of two university educators, as well as a second-year and third-year elementary music teacher. The group met monthly for three hours to discuss

Music Teacher Professional Development  493 action research models and methods. As the classroom teachers created research questions and collected/analyzed data, the university educators served as research mentors by providing guidance in such areas as locating literature, creating research instruments, and gaining university and district study approval. They performed a group self-study examining “naturally occurring data” (Roulston et al., 2005, 7) related to the experience of being in the research community. All meetings were audiotaped and transcribed, the four group members interviewed one another, “wrote early and often” (8) and shared the writing, so that all group members could look at primary data, as well as read, revise, and check interpretations of the group experience. Analysis of group discussion indicated the elementary teachers learned new ways to consider and reflect on their practice; for example, one teacher was able to analyze group interactions in her classroom based on data collected by a paraprofessional, finding that what was really going on in the classroom was different from her prior perceptions. The group concluded, “teacher research collaborations between university educators and practicing teachers can supplement existing mentoring programs contribute to the development of . . . professional learning communities” (Roulston et al., 17). Often action research projects can occur in conjunction with a graduate program, discussed above as a valuable form of PD. Robbins, Burbank, and Dunkle (2007) told the story of two teachers engaging in classroom research projects during their masters degrees. This inquiry was largely a self-study between two classroom teachers (Burbank and Dunkle) and a university professor (Robbins) with university collaboration serving as the primary theme. The narrative shares the project design process, the data collection, and the writing process. Experiences of the teacher researchers were also shared (co-authors). The availability of university support, and teacher growth are key themes associated with collaborative teacher research. While action research is a valuable form of PD, projects can be difficult to implement. Conway, Edgar, Hansen, and Palmer (in review) examined experiences of music educators who designed and implemented action or teacher research in their classrooms in relation to adult learning. Participants included seven music teachers who designed an action research or teacher research project in their classrooms during the 2010–2011 school year. Data included: field notes from a project “start-up” meeting; an e-mail survey; an observation of each participant; two individual interviews with each participant; three focus group interviews; artifacts from the teacher projects; and a co-researchers’ log. Findings were presented in seven participant profiles and suggest adult learning motivations to participate included a desire to be a better teacher and an interest in collaborating with the University. Collaboration helped participants stay motivated to continue with their projects, as did their curiosity about the learning of their students. Issues of time hindered some of the participants’ ability to spend time and complete their projects. Due to district-specific requirements for PD, action research may or may not be officially viewed by administrators as part of teachers’ continuing education. Conway, Edgar, Hansen, and Palmer (2014) examined experiences of seven music educators who conducted teacher research /or action research in their classrooms. Using a comparative case study design, data included:  field notes from a project

494    colleen m. conway and SCOTT N. EDGAR “start-up” meeting; an e-mail survey; an observation of each participant in their classroom; two individual interviews with each participant; two focus group interviews; artifacts from the participant projects; and a co-researchers’ log. In this study, participants viewed action research as a positive PD experience and two of the participants were able to “count” the project toward their “official” professional development requirements. All of the participants valued the collaboration with the University and the opportunity to reflect on their teaching practices. Chapter 11 of this Handbook, by Janet Robbins, provides a complete discussion of teacher research and action research. We have only addressed the issues related to professional development here. It is important to note that all studies we present in this section examined PD in which teachers chose to participate in collaborative programs that met over extended periods of time. Participant choice, collaborative interactions, and extended time are critical elements for meaningful PD (Conway 2012). While participants in Conway (2008) (discussed in the next section) refer to typical PD experiences in schools and districts, there has not been comprehensive qualitative research in this area.

25.4 Career Cycle Research in general education has examined the changing PD needs of teachers as they proceed through what researchers refer to as the career cycle. Some of these researchers have defined career cycle in relation to a particular theory of career development (i.e., Steffy 1989; and Steffy Wolfe, Pasch, and Enz 2000), while others have just examined music teachers at various times in their careers. Conway (2008) used a narrative approach to examine the perceptions of 19 experienced music teachers regarding PD throughout their careers. I did not define a particular theory of career cycle. Data included: mid-career teacher interviews (n = 13), veteran teacher interviews (n = 6), a focus group with some of the veteran teachers (n = 4), and the principal investigator’s log. I found teachers perceived informal interactions with other music teachers as the most powerful form of PD. I also observed that the expressed PD needs of the educators varied according to their career stage. At all points in their professional lives, the teachers valued informal interactions with peers as one of the most beneficial types of PD. As they matured in their careers, the teachers noted that in addition to benefiting through participation in formal PD, they learned from their students, student teachers they supervised, administrators, colleagues, by leading PD in-services, and through presenting sessions at professional conferences. Several educators suggested that early in their careers they relied on their school district for PD experiences, but at some point they realized they had to be proactive about their own professional growth. Veteran teachers reported thinking about PD for new roles, such as teaching collegiate methods classes or supervising student teachers, that they wished to pursue upon retirement.

Music Teacher Professional Development  495 As was articulated earlier in this chapter, music teachers continue to experience challenges beyond those encountered in their first years. Eros (2009) examined experiences of three second-stage music teachers (using Steffy et al. 2000 as a framework) who taught in urban settings. Recognition of career cycle is a relatively new concept for music education qualitative researchers. In the conclusion of his policy analysis of the use of “second stage” in music education career cycle, Eros (2011) states: The second stage is a particularly important place to examine the notion of stage-appropriate professional development. The transition from a first to a second stage has numerous specific markers that can be used to identify it, such as a sense of comfort in classroom management and an increasing interest in pedagogy, as well as passing the five-year mark. Moreover, it signifies the time when teachers no longer face survival but begin to consider career-long development, and as such, is the time when professional development needs are more likely to diverge among teachers. The stakes are high, considering that second-stage teachers, with the years of experience that they bring, represent a valuable resource that might be at a high risk for attrition. Professional development, and policymakers who design professional development experiences, would be well advised to have knowledge of the career cycle of the second stage in particular. (69)

In Eros’ (2009) descriptive case study, data were collected from three teachers using a background survey, journals, interviews, and a focus group discussion. Data were analyzed using Merriam’s (2009) constant-comparative model. Relevant to PD was the research question:  How do participants perceive their career development from the first into the second stage and how do they discuss their anticipated career trajectory? Analysis of data for this research question revealed that participants:  (a)  perceived a development over the course of their careers, including transition to a new stage, changes in confidence, and different professional development needs than earlier in their careers; (b) had different perceptions of themselves as second-stage teachers; (c) were unsure of their futures in education; and (d) had concerns about withdrawal from teaching. Conway and Eros’s study (2013) aimed at describing and examining characteristics of the second stage of music teachers’ careers. The design was a secondary analysis of survey and interview data previously collected for three studies of teacher views on mentoring, induction, and preservice preparation. Participants (N = 13) were previously involved in three studies in which they were asked to reflect on their beginning teaching experiences and discuss their music teaching careers in the last 10 years. Data from the previous studies were then reexamined through the lens of “second stage” theory (as defined by Steffy et al. 2000) and guided by the following research questions: (a) What characteristics distinguish a “second stage” music teacher from a beginning teacher? (b) How do participants describe the transition from “second stage” to what might be coming after? We found characteristics distinguishing the second stage included:  (a)  leadership and respect in the school and community; (b) “settled” in to teaching; and (c) new personal life stage. As participants described

496    colleen m. conway and SCOTT N. EDGAR their second stage transition they discussed two themes: (a) an unsure future; and (b)  a desire for challenge and change. A  final theme emerging from the analysis included the apparent power of scheduling and administrator support in dictating career cycle experiences. Further research on the varied PD needs of teachers at different points in their careers is necessary to ensure continuing education needs are met throughout music teachers’ careers.

25.5 Conclusion Qualitative research has been used to report on the voice of teachers, both beginning and experienced, regarding PD in music education. Case study has been the most common methodological approach. This may be due to the often-isolated nature of even the longest PD programs. Case study fits well with studying specific programs in a bounded time period. Other qualitative approaches, such as phenomenology (see c­ hapter 9 in this Handbook by Hourigan and Edgar) and ethnography (see ­chapter 8 in this Handbook by Krueger) should be used in exploring various aspects of PD. One glaring weakness in the qualitative research regarding PD is that there is a lack of longitudinal research examining PD over any extended time period. In Hookey’s (2002) conclusion she outlined an agenda for future PD research and suggested the following two guiding questions for inquiry:

1. What do teachers and other music education practitioners know, how do they learn it, and how does this knowledge guide their practice? 2. What are the purposes and consequences of professional development experiences, and in what ways are the teachers individually or collectively implicated in their professional development? (898)

The studies reviewed in this chapter seem to focus around the first part of this second question and describe professional development experiences. Few studies have carefully examined teacher knowledge and fewer studies have tried to determine how teachers are implicated in their PD practice. The large majority of PD studies have examined teacher perceptions of the value of PD offerings. Researchers may begin to consider perceptions of administrators, parents and P–12 students, and PD facilitators regarding changes in teaching that can be attributed to PD. This body of research often presents unsupported and/or vague use of terminology with regard to methodology (i.e., case), and program-related terms (i.e., collaborative). We suggest qualitative researchers continue to work to be clear and comprehensive in their definitions of terms. We also invite qualitative researchers to be more transparent to readers in describing the “aha moments” in their analyses when suddenly things become clearer.

Music Teacher Professional Development  497 It is impossible for music teachers to learn all they need to successfully navigate the profession in undergraduate teacher education or through mentoring and induction activities. Continuous, career-long PD is necessary for music educators to successfully teach in a constantly changing environment. Ensuring that findings from this research are made available to inservice teachers and PD facilitators is essential to improving the quality of music education PD. There is still much to be discovered about how teachers learn throughout their careers. As was stated in the opening, qualitative approaches are useful for studying complex issues, relationships, and problems. It is our hope that researchers in music education will continue to ponder these complexities in relation to professional development and will continue to develop and devise new and innovative ways to examine them.

Notes 1. We wish to thank the following critical readers for their assistance with this chapter: Mary Hookey, Kristen Pellegrino, Alden Snell and Ann Marie Stanley. 2. NCATE is now part of the Council Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).

References Barnes, G.V. 2010. “Teaching Music: The First Year.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 185: 63–76. Barrett, J. R. 2006. “Recasting Professional Development for Music Teachers in an Era of Reform.” Arts Education Policy Review 107 (6): 19–30. Blair, D. V. 2008. “Mentoring Novice Music Teachers: Developing a Community of Practice.” Research Studies in Music Education 30 (2): 99–117. Cochran-Smith, M., and S. L. Lytle. 1999. “The Teacher Research Movement: A Decade Later.” Educational Researcher 28 (7): 15–25. Colleen Conway, Scott Edgar, Erin Hansen & C. Michael Palmer, Music Education Research (2013): Teacher research as professional development for P-12 music teachers, Music Education Research, DOI: 10.1080/14613808.2013.848850. Colwell, R. 1996/1997. “Professional Development Residency Program.” Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 7 (2-4): 76–90. Conway, C. M. 2001. “Beginning Music Teacher Perceptions of District-Sponsored Induction Programs.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 151: 1–11. Conway, C. M. 2003. “An Examination of District-Sponsored Beginning Music Teacher Mentor Practices.” Journal of Research in Music Education 51 (1): 372–91. Conway, C. M. 2008. “Experienced Music Teacher Perceptions of Professional Development throughout Their Careers.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music 176: 7–18. Conway, C. M. 2012. Experienced Teacher Reflections on ‘Beginning Music Teacher Perceptions of District-Sponsored Induction Programs.’ Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education. 193: 63–76.

498    colleen m. conway and SCOTT N. EDGAR Conway, C. M. 2014. Experienced Teacher Reflections on “An Examination Of DistrictSponsored Beginning Music Teacher Mentor Practices. Journal of Music Teacher Education published online 18 December 2013 DOI: 10.1177/1057083713512837. Conway, C. M., and S. Christensen. 2006. “Professional Development and the Music Teacher.” Contributions to Music Education, 33 (1): 11–27. Conway, C. M., S. Edgar, E. Hansen, and C. M. Palmer (in review). Teacher Research and Adult Learning in Music Education. Conway, C. M., and J. Eros. 2013. “Descriptions of the ‘Second-Stage’ of Music Teachers’ Careers.” Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Conway, C. M., J. Eros, and A. M. Stanley. 2009. “Perceptions of Master’s Graduates Regarding The Effects of the Master of Music in Music Education Program on P-12 Teaching Practice.” Research Studies in Music Education, 31 (2): 1–13. Conway, C. M., and A. Garlock. 2002. “Teaching K-3 General Music: A Case Study of Mandi.” Contributions to Music Education 29: 9–28. Conway, C. M., and Jeffers, T. 2004a. “Perceptions of Parents, Students, and the Teacher Regarding Assessment Procedures in Beginning Instrumental Music.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 160: 16–25. Conway, C. M., and T. Jeffers. 2004b. “The Teacher as Researcher in Beginning Instrumental Music.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 22 (2): 35–45. Conway, C. M., and T. Zerman. 2004. “Perceptions of an Instrumental Music Teacher Regarding Mentoring, Induction, and the First Year of Teaching.” Research Studies in Music Education 22: 72–83. Danielson, C. 1996. Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Dolloff, L. A. (1996). “Expertise in Choral Music Education:  Implications for Teacher Education.” PhD diss., University of Toronto. Dissertation Abstracts International 56 (07), 2600. Duling, E. B. 1992. “The Development of Pedagogical-Content Knowledge: Two Case Studies of Exemplary General Music Teachers.” PhD diss., Ohio State University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53 (06), 1835. Eros, J. 2009. “A Case Study of Three Urban Music Teachers in the Second Stage of Their Teaching Careers.” ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI 3354146), University of Michigan. Eros, J. 2011. “The Career Cycle and the Second Stage of Teaching: Implications for Policy and Professional Development.” Arts Education Policy Review 112 (2), 65–70. Glanz, J. 1998. Action Research: An Educational Leader’s Guide to School Improvement. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Gruenhagen, L. 2008. “Investigating Professional Development:  Early Childhood Music Teacher Learning in a Community of Practice.” PhD diss., ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI 3295323), Eastman School of Music. Hanley, B., and G. King. 1995. “Peeling the Onion: Arts PROPEL in the University Classroom.” Journal of Music Teacher Education, 5(1): 15–29. Hookey, M. 2002. “Professional Development.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 887–902. New York: Oxford University Press. Hord, S. M., W. L. Rutherford, L. L. Huling-Autin, and G. E. Hall. 1987. Taking Charge of Change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision Curriculum Development.

Music Teacher Professional Development  499 Jacobs, J. 2007. “A Qualitative Study of First-Year High School Band Director and Their Mentors.” PhD diss., ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3271149). Junda, M. E. 1994. “A Model In-Service Music Teacher Education Program.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 3(2): 6–20. Krueger, P. J. 1996. “Becoming a Music Teacher:  Challenges of the First Year.” Dialogue in Instrumental Music 20 (2): 88–104. Krueger, P. J. 1999. “New Music Teachers Speak out on Mentoring.” Journal of Music Teacher Education, 8 (2): 7–13. Lyndon, S., and C. King. 2009. “Can a Single, Short Continuing Professional Development Workshop Cause Change in the Classroom?” Professional Development in Education 35: 63–82. Lewin, K. 1946. “Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues 2: 34–46. Maslow, A. 1970. Motivation Personality. 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row. Merriam, S. 2009. Qualitative Research. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Merriam, S., and Simpson, E. L. 2000. A Guide to Research for Educators and Trainers of Adults. 2nd ed. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co. May, W. T. 1990. Art/Music Teachers’ Curriculum Deliberations. East Lansing, MI: Center for the Learning Teaching of Elementary Subjects (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 328512). Montague, M. G. 2000. “Processes Situatedness: A Collective Case Study Of Selected Mentored Music Teachers.” PhD diss., ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 9978591), University of Oregon. Pellegrino, K. 2010. “The Meanings and Values of Music-Making in the Lives of String Teachers: Exploring the Intersections of Music-Making Teaching.” PhD diss., University of Michigan. Ann Arbor: Proquest/UMI (Publication No. AAT 3429263). Pellegrino, K. 2011. “Exploring the Benefits of Music-Making as Professional Development for Music Teachers.” Arts Education Policy Review 112 (2): 79–88. Price, H., and E. Orman. 1999. “MENC National Conferences 1984–1998: A Content Analysis.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 18 (1): 26–32. Raths, J. 2002. “Introduction: Fuzzy Teacher Education.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 757–58. New York: Oxford University Press. Reynolds, A. M., and N. S. Beitler. 2007. “Reflective Practice in a Middle-School Instrumental Setting.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 173: 55–69. Robbins, J. 1994/1995. “Levels of Learning in Orff SPIEL.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 123: 47–53. Robbins, J., M. K. Burbank, and H. Dunkle, 2007. “Teacher Research: Tales from the Field.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 17: 42–55. Rodwell, M. K. 1998. Social Work Constructivist Research. New York: Garl Publishing. Roulston, K., R. Legette, M. DeLoach, C. Bukhalter-Pittman, L. Cory, and R. Grenier. 2005. “Education: Mentoring Community through Research.” Research Studies in Music Education 25: 1–23. Roulston, K., R. Legette, and S. T. Womak. 2005. “Beginning Music Teachers’ Perceptions of the Transition from University to Teaching in Schools.” Music Education Research 7 (1): 59–82. Schmidt, M. 2008. “Mentoring and Being Mentored: The Story of a Novice Music Teacher’s Success.” Teaching and Teacher Education 24: 635–48.

500    colleen m. conway and SCOTT N. EDGAR Schmidt, M., and J. Canser. 2006. “Clearing the Fog: Constructing Shared Stories of a Novice Teacher’s Journey.” Research Studies in Music Education 27 (1): 55–68. Shuler, S. C. 1995. “The Impact of the National Standards on the Preparation, in-Service Professional Development, Assessment of Music Teachers.” Arts Education Policy Review 96 (3): 2–14. Standerfer, S. L. 2003. “Perceptions and Influences of the National Board For Professional Teacher Certification on Secondary Choral Music Teachers: Three Case Studies.” PhD diss., ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3083085), University of Virginia. Standerfer, S. L. 2008. “Learning from the National Board for Professional Teacher Certification (NBPTS) in Music.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 176: 77–88. Stanley, A. M. 2009. “The Experiences of Elementary Music Teachers in a Collaborative Teacher Study Group.” PhD diss., University of Michigan. Ann Arbor: Proquest/UMI. (Publications No. AAT 3354182). Steffy, B. E. 1989. Career Stages of Classroom Teachers. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing. Steffy, B. E., M. P. Wolfe, S. H. Pasch, and B. J. Enz. 2000. Life Cycle of the Career Teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Stevanson, B. A., 2005. “A Study of a Pilot Support Program for First Year Elementary Music Teachers.” PhD diss., ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3172115), University of Texas. Strauss, A. S., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Verrastro, R. E., and M. Leglar. 1992. “Music Teacher Education.” In Handbook of Research on Music Teaching Learning, edited by R. Colwell, 676–96. New York: Schirmer Books. West, C. 2011. “Action Research as a Professional Development Activity.” Arts Education Policy Review, 112 (2): 89–94.

Chapter 26

C om munit y Mu si c Edu cati on nathan b. kruse and erin m. hansen

26.1 Introduction There is an ongoing, international dialogue regarding the philosophy, structure, and purpose of community music (CM) and its relationship with school music instruction. In the United States, CM is championed by several organizations, including the National Guild for Community Arts Education (NGCAE).1 In their historical examination of CM in the United States, as well as a survey of current practices, Leglar and Smith (2010) describe three general categories in which CM exists: That which exists to carry out specific educational objectives; that which has performance as its chief objective, but also has an education component; and . . . that which is carried on solely for cultural transmission and/or for social and entertainment purposes. (348)

Community music also can be an alternative place for students to make music or explore different musical styles that might not be offered in school music programs (Bowman 2009; Byo and Cassidy 2005; Higgins 2007). American CM often looks different from other countries with longer traditions of CM activities, especially in Western Europe and Canada (Coffman 2002; Dabback 2010). The International Society for Music Education (ISME) established its Commission on Community Music Activity (CMA) in 1982 (“Community Music Activity Commission (CMA)” 2012; McCarthy 2007). In their vision statement, the CMA cites several reasons for the involvement and support of CM activities, including musical excellence, personal and communal expression, and community development (“Community Music Activity Commission (CMA)” 2012). Additionally, the commission believes that CM activities can complement and extend ideas presented in formal music education. Although the CMA is an international model,

502    nathan b. kruse and erin m. hansen consideration for its guidelines of CM programs in conjunction with the general principals of arts education, as provided by the NGCAE, may offer a possible model of CM activities in the United States. This chapter presents qualitative research that focuses on community music-making. Qualitative methods are some of the most appropriate platforms for exploring these socially situated areas of music performance and experience. Youths and adults who elect to take part in community-based music activities do so for a multitude of reasons, which can parallel the reflexivity and multiple realities best expressed through qualitative methodology. Similar to the emergent nature of some qualitative designs, CM programs often develop over time, based on the needs of their participants and surrounding communities. Thus, qualitative researchers have worked to illuminate the unique characteristics of community-based music initiatives by conducting studies that recognize contextual relevance, explore phenomena related to active music-making, address the aging process, and capture the essence of music learning beyond P–12 school structures. This chapter provides a collection of American qualitative studies that exemplify diverse and successful models of community music-making and learning for youths and adults. Guided by the previously mentioned research (Bowman 2009; Byo and Cassidy 2005; Higgins 2007; Leglar and Smith 2010), we categorize these studies as follows: community music programs with a) performance objectives, b) educational aims, c) cultural connections, and d) a focus on social justice. We illustrate the common musical, social, instructional, and administrative qualities researchers have identified as contributing to the successes of these portrayed models and explore the growing relevancy of community-based music activities in the United States and its relationship to school music education. Additionally, we discuss emerging models of CM, needed areas of research, and the use of qualitative designs in the study of CM programs. Tables of composite findings from these studies complete each major section, and Table 26.A1 (in the Appendix) includes additional information on CM organizations and their defined missions. While the intent of this chapter is not to present an exhaustive account of CM education research, we recognize there are stories that do not appear in the following pages but that contribute greatly to the discourse surrounding CM. Our hope is that this chapter serves as a collective foray into the qualitative nature of CM education, and as a platform for sustaining conversation regarding lifelong music learning.

26.2 Community Music Programs with Performance Objectives American CM research has identified public performance as a common and valued musical activity. Like school music ensembles, community ensembles typically hold regular rehearsals in preparation for scheduled concerts that showcase the performers

Community Music Education  503 as well as engage community members in musical experiences. Community ensembles also can reflect some of the formalized instructional qualities depicted in school ensembles, including teacher-led rehearsals and appropriate performance standards through cohesive, collective musicianship. This section looks at community band, orchestra, and choir research that examines the characteristics behind participation in traditional performing ensembles, although special attention will be given to the authors’ chosen methodology. In this section, we focus on adult and senior adult performance groups and include the areas of the New Horizons International Music Association, Traditional Performing Ensembles, and Spiritual Connections.

26.2.1 New Horizons International Music Association One of most visible crusades in organized musical performance opportunities for adults is that of the New Horizons International Music Association (NHIMA).2 The New Horizons movement is an American model of formal music instruction that provides entry points for adult learners in instrumental and choral settings, and includes members who have little to no prior experience in music-making as well as those who have been inactive for a period of time (Ernst 2001). Numerous NHIMA bands, orchestras, choruses, and jazz/dance bands emerged since the inception of the first band in 1991, and typically include members from the 50-and-older adult population, although some groups remain open to individuals of any age. To date, over 8,500 adults participate in over 200 NHIMA ensembles in the United States, Canada, Ireland, England, The Netherlands, Italy, and Australia (“New Horizons International Music Association” 2013). Several qualitative studies and dissertations have documented the non-competitive, supportive, and inclusive environments of NHIMA bands (Dabback 2008; Kruse 2008; Tsugawa 2009), which reportedly are predominant qualities of NHIMA ensembles. The majority of research is comprised of case studies that illuminate the rewards of identity (i.e., sense of belonging, safety, purpose) and meanings associated with adult music participation, and have highlighted the challenges of cognitive and physical limitations that come with the aging process (i.e., eyesight, hearing, fine motor dexterity). Three such case studies (Dabback 2008; Kruse 2008; Tsugawa 2009) identified some of the rewards and limitations that senior adults experienced in various NHIMA ensembles. Dabback (2008) examined the social interactions, networks, and identity formations among members of the Rochester (NY) New Horizons band program.3 Dabback created two separate focus groups within the band; one group contained members with fewer than five years of experience and one group contained members with five years of experience or more. In keeping with Krueger’s (1994) recommendation for enlisting six to nine participants in a focus group, Dabback recruited seven band members for each group and conducted two separate focus group interviews with the participants. Dabback analyzed the transcripts using data-coding procedures. He also employed observations and dialogue journals from three additional participants to situate his findings within identity theory.

504    nathan b. kruse and erin m. hansen Four of Kruse’s (2008) 12 case study participants were members of the East Lansing, Michigan, New Horizons band program.4 Andragogy, or the concept of adult learning principles, was used as the theoretical framework for the study. Because Kruse had rehearsed and assisted with this particular group in the past, he believed a mutual sense of trust had been established that would engender an honest, positive rapport during data collection. One-on-one interview transcripts, participant-observations, and field notes were coded, sorted into themes, and organized within the context of andragogy. Tsugawa (2009) conducted a collective instrumental case study with the Desert Foothills New Horizons Band5 in Arizona and the Brigham Young University New Horizons Orchestra6 in Utah. Two unique facets of this study included dual locations and distinct instrumental settings (band and strings). Tsugawa’s overall intent was to explore the concepts of “music learning, motivation, meaning construction, and sense making” (44) as expressed by the participants in the two ensembles. He interviewed 16 participants who were categorized as either adult beginners or returning musicians and collected additional data through observations, personal journals, recorded rehearsals, and artifacts, including voluntary participant journals. Interview analysis included coding the initial transcript data, further organizing the codes using NVivo,7 creating drawings and visual representations to depict relationships and connections, and finally, establishing resultant themes and findings. NHIMA ensembles8 continue to serve adult learners in a variety of social, expressive, musical, and intellectual ways. While NHIMA has a widely acclaimed national and international reputation, other independent, non-NHIMA community ensembles also serve adult musicians at the local level; these settings include self-governing, traditional performing ensembles, such as community bands, community orchestras, community choruses, and faith-based ensembles.

26.2.2 Traditional Performing Ensembles One of the most studied considerations in CM includes understanding the characteristics of continued, voluntary participation in ensembles. Sustained involvement in music often is connected to previous musical experiences, as Shansky (2010) discovered. Shansky’s (2010) case study explored the motivations of adult participation in the Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra9 in Northern New Jersey. Seven orchestra members were selected to participate based on their history and experience with the orchestra, and included three professional musicians and four non-professional musicians. Shansky conducted semi-structured interviews through either a face-to-face or telephone format depending on the participants’ availability. The interview questions were e-mailed to two of the participants for whom telephone or in-person interviews were not possible. The open-ended questions were designed in three sections, with 16 total questions. As a flutist in the orchestra, Shansky was also a participant-observer and used historical literature research on the orchestra as a third data source. While Shansky did

Community Music Education  505 not share explicit analysis procedures, she stated that the three data sources were triangulated and were consistent in the findings. In another study, Taylor et al. (2011) adopted a phenomenological stance in order to describe the lived experiences of 16 adult flute players in two long-standing metropolitan flute choirs. Data were collected over the course of eight weeks, which included individual semi-structured interviews with two directors and 14 members, weekly rehearsal observations and recordings, and a mixture of emic and etic perspectives from the researchers. A facet of this study included an examination of the unique characteristics associated with a homogeneous ensemble setting. Interview transcript analysis was consistent with Colaizzi (1978) in that significant statements were extracted from the transcripts, assigned meanings, and then clustered into themes. Faivre-Ransom (2001) also examined continued musical involvement, but with regard to choral settings. She used theories of participation and music belief systems as theoretical frameworks for investigating the Norfolk Chorale in Norfolk, Virginia.10 Faivre-Ransom funneled themes from coded interviews and observations and constructed case study findings relating to the participants’ previous music experiences. Emergent themes indicated that high school music experiences were influential in determining adult music experiences. The popularity of Western choral traditions has generated numerous vocal music-making opportunities in the United States. One of the most accessible and visible prospects includes faith-based ensembles, which are discussed in the next section.

26.2.3 Spiritual Connections Spirituality, faith, and service are some of the personal sentiments and topics of discussion found in faith-based ensembles, in particular, choirs. Church vocal groups typically are expected to meet performance objectives as well as service roles within the context of worship. Although the community chorus tradition stems from faith-based choral traditions, additional moral or theological philosophies might be present for those who participate in religious vocal ensembles. Research has suggested that vocal ensembles connected to worship and spirituality can afford participants unique rewards. Dabback (2012) observed the inner workings and spiritual focus of a Mennonite high school choir in Virginia. This case study was grounded in the four-part singing tradition of the Mennonite community and explored the roles of faith and religion in the formation of musical identity among its singers. Dabback conducted interviews and focus group interviews with Mennonite singers and their director, and analyzed transcripts and field notes using data-coding procedures. In doing so, Dabback examined the underpinnings of both individual and group identity within the context of religious music-making. Rohwer (2009) conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 choral musicians from three different denominations, including Congregational Christian, Lutheran, and Methodist choir members. In an effort to examine the ways in which church music

506    nathan b. kruse and erin m. hansen might represent additional aspects of CM, Rohwer sought to describe the participants’ musical backgrounds and their perceptions regarding church music participation. The individual interviews contained 18 open-ended questions. Following transcript member checks, her categorized findings were corroborated using peer review and reflected the notions of group cohesion, connections between music and God, and differences between church music and school music education. This section reviewed research devoted to community bands, orchestras, and choirs. Speaking through mostly case studies or phenomenological designs, participants elucidated the rewards and challenges of CM participation as well as the appeal of a lifelong commitment to music-making endeavors. Table 26.1 reflects additional findings from the studies discussed in this section. The methodological design choices were appropriate for capturing the voices of the participants, recreating their stories, and providing lessons learned from their experiences. As mentioned earlier, many CM programs often include performance objectives, although this is not always the case. Additional forums for CM activities are available that include varied teaching styles, diverse structures, and breadth of scope. These models are chronicled in the next section.

Table 26.1  Summary of findings—community music with performance objectives Positive social networks created in the band setting mitigated identity crises often experienced by senior adults; several considerations associated with identity and older adulthood were reported. Dabback 2012 Four-part singing reflected the participants’ identity within a Mennonite community tradition; singing was integral to the broader connections to Mennonite values. Faivre-Ransom Participants noted that high school music experiences, church choir, family, and 2001 private lessons were influential in determining adult music experiences; the choir, its mission, and the music attributed to continued involvement. Kruse 2008 Devotion to the collective, reciprocity within the group, and appropriate repertoire difficulty were integral aspects of the learning process, despite physical challenges that periodically interrupted participants’ involvement. Rohwer 2010 The act of worship instilled a sense of service and duty rather than a sense of leisure or aesthetic motivation; group prayer and the sharing of joys and concerns were essential for many. Shansky 2010 The love of music and the challenges it presented were no different between professional and amateur musicians; overall, musical aspects were more important than social aspects. Taylor et al. Serendipity, non-competitive atmospheres, part rotation, and positive director 2011 leadership styles were distinct rewards; fatigue and the aging process became challenges. Members found meaning in the self-directed learning process, the benefits of Tsugawa making music, camaraderie, humor, and conductor-teacher effectiveness; changing 2009 identity roles among adults were addressed. Dabback 2008

Community Music Education  507

26.3 Community Music Programs with Educational Aims Most, if not all, community music activities have an educational element, be it explicitly stated or tacitly inferred. This section describes community music programs that are designed to achieve specific educational aims and that offer instruction in a more traditionally perceived form, such as through lessons and classes. In this category, we include community music schools, collaborative music programs, and summer music programs and camps.

26.3.1 Community Music Schools Several types of CM programs are structured around educational objectives, the most common being community music schools. Often, community music schools are associated with a particular pedagogical philosophy or method.11 It also is common for community music schools to offer programs in a variety of methods and styles, as does The Neighborhood Music School (Baranski 2010). Additionally, the populations of community music schools often are diverse, and consequently, the schools can serve as a “come one, come all” type of gathering place, as presented in Palmer’s (2010) study of a New York community music school. The following two case studies explore the characteristics that contributed to the longevity of two successful yet different community music schools. The Neighborhood Music School (NMS),12 located in New Haven, Connecticut, is a centennial community music school that endeavors to increase public participation in the arts. Using a case study methodology (Stake 1995), Baranski (2010) explored a) participants’ reasons for their involvement in the NMS, b) factors that contributed to prolonged participation in the NMS, and c) the meanings of the NMS in the lives of its members. Baranski conducted in-depth and casual interviews of teachers, students, administrators, parents, and board members, as well as class and concert observations four days a week over the course of a year. Additional data were collected through analysis of historical and current documents. Baranski provided detailed descriptions of the NMS programs based on participants’ descriptions including policy, procedural, and financial information, as well as program particulars such as Early Childhood, Suzuki, Music Theory, and the Music Performance Certificate Program. A different community music school, The David Hochstein Memorial Music School, was founded in 1920 (now called the Hochstein School of Music and Dance).13 Its founding principles were to provide music instruction to an ethnically diverse group of students from all musical and socio-economic backgrounds. By means of a historical case study design, Palmer (2010) sought to determine whether the Hochstein School

508    nathan b. kruse and erin m. hansen preserved its original principles over time and to enumerate attributes of the school that may be replicated by other community music programs. Palmer examined historical documents over three historical time points (1920–1928, 1960–1970, and 1970–1980) and conducted interviews with previous executive directors of the Hochstein School. Use of past board minutes, director’s reports, concert programs, brochures, fliers, and newspaper articles contributed to Palmer’s reconstruction of a historical record, from which he formed his analysis. Both Baranski and Palmer examined particular community music schools as cases, for which the inspection of historical documents provided important context. Additionally, Baranski offered another view of the school by vividly retelling the stories of three students of the Hochstein School. The students’ experiences were presented as three case studies. He felt the use of case study method was important and stated: The lack of critically in-depth case studies is problematic because although continuous participation in community music school programs demonstrates a clear need for an interest in these offerings, we have too little insight into what brings people into these community music programs or what keeps them engaged in them. (70)

Interviews are important tools for capturing the voices and experiences of participants. For example, Baranski and Palmer discovered the importance of strong, visionary leadership and understanding of the surrounding community through interviews. Different research methodologies that also draw on the interpretation and analysis of interviews, such as phenomenology and ethnography, can be especially successful in illustrating the lived experiences of participants as demonstrated in the next two sections, Collaborative Music Programs and Summer Music Programs.

26.3.2 Collaborative Music Programs Other educationally structured music programs are formed as partnership initiatives, often where both the members of the organization (e.g., professional music organizations, universities or colleges, or paid performing ensembles) and CM students learn and benefit from the collaboration. The following studies highlight two collaborative music projects for both youth and adult community members. Drawing from heuristic phenomenological inquiry, Conway and Hodgman (2008) examined an intergenerational, collaborative performance project (CIPP) of Fauré’s Requiem between community and university chorus members. Participants included eight members of a small liberal arts college choir and eight members of a community chorus, and were selected using intensity and purposeful case sampling (Patton 2002). To explore their participants’ experiences of the CIPP, Conway and Hodgman examined data through the perspectives of college students, community-choir members, and teacher-researchers, while Hodgman occupied the roles of co-researcher and conductor of the project’s choir. After each researcher individually analyzed individual

Community Music Education  509 participant interviews, focus group interviews, and journal entries, they compared analyses and jointly developed codes and categories. In addition to the findings presented in Table 26.2, the authors discovered that performers were positive toward intergenerational musical collaborations. Davis (2011) explored the experiences of those involved with the University of South Carolina String Project (USCSP),14 which included students and faculty from the University of South Carolina (USC),15 faculty from the USCSP, and members from the community. The USCSP openly supported the local school music programs by requiring all students who participated in one of the program’s orchestras to also participate in their school orchestra programs. Using a case study design, Davis gathered data through archival documents, field notes, participant observations and interviews, pictures and video recordings, and participant journals over the course of 14 months. Thirty-three participants were interviewed including 13 USCSP students (six teenage and seven adult) and 11 USC undergraduate students who taught in the string program. Data collection and analysis were conducted concurrently following Creswell’s “data analysis spiral” (2007, 55)  and were organized and coded within the software HyperRESEARCH.16 Conway and Hodgman (2008) and Davis (2011) sought to explore their participants’ experiences during collaborative music-making projects. Both studies employed participant journal writing as a data collection method, though their method of employment and usage during analysis varied. Despite their potential for rich data, researchers like Conway and Hodgman and Davis have found that participant journals can be an inconsistent data source, as the degree of contribution varied between participants. Collaborative models of CM are increasing, perhaps due to proclamations stating the need for more music education opportunities as made by the American String Teachers Association17 and the League of American Orchestras.18 More research is needed with regard to collaborative community music projects as to the experiences of their participants and surrounding community members. The next section will present a different version of collaborative music-making, that of Summer Music Programs.

26.3.3 Summer Music Programs Though not traditionally perceived as “community music,” summer music programs, workshops, and camps can provide a sense of community among attendees in a relatively short amount of time. Some programs are organized around a genre of music, such as the Ashokan Fiddle and Dance Camp,19 which offers instruction in Cajun, Zydeco, Country, Swing, and Hardingfele styles, to name a few. Other programs can be organized around an instrument type, geographic location, or guest artists. Similar to other CM programs, summer camps and workshops often gear their programs to clientele with widely divergent abilities and experiences (Fetter 2011). The difficulty in categorizing summer music programs is similar to the challenge researchers have faced in defining CM; however, it is important to acknowledge their role in this conversation.

510    nathan b. kruse and erin m. hansen The following studies (Dabczynski 1994; Fetter 2011) provide two perspectives related to summer music programs and the possible methods used to study them. Dabczynski (1994) conducted an ethnographic study of the 1991 Northern Week session of Jay Ungar and Molly Mason’s Ashokan Fiddle and Dance Camp. One purpose of the study was to describe the characteristics of the teaching and learning processes Dabczynski observed at camp and to hypothesize the viability of incorporating such characteristics in a public school string program. Dabczynski gathered data from an initial questionnaire, audio and video recordings of music lessons, observations, and document analysis. Of note, Dabczynski analyzed the recordings of teachers and their interactions with students using a self-modified “Observation Form” from The Master Teacher Profile created by Robert Culver (1989). Additionally, Dabczynski described the effect of the camp experiences through cases of four students (including himself as a participant-observer) based on his analysis of interview transcripts using Dienske’s (1990) five-cycle analysis model. Dabczynski maintained a phenomenological outlook during and after his camp attendance so that “the individual participant at Northern Week was viewed with openness, so as to allow commentary to reflect his or her concepts of reality” (14). A more recent study of an alternative styles program was conducted by the director of the summer camp, String Jam20 (Fetter 2011). Fetter employed facets of postmodern curriculum design (Doll 1993; Slattery 2006) to assemble curricular goals for the camp. To explore aspects of “alternative” music in string music education, Fetter investigated a) whether “postmodern curriculum design align(s) with major curricular ideas in an alternative styles string experience” (11), b) the experiences of two students who had participated in String Jam for three or more consecutive years, and c) the possible influences of alternative music-making and learning on students’ current and future musical identities. The study is presented in two parts: first, Fetter examined the curriculum of String Jam using postmodern curriculum design theory and compared this alternative string music education curriculum to Green’s (2008) popular music project, Musical Futures; second, he explored the identity development of two cases (Merriam 2009)  using criterion-based sampling (LeCompte and Preissle 1993). Data were obtained from single interviews that took place in each participant’s home. The home settings allowed Fetter to observe and take field notes of such things as practice spaces, instruments, computers, music play lists, and wall decorations. Dabczynski’s and Fetter’s roles as participant-observers allowed them to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the camps’ settings, to select participants, and to explore the phenomena of attending an alternative summer music program. Furthermore, Dabczynski and Fetter explored “alternative” curricula (i.e., non-classical) and their intersections with school music string programs. More study is needed as to the relationships of CM and school music programs, especially studies that consider educationally based CM programs of non-traditional musical genres and pedagogical styles and the experiences of students who participate in both contexts. The next section will further explore non-traditional CM programs, both in subject and format.

Community Music Education  511 Table 26.2  Summary of findings—community music with educational aims Baranski 2010

Conway and Hodgman 2008 Dabczynski 1994

Davis 2011

Fetter 2011

Palmer 2010

Students were intrinsically motivated to participate and continued membership in the community music school due to their interactions with applied music faculty. Participants felt they experienced an enhanced performance, an improved understanding of others, and a blurring of age barriers; participants had an overall positive opinion of intergenerational musical collaborations. Beginning fiddle students valued being able to learn music with faculty and peers of varying abilities; participants were intrinsically motivated to learn new repertoire and interact with like-minded musicians; Dabczynski discussed the differences between fiddle and classical music and possible ways in which fiddle music can be incorporated into school string programs. USCSP students valued opportunities such as learning and creating music with others, affordable instruction, and weekly participation; undergraduates valued development of teacher identities and teaching abilities, relationships with mentors, and learning to balance responsibilities as teachers, musicians, and students; USCSP and university faculty valued furthering the mission of USC, helping undergraduates become successful teachers, and providing opportunities for the community to become lifelong musicians. Fetter discussed the development of a living curriculum and the need for school music teachers to engage with community musicians and students; identity development, fostering musical exploration, diversity of music styles, and school music teachers making music within the community were also discussed. Success of the Hochstein School attributed to: a) consistency of mission, b) visionary leadership, c) innovative programming, d) connections with surrounding community.

26.4 Community Music with Cultural Connections The majority of CM models presented thus far have been formal in nature. The balance between formal and informal music education, however, has been a recurring theme in CM research. Qualitative researchers have begun to capture the holistic and ethnographic traditions of informal music-making in society by examining indigenous, folk, roots, and rock music as alternatives to the kinds of music typically performed by some school and community ensembles. Often, students are drawn to these genres because of their connection to popular or vernacular culture. Although Canadian and European music education researchers have been exploring these ideas with greater frequency and for a longer period of time, it is important to highlight American models of informal music-making with cultural connections. This section includes several studies on

512    nathan b. kruse and erin m. hansen music-making in the rock, steel band, and folk genres (Dabback 2010; Haskett 2009; Jaffurs 2004; Kruse 2012; Thornton 2010)  and in online music communities (Bryant 1995; Kruse 2013).

26.4.1 Vernacular Community Music A common thread among CM research is learning how individuals engage in informal music-making and transmission. One of the most popular and recognized forms of informal CM is the garage band phenomenon. Jaffurs’ (2004) ethnographic study on the formation of a five-member (two girls and three boys) teenage garage band included two rehearsal observations, recorded rehearsal segments, field notes, interviews, and think-aloud interviews at the second rehearsal observation. She also conducted “spontaneous discussion interviews” (192) with the parents, which included three separate families across the five students, some of whom were siblings. While no specific account was given regarding analysis procedures, Jaffurs did acknowledge the triangulation between the video observation, interviews, and think-aloud protocol, and situated the findings within preexisting theories of informal learning and sociology. Another cultural connection in CM includes steel bands. Haskett (2009) conducted a case study of the Desert Winds Community Steel Orchestra (DWCSO)21 in Arizona to explore the motivations behind adult beginners’ participation in steelpan drumming. Haskett interviewed eight participants, maintained field notes, observed rehearsals and performances, and collected artifacts to support the findings of his study. He organized interview transcripts and field notes chronologically and assigned thematic codes to the data using Creswell (1998) and Glesne (1999) as models. Haskett further supported rigor through trustworthiness, which included prolonged engagement and the confirming and disconfirming of evidence. Jaffurs (2004) and Haskett (2009) suggested that there could be a noticeable gap between the kind of music that is learned in schools and the kind of music that actually exists in community settings. Thornton (2010) examined this disparity by exploring the musical engagement of three adults whose voluntary music activity did not necessarily reflect a typical school music curriculum. He looked at the independent musicianship of an avid music listener, a member of a church praise team, and a Bluegrass guitarist/singer to identify ways that music learning occurred throughout their lifetime. Data sources included observations and four one-on-one interviews with each participant. Thornton used interpretive phenomenological analysis as well as cross-case analysis of the transcript data to situate the findings within the context of music learning, and triangulated the data to increase trustworthiness. As some of the findings in Table  26.3 suggest, independent musicianship and self-directed learning have been common factors in the CM studies reviewed thus far. These concepts also play a role in the historical and social attributes of American folk (or roots) music, a subject that has garnered increasing attention from CM researchers. As such, cultural connections have been explored through North American Old Time

Community Music Education  513 and Bluegrass music in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia (Dabback 2010) and the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina (Kruse 2012). Specifically, Dabback’s (2010) study centered on four participants’ expressed meanings of various teaching and learning practices found in CM traditions in the Shenandoah Valley. The contexts from which the participants came included organized community ensembles, informal music-making, educational institutions, and faith communities. As a way to examine these communities of practice, Dabback employed a phenomenological design, “which explores participant meanings that emerge from the interactions of people within a given context” (215). Transcripts from a focus group interview, observation notes, and photographs served as main data sources and captured the essence of the participants’ musical heritage. Analysis was ongoing during data collection and included creating meaning from an inductive procedure, such as identifying actors, activities, ideas, and settings, which was posited by Lofland and Lofland (1984). Kruse (2012) used narrative inquiry as a way to depict the perspectives of three North Carolina mountain musicians with regard to the folk music idiom and its continued transmission in a modern society. Participants included an Appalachian music icon, an Iraq War veteran, and a bowed dulcimer luthier. Data sources included transcripts from individual participant interviews, field notes, recorded jam sessions, and photographs from various locales across North Carolina. Kruse then combined these sources to create one metaphorical “town” that served as a singular entity for representing these multiple settings. There is only a passing mention of data analysis and trustworthiness procedures in the method section, however, which lies between narrative scenes.

26.4.2 Online Community Music The aforementioned studies have illustrated, in part, the intermingling of formal and informal music learning and the various cultural settings that have appealed to learners. A concluding, more recent faction of CM education, examined through qualitative methods, includes online music communities. For many consumers who want to learn and share music, online settings have become attractive options because of their accessible and ubiquitous nature. Additionally, online music-making has reflected the growing realization that both music and community can be established in offline (in-person) as well as online communities. The ways in which individuals interact and engage in online music-making activities has grown considerably over the past 20  years. In a groundbreaking study with an ethnomusicological stance, Bryant (1995) examined an early virtual community, Folk-Music,22 which was based on the music of contemporary American singers and songwriters. Applying a theoretical model of music as a cultural system and drawing on ethnomusicological works, Bryant sought to understand Folk-Music members’ perceptions of their online cultural system. She monitored listserv message activity for eight months and conducted interviews with community members and industry experts via e-mail, phone, and in-person formats. Bryant analyzed Folk-Music communications

514    nathan b. kruse and erin m. hansen and interview transcripts through coding procedures in order to understand how this particular online community functioned as a microcosm within a much larger, offline American folk music subculture. In another example, Kruse (2013) constructed an autoethnography that described his experiences in learning to play mandolin solely through online resources over the course of nine months. Data sources included online instructional video observations, weekly practice logs, recorded practice sessions, personal journal entries (formal), and personal memos (informal). Analysis included extracting codes from the journal data and sorting them into appropriate themes. During the triangulation of the multiple data sources, Kruse relied on peer review to corroborate said themes as well as to mitigate a potentially narrow or self-serving focus. This section reviewed research that described the cultural connections made through informal music-making online and offline. By adopting mostly ethnographic lenses,

Table 26.3  Summary of findings—community music with cultural connections Bryant 1995

Dabback 2010

Haskett 2009

Jaffurs 2004

Kruse 2012

Kruse 2013

Thornton 2010

Five elements of a cultural system were revealed; the listserv owner wielded some level of implicit power through maintaining the software program; members ranked below him but did not appear to compete for social status, despite occasional attempts at outdoing each other musically online; members constructed identities from musicians in the real world. Findings reflected the importance and value placed on intergenerational music groups, the relationship between musicians and audience members in the music-making process, and the tension between recreational musical standards and performance standards. Participants attributed steel band membership to genuine curiosity and a positive association toward the steelpan due to their children’s experiences in the school steel band program; group leaders should take into account the level of inclusiveness or exclusiveness that a selected curriculum/methodology might convey to participants. Students experienced social constructivism, enculturation, and relevant music-making; students created a distinct separation between school music and garage band; the ways in which people learn are not necessarily the ways people are taught to learn. Participants identified a connection to history and acknowledged their place and responsibility in carrying on Appalachian folk music traditions; they believed folk music will endure in modern society. Enculturation to the online community and the abundance of tutorials were important in the learning process; insider-outsider role conflict and a sense of isolation emerged as challenges; online communities can be just as meaningful as offline communities Participants expressed a sense of fulfillment, a connection to humanity through expression, and free choice in selecting a musical niche; they found their own paths toward becoming musically engaged and constructed their own meaning of music over time.

Community Music Education  515 researchers found that participants achieved a sense of community through aligning with a particular musical genre, negotiating its construction, and perpetuating its history. Ethnographic techniques were one of the most advantageous means for capturing the essence of these cultural phenomena, as the nature of the participants’ contexts was paramount for extrapolating social and musical meaning. As demonstrated by the design choices in this section, researchers discovered that community musicians became engaged, self-directed learners who independently acquired the language and skills necessary to thrive in a particular music culture. There are others for whom these choices are not as accessible, however. Examples of these instances are included in the following section on CM and social justice.

26.5 Community Music Programs with a Focus on Social Justice As discussed in aforementioned studies (Dabback 2012; Palmer 2010), some CM organizations declare service to groups in need or to under-serviced peoples as a fundamental aim of their mission. The premise of using musical activities as a vehicle for social justice is becoming more common among community-based music programs. The next three studies discuss ways in which music performance has been used in correctional facilities (Brewster 2010; Cohen 2008, 2010; Warfield 2010). Cohen’s (2008) multiple case study documented prison choir conductors’ views of teaching practices and served as an impetus for compiling information to assist other prison choir directors. She interviewed nine prison choir conductors in an effort to gather their perspectives on the past and current practices of six prison choir programs in Kansas. Research questions included:  “a) When and how did each chorus begin? b) What are the unique characteristics of conducting a choir in a prison? c) How do conductors perceive their respective programs? d) In what ways do data from this investigation support or require revision of prison choir participation?” (320). To answer the first three research questions, data collection included questionnaires, follow-up interviews, and “material culture” (320). For the fourth research question, Cohen applied pattern matching to compare established theories with operational or observed data (Trochim 1989) and to strengthen the case (Yin 1994). Brewster (2010) conducted a study with formerly incarcerated men who participated in a California-based prison arts program, Arts-in-Corrections (AIC).23 This particular program was nearly 30 years old at the time of the study and had helped reform thousands of inmates, many of whom had reentered society. AIC provided numerous arts outlets to the incarcerated, including ceramics, painting, writing, sculpting, and music. Brewster led in-depth interviews with six former AIC inmates who participated in its various music programs. Of particular concern was

516    nathan b. kruse and erin m. hansen ascertaining whether the program positively influenced former inmates’ lives and if they continued to explore the arts following incarceration. Brewster organized his findings by themes that emerged from the interview transcripts, although a specific analysis procedure was not reported. From an instrumental perspective, Warfield (2010) examined the underpinnings of the women’s string orchestra program at the Hiland Mountain Correctional Center (HMCC).24 Set in Alaska, this 400-bed correctional facility houses adult female offenders as well as a unique string program that was founded in 2003. At the time of the study, two orchestras with 22 total members performed twice annually and were deemed a rarity, as most prisons typically do not allow string instruments onto the grounds since they could be viewed as “contraband” (108). Primary data sources in the case study included interviews with one orchestra volunteer and one orchestra conductor. Like Brewster (2010), data analysis procedures were not explicitly stated, although Warfield chronicled the characteristics of the orchestra program based on the two interviews, and advocated for future implementation of music programs like the HMCC within correctional facilities. He also suggested that conducting a longitudinal collective case study with the HMCC would provide richer information regarding the impact that orchestra participation has on inmates’ lives. This section has reviewed research related to CM initiatives within the context of social justice. Case studies have been a common research design in illuminating the social and musical needs of participants as well as the missions and outcomes of particular music programs. As society becomes increasingly aware of the roles that music plays in the lives of individuals, there is a growing need for more studies that depict the unique characteristics of CM programs that serve underrepresented groups of people. As suggested (Warfield 2010), longitudinal studies, especially comparative case studies, are needed to document the effects of such programs on its members and surrounding community members. Additional studies that focus on underserved populations are reviewed in ­chapter 28 of this volume.

Table 26.4  Summary of findings—community music with a focus on social justice Brewster 2010

Cohen 2008

Warfield 2010

AIC was essential in assisting inmates reintegrate into society; AIC helped the participants discover self-worth and self-improvement, reconnect with family members and children, bridge racial gaps, and work at their art purposefully. Inmates entered the choir with limited vocal skills and attention spans, but consistent rehearsal attendance yielded improved focus, expanded singing, and a community of trust; conductors noted an increase in inmates’ group responsibility and their capacity to interact with others, including audience members. Orchestra members benefited socially as well as musically, and gained personal confidence through successes related to playing opportunities.

Community Music Education  517

26.6 Discussion and Future Directions The qualitative studies discussed in this chapter represent a variety of CM models in the United States. Though the focus of this handbook is on the use of qualitative methods in music education, it is nevertheless important to discuss their overall findings, particularly those characteristics that might have contributed to the perceived successes of these highlighted programs. Examination of the literature revealed common musical, social, instructional, and administrative qualities, which will be discussed below as a complement to the findings illustrated in Tables 26.1–26.4. Study participants often discussed their appreciation for having a variety of opportunities to make music, learn new ideas, grow as musicians, and share their music through performance (Dabczynski 1994; Davis 2011; Faivre-Ransom 2001; Tsugawa 2009). Especially among the adult population, CM participants appreciated having multiple entry points from which to begin new musical experiences and valued acquiring the tools needed for lifelong music learning beyond their CM experiences (Davis 2011; Palmer 2010). The CM organizations that provided opportunities for participants to engage in fun and social experiences with their peers and instructors succeeded most in creating a genuine sense of “community” (Baranski 2010; Dabback 2008, 2012; Dabczynski 1994; Kruse 2008, 2009; Tsugawa 2009). When participants believed they were accepted and supported by others, regardless of differences, they felt more confident, capable, and valued as musicians and as individuals, as if they were a part of something larger than themselves (Brewster 2010; Cohen 2008; Taylor et  al. 2011; Thornton 2010; Warfield 2010). Though not commonly noted, some CM program participants discussed their increased support for local school music programs and their wish to give back to the greater surrounding community (Conway and Hodgman 2008; Davis 2011; Fetter 2011; Kruse 2012; Palmer 2010; Rohwer 2010). Additionally, participants valued music instructors who were not only musically competent but also interpersonally competent (Baranski 2010; Shansky 2010; Taylor et al. 2011; Tsuwaga 2009). Teachers who were sensitive to their students’ musical goals, interests, and unique learning styles (i.e., cognitive, emotional, physical), and who demonstrated their commitment to the musical community were highly respected (Baranski 2010; Dabczynski 1994; Palmer 2010; Tsugawa 2009). Other participants discussed the importance of affordable instruction and financial assistance, which often allowed musical experiences and instruction for people who otherwise would not be able to participate (Davis 2011; Palmer 2010). A discussion of this nature would not be complete, however, without considering the following question: Why is qualitative research an appropriate methodology for exploring CM? As seen in the reviewed studies, the reflexive character of qualitative research complements the diversity of CM activities in society. Because many, if not all, of these activities were in socially situated venues of music performance and experience, a qualitative lens was useful for depicting the particular context in which the music learning occurred. The descriptive features of qualitative research allow readers to better

518    nathan b. kruse and erin m. hansen understand the community and social context of various CM programs. As in ethnography, context is intricately linked to the interactions between community musicians, teachers, and audiences. Contextual knowledge is an important gateway for understanding and embracing the purpose and longevity of CM programs, and for gauging the success of those programs. In addition, a qualitative design highlights the views and perspectives of individual participants by not generalizing findings to the point where social and community context is lost. Building relationships and connections among CM participants is crucial, and qualitative inquiry values the voice of the researcher as well as the relationships that are forged between the participants and researcher. Because these exchanges are difficult to quantify, qualitative methodologies are useful for capturing the essence of such interactions, as Dabczynski (1994), Davis (2011), and Shansky (2010) demonstrated. As the profession looks outward and enters the next stage of qualitative inquiry, it would be irresponsible to discount the value that CM holds in the lives of students of any age, and how the precepts of lifelong music activity might align with current and future music education philosophies and pedagogical trajectories. As suggested by the research presented in this chapter, school music and community music can be separate yet intertwined, independent yet reliant. Recognizing and honoring this relationship might assist the profession in discovering and applying new musical possibilities that emerge from their intersection. Educational models in public, private, charter, and professional development school settings, including homeschool groups, present unique sets of challenges and possibilities for music educators, students, and communities (Clements 2010; Veblen, Messenger, Silverman and Elliott 2013; Yarbrough 2000). These could include issues of funding, staffing, certification, access to music, and musical-political landscapes. In addition, technology (e.g., the Internet, Skype, YouTube, computer-meditated instruction) and its role as a conduit in teaching, learning, and disseminating music is becoming increasingly visible (Bryant 1995; Kruse 2013; Veblen et al. 2013); although its use might be regional and dependent on local resources. Consequently, many of the aforementioned factors associated with school music instruction could impact how CM is perceived and supported in the community. A more compelling notion, perhaps, is considering the ways in which CM might impact school music instruction. Another factor in looking ahead at CM education research includes considering international partnerships. As previously mentioned, there are numerous Canadian and European CM models that stem from the literature base, especially with regard to informal and technology-mediated music learning. It is possible that the sociological differences in American, Canadian, and European perspectives might be linked to the respective public/private school music structures, which, at times, are inextricably reflected in the degree of societal music participation. Nonetheless, the profession can look to international CM research for alternate approaches to music participation and issues related to cultural authenticity. If one of the goals of music education and CM is to look outward, as a sociological perspective might suggest, then partnering with international programs or research initiatives might provide a comprehensive understanding of CM as definitions of music participation are extended.

Community Music Education  519 The profession also can look to cross-disciplinary research that has been conducted with regard to community music-making. Disciplines outside music education, such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, computer technology, and communications have examined musical phenomena throughout various layers of society. Consequently, learning how other fields perceive music engagement might inform how music educators approach music teaching and learning from a community perspective. As suggested by the literature in this chapter, future directions in qualitative CM research could include longitudinal research of CM programs and effects; comparisons between different CM populations; examinations of learning styles in comparison to teaching styles; alternative, informal, and vernacular music in school settings; CM programs associated with music methods or associations (e.g., Suzuki, Orff, Kodaly, ASTA); and teachers who cross borders (i.e., they teach for both CM and school music programs). Researchers might also explore and implement a variety of design choices beyond case studies so as to expand the multiplicity of qualitative methodologies employed in CM research. If current trends persist, the appeal of examining the phenomenon of CM will no doubt increase as community musicians’ stories are conveyed persuasively through the qualitative research paradigm.

Appendix Table 26.A1  Community Music Organizations Organizations and Affiliations

Premises/Functions

National Guild for Community Arts Education (NGCAE), founded 1937 http://www.nationalguild.org/Home.aspx

Advances and supports access to lifelong learning arts opportunities; fosters the creation and development of community arts education programs; provides information and research resources; promotes professional development and networking; provides funding opportunities. Encourages debate and dialogue regarding international CM practices and collaborations; promotes empowerment of participants; endeavors to complement, interface with, and extend formal music education; facilitates and promotes the dissemination of research and information across numerous CM fields. Works to collect and disseminate national and international models of CM activities and methodologies; maintains a blog for posting and publicizing CM initiatives; organizes bi-annual research symposia. Initiates innovative practices and programs; broadens the base of CM practitioners; promotes the exchange of information; builds partnerships; raises awareness of the power and possibilities of CM; works to transform the culture of institutions and organizations, as well as inform and influence policymakers.

Commission on Community Music Activity (CMA) (ISME), founded 1982 http://www.isme.org

Adult and Community Music Education Special Research Interest Group (ACME SRIG) (NAfME), founded 2003 http://www.acmesrig.org/ North American Coalition for Community Music (NACCM) (ACME SRIG), founded 2008 http://naccm.info/

520    nathan b. kruse and erin m. hansen

Notes 1. The National Guild for Community Arts Education (NGCAE) was founded in 1937 and is dedicated to the promotion of lifelong learning opportunities in the arts for all (“About” 2011). 2. http://www.newhorizonsmusic.org/. 3. http://www.esm.rochester.edu/community/newhorizons/. 4. http://www.cms.msu.edu/el/adults/horizonsBand.php. 5. http://www.dfnhb.org/. 6. http://ce.byu.edu/cw/newhorizons/. 7. http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx. 8. Readers interested in additional qualitative and quantitative research in this area can consult the NHIMA archive section at http://www.newhorizonsmusic.org. 9. http://www.bergenphilharmonic.org/. 10. http://www.vachorale.org/. 11. Suzuki (e.g., www.communitysuzuki.org) or Music Learning Theory (e.g., www. overturekids.com). 12. http://neighborhoodmusicschool.org. 13. http://hochstein.org. 14. http://www.music.sc.edu/special_programs/stringproject/index.html. 15. http://www.sc.edu/. 16. http://www.researchware.com/products/hyperresearch.html. 17. http://www.stringprojects.org. 18. http://www.americanorchestras.org/advocacy_and_government/music_ed_advocates. html. 19. http://www.ashokan.org. 20. String Jam is run through the Hochstein School of Music and Dance, http://hochstein.org. 21. http://www.steelesoundarizona.com/index.html. 22. http://www.folkmusic.org/fmfaq.html. 23. http://www.williamjamesassociation.org/prison_arts.html. 24. http://www.artsontheedge.org/index.html.

References “About.” Nationalguild.com. http://www.nationalguild.org/About.aspx. Baranski, S. M. 2010. “In the Settlement House Spirit: A Case Study of a Community Music School.” PhD diss., New York University, New York, NY. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3439404). Bowman, W. 2009. “The Community in Music.” International Journal of Community Music 2 (2 and 3): 109–28. Byo, J. L. and J. W. Cassidy. 2005. “The Role of the String Project in Teacher Training and Community Music Education.” Journal of Research in Music Education 53 (4): 332. Brewster, L. 2010. “The California Arts-in-Corrections Music Programme:  A  Qualitative Study.” International Journal of Community Music 3 (1): 33–46. doi: 10.1386/ijcm.3.1.33/1.

Community Music Education  521 Bryant, W. 1995. Virtual Music Communities: The Folk-Music Internet Discussion Group as a Cultural System. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=742875051&sid=1&Fmt=2&clien tId=7935 6&RQT=309&VName=PQD. Clements, A. 2010. Alternative Approaches to Music Education: Case Studies from the Field. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Coffman, D. D. 2002. “Adult Education.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. Richardson, 199–209). New  York:  Oxford University Press. Cohen, M. L. 2008. “Conductors’ Perspectives of Kansas Prison Choirs.” International Journal of Community Music 1 (3): 319–33. doi: 10.1386/ijcm.1.3.319_1. Cohen, M. L. 2010. “Risk Taker Extraordinaire: An Interview with Elvera Voth.” International Journal of Community Music 3 (1): 151–56. doi: 10.1386/ijcm.3.1.151/7. Colaizzi, P. F. 1978. “Psychological Research as the Phenomenologist Views It.” In Existential Phenomenological Alternatives in Psychology, edited by R. Valle and M. King, 48–71, New York: Oxford University Press. “Community Music Activity Commission (CMA).” 2012. http://www.isme.org/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41:community-music-activity-commissioncma&catid=20:cma&Itemid=14. Conway, C. and T. M. Hodgman. 2008. “College and Community Choir Member Experiences in a Collaborative Intergenerational Performance Project.” Journal of Research in Music Education 56 (3): 220–37. Culver, R. 1989. “The Master Teacher Profile: ‘Elements of Delivery at Work in the Classroom’ ” (Manual for accompanying videotapes). Madison:  University of Wisconsin–Madison, Division of University Outreach, Department of Continuing Education in the Arts: 24, 63–66. Creswell, J. W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dabback, W. M. 2008. “Identity Formation through Participation in the Rochester New Horizons Band Programme.” International Journal of Community Music, 1 (2):  267–86. doi: 10.1386/ijcm.1.2.267_1. Dabback, W. M. 2010. “Exploring Communities of Music in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley.” International Journal of Community Music, 3 (2): 213–27. Dabback, W. M. 2012. “Breathing Together:  Community Connections in a Mennonite School Choir Program.” Presentation for the Music and Lifelong Learning Conference, Harrisonburg, VA. Dabczynski, A. H. 1994. “Northern Week at Ashokan, 1991:  Fiddle Tunes, Motivation and Community at a Fiddle and Dance Camp.” PhD diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 9423169). Davis, S. A. 2011. “Acts of Hospitality: A Case Study of the University of South Carolina String Project.” PhD diss., New York University, New York, NY. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3454465). Dienske, Ten. 1990. Vijf analysecycli in het interpretatieproces van het narratieve interview. Translated, adapted, and summarized by Ton Beekman in Coursepack:  Education 725, School of Education, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: Dollar Bill Copying. Doll, W. 1993. A Post-Modern Perspective on Curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press. Ernst, R. 2001. “Music for Life.” Music Educators Journal 88 (1): 47–51. doi: 10.2307/3399777.

522    nathan b. kruse and erin m. hansen Faivre-Ransom, J. L. 2001. “An Investigation of Factors That Influence Adult Participation in Music Ensembles Based on Various Behavioral Theories: A Case Study of the Norfolk Chorale.” DMA diss., Shenandoah University, Winchester, VA. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3091192). Fetter, J. P. 2011. “Alternative styles in string music education: Identity development and curriculum design in the postmodern era.” PhD thesis, University of Rochester: Rochester, NY. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3478288). Glesne, C. 1999. Becoming Qualitative Researchers. New York: Longman. Green, L. 2008. Music, Informal Learning and the School: A New Classroom Pedagogy. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Haskett, B. L. 2009. “A Case Study on the Importance and Value of the Desert Winds Steelpan Programs.” PhD diss., Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3361302). Higgins, L. 2007. “Acts of Hospitality: The Community in Community Music.” Music Education Research, 9 (2): 281–92. Jaffurs, S. E. 2004. “The Impact of Informal Music Learning Practices in the Classroom, or How I Learned How to Teach from a Garage Band.” International Journal of Music Education 22 (3): 189–200. doi: 10.1177/0255761404047401. Krueger, R.A. 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kruse, N. B. 2008. Andragogy and music: Canadian and American Models of Music Learning among Adults. Saarbrücken, Germany:  VDM Verlag Dr.  Müller Aktiengesellschaft and Co. KG. Kruse, N. B. 2009. “‘An Elusive Bird’: Perceptions of Music Learning among Canadian and American Adults.” International Journal of Community Music 2 (2 and 3): 215–25. doi:10.1386/ ijcm.2.2-3.215_1. Kruse, N. B. 2012. “‘Sheer spine’:  Evoking Past and Present in the Southern Highlands.” In Narrative Soundings: An Anthology of Narrative Inquiry in Music Education, edited by S. Stauffer and M. Barrett, 79–94. New York: Springer. Kruse, N. B. 2013. “Locating The Road to Lisdoonvarna via Cyber Autoethnography: Pathways, Blockades, and Detours in Self-Directed Online Music Learning.” Journal of Music, Technology, and Education 5 (3): 293–308. doi: 10.1386/jmte.5.3.293_1. LeCompte, M., and J. Preissle. 1993. Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press. Leglar, M. A., and D. S. Smith. 2010. “Community Music in the United States: An Overview of Origins and Evolution.” International Journal of Community Music 3 (3): 343–53. Lofland, J., and L. Lofland. 1984. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. McCarthy, M. 2007. “The Community Music Activity Commission of ISME, 1982-2007: A Forum for Global Dialogue and Institutional Formation.” International Journal of Community Music 1 (1): 39–48. Merriam, S. 2009. Qualitative Research:  A  Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. “New Horizons International Music Association.” 2013. http://www.newhorizonsmusic.org. Palmer, G. L. 2010. “The Hochstein School of Music and Dance: History, Mission, and Vision.” PhD thesis., University of Rochester:  Rochester, NY. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 664010480).

Community Music Education  523 Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Robbins, J. and R. Stein. 2005. “What Partnerships Must We Create, Build, or Reenergize in K–12 Higher and Professional Education for Music Teacher Education in the Future?” Journal of Music Teacher Education 14 (2): 22. Roberts, B. A. 2010. “Prologue: In Search of Identity.” Action, Criticism & Theory for Music Education 9 (2): 1–10. http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Roberts9_2.pdf Rohwer, D. 2009. “Church Musicians’ Participation Perceptions: Applications to Community Music.” Research and Issues in Music Education 8 (1). http://www.stthomas.edu/rimeonline/ vol8/Rohwer.htm. Shansky. 2010. “Adult Motivations in Community Orchestra Participation: A Pilot Case Study of The Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra (New Jersey).” Research and Issues in Music Education 8 (1). http://www.stthomas.edu/rimeonline/vol8/shansky.htm. Slattery, P. 2006. Curriculum Development in the Postmodern Era. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Stake, R. E. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Taylor, D. M., N. B. Kruse, B. J. Nickel, B. B. Lee, and T. N. Bowen. 2011. “Adults’ Experiences in Homogeneous Ensemble Settings.” Contributions to Music Education 38 (1): 11–26. Thornton, D. H. 2010. “Adult Music Engagement:  Perspectives from Three Musically Engaged Cases.” PhD diss., The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3442897). Trochim, W. 1989. “Outcome Pattern Matching and Program Theory.” Evaluation and Program Planning 12: 355–66. Tsugawa, S. 2009. “Senior adult music learning, motivation, and meaning construction in two New Horizons Ensembles.” PhD diss., Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3392131). Veblen, K. K., S. J. Messenger, M. Silverman, and D. J. Elliott, eds. 2013. Community Music Today. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. Warfield, D. 2010. “Bowing in the Right Direction:  Hiland Mountain Correctional Center Women’s String Orchestra Programme.” International Journal of Community Music 3 (1): 103–10. Yarbrough, C. 2000. “What Should Be the Relationship between Schools and Other Sources of Music Learning?” In Vision 20/20: The Housewright symposium on the future of music education, edited by C. Madsen, 191–208. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Yin, R. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Chapter 27

Qualitative Re se a rc h Ex am ining Stu de nts w i t h Excep tiona l i t i e s i n Music Educ at i on ryan m. hourigan

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, 5.9 million students ages 6–21 are served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2011). For music educators, the continued push for inclusion has highlighted the importance of being able to teach music to students with a wide variety of learning differences. Qualitative investigations of phenomena surrounding students with special needs in music education settings have provided insight in understanding the plight of students with learning challenges from the perspective of all stakeholders in a deep, reflective, multi-layered viewpoint. Merriam (1998)1 explains that “In fact I believe that research focused on discovery, insight, and understanding from the perspective of those being studied offers the greatest promise of making significant contributions to the knowledge base and practice of education” (1). Examining music students with disabilities, through the eyes of the participants, has and will continue to heighten our awareness of effective inclusion of students with exceptionalities as well as professional development and music teacher preparation. There are terms that are interchanged throughout the literature that should be clarified before further examination. First, the term inclusion is used to describe the process of including school-aged students with disabilities in regular education classrooms to learn along with their peers. This is typically done with the students’ educational challenges in mind, and, if possible, in their home schools. This leads to another widely used term, mainstreaming. This is an older term used to describe placing students with disabilities in select parts of the regular education curriculum. This is typically done in accordance with where they can be the most successful (Florida State University Center for Prevention and Early Intervention Policy, 2012). Sometimes these terms

Students with Exceptionalities in Music  525 are used interchangeably within the literature. Special learner is also a term used in the literature. The preferred way to refer to a person who is challenged with a disability is to use “person-first” language. “Students” or “children” with special needs (or exceptionalities, disabilities) is the acceptable terminology used within the special education community. Another term that appears often in the literature is IEP. This term is short for Individualized Education Program, which is a federally mandated document that defines the goals, needs, accommodations, and services that each child with special needs required in order to be successful. This plan is developed in partnership between the student (if applicable), the parents or guardians, educators, service providers, and administration and must be followed once implemented. Qualitative inquiries into students with exceptionalities have become a part of the fabric of the literature in music education. After an extensive search of databases and reference lists it became clear that much of the qualitative research in this area (students with special needs) could be categorized into three main areas. This chapter will focus on the following areas of qualitative research and children with disabilities: a) Qualitative examinations of inclusion strategies in music education; b) Qualitative studies of specific diagnoses in music education; and c) Qualitative studies in music teacher education and students with special needs. Only qualitative research in music education research was examined. Music therapy research was only included if the studies were qualitative in nature, had curricular or educational goals as the focus (not therapy interventions for non-musical skills or understandings), and addressed the aforementioned goals and topics of research.

27.1  Qualitative Examinations of Inclusion Strategies in Music Education As inclusion becomes more of a standard practice in music education, inclusive pedagogies in music education are becoming more important for our profession to understand. Jellison and Flowers (1991) conducted one of the earliest qualitative studies in music education that examined children with special needs. The purpose of this study was to describe, categorize, and compare data concerning music preferences, experiences, and skills obtained from interviews with 228 students labeled “disabled” (n = 73) or “nondisabled” (n = 155). The research design was described as “naturalistic inquiry” in which a structured assessment interview was used by university student proctors to collect information from the students in four age groups. Their respective schools identified certain students as eligible for special education services, and this constituted the group labeled “disabled.” The same questions were also asked of students who did not receive special education services. The questions that were developed for the interview focused on listening preferences and experiences, musical instrument preferences and performance, and singing

526   ryan m. hourigan and clapping (steady beat) performance. Findings suggested that there are similarities in responses from the two groups (“disabled” and “non-disabled”) regarding how they learn and respond to music. This early study laid the groundwork for research to be conducted in music education looking at students with disabilities in self-contained and in what was then called mainstreamed settings. This study also shows how far we have come as a profession in labeling students. Jellison and Flowers used the term “disabled” and “non-disabled” in their descriptions of the participants. More recent studies have moved to a person-first use of labels. Lapka (2005) studied the inclusive practices of an Illinois high school band that included eight students with severe disabilities. Although vague, the researcher used the following research questions to guide this study: “1) how was the process initiated; 2) how was the process implemented; 3) how was the process sustained, and 4) to what degree have the students with disabilities established relationships with their peers” (iii). “This process” is assumed to mean the process of including high school students into instrumental music education programs. The participants included band students, special education teachers, an instrumental music teacher, and members of the “Advantage” class, which consisted of eight students with disabilities who were included in the percussion section of an instrumental music class (band). Lapka examined this phenomenon through the use of observations, individual interviews, and focus group interviews over a three-month period. Observations were done in full-group band classes and small-group lessons. Formal individual interviews were conducted with students and teachers (band and special education). At the conclusion of this inclusive experience, students (non-Advantage Class students) were allowed to choose one of three focus group interviews. Parents of the students enrolled in the Advantage Class also participated in one focus group interview. These interviews were videotaped for analysis. All interviews were transcribed and field notes were taken for all observation events. Detailed transcripts and field notes are included in the manuscript. Lapka’s findings suggest the following elements for successful inclusion of students in instrumental music: “1) teachers from special education and general education embracing the cause without mandates from the administration, 2) implementation that was gradual, 3) efficient time management exhibited by teachers who used technology and less formal means of teaming, 4)  teachers who adopted the proper philosophy that encouraged them to solve problems, 5) inservice teachers learning from mentors, 6) teachers advocating the program, 7) parent and peer support, 8) flexibility and creativity as key components for solving problems, 9) curriculum that was based on student abilities which required modifications of the general curriculum and creation of an alternative curriculum, 10) teachers who understood how to adapt teaching methods to accommodate learners, 11) recruitment, education and supervision of peer tutors, 12) the staff coming out of isolation to work together in and outside of the classroom, 13) true collaboration based on mutual respect, communication, and shared responsibilities, and 14) social, personal, and curricular goals” (iii). Many of the findings above are consistent with other studies below that examine similar populations in music education.

Students with Exceptionalities in Music  527 Haywood (2007) examined, through a single case study, the possibilities and potential benefits of including a child with special needs in a choral music setting. This study was phenomenological in design, with the aim of focusing on the participants lived experience in choir. The researcher used semi-structured interviews that were “open-ended and “conversational.” Follow-up interviews were conducted not only with the participants, but also with other family members to obtain a complete picture of the phenomenon. These interviews were triangulated with observations, and historical documentation. Deborah (pseudonym) was the main focus of a single case study and the researcher sought to capture the essence of her experience in choral music through examination of what “this individual is experiencing through inclusion in a choral setting” (411). Deborah was chosen purposefully because of her past exclusion from choral music programs. Haywood found that Deborah had experienced many barriers that excluded her from participation in choral music because of the lack of accessibility of performance venues. Deborah also expressed that music teachers should advocate for inclusion of students with exceptionalities. Findings also suggested that coming together and building relationships between all of the students, teachers, and administrators will allow for successful inclusion of a student with special needs in music. Bell (2008) examined the process of playing, improvising, composing, and digitally recording music with an adolescent with special needs. Specifically, the researcher was interested in responses to participation in a music program and how the teaching process develop in response to the participants needs and desires. This study took place over 12 music sessions with a single participant. The participant was an 18-year old student named Tim who was diagnosed with Down syndrome. A case study design was used and video transcriptions of the sessions along with interviews and meta-analysis of incidents between the researcher and the participant were analyzed. Bell states that the design of this study “took an emergent design as the study progressed” (6). In addition, Bell states that this design borrowed design strategies from other studies in music education. However, there was a lack of explanation of what was borrowed and how this study is indeed an emergent qualitative study. The findings suggest that when working with an adolescent with special needs, the following conditions need to be present in order for them to be creative: a) the student must have an opportunity to explore music; b) a student’s perceptions of what making music is may be different than the teacher; c) musical age and emotional age may vary by participant; and d) music teachers should focus on the abilities of the student rather than the challenges. Meier (2009) examined a single student’s experiences in a high school instrumental music ensemble (band). The purpose of this study was to examine, using a case study design, the experiences of a student with special needs as he progressed through the high school band experience. The research questions that guided this study included: “(1) What are a student’s perceptions of his inclusive band experiences? (2) What are the parent’s perceptions of their child’s experiences? (3) What are the band director’s descriptions of his experiences teaching a student in his inclusive band classroom? (4) What

528   ryan m. hourigan are the paraprofessional’s descriptions about his interactions and relationships with the student? (5) What are special educator’s descriptions of the student’s inclusive musical learning experience? (6) What considerations should be given for students with special needs in band settings?” (10–11). Meier used a single case study design (Merriam 1998) and the data collection site was a medium-sized high school located in the Midwest. The participants included a band director, a student with special needs, Steven (pseudonym), a parent of the child with special needs, the school psychologist, and Steven’s paraprofessional. The participants were chosen purposefully because of prior knowledge of the student, ease of obtaining appropriate consent, and an “already established relationship between the program, the director, the student, and the university the researcher was attending” (35). Data included semi-structured interviews with all of the participants and observations of Steven’s instrumental music classes (band). All field notes and interviews were transcribed for analysis. Materials were then coded for immerging themes and then organized into case record (Merriam 1988). Findings suggested paraprofessionals are a key component of a successful inclusion experience in band for a child with special needs. In addition, instrumental music teachers help a student like Steven see the importance of social networking. Contrarily, Steven stressed the importance of being treated just like every other regular student and expressed the difficulties and challenges that arise when working in an inclusive learning environment. Other students were shown to benefit from working with Steven and some students were more accepting than others. Analysis of the qualitative examinations above uncovered common themes across all of the findings. First, including students with special needs in music is a collaborative effort among teachers, parents, students, and paraprofessionals. Specifically, peer tutors and paraprofessionals are critical liaisons between the teacher, student, and other stakeholders. Second, inservice music educators should collaborate with other providers, and educators and are in need of mentorship. This is probably due to the lack of special education preparation in university music education programs. The most important part of the qualitative body of research is the in-depth look into the plight of individuals who are included in our music programs. The case studies revealed that students with special needs have had a variety of experiences, from getting messages of discouragement about participation to receiving an outpouring of support. Further research should investigate the factors as to why this wide range exists in our profession.

27.2  Qualitative Studies of Specific Disabilities in Music Education In attempting to see the perspective of a student who is challenged by a specific diagnosis or disability, qualitative tools provide unique insight into the music education of

Students with Exceptionalities in Music  529 students with special needs. Often students with various disabilities can have similar challenges. Qualitative investigations into specific populations of music students are important in that strategies can apply to a multitude of circumstances. Learning disabilities are one of the largest known categories of special needs. According to the National Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2011), 13.87 percent of all children ages 3–17 have a developmental disability (term used to cover both learning disabilities and Attention Hyperactivity Development Disorder). McCord (1999) examined students with learning disabilities and composition. Specifically the researcher’s main purpose was to observe, describe, and analyze the behaviors that children with learning disabilities use as they compose music and to discover adaptations for children who had learning disabilities that interfered with their ability to understand and create music using a MIDI keyboard synthesizer and computer. This examination included four participants aged seven, eight, and nine who spent six sessions in a MIDI classroom exploring composition ideas using MIDI synthesizers with a custom-designed computer software program (Music Mania: http://www.musicmania. co.nz). This software guided them through the composition process. As the participants explored musical ideas and worked toward the final task of creating a musical composition, all of the music they played on their synthesizers was unknowingly recorded. These recorded data were used to examine the participant’s musical thinking processes. Data included MIDI files, transcriptions from videotaped sessions, and observation notes. Data were charted for each participant using qualitative descriptors, (general descriptors, process styles, composition emergence, recurring musical patterns, and distractibility). Findings suggested all four participants were categorized in low creativity groups, which meant that the participant either did exactly what Music Mania told him to do, or did not show any imagination at all in his playing. Only one participant went beyond experimentation and developed his composition. Findings revealed that learning disabilities did interfere with learning and understanding music. In most instances the data correlated with information already known from the child’s IEP and each participant progressed through Music Mania very differently. In some cases the hardware and software adapted well for the disability and in other cases adaptations were not possible. Intellectually gifted students are often left out of the special needs conversation (Hammel and Hourigan 2011). Often in the literature students with learning challenges that are below the norm are considered “special needs.” There is also a large population of gifted students that excel in music when given the appropriate learning environment. Qualitative inquiries into the experiences of gifted students in music education provide a unique insight into their needs in the music classroom. Fredstrom (1999) examined musically gifted students’ perceptions about their school music experience. Fredstrom identified 21 musically gifted students using Renzulli’s Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness (Renzulli 1988). This model identifies giftedness as the intersection of above-average ability, creativity, and task commitment. Data was gathered using semi-structured interviews of the gifted students. Participants were asked to describe the following:  (a)  their musical life, (b)  things

530   ryan m. hourigan that motivated them in school music, (c) things that frustrated them in school music, and (d)  their ideas about what would make a perfect school music experience for them. It was not clear how the researcher triangulated the data. However, the informants’ responses were transcribed and analyzed using “grounded theory analysis procedures.” Findings suggested that the participants’ perspectives of their school music experience was influenced by four categories of musical characteristics:  (a)  musical commitment, (b)  musical success, (c)  musical passion, and (d)  musical awareness. The participants described their musical beginnings as happening in both in-school music classes and out-of-school musical involvement. There was a point in the informants’ life, in about middle school, when they became vigorously involved in music, again taking place both in-school music classes and in out-of-school musical involvement. The informants moved between describing their in-school experiences and their out-of-school experiences with great fluidity as they told their stories. Further, their musical characteristics influenced their perceptions of these experiences. The researcher reported that it was clear that the informants’ satisfaction in school music was greatest where rigor was promoted, and conversely their satisfaction was decreased when vigor was impeded. This was the central phenomenon of the study. The students described aspects of their experiences that they perceived to effect vigorous musical involvement that included: (a) their teachers, (b) the instruction they received, (c) the opportunities available to them, (d) musical excellence, and (e) their relationships with other students in school music classes. Williams syndrome or Williams Beuren syndrome was discovered in the 1960s and has been identified as a distinctive, genetic, neurological condition. It is estimated that 1 out of 20,000 to 50,000 births result in a diagnosis of Williams syndrome. Although students that are affected by this disorder have many challenges, it has been noted that they have an high interest and ability in music in relationship to other academic areas. Milne (2001) examined eight female and eight male participants with Williams Syndrome (WS) between the ages of 8 and 18 in a 10-day intensive music program entitled “Music and Minds: A Talent Development Model.” Although the study was not labeled mixed method, Milne used a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques. Data was collected in four phases. In phase one, the participants and their guardians completed a questionnaire as part of their application process. This questionnaire included questions about basic demographic information, historical and health information, and interest. Phase two consisted of semi-structured telephone interviews with parents of the participants. Phase three involved observations at the research site, and phase four consisted of “follow-up data collection, designed to further elaborate, confirm, or explore issues that arose during the previous phases” (51). In addition, the School-Wide Enrichment Model (SEM) (Renzulli and Reiss 1997) was used to analyze the experiences of the students involved in this study. The SEM is a series of reform ideas for schools that center around three types of curricula. Type I enrichment (general exploratory experiences); Type II enrichment (group training activities);

Students with Exceptionalities in Music  531 and Type III enrichment (individual and small group investigations of real problems) and enrichment teaching and learning (enrichment clusters). Results included two in-depth case studies of students with WS involved in the “Music and Minds.” Findings suggested that all of the students were well aware of their disability and knew that they were treated differently as a result. In fact, a common concern among the participants is how they may overcome their disability to realize their potential in music. In addition, Milne found that students had a varying degree of experiences in music and that their parents mostly supported their participation in music. However, the mother-child dyadic relationship can effect the nurturing of musical abilities among persons with WS. Participants also reported a wide range of support for music from teachers and families because of their disability. A common challenge among students in early childhood special education is in the area of communication development. In addition, communication disorders can affect development in other domains such as cognition and social interaction. Frick (2000) examined four children with special needs as part of an early childhood class. The researcher was also a participant. The central focus of the study was how a musically rich early childhood special education classroom may contribute to the ways children with disabilities learn to communicate. This study was designed to (a) describe the classroom music activities and communication patterns of four young children with communication disabilities in an early childhood special education classroom; and (b) explore how types of music, methods of music inclusion, and children’s individual differences may contribute to the process of communication development. Data included researcher audiotaped and videotaped observations (38 total school days for three hours a day); artifact analysis of the participants’ IEPs; and observational field notes, as well as a personal journal. Interviews with the designated children’s parents were conducted. Results suggested: (b) music that was routine and supported instruction resulted in more vocalization; (c) music created a social context for child-to-child interaction; and (d) all four children increased vocalizations in different ways. Moss (2009) examined students who were visually impaired and were mainstreamed into instrumental music education. Specifically, Moss was interested in what motivated students to be involved in instrumental music and how their learning challenges affected their overall experience. Also, Moss was interested in how interventions assisted with the students experience and how their social connection was enhanced. Specifically, his research questions were: “How do the motivations for participation in instrumental music of blind and visually impaired students compare to what is known from research about sighted students’ motivations for participation in these classes? To what extent, if any, does the ability to develop their own strategies for learning affect the quality of secondary school blind or visually impaired students’ experiences in instrumental music classes? To what extent is the quality of secondary school blind or visually impaired students’ experiences in instrumental music related to the intervention or assistance of other people? To what extent do blind or visually impaired secondary school students’ perceptions of social connectedness determine the quality of their experiences in instrumental music classes?” (91).

532   ryan m. hourigan Moss used a series of phone interviews with 11 participants that he became acquainted with through various national organizations. Moss centered his interview questions around the following themes: (a) their motivations for participation in band or orchestra; (b) their strategies for participation; (c) the extent to which other people assist them in their participation; and (d) the extent to which feelings of social connectedness contribute to their instrumental music experience. Moss coded the data into categories that corresponded to the research questions. Findings suggested the following: a) memorizing was the most common tool used in participation in band and orchestra; b) participants also used Braille and enlarged print music notation as “mediation means”; c) peer assistants, parents, and instructors were also seen as crucial to success in participation in instrumental music education. Because there are so many different types of disabilities, researchers may find it difficult to generalize findings. Even within one diagnosis, there may be a wide spectrum of challenges. However, a common theme that arose from all of the findings in this section (Qualitative Studies of Specific Disabilities in Music Education) was that the perceived quality of the student music education experience is connected to the ability of the music teacher to adapt and be resourceful to meet their needs, and that students have had a wide variety of music experiences. The qualitative perspective on these studies has shed light into the length (or lack of length) at which music educators must go to accommodate students. In addition, music students with disabilities can be very descriptive about their needs.

27.3  Qualitative Studies in Music Teacher Education and Students with Special Needs Music teacher preparation to teach music to students with special needs has been a growing area of research in music education. Specifically, researchers have chosen to focus on how to best prepare music teachers to individualize instruction within diverse and inclusive teaching environments. Using qualitative means to examine the participants view (i.e., teacher educators, preservice music teachers, cooperating teachers, and students with special needs) has been shown to provide unique insight into the process of preparing music teachers for challenging, inclusive teaching contexts. Hammel (1999) examined a proposed unit of study for undergraduate music education students regarding the inclusion of special learners in music classrooms. The proposed unit of study was designed in accordance with the following research problems: (a) To identify teacher competencies used by practicing elementary music teachers when including special learners in classrooms, (b) To determine how college and university music education faculty use undergraduate elementary music education methods classes and field experiences to instruct undergraduate elementary music

Students with Exceptionalities in Music  533 education students regarding the inclusion of special learners, (c) To identify teacher competencies essential for undergraduate elementary music education students relevant to the inclusion of special learners, and (d) To design a unit of study that focuses on the inclusion of special learners and is appropriate for undergraduate elementary music education students. This study was qualitative and ethnographic and included an examination of 26 teacher competencies identified by Williams (1988). Data included surveys of elementary music educators as well as college and university faculty members who teach undergraduate elementary music education methods courses; interviews with practicing elementary music educators; observations of students with special needs that were included in elementary music classrooms; and artifact analysis that included syllabi from college and university faculty members who teach undergraduate courses that focus on inclusion. The results of this study concluded that 13 of the 26 teacher competencies examined were considered necessary for elementary music educators when including special learners in their classrooms. The 13 competencies concluded that teachers should be acquainted with or have knowledge of: various conditions; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); the music teacher’s role on the evaluation team. In addition, teachers should be able to: develop and use informal assessment procedures; monitor the learning process of all students; evaluate program effectiveness for special learners; modify, if necessary, the instructional program to accommodate special learners; encourage appropriate social interactions among all students; adapt materials to provide for individual differences; adapt material to provide for individual differences. Also teachers should have knowledge of how to modify the physical environment of a classroom for special learners; effective classroom management techniques; appropriate materials for diverse learning abilities and styles. As a result of this study, Hammel developed an in-depth unit of study for undergraduate music majors. Hourigan (2007) examined the process of preservice music teachers providing one-on-one assistance to a single student with special needs in an instrumental music classroom (band). This process was examined from the perspective of two music education majors, a student with special needs, a music teacher, a parent, and the researcher. Research questions included:  (a)  What were the preservice music teachers’ perceptions of assisting a student with special needs as part of their fieldwork experience in an instrumental music methods class?, (b) What were the music teacher educator’s perceptions of coordinating music majors to teach students with special needs?, and (c) What were the challenges faced by a student and a family of a child with special needs in a junior high band class? A case study design (Merriam, 1998) was used in this investigation. Data included journals by the music majors, interviews of the participants, and observations. The participants concluded that this experience was an important part of their fieldwork in music methods classes. Findings suggested that this experience enhanced music majors’ perspective on issues of teaching and learning. In addition, this experience helped music majors develop sensitivities and confidence in working with students with special

534   ryan m. hourigan needs. Results of this study also indicated that preservice students have much anxiety upon entering the field, especially with an unfamiliar population, and that preservice teachers need some sort of orientation to a special needs placement. Hourigan (2009) examined preservice music teachers’ perceptions of working with students with special needs. The purpose of this study was to examine phenomenologically a special needs fieldwork experience through the perceptions of seven participants. All of the participants were part of a long-term field experience as part of their student teaching. The research question was: How was this experience assisting and teaching students with special needs in an elementary general music context, perceived and constructed by the participants individually and as they collaborated and interacted with one another, as indicated by journals, semi-structured interviews, case writing, and field observations? This phenomenological investigation utilized a qualitative case study design to explore preservice music teachers’ experiences. Student teacher journals and case-writing, participant interviews, and observations were used as data. Findings suggested orientation to working with special needs students was beneficial for the preservice teachers before entering this experience. This included field observation, introduction to terminology, and a basic understanding of classroom expectations. In addition, serving as one-on-one assistants while the cooperating teacher delivered the lesson was also crucial to the preservice music teachers’ confidence in teaching students with special needs. Also, team-teaching in pairs to start as well as completing reflective journals about these lessons was shown to be a positive influence on the preservice music teachers’ ability to teach students with special needs. Finally, the act of participating in the study (observation, journaling, and discussion) was beneficial. Preparation of inservice music teachers and students with special needs is equally important. Blair (2009) used narrative inquiry as a tool to study the perceived experiences of students with special needs in music education classrooms through the eyes of graduate music education students. This was done through a Teaching Music to Learners with Special Needs course. Each inservice general music teacher was required to not only write narratives of their experiences in working with children with disabilities but also to attempt to describe what they thought the experiences were like for students with special needs in their music classrooms. This data was triangulated with field notes from class discussion and a group interview. When in class, discussion of the narratives was woven into the curriculum, along with readings and projects. In addition, guest speakers listened to their narratives and gave advice to changing teacher practice in assisting students with special needs. The report focused on a participant named Sonja (pseudonym) because of the unique way she presented her narratives about working with a student named Tyler. Findings suggested that having inservice music teachers write about their own experiences as well as what they think the experience might be for students with special needs proved to be valuable. In fact, Blair states: “Sonja was becoming less concerned about herself and becoming more ‘wakeful’ to the circumstances around her (15).” This allowed for teachers like Sonja to envision better learning environments for their students.

Students with Exceptionalities in Music  535 This particular study examined at length the use of narrative inquiry as a tool for qualitative research. Blair suggests that narrative inquiry can be used not only as a tool for inquiry but also as a curricular tool for graduate courses. In addition, she suggests using music teacher stories as a conversation starter because of the unique and complex situations that inservice music teachers face, especially working with students with special needs. The findings in this section (Qualitative Studies in Music Teacher Education and Students with Special Needs) suggest some commonalities for successful music teacher preparation in working with students with special needs. Undergraduate students need to be acclimated to the unique needs of special education students and the learning environment by which some students learn. Serving as one-on-one assistants, team teaching with a peer or mentor, and observing are seen to be an important part of the process. In addition, as seen in the list of teacher competencies provided by Hammel (1999), preservice music teachers must have the ability to individualize, accommodate, and adapt their technique in order to be successful in an inclusive classroom. It is hoped that because of the continued focus on inclusion, our methods sequence in music education will continue to include an individualized focus.

27.3.1 Conclusion (Suggestions for Future Research) It is through a qualitative view of the human experience that researchers develop theory to enhance the experience of a student (especially a student with special needs) in the music classroom. Van Manen (1999) explains: . . . natural science studies “objects of nature,” “things,” “natural events,” and the way objects behave. Human science, in contrast, studies “persons,” or beings that have “consciousness” and that “act purposefully” in and on the world by creating objects of “meaning” that are “expressions” of how human beings exist in the world. (4)

As human scientists, researchers are directed to study the experiences existing within the phenomena of the teaching and learning relationship. Therefore, it is imperative for qualitative examinations of students with special needs in music education to continue to exist within the context of the music education literature. Since inclusion is the aim for many students who receive special education, qualitative research such as Haywood (2006); Lapka (2005); Bell (2008), and Meier (2009) allows for music educators to build theoretical understandings behind successful inclusion. This includes the structures or relationships that exist between all of the participants in the phenomenon. In addition, comparative, multiple, or cross-case-study examinations allow our field to further understand the viewpoint of music teachers and music students (Bell, 2008; Meier, 2009) within an inclusive environment. It is hoped that future research will include longitudinal research that examines the experiences of students in music throughout their P–12 experience. There are many

536   ryan m. hourigan “snapshot” studies of students a various levels and types (i.e., performance experiences vs. general music experiences); however, it is tough to make the case that these experiences characterize the totality of the participants experience in P–12 music. In fact, as pointed out by Haywood (2006), there are a wide variety of experiences in music for children with disabilities. As our inclusion literature in music education continues to grow, it will be important to have multiple examples of case studies of specific diagnosis that incorporate all age groups within music education settings such as Moss 2009; Frick 2000; Milne 2001; Fredstrom 1999; and McCord 1999. Music teachers and music teacher educators must have case study research from which to generalize potential strategies for these disabilities or that might be generalized for all children within an inclusive music classroom. P–12 students with special needs with have an enhanced learning environment and have a better chance of acquiring skills and understandings if researchers are able to inform practice for music teacher preparation. More qualitative research, such as Hourigan 2009, Hourigan 2007, and Hammel 1999 are needed to understand the types of experiences and teaching techniques that are needed for preservice music educators to better prepare them for teaching students with special needs. Often music teachers are not prepared as undergraduates to work with students who have learning challenges. Therefore, more research into professional development and inservice music teacher preparation, such as Blair (2009), should be further investigated. In addition, further inquiries into graduate coursework and the competencies teachers should have in working with students with disabilities, such as Hammel (2009), is important to further our understanding of what it takes to prepare teachers for students who have unique learning challenges. After reviewing the research above, there are a few voices that are missing or that have received little attention. For example, the voice of inservice music teachers and their successful teaching pedagogies is often included but not the central focus of a study. Blair (2009) examined this voice; however, there is still a large potential body of research that includes the voice of performance-based music teachers as well as classroom music teachers. Also, continuing to find students with special needs who can articulate their own plight is critical to understanding the music teaching and learning environment for children who are included. In relationship to the quantitative research and music therapy research on music and students with special needs, the volume of qualitative students in music education is rather small; however, as shown above, the last decade has seen a substantial increase in qualitative research on this topic. It is hoped that this trend will continue and that thick, rich descriptions will provide a unique perspective of the experiences of this unique population of music students.

Note 1. Newer edition of Merriam (2009) is available.

Students with Exceptionalities in Music  537

References Bell, A. P. 2008. “The Heart of the Matter: Composing Music with an Adolescent with Special Needs.” International Journal of Education and the Arts 9 no. 9: 2–36. Blair, D. V. 2009. “Fostering Wakefulness: Narrative as a Curricular Tool in Teacher Education.” International Journal of Education and the Arts 10 no. 19: 2–13. Fredstrom, T. C. 1999. “Musically Gifted Students and Promoted Vigor: A Grounded Theory Guiding Instructional Practices for Teachers of Musically Gifted Students in School Music.” PhD diss., University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Frick, J. W. 2000. “A Qualitative Study of Music and Communication in a Musically Rich Early Childhood Special Education Classroom.” PhD diss., George Mason University. Hammel, A. M. 1999. “A Study of Teacher Competencies Necessary When Including Special Learners in Elementary Music Classrooms: The Development of a Unit of Study for Use with Undergraduate Music Education Students.” DMA diss., Shenandoah University,. Hammel, A. M., and R. H. Hourigan. 2011. Teaching Music to Students with Special Needs: A Label-Free Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Haywood, J. S. 2007. “You Can’t Be In My Choir If You Can’t Stand Up: One Journey Toward Inclusion.” Music Education Research 8 no. 3: 407–16. Hourigan, R. M. 2007. “Music Majors as Paraprofessionals: A Study in Special Needs Field Experience for Preservice Music Educators.” Contributions to Music Education 34:19–34. Hourigan, R. M. 2009. “Preservice Music Teachers’ Perceptions of a Fieldwork Experience in a Special Needs Classroom.” Journal of Research in Music Education 57 no. 2: 152–68. Jellison, J. A., and P. J. Flowers. 1991. “Talking about Music:  Interviews with Disabled and Nondisabled Children.” Journal of Research in Music Education 39: 322–33. Lapka, C. M. 2005. “A Case Study of the Integration of Students with Disabilities in a Secondary Music Ensemble.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. McCord, K. A. 1999. “Music Composition Using Music Technology by Elementary Children with Learning Disabilities: An Exploratory Case Study.” DME diss., University of Northern Colorado. Meier, K. A. 2009. “The Musical Experience of a Band Student with Special Needs.” Masters Thesis, University of Michigan. Merriam, S. B. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Milne, H. L. O. 2001. “A Comparative Case Study of Persons with Williams Syndrome and Musical Interests.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut. Moss, F., Jr. 2009. “Quality of Experience in Mainstreaming and Full Inclusion of Blind and Visually Impaired High School Instrumental Music Students.” PhD diss., University of Michigan,. National Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. “Developmental Disabilities Increasing in US.” http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsDev_Disabilities. National Center for Educational Statistics 2011. “Status Trends in the Education of Racial Ethnic Minorities.” http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/indicator1_8.asp. Renzulli, Joseph S. 1988. “A Decade of Dialogue on the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness.” A Journal on Gifted Education 11 no. 1: 18–25. Renzulli, J. S., and S. M. Reiss 1997. The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A How-to Guide for Educational Excellence. 2nd ed. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Van Manen, M. 1999. Researching Lived Experience. New York: SUNY Press. Williams, D. 1988. “Regular Classroom Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Preparedness to Work with Mainstreamed Students as a Result of Preservice Coursework.” PhD diss., Indiana University.

Chapter 28

Intersecti ona l i t i e s Exploring Qualitative Research, Music Education, and Diversity bruce carter

The purpose of this chapter is to broadly explore several aspects of the social world and music education as investigated through qualitative methodologies. Specifically, this chapter will examine topics of LGBT2QI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning) studies, gender studies, and feminist studies within music education research. After reviewing these areas and providing suggestions for future qualitative research, I end the chapter with a call for an “intersectionalities” approach to understanding marginalized communities. What will become clear to reader as the chapter unfolds, is that to label, classify or define the LGBT2Q studies, gender studies, and feminist studies is a troublesome endeavor. They exist in contested spaces, and within categories like social justice, equity, marginalized, and identity, to name a few. I recognize the inherent problems associated with established social categories yet acknowledge the relevance of utilizing the categories to begin the process of examining our complex Western social ecology. Simply stated, the issues associated with accounting for the multiple axis of oppression and their labels are numerous. As a brief example, I could point readers to the current debate occurring between queer theorists and LGBT2QI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and intersexed) scholars. More specifically, even within LGBT2QI research, disagreements exists among scholars concerning the proper order of the letters, in addition to the inclusion of 2QI, which refers to queer, questioning, or intersexed. In the late 1980s, the term “GLBT” was prevalent in both academic writing and in the press. However, feminist scholars noted that the “L” for lesbian should be placed before the “G” for gay for numerous

Music Education and Diversity  539 political reasons but most notably to refrain from the inference that women are submissive or given a subordinate position within our heteronormative patriarchal society. The newest acronym for some academicians is LGBTQQCSI which stands for lesbian, gay, transgender, queer, questioning, confused, supportive or intersexed. The ever-expanding evolution has led one researcher to state: “continued extension of acronyms to lead us to believe we can include everyone is simply alarming” (Ferris 2006, 112). This example provides an illustration of how labels, even acronyms utilized within social research, are often met with confusion and scrutiny. Within the social sciences other examples of contested labels or categories include multiculturalism, social justice, and culturally relevant pedagogy, to name a few. Categories presented in this chapter act as a means of organizing literature for the reader, recognizing that social inequalities felt within these groups exist beyond the bounds of a singular label. Finally, the term “underrepresented” describes the broad landscape examined in this chapter while communicating an underlying belief that more research is needed to address these communities within music education. The tangle of labels and their meanings can be seen in the most recent Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin and Lincoln 2011), more specifically, within the appendix section. In this vast text encompassing overviews of qualitative research there is one reference to “gay, lesbian, and transgender” (745) while numerous citations are given for “queer” (751) topics of identity, theories, methods, etc. Within the queer category, gender is cross-referenced and within the gender category topics of feminism/feminists research are mentioned as “see also.” This cross-referencing and mixing of labels demonstrates a common blurring of these critical lenses. What is paramount to highlight, regardless of critical approach, is the exceptional way qualitative research explicates the human experience, specifically in areas of social justice. Denzin and Lincoln (2011) write: It is time to open up new spaces, time to explore new discourses. We need to find new ways of connecting persons and their personal troubles with social justice methodologies. We need to become better accomplished in linking these interventions to those institutional sites where troubles are turned into public issues and public issues transformed into social policy (ix).

For music education researchers, utilizing qualitative methodologies to examine musical experiences of underrepresented populations can inform curricula, public issues, and the educational institution in evocative and nuanced ways. In this way, researchers can invite contestation, contradiction, and philosophical tension into the music education discourse, not to haphazardly invite discord, but instead to promote a critical dialogue for growth and development for all members of the educative community.

540   bruce carter

28.1  Benefits and Losses of Entering at the Recapitulation The most recent publication of the Handbook for Research in Music Education published in 2002, included a chapter titled “Feminism, Feminist Research, and Gender Research in Music Education” (Lamb, Dolloff, and Howe). Within this chapter the authors state: Music education has not yet been influenced by third wave feminism, gender studies, studies of masculinity, or queer theory, although third wave kinds of research are beginning to be published, particularly outside of traditional music education venues. There is not space in this chapter to present an analysis as to why music education has been so isolated from these theories while the same theories have had an impact on education as a discipline and music as a discipline. This is an important topic that deserves critical exploration and thorough analysis. (648)

It is clear in these words that the authors are confounded by the lack of research being published that addresses underrepresented communities. In the 10  years since the Handbook for Research in Music Education was published there have been some strides in publishing work in these areas. These breakthroughs have largely been made possible within the music education milieu by conferences such as G.R.I.M.E. (Gender Research in Music Education), a professional organization founded in 1991 at the first Feminist Theory and Music Conference; the Music Education Studies Research Group within the American Educational Research Association, and the first LGBT Research Symposium held May 23 through 26, titled: Establishing Identity: LGBT Studies and Music Education. As Lamb, Dolloff, and Howe (2002) state, with few exceptions, music education researchers were tacit during the emergent sociological research that meaningfully informed the academy in the 1980s and 1990s. Borrowing from a musical example, music educators might consider that much of the work on race, class, gender, ethnicity, and LGBT2Q studies has been introduced and vetted within an extended exposition and development section but out of the purview of the music education research. Therefore, for music education researchers, it might be prudent to consider these topics from the perspective of beginning at the recapitulation. In doing so, music education researchers entering late into the field of social justice or any form of critical sociological studies would be encouraged to meaningfully investigate the historical and theoretical underpinnings surrounding the evolution of each topic. Because music education research concerning underrepresented communities is sparse and newly developed, much of the literature required to scaffold an author’s research should be retrieved from areas outside of music education. Finally, readers should be aware that while a brief historical backdrop is presented for each category, this chapter, like the research it addresses, begins at recapitulation. In other words, the emphasis within this chapter is placed on critical differences, postmodernity, multiple perspectives, education theory, research,

Music Education and Diversity  541 and practice. At the end of each section selected readings are provided to help guide researchers who plan on any form of future research in this field.

28.2 LGBT2Q Studies in Music Education At the first conference to address LGBT studies:  Establishing Identities:  Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies and Music Education, held May 23–26 at the University of Illinois, two keynote addresses by Nadine Hubbs and Nelson Rodriguez highlighted the duality and dissonance surrounding current LGBT2Q studies. Both keynote addresses were published in the Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education and provide an excellent starting point to consider LGBT2Q studies in music education since both experienced researchers addressed the field of music education from the perspective of beginning at the recapitulation. In broadest terms, LGBT2QI or LGBT studies is the largest umbrella or moniker for research pertaining to gender and sexuality studies. Most scholarship labeled within this genre is related to topics of activism, visibility, rights, stereotypes, and community. Researchers utilizing the label of LGBT studies often connote an inclusivity with an intentionality towards similarities of non-heteronormative discourse. Hubbs (2011) cautioned music education researchers who investigate LGBT people to avoid the pitfalls of previous academicians who, since the 1980s, have institutionalized LGBT studies. She states that while broader acceptance of LGBT community members within the academy and American society as a whole should obviously be welcomed, placing LGBT people within a static frame can be unintentionally oppressive. This critique or pushback of a now mainstreamed conceptualization of LGBT studies or people has led to a new term, homonormativity.1 In her description of homonormativity, Hubbs writes: The term carries with it a critique of recently mainstreamed LGBT identities and politics that uphold the institutions and assumptions of heteronormativity. “Homonormativity” points to the normalization, naturalization, and capitalist commodification of a certain, narrowed set of homosexual practices and identities that leave intact the social, sexual, political, and economic status quo rather than pursuing the potential of same-sex relations to call into question so many sociocultural assumptions, prescripts, and inequalities. (9)

In other words, Hubbs calls into question the concept of the conference, the notion of establishing an identity with an institutionalized framework that maintains “sociocultural assumptions.” She cautions music education researchers to avoid the pitfall of institutionalization and singularity of a LGBT identity, arguing for a non-monolithic view of LGBT expression. Next, Hubbs stated that the most significant contribution of LGBT studies that began in the 1970s “is its revelation of what we know as ‘sexuality’

542   bruce carter as culturally specific and constructed rather than natural or given” (10). The concept of sexuality as a culturally constructed, non-binary hetero-homo behavior, identity, or politic has been central to much of the sociological work thus far and largely agreed upon by scholars across the academy. Furthermore, Hubbs notes an important trend occurring within LGBT studies, the concept of sexuality as being not only binary, or easily labeled within an ever-expanding acronym of acceptance, but the concept of sexuality as an ever-fluid, dynamic part of one’s life. She notes a trend for researchers drawing upon LGBT studies across disciplines to ignore static notions of sexuality that are easily labeled, objectified, and stereotyped and consider sexuality in new, more progressive, non-traditional frameworks. Nelson Rodriguez, the other keynote speaker of the conference, provided insight into another lens by which topics of sexuality and gender are often investigated—queer theory. Queer theory, like most other forms of poststructural sociological inquiry, has evolved substantially since its inception. Queer theory emerged from the collision of LGBT political and cultural activism in the late 1980s, as feminist cultural studies and identity politics were reframed within the academy. Though conceived within a political milieu, queer theory quickly became a lens to actively question tropes across numerous areas of the academy. Led by women scholars, primarily the texts of Judith Butler (1990), Gender Trouble, and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (1990), Epistemology of the Closet, queer theory not only contested preconceived notions of sexuality and gender, their work codified a means of questioning meaning in broader epistemological and ontological traditions. One of the most prolific and cited queer theory scholars, David Halperin (1997) defines the current state of queer theory as “at odds with whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant.” There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence. “Queer” then, “demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative” (62). Queer theory became synonymous with the deconstruction of any normative value, labeled by Turner as radical deconstructionism (2000). Turner (2000) writes: If queer theorists have anything in common, it might be that they consistently celebrate the unformed, inchoate, provisional character of the field, and they look with suspicion on the possibility that, after a tumultuous, boisterous, and unfocused adolescence, queer theory will settle into an adulthood of traditional disciplinarity, with a clearly defined field of inquiry, a journal or two, and a few doctoral programs at the more advanced universities. (84)

Lastly, Rodriguez suggests another model for examining topics related to sexuality— critical sexuality studies. Beasley (2005) codified critical sexuality studies by identifying five areas of study: (1) emancipatory or liberationist; (2) sexuality difference or gay and lesbian identity; (3) multiple differences; (4) social constructivism; and (5) postmodern sexuality studies. These categories, thoroughly explained within Rodriguez’s text, help provide researchers with meaningful entry points and methods of categorization. The emphasis within all classifications is the “critical” approach to sexuality studies, “the analyses of the existing organization and social meaning of sexuality and sexual studies,

Music Education and Diversity  543 rather than merely descriptive accounts of doing sex” (Beasley 2005, 117). Rodriguez encourages the use of critical sexuality studies as a framework for emergent music education research, and the lens provides substantial breadth for meaningful inquiry while allowing authors to circumnavigate troublesome identity politics associated with other modes of inquiry. Music education researchers considering work within LGBT studies are tasked with situating studies within frameworks laden with historical meaning. It is imperative for authors to understand the political landscapes that shaped various modes of inquiry. To state that one’s work is situated within a frame of LGBT studies, queer theory, or critical sexuality studies greatly influences the reader’s perception and understanding of authorial intent. The publication of articles presented at the conference in the Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education (CRME), edited by Greg DeNardo, served as an important beachhead for LGBT studies in music education. Of the ten published articles published in CRME, most could be classified within the first category of Beasley’s critical sexuality studies—emancipatory or liberationists. The authors describe topics of anti-discrimination and assimilation, often with the intent of furthering the notion of rights and equality within schools and society at large. Furman (2011) and Duling (2011) both describe the lived experience of being an openly gay or lesbian faculty member within a school environment. Furman’s qualitative work describes the life of “Pamela” both personally and professionally focusing on her experiences teaching in K–12 and university settings in the Midwest and Southern states. In this case study, Furman describes the difficulties surrounding Pamela’s life as an instrumental music educator. Utilizing Seidman’s interviewing technique (2006), Furman adopted a phenomenological approach to identifying the educator’s experience. The data was expressed through narrative that emerged from three interviews in addition to classroom observations of Pamela’s teaching. Although being an “out” lesbian presented numerous difficulties, most of Pamela’s feelings of professional isolation stemmed from her feeling of isolation due to gender. For Pamela, events where band directors gathered reinforced her belief of loneliness, as the instrumental music educators were almost all male and she felt excluded socially. Duling (2011) describes the isolation of being the lone “out” LGBT person within a faculty. Duling provides a phenomenological autoethnographic account of the pressures being the “go-to” faculty member when students or other faculty members have questions pertaining to LGBT topics. Duling addresses six scenarios that he often encounters as the “go-to” professor including: a) addressing the awkwardness of being asked if gay; b) working with LGBT students who use the gay experience to sometimes inappropriately make excuses for poor behavior or work; c) helping students navigate social pressures; d) the ever-present topic of coming out; e) the demands of being the “go-to” faculty member but lacking proper training and information. While Duling expresses his willingness to provide consultation, he concurrently addresses the stresses involved with providing information and guidance beyond his scope of training. In sum, Duling addresses the problems surrounding

544   bruce carter the assumption that the lone LGBT person is capable of offering appropriate advice simply because they identify as non-heterosexual. Haywood (2011) investigated the lived experiences of four self-identified LGBT music educators. Data was collected in a series of open-ended, semi-structured interview protocols over a four-month period. Utilizing a phenomenological lens, Haywood constructed four narratives detailing the lived experience of four LGBT teachers. Primary themes that emerged from the across case analysis of the participants included: personal identification (i.e., I am transgender); coming out as an ever-present event; pedagogical implications; self-awareness as model for students; and student empowerment. Additionally, for each of the four participants the importance of visibility was primary in what they considered a responsibility in advocating a positive model for their students. Cavicchia (2011) interviewed three gay male choral professors teaching at the university level over a six-week period. Utilizing domain questions informed by Cass’s Model of Sexual Identity (Cass 1979), data was collected, transcribed, and coded using inductive coding procedures and processes. Each successive interview protocol was informed by directions discerned during the data analysis process. Peer debriefing occurred with music education faculty familiar with qualitative research procedures. Thick description of participants, contents, and interview responses were provided to ensure that the emic voice was most prominent. In the case study, Cavicchia examined the career paths of the music educators and the ways being gay may have influenced their professional identities. The primary theme that emerged from Cavicchia’s research included negotiating “the closet,” and the constant burden of worry concerning student and peer reaction to their sexual orientation. Each of the participants described being bullied throughout their lives due to their sexual orientation and effeminate qualities. Participants stated that their primary reason for coming out to peers and students was to serve as a role model for undergraduates who might be struggling with their own sexuality. Sweet and Paparo (2011) investigated the role of the academy, specifically teacher training programs, in providing meaningful preparation for addressing LGBT issues in the music classroom. By reviewing previous research in preservice education they sought to determine: a) what music teachers need to know about sexual identity and orientation; b) what are the implications of this knowledge; and c) how are these issues relevant to teaching. Primary themes that emerged from their investigation included the importance and difficulty of starting a conversation about LGBT topics, allowing for safe classrooms where critical questions and conversation can occur, and, finally, the importance of a personal identity statement for LGBT people. Abramo (2011) also addressed the role of a personal identity statement, but from the perspective of a gay male who chose to never come out during his tenure as a K–12 teacher. Using a poststructural framework (Foucault 1980; Weedon 1997), this study investigated how music teacher identity is constructed through practice and influenced by the discourses that surround instrumental music teachers’ work in classrooms (Britzman 2003; Zemblyas 2003). Data was collected through in-depth interviews, field notes from non-participant observations, and participant journal entries. Using narrative analysis to analyze these data, Abramo identified themes through participant stories of dilemmas and successes

Music Education and Diversity  545 in practice (Riessman 1993). In her case study she interviewed “Chris,” a veteran music educator who chose to hide his sexual identity from his colleagues and students. He described his life as a music educator as chameleon, as he changed his behaviors in ways that allowed him to fit into his surroundings. He described his mannerisms outside of the classroom as substantially different from those he showed while in the educative community. For Chris, the importance of “passing” was paramount in his life and to his educational identity. In other words, he placed tremendous merit on his ability to act in a way that others would not perceive as effeminate or as a marker for a gay person. Abramo suggests that the ability to pass as straight can be seen as a commodity for teachers who chose to hide their personal lives from students. In contrast, a teachers’ ability to “not pass” or be seen as effeminate or gay can be viewed as a liability that is potentially damaging when teaching in communities less tolerant of LGBT people.

28.3 Summation of LGBT Research in Music Education In sum, the majority of research in music education and LGBT topics thus far has focused on issues of equality and visibility. As researchers continue this trajectory of inquiry it is important for authors to look beyond equity and investigate Beasley’s more critical lenses of multiple differences, social constructivism, and postmodern sexuality studies. The examination of the lived experiences of LGBT music educators has revealed topics of coming out, serving as a LGBT ally for the educative community, the role of passing, among others. Future research is needed to compare and contrast ways in which music educators’ experiences differ from those teaching in other subject areas. While is may seem commonsensical or anecdotal to believe that music educators, or arts educators in general, are more aware of the needs of the LGBT community, few examples of empirical research exists specifically examining these connections. Lastly, researchers should attend to the complexities of multiple identities (e.g., LGBT and religion, LGBT and race, LGBT and social economic status) and how that relates the music education experience.

28.4  Gender and All of Its Forms Although each of the underrepresented communities in this chapter varies in numerous ways, they each share one confounding commonality: a definition. Within qualitative research gender is no exception. Gender has been examined in relation to androgyny, binary construction, cultural traditions, equity, empowerment, conformity to cultural traditions, femininity, masculinity, sexuality, dysphoria, to name a few. Similar to

546   bruce carter studies concerning the LGBT community, qualitative researchers must carefully position and articulate the way gender is being expressed in their work. Much of the work concerning gender thus far in music education research, especially in quantitative analyses, has centered on a binary consideration of gender as it relates to instrument choice or selection (Abeles 2009; Delzell and Leppla 1992). Lastly, researchers must grapple with the difficulties surrounding the labels of “sex” and “gender” as they are presented within research literature. While it is common practice in current sociological research to understand gender as socially constructed or performative and sex as biological, previous research often utilized the terms interchangeably. O’Neill (1997) and Sinsel and Dixon and Blades-Zeller (1997) discuss the evolution of gender vs. sex terminology within sociological studies in great detail and provide a great starting point for music education researchers. Numerous qualitative researchers have also investigated music educators’ role in forming gendered identities in music within educative environments. In a cornerstone of sociological music education research, Green (1997) examined gender roles through students’ musical participation, beliefs, and preferences in a public school setting. Over a six-month period, students and teachers were observed and interviewed at a suburban school outside of London. Green observed meaningful differences in the ways teachers and students described their musical experiences. For example, teachers portrayed girls as more musically expressive and eloquent than boys. Furthermore, teachers described the girls as better singers and more enjoyable to teach in the classroom. Similarly, the girls stated that they were more active in the classroom and demonstrated more sophisticated musical skills than the boys. However, with regard to music composition girls described their abilities and interests as inferior to the boys. Similarly, while the boys described their singing as substandard to girls, they bragged about their abilities as composers. Green asserts that for girls, taking risks and playing out of turn in the classroom during composition exercises was not considered fun or appropriate. Meanwhile, the boys described composition activities as exciting and rewarding. In summarizing the ways girls were defined as better performers and boys as composers, Green states, “girls and boys experience their own music as a reflection and legitimization of their own gender identities” (151). For Green, gender roles were evident in the classroom, passive musical activities were favored by girls, while more individual, risk-taking activities were preferred by the boys. Similarly, Abramo (2011) observed music practices of adolescent students examining the role of gender in their own music-making. Abramo collected data throughout the course of a year at a school where he served as music instructor. Data collection included observations of rehearsals and individual interviews, which were documented through field notes and audio recordings. In describing the theoretical framework of the study, Abramo rejects the identity of a male or female as fixed or static sexed identity. He positions gender as an identity that is fluid and changes depending on the social situation of the individual. This study is one of the few in music education research journals that embraced gender as performative and dynamic, looking beyond binary representations. He determined that girls and boys rehearsed and composed music in different

Music Education and Diversity  547 ways. Boys concurrently utilized musical gestures and nonverbal cues to create a seamless sonic soundscape, while girls separated talk and music production. In mixed gender groupings, tensions were noted due to participants’ different learning styles that were misunderstood by members of the opposite gender. Although I detail the need for research like Abramo’s that looks beyond a simplistic view of gender, in music education research the topic of gender and music instrument selection has been extensively investigated and merits review. As early as the 1970s, researchers were investigating why males or females preferred certain musical instruments. The negative influence of gender in music instrument selection has been further identified by quantitative researchers (Bruce and Kemp 1993; Delzell and Leppla 1992; Fortney, Boyle, and DeCarbo 1993; Tarnoski 1993). Research has also demonstrated that the negative of gender stereotyping has a greater impact on boys (Delzell and Leppla 1992; Sinsabaugh 2005). Quantitative researchers have detailed the ways in which individuals mark or describe instruments, leaving a meaningful space for qualitative researchers to question why gender associations exist. Conway (2000) looked at influences on instrument selection through a phenomenological study of the perceptions of high school band students. Students who broke traditional instrument stereotypes as well as those who conformed to those stereotypes were interviewed. When asked what factors influenced their decisions, students in both the traditional and non-traditional instrument groups noted influences similar to those identified in previous studies—instrument timbre being the most common, with size and other physical characteristics of the instrument. Students who conformed to instrument stereotypes frequently cited the influence of family—either through suggesting a particular instrument or serving as a deterrent against an instrument that the student suggested. Peer groups were another common reply, as students recalled discussing “cool” instruments with their friends or deciding to play the same instrument as their friends were playing. For students who chose nonstereotypical instruments, peer influence seemed to have had the opposite effect—students often discussed a desire to be different from the crowd, or for one female brass player, to differentiate herself from her feminine, flute-playing sister. These results indicate that, at least for students playing nongender-typical instruments, the selection process often included an awareness of gender stereotypes and a conscious desire to counter preexistent tropes. In a review of literature, Eros (2008) notes that while numerous academicians have examined the role of gender in instrument music selection, little information exists detailing what practitioners should do to counter negative stereotypes. More broadly, larger questions remain concerning connections between cultural expectations/traditions, adolescent behavior, and musical identity formation. Given the large body of quantitative research concerning gender and music instrument selection, it is surprising how few qualitative articles exists in peer-reviewed music education journals detailing this phenomena. In a recent literature review of the topic Wych (2012) cites 19 recent articles concerning gender and instrument association but only lists two as qualitative. Another large body of research in music education related to gender is found within the performance practice of choral music that is addressed specifically in c­ hapter 23

548   bruce carter of this Handbook. Specifically, a common topic relates to the issues surrounding boys’ participation in choir. Many articles concern the dissonance boys feel participating in choir when singing is often considered effeminate. Kennedy (2004) examined the way teaching choral music differs when student were placed in single-sex environments. He found that while teaching in single-sex environments was beneficial, it was not a panacea for the problems boys encounter. He states that the single most important part of teaching boys relates to the special needs of each individual student. Sweet (2010) explored middle school boys’ perceptions of singing and participation in choir. In her case study approach she found that the boys’ participation in choir was predicated largely on the esprit de corps felt among the choral members. Similarly, Freer (2010) found that male involvement in middle school choir is subject to fluctuation as a result of influential factors including desire to sing, allure of other activities, and scheduling conflicts. Demorest (2000) determined that the difficulties boys encounter during their vocal change is often so traumatic and embarrassing they discontinue singing within public spaces like the school choir. While articles concerning the experiences of boys in choir are numerous, no articles were found detailing the perspective of choir from a girl’s perspective. Although elliptic to the K–12 experience, there are numerous qualitative studies in music education utilizing a gender studies lens. For example, Denora (2000) examined the way gender is marked by adolescent girls by preferring mainstream and acoustic styles while boys chose subversive forms of musical expression like rock, punk, heavy metal, and emo. More broadly, Moisala and Diamond (2000) suggest that popular music practices are largely male-centered and dissuade women from pursuing or prospering in popular music professions. Furthermore, research has also examined the way gender influences the musical approach of instrumental study (Clawson 1993; Green 1997); and the way the physical body informs musical practice (Bayton 1997).

28.5  Feminists’ Studies “The webs of feminism in music education have been spinning since Roberta Lamb completed her dissertation at Teachers College, Columbia, in 1987, more than 20 years ago” (Lamb 2009). Since Lamb’s dissertation, which served as a beachhead for not only feminist scholarship, but also critical sociological writings as a whole, numerous academicians have meaningfully influenced the music education dialogue from feminist approaches. However, in the 10 years since the publication of the 2nd edition of the Handbook for Research in Music Education (2002), in which Lamb reviewed feminist writings and called for more study, few qualitative research articles have been published in North American peer reviewed journals. Moreover, the few academic feminist writings have largely addressed philosophical underpinnings. For example, in the text Nomadic Turns: Epistemology Experience, and Women University Band Directors (2005), Gould articulates a definition of feminism that invites music academicians to question

Music Education and Diversity  549 the climate of the profession, specifically instrumental music education. Drawing upon the metaphor of the nomad, Gould details the experience of women university band directors as similar to the exotic Western interpretation of a nomad that is isolated, feared, and misunderstood. Gould’s work examines the professional climate women band directors face, and meaningfully questions issues of power within the academe. Koza (2005) responded to Gould’s work, not to refute her philosophical findings, but to present a clarification to what she sees as current feminist understandings. She writes: Feminism is a constellation of dynamic political positions, which addresses an attempt to change the unequal power relation and material conditions that are produced and supported by a normative regulatory ideal called sex . . . I acknowledge the existence of a multiplicity of modern and post-modern feminisms, and by calling these positions dynamic, I acknowledge their fluidity (188).

Lamb (2009), Gould (2005), and Koza (2005) recently address the ways feminist approaches inform our understanding of the music experience. To date however, the lack of qualitative research drawing upon their attentive explanation of feminist inquiry is disheartening. When questioning why feminist lenses are largely silent one must question the field of music education. What underpinnings either in music education doctoral programs or parameters for journal acceptance provide barriers of entry for this line of inquiry? After articulating and diagnosing these “underpinnings” how can researchers interested in feminist studies politic in ways that move feminist studies into mainstream music education dialogues?

28.6 Summary While research that addresses gender is more prevalent than other areas of the social justice spectrum, much of the work relates to binary considerations of gender. The clarion call for research proposed by Lamb, Dolloff, and Howe (2002) calling for poststructural approaches to gender studies remains largely unanswered. For qualitative researchers the prospect to meaningfully investigate the musical experiences from an LGBT or gender lens remains largely unexplored and rich with opportunity. Although these research areas present complications due to their fluid and multifaceted nature, the music education landscape would be deeply enhanced by their addition. There is a tremendous need for qualitative articles in music education journals that meaningfully explore topics related to underserved communities. Due to the small size of the music education research community, few articles exist to help scaffold sociological work. Additionally, qualitative research, especially as it relates to areas of race, gender, class, and LGBT studies, are dynamic and constantly evolving and being redefined. Consequently, for music educators, current work exploring the underserved is best supported by researching sociological work from various arenas of the academy seeking intersections with up-to-date qualitative lenses.

550   bruce carter The inclusion of the word “intersectionalities” in the title was meaningful in setting the tone for this chapter and grappling with the difficult proposition of reviewing literature that exists within an ever-changing and dynamic world. Intersectionality is a methodology of studying “the relationships among multiple dimensions and modalities of social relationships and subject formations” (McCall 2005, 13). Emerging from Black feminism, the term intersectionality theory was codified by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 while investigating complexities surrounding the oppression of black women. Intersectionality theory asserts that oppression acting upon members of all marginalized groups does not occur in singular or uniform methods. Social inequalities experienced by these groups occur in complex systems of subjugation that require comprehensive and critical interrogation by social scientists. In this way, there is also a need for music education research to look beyond one-dimensional description of an underserved population. Life is too messy and complicated to simply state that being a member of one group denotes a single type of representation. Returning to the title of the chapter, I look forward to qualitative research that examines the constellation of life and musical experiences of people who identify themselves in multifaceted ways. For example, how does growing up as both lesbian and a minority impact the musical identity formation of a young person? Qualitative research continues to offer insightful ways to examine the musical experience of underrepresented groups in nuanced ways.

Note 1. The term originates in Lisa Duggan, The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy (Boston: Beacon Press, 2003).

References Abeles, Hal. 2009. “Are Music Instrument Gender Associations Changing?” Journal of Research in Music Education 57 (2): 127–139. Abramo, Natalie. 2011. “Sexuality and the Construction of Instrumental Music Teacher Identity.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 188: 41–44. Bayton, Michael. 1997. “Women and the Electric Guitar.” In Sexing the Groove, edited by S. Whiteley, 7–49. London: Routledge. Beasley, Chris. 2005. Gender and Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers. London: Sage Publications. Britzman, Deborah. P. 2003. Practice Makes Practice: A Critical Study of Learning to Teach. Albany: State University of New York Press. Bruce, Rosemary, and Anthony Kemp. 1993. “Sex-Stereotyping in Children’s Preferences in Music Instruments.” British Journal of Music Education, 10 (3): 213–17. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble:  Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.

Music Education and Diversity  551 Cass, Vivienne C. (1979). “Homosexual Identity Formation: A Theoretical Model.” Journal of Homosexuality 4 (3): 219–35. Cavicchia, John. 2011. “Queer Path and Career Path: A Phenomenological Study.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 188: 30–33. Clawson, Mary Ann. 1993. “‘Not Just a Girl Singer:’ Women and Voice in Rock Bands.” In Negotiating at the Margins: The Gendered Discourses of Power and Resistance, edited by S. Fischer and K. David, 235–54. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Conway, Colleen. 2000. “Gender and Music Instrument Choice:  A  Phenomenological Investigation.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 146: 1–17. Delzell, Judith, and David Leppla. 1992. “Gender Associations of Musical Instruments and Preferences of Fourth-Grade Students for Selected Musical Instruments.” Journal of Research in Music Education 4 (1): 68–74. DeNora, Tia. 2000. Music in Everyday Life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Denzin, Norman, and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2011. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Duling, Edward. 2011. “The Go-to-Guy.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 188: 15–17. Eros, John. 2008. “Instrument Selection and Gender Stereotypes.” Update:  Application of Research in Music Education. 27 (1): 57–64. Ferris, Joshua 2006. “The Nomenclature of the Community: An Activist’s Perspective.” In The Handbook of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Public Health: A Practitioner’s Guide to Service, edited by M.D. Shankle. New York: Harrington Park Press. Fortney, Patrick, David Boyle, and Nicholas DeCarbo. 1993. “A Study of Middle School Band Students’ Instrument Choices.” Journal of Research in Music Education, 41 (1): 28–39. Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books. Freer, Patrick. 2010. “Two Decades of Research on Possible Selves and the ‘Missing Males’ Problem in Choral Music.” International Journal of Music Education 30 (2): 17–30. Furman, Lisa. 2011. “The Lived Experience of a Lesbian Instrumental Music Educator.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 188: 13–15. Green, Lucy. 1997. Music, Gender, Education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Gould, Elizabeth. 2005. “Nomadic Turns: Epistemology Experience, and Women University Band Directors.” Philosophy of Music Education Review 13 (2): 147–64. Halperin, David. 1995. Saint=Foucault:  Towards a Gay Hagiography. New  York:  Oxford University Press. Haywood, Jennifer. 2011. “LGBT Self-Identity and Implications in the Emerging Music Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 188: 24–28. Hubbs, Nadine. 2011. “Visibility and Ambivalence: Thoughts on Queer Institutionalization.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 188: 9–13. Kennedy, Mary. 2004. “ ‘It’s a Metamorphosis’: Guiding The Voice Change at the American Boychoir School.” Journal of Research in Music Education 52 (3): 264–80. Koza, Julia. “In Response to Elizabeth Gould, Nomadic Turns: Epistemology Experience, and Women University Band Directors.” Philosophy of Music Education Review 13 (2): 164–73. Lamb, Roberta. 2009. “Music as Sociocultural Phenomenon:  Interactions with Music Education.” In Critical Issues in Music Education: Contemporary Theory and Practice, edited by H. Abeles and L. Custodero, 22–36. New York: Oxford University Press.

552   bruce carter Lamb, Roberta, Lori-Anne Dolloff,, and Sondra W. Howe. 2002. “Feminism, Feminist Research, and Gender Research in Music Education.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. J. Colwell and C. Richardson, 648–74. New York: Oxford University Press. McCall, Leslie. 2005. “The Complexity of Intersectionality.” Signs 30 (3): 1771–1800. Moisala, Pirkko, and Beverley Diamond. 2000. Music and Gender. Chicago:  University of Illinois Press. O’Neill, Susan. 1997. “The Social in Music Performance.” In The Social Psychology of Music, edited by D. J. Hargreaves and A. C. North, 193–201. New York: Oxford University Press. Riessman, Catherine. K. 1993. Narrative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sedgwick, Eve. 1990. Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sinsel, Tiffany, Wallace E. Dixon Jr., and Elizabeth Blades-Zeller. 1997. “Psychological Sex Type and Preferences for Musical Instruments in Fourth and Fifth Graders.” Journal of Research in Music Education 45 (3): 48–65. Sinsabaugh, Katherine. 2005. “Understanding Students Who Cross over Gender Stereotypes in Musical Instrument Selection.” PhD diss., Teachers College, Columbia University. Sweet, Bridget, and Stephen Paparo. 2011. “Starting the Conversation in Music Education Programs.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 188: 36–38. Tarnowski, Susan. 1993. “Gender Bias and Music Instrument Preference.” Update: Application of Research in Music Education 12 (1): 14–21. Turner, William. 2000. A Genealogy of Queer Theory. Philadelphia, PA:  Temple University Press. Weedon, Christine. 1997. Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. 4th ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Wych, Gina. 2012. “Gender and Instrument Associations, Stereotypes, and Stratification: A Literature Review.” Update: Application of Research in Music Education 30 (2): 31–54. Zemblyas, Michalinos. 2003. “Interrogating “Teacher Identity”:  Emotion, Resistance and Self-Formation.” Educational Theory 53 (1): 107–127.

Chapter 29

World M u si c s a nd Cultu ral Div e rsi t y i n t he Music Cl as sro om a nd the C omm u ni t y yiannis miralis

The music classroom has always been a place where thoughts and ideas from various local and far-away cultures have found their way in the schools. This is especially so since the second half of the twentieth century, during which one can observe a tremendous increase of interest and publications on music from various cultures and styles that divert from the “canon” of Euro-American music education. Most of these materials have been in the form of position papers in support of the inclusion of world musics in the curriculum, with those papers offering practical recommendations for its inclusion as well. Nevertheless, this area within music education has not been extensively studied by the music education research community. As various researchers indicated, the amount of research focusing on issues relating to world musics was limited (Campbell 1991; Chin 1996a; Edwards 1998; Jordan 1992; Miralis 2002; Okun 1994). Specifically, Chin (1996a) supported that “little is known about the actual state of multicultural music education in American schools” (5), whereas Okun (1994) concluded that “there is little research about multicultural music in music teacher education” (28). Furthermore, Jordan (1992) supported that “research has yet to answer the questions regarding the effects of cross-cultural exposure on musical perception, the developmental readiness of various ages for the study of world musics, the effectiveness of various approaches, and the question of bimusical and multimusical capacity” (744). This is even more so when one considers qualitative research in this area. As Edwards (1998) stated, “limited qualitative research regarding instruction in American Indian music or other multicultural music exists. No qualitative studies were found that addressed achievement resulting from instruction in multicultural music” (62). A few years later, though, a big shift was observed. According to Kantorski and Stegman (2006), the most researched topic (i.e.,

554   yiannis miralis 13 percent) in qualitative research dissertations in music education during the period of 1998–2002 was that of multiculturalism. This chapter explores qualitative studies from 1980 to 2011 that focus on the teaching of world musics and cultural diversity in the United States or Canada. It does not aim to include every qualitative study with such emphasis. Instead, the chapter concentrates on selected studies that follow a clear qualitative methodology with an educational focus or implications. In studies that follow a mixed design, attention is given only on the qualitative part. For a broader examination of the literature, the interested reader is referred to other related studies (i.e., Feay-Shaw 2000; Jordan 1992; Lundquist 2002). From the thirty-eight studies included in this chapter, twenty-three were doctoral dissertations, three were masters’ thesis, nine were journal articles, two were book chapters, and one was an unpublished paper. Studies are presented chronologically and alphabetically within the following six categories: studies conducted in (a) elementary school (Gr. 1–5); (b) middle school (Gr. 6–8); (c) high school (Gr. 9–12); (d) higher education; (e) an unclear or combined educational level (elementary to university); and (f) a community context. Most studies occurred in elementary school (n = 10) and in higher education (n = 9), followed by studies in the community (n = 6), in middle school (n = 5), and in an unclear or combined educational level (n = 5). Only three studies were found that focused on high school.

29.1 Studies in Elementary School (Gr. 1–5) Most of the studies in this chapter occurred in elementary school. Stellaccio (1995) conducted the first qualitative study in elementary general music in which she sought to examine the effect of mandates on elementary curricula, to explore teacher’s attitudes and beliefs about the teaching of music from a multicultural perspective, and to examine how music education can accommodate expectations for social action. Data for this ethnographic analysis of multicultural curriculum and pedagogy were collected through interviews with supervisors, teachers, and coincidental subjects, as well as through document analysis and teaching observations. Findings illustrated the existence of three distinct ideologies in general music education, those being the common elements approach, infusion, and dynamic multiculturalism. The dynamic multicultural curriculum was found to be one that included strategies for best addressing learning styles, values education, cross-curricular connections, and thinking skills. Nevertheless, music educators were found to be inadequately prepared to address the complexity of multicultural music teaching. The following year Klinger (1996a) investigated the attempts of a suburban school district in the Pacific Northwest to enrich and diversify its elementary curriculum with the addition of world musics. This ethnographic study examined the formed partnership

World Musics and Cultural Diversity  555 with a regional folk arts council that brought artists-in-residence to elementary schools through programs that focused on the music and culture of West Africa and Puget Sound Native Americans. The researcher looked at teacher perceptions regarding the role of music in multicultural education, the necessary musical skills and knowledge of the teacher, issues of musical and cultural authenticity, and the manifestation of cultural and historical contextualization in the classroom. Data were collected over an extended two-year span and included document collection; interviews with teachers, artists, administrators and leaders; and observations of classes, residencies, and workshops. Findings showed a shared value and respect for musical diversity and a preference for the inclusion of culture-bearers. Nevertheless, residencies were not found to be of a long-term value. In a journal publication from the same study, Klinger (1996b) provided an account of the practical struggles and problems experienced by “Angela,” one of the teachers involved, who prepared the whole fifth grade for an evening comprised of African music, dances, and folk tales. Data were gathered through open- and close-ended interviews with “Angela,” the fifth-grade teachers, and other teachers in the district, and from examination of music curricula and district documents. Findings pointed to the problematic nature of limited teacher knowledge and expertise, Eurocentric musical training, the limitations posed by musical notation, and the limited availability and inappropriateness of existing materials; findings documented “Angela’s” struggles to “do the best she can, given the limited resources and time” (35). Nevertheless, they also revealed the fundamental role that music can play in introducing children to other cultural groups. Edwards (1998) investigated the musical or nonmusical student achievement from four different instructional approaches in American Indian music in fourth grade. Each approach was assigned randomly to four intact general music classes, whereas an additional class received traditional music instruction. Data were collected through open-ended student-written paragraphs focusing on content knowledge and skill acquisition. Coded analysis revealed a wide range of intergroup differences, not only in content and skill but also in intercultural sensitivity. These differences “can be transformed into response patterns representing various levels or depths of multicultural sensitization and perception” (77). The author proposed a working instructional theory in regards to the multicultural achievement of fourth-grade students. Four years later, Meidinger (2002) sought to determine the attitudes and practices of six selected expert general music teachers from Oregon regarding the implementation of multicultural music. It further attempted to establish connections between teacher attitudes, experiences, and training. Data were collected through on-site observations, personal interviews and a survey of 354 fourth-graders and were analyzed using a constant comparison approach. Findings showed the important role that multicultural music played in the curriculum and the positive feelings of students for music of various cultures. It was further revealed that the greatest influence on student response toward multicultural music was the attitude and classroom practices of the teacher. Teachers were catalysts in dealing with the challenges encountered in multicultural music education.

556   yiannis miralis Abril (2006) examined the effect of multicultural music instruction on the learning outcomes of 170 white, middle-class students from four suburban public schools in a large Midwestern city. Two intact fifth-grade classes at each school were randomly assigned to two groups that followed a teaching approach focusing on music concepts or sociocultural context. Treatment during the six lessons included songs from various non-western cultures. Data were collected through two writing prompts which asked students questions about newly acquired knowledge, understanding, and skill. Analysis of data revealed that instructional approach significantly affected children’s descriptions of knowledge, suggesting that educators should engage students in discussions regarding sociocultural issues if they want to teach them about tolerance and acceptance. In her study, Chen-Hafteck (2007)1 investigated the effects of an interdisciplinary program based on a sociocultural approach with Chinese music and culture which was introduced to 250 fifth- and sixth-grade students from three public elementary schools. The study followed a multiple case methodology, and data were collected through teacher reports and questionnaires, field observations, discussion with teachers, and examples of students’ work. It was found that the success of this project balanced on (a)  its sociocultural approach, (b)  a student-centered and flexible curriculum, (c)  a performance-based method, (d) live demonstrations by native Chinese musicians, and (e) the positive attitude and the collaborative effort of the teachers involved. In a mixed methods study Lehmberg (2008) examined the perceptions of six effective, urban, elementary general music teachers in regard to preservice teacher preparation for, and effective teaching in, urban, elementary general music classrooms. Culturally responsive teaching and effective teaching were the two theoretical frameworks that guided the design of the study. The researcher followed a nested, collective case study research design in which participants with high levels of cross-cultural adaptability were identified from the survey sample of experienced, effective teachers. Data were gathered through individual, semi-structured phone interviews. Content analysis revealed 100 common emerging themes and four common meta-themes: (a) flexibility, (b) cultural knowledge and skills, (c) caring and responsive attitude, and (d) musical knowledge and music teaching skills. Through these findings the author generated a model for effective, urban, elementary general music teaching. Kelly-McHale (2011) examined the relationship between the musical identities of four second-generation Mexican American students and the beliefs and practices of their general music teacher at a Midwestern suburban elementary school. Following a collective case study design, Kelly-McHale explored the interaction between music instruction, cultural responsiveness, and musical identity. Data were collected through semistructured group interviews, observations, journal entries, and artifact collection. Findings support the development of non-typical musical experiences that legitimize and value the music role of students and their families, thus breaking down borders between the school and the community and the formal and informal ways of learning. They also point to the importance of culturally responsive curricula that take into consideration the identity, background, and life experiences of students, instead of a Eurocentric, notation-oriented, colorblind approach to music education.

World Musics and Cultural Diversity  557 The same year Stafford-Davis (2011) sought to understand the multicultural teaching experiences of music teachers in two public school districts in Arkansas, focusing specifically on issues of definition, methods, and motives and challenges for implementation of multicultural music education. Eight elementary schools were purposefully selected and data were gathered through document collection, semi-structured interviews, and classroom observations. Findings led to the production of a working definition for multicultural music education and revealed that most participants justified its inclusion on the grounds of the diversity found in their communities and classrooms. The study also showed that implementation was based on thematic units and holidays from around the globe and through the use of foreign language songs, ethnic instruments, and dances. Overall, studies in elementary school explored a wide variety of areas ranging from teacher attitudes toward and experiences with world musics (Stellacio 1995; Klinger 1996a; Meidinger 2002; Stafford-Davis 2011) to the interaction between music instruction, cultural responsiveness, and student’s musical identities (Kelly-McHale 2011). They also examined issues relating to the effectiveness of various teaching approaches (Edwards 1998) and of multicultural music instruction (Abril 2006), cultural contextualization (Klinger 1996a), the effects of an interdisciplinary program based on Chinese music and culture (Chen-Hafteck 2007), how music education can accommodate expectations for social action (Stellacio 1995), and music teacher preparation and effective teaching (Lehmberg 2008).

29.2 Studies in Middle-School (Gr. 6–8) Studies focusing on middle school are much more recent and fewer in number. The first qualitative study on world musics in middle school was by Withers-Ross (1999), who sought to examine “how the use of folk songs as text influence students’ perceptions and attitudes of other cultures as well as their own” (14). Participants included six-grade students from four social studies classes at a middle school in South Carolina. Through a nontraditional constructivist method focusing on multiple intelligence centers of interest and the use of an integrated curriculum, lyrics from folk songs from three different cultures (i.e., Native American, Caribbean, and African American) served as topics for discussions with the overall aim of promoting cultural awareness and respect. Data were gathered through observations, field notes, interviews, audio recordings, and informal discussions, as well as through student reflection pages and portfolios. The study illustrated that students became more aware of their self-worth, felt empowered, and exhibited self-growth and thoughtfulness about social conditions. It is unclear, however, whether these positive changes occurred due to the use of multicultural folk songs or the method of instruction. Ten years later, in a case study with extreme case sampling, Abril (2009) investigated how Nancy, a middle school instrumental music teacher, responded to culture through

558   yiannis miralis the curriculum. The study examined how several events and circumstances affected the curriculum and informed Nancy’s culturally responsive teaching. Data included extensive observations, informal dialogues with Nancy, formal interviews, journal reflections, field notes, and document analysis of lesson plans and other related material. The study revealed the crucial impact that a recent summer trip to Mexico had on Nancy and the importance of professional development through enrollment in a graduate music education program. These personal and professional experiences inspired her to come closer to Mexican culture and to pursuit change at her school by establishing a Mariachi ensemble. Through this ensemble Nancy followed a sociocultural approach to teaching music and developed a heightened cultural awareness and empathy toward her students. The study brought attention to the potential importance of an immersion experience in unfamiliar cultural communities for preservice teachers, questioned admission criteria in music teacher education programs, addressed issues regarding the nature of school-based ensembles in American music education, and illustrated that “educators have the potential to make music programmes more relevant to the lives of their students” (89). In a case study of an urban middle school Calloway (2009) sought to investigate issues of educational equity in regards to music and urban education. He specifically examined whether students were receiving an equitable, culturally and socially relevant music education. Data were collected primarily through interviews with the principal, counselor, music teachers, and two student focus groups, as well as through the document collection, field notes, and class observations. The study found that the school failed to provide an equitable music education for all students and that there was a lack of culturally relevant content and pedagogy. It also revealed the importance of having successful models of urban music education, as well as stability, consistency, expertise, and training in the music faculty. A year after his previous study, Abril (2010) examined “. . . how Nancy’s pedagogical and curricular decisions [were] imparted [to] a particularly thoughtful, political, and articulate student in her class, a fourteen-year-old girl named Juli” (6) and pointed to the tensions that occurred in the mariachi program. Data analysis from the three interviews with Juli revealed three major areas of tension that centered on problems regarding the selection of “inappropriate” repertoire and the superficial approach toward cultural content knowledge. The author suggested that music educators should (a) carefully choose their repertoire, (b) help students make connection between music, society, history, and politics and (c) encourage students to engage in meaningful discussions about the music. Finally, Ryan (2011) examined the effectiveness of world music pedagogy in a middle school general music classroom in developing students’ understanding of Andean musical practice. Specifically, this action research study compared the effectiveness of Western transmission techniques to a transmission process used by indigenous Andean altiplano musicians. Students in two sixth-grade general music classes engaged in learning Andean music through singing, performing, and composing Andean-styled music. Data were gathered through pre- and post-instruction questionnaires, student and

World Musics and Cultural Diversity  559 teacher journals, performance assessments, and group interviews. Results revealed that students in the Andean class were able to replicate Andean musical characteristics with a higher degree of authentically, to create music communally and voluntarily built on Andean music-making skills. Overall, this study showed that learning to make music through a world music pedagogy that focuses on listening, moving, singing, and playing instruments can be educationally beneficial. As Ryan indicated, “the experience, hybrid in the sense that it combines elements of cultural musicking and classroom musicking, is one that brings students as close as possible to authentic musicking while in the general music classroom” (216). Overall, the small number of qualitative world music studies in middle school explored students’ attitudes (Withers-Ross 1999; Abril 2010), teacher’s experiences (Abril 2009), pedagogical issues focusing on culturally relevant music education (Abril 2009; Calloway 2009) and the effectiveness of different teaching approaches (Ryan 2011).

29.3 Studies in High School (Gr. 9–12) Johnson (1997) conducted the first qualitative world music study in a Canadian high school. She explored the views of three music teachers selected through maximum variation sampling. The study followed an emergent research design, starting as three separate case studies and later synthesizing its findings in a single study. Data were gathered through focused and open interviews, participant observations and document collection and their analysis included case and cross-case analysis. Of importance in this study was the researcher’s role of observer-participant and her own struggles with the teaching of world musics. Results indicated that the most influential factors for the teaching of world musics were (a) exposure to diverse musical genres and styles, (b) experience of a broad-based music program in high-school, and (c) personal interest and contact with diverse musics. The study also revealed that three factors that negatively affect the teaching of world musics were (a) the limited available literature and research on the teaching of world musics, (b) the limited communication amongst practitioners about the issues encountered when teaching world musics, and (c) the limited preservice training for the teaching of world musics. In one of the few qualitative studies focusing on school instrumental ensembles that perform “multicultural music,” Oare (2008) examined and analyzed the operation of the Chelsea House Orchestra (CHO), an afterschool Celtic string ensemble in Michigan. This case study aimed “to describe how a high school orchestra program balances the need for a more diverse repertoire of music with the limitations and requirements inherent to traditional instrumental music programs” (64). Data were gathered through interviews with the ensemble director, a focus group interview with four members, and rehearsal observations. Data analysis revealed four emerging themes: (a) social music-making with an emphasis on democratic learning processes, creativity, and enjoyment; (b)  a balance between classical and folk music education,

560   yiannis miralis exhibiting an emphasis on classical Western European tradition with a sincere respect for other musics; (c) evolving authenticity and the need to make creative compromises; and (d) creolization of musical transmission, in which aspects of both traditional school pedagogy and traditional folk methods are incorporated and fused. The study further addressed the need for identification and description of a specific model of a successful multicultural ensemble. In a study that sought to understand the high school music experience, Countryman (2010) examined music at a Canadian high school. Using a narrative inquiry and following Charmaz’s “interpretive, constructivist grounded theory” approach, she sought to document and understand the views and experiences of 32 former high school music students and 7 experienced music educators. Even though her study does not focus on the use of world musics it is, nevertheless, included in this chapter since one of the fundamental questions it addressed was “whose music do we teach.” Data were gathered through interviews, focus group discussions, and follow-up conversations and were analyzed based on the theoretical frameworks of figured world and communities of practice. Overall, the study found that there were enormous challenges in assessing quality and professional growth experiences in music teaching in high school. Countryman provided recommendations for high school music practice and emphasized the importance of teacher professional development through the formation of “real communities of practice among small groups of self-initiated music educators” (279). She concluded that what was needed in order to transform practice was empowered and affirmed music educators. The three qualitative world music studies in high school explored teachers’ views and experiences (Johnson 1997), the operation of world music ensembles (Oare 2008), and the lived musical experience of students and teachers (Countryman 2010). It is interesting to note that two of the three studies were conducted in Canadian high schools, which might indicate that the focus of American high school music education is predominantly placed on various types of large performing ensembles (i.e., bands, orchestras and choirs) and not on world musics or on issues of diversity and multiculturalism. Nevertheless, despite the small number of studies conducted, these three studies have shed significant light on high school music education and will pave the way for more in-depth studies in the future.

29.4 Studies in Higher Education Montague (1988) conducted the first qualitative world music study in higher education. She examined preservice teacher training in multicultural music education in selected colleges in the United States and the effect of state legislation and policies on university curricula. Data were collected through a questionnaire and through 23 interviews with music education and ethnomusicology faculty members. Visits to music classes provided additional data. The study led to a representative sample of multicultural music courses and pointed to the crucial importance of undergraduate music training.

World Musics and Cultural Diversity  561 Twelve years later Barry (1996) examined the level of comfort for diversity of 45 predominantly white preservice teachers and the effects of special training and field experience on their comfort level with multicultural situations. Subjects were enrolled at a southeastern university and received the same special training in multicultural music education. They were also placed for six weeks in two general music classes (K–6), one predominantly black and the other predominantly white. The study followed a mixed design methodology, with data collected through journals, instructor’s observations, and a two-part questionnaire. Results indicated that subjects were not able to adequately apply what they had learned during field experiences and felt anxiety and uncertainty about multicultural issues in education. Chin’s (1996) dissertation focused on the status of multicultural music training in higher education. She followed a two-phase design, with the qualitative part being a case study of two exemplary music programs, one at a private small liberal arts college and the other at a large public research university. Data were collected through semistructured interviews with students, faculty, and administration members, as well as class observations, interaction with students, and document collection. Okun’s (1998) bi-part study investigated how undergraduate music teacher education programs responded to the demands of cultural diversity and multicultural education. Data for the first part of the study were collected through phone interviews with four selected leaders in multicultural music education, focusing on the identification of their philosophies, goals, and implementation strategies. The second part of the study was a case study of the exemplary music education program at the University of Washington. Data included university document collection, on-campus observational fieldwork, and interviews with six music professors. The study attempted to synthesize data regarding “an ideal” and “a real” program concerning multicultural music teacher education. Findings led to the construction of seven long-term assessment guidelines for music teacher education programs: The same year Zaretti (1998) conducted a case study on the experiences of student-participants of the International Vocal Ensemble (IVE), a vocal ensemble at Indiana University that focuses on the re-creation of music from outside the Western art tradition. Zaretti indicated that she wanted to “examine the ways in which multicultural music education is being ‘lived’ in an American university . . . through an understanding of instructional methods and student responses” (8–9). Data were collected through fieldwork as participant-observer, interviews with IVE participants, formal and informal interviews with the ensemble’s director and with guest conductors, observations of videotaped rehearsals, and research on relevant data. The study provides insights into the function of one of many possible models of world music ensembles in higher education and explores “experience-based educational paradigms.” Emmanuel’s (2002) doctoral dissertation focused on the beliefs and attitudes of five female preservice music educators engaged in a short-term immersion field experience in a public elementary school in Detroit. This type of immersion experience in a culturally diverse setting was framed around the theory of intercultural competence and was part of a broader university course at Michigan State University. The study

562   yiannis miralis followed a phenomenological research paradigm and used an instrumental descriptive case study methodology. Data were collected through course assignments and classroom discussions, field notes, teaching observations, focused and informal group discussions, individual interviews, and daily journals kept by the five participants and the participant-observer. Results indicated that “. . . immersion experiences combined with coursework with opportunities for guided reflection under the supervision of an informed instructor would likely have dramatic effects on the attitudes and beliefs of pre-service music teachers” (283). An article out of the dissertation appeared in the International Journal of Music Education (Emmanuel 2005). The purpose of Miralis’s (2002) bi-part dissertation was to examine the availability of multicultural courses at the Big Ten universities and explore the perceptions of music faculty regarding multicultural–world music education and undergraduate music teacher education. A descriptive content analysis of available courses appeared in an Update article (Miralis 2003). Data for the second part of the study were collected through 33 semi-structured interviews with purposefully selected music education and ethnomusicology professors. Analysis of data revealed nine themes in regard to the problematic implementation of multicultural–world music education and provided 15 suggestions for improvement. The study concluded with recommendations for overall change in music education and aimed to contribute to the construction of a grounded theory on music teacher education regarding the teaching of world musics. In a study that examined the content and process of implementing an internationalized course on general music education, Addo (2009) focused on the experiences of 23 undergraduate music education students at a large Midwestern university. Students were enrolled in an innovative course that encouraged the integration of international perspectives and study abroad experiences and included modeled lessons, field observations, teaching experiences, and collaborative assignments. Data were collected through student reflective papers, observations, and small group instructional delivery. Findings focused on enablers and constraints of internationalizing on preservice teacher education. Content analysis revealed four major challenges in internationalizing and pointed to the importance of access, equity, and quality, as well as the acknowledgement of the experiences, cultures, and communities of the students. The study further brought attention to issues of civic responsibility, the broadening of interdisciplinary and institutional relationships, the integration of music and cultural skills, and the expansion of music education toward global relevance. In one of the few studies focusing on popular music, Powell (2011) examined the perspectives and experiences of participants in three popular music ensembles from two higher education institutions in the Northeastern United States. Following a multiple case study design, data for this ethnographic study were collected through formal and semi-structured interviews with the two ensemble directors and with music administrators and student members; informal conversations with alumni members; classroom observations; document collection; and audio and video recordings of rehearsals, activities, and performances. Data analysis revealed six challenges regarding the implementation of popular music ensembles in higher education and provided suggestions

World Musics and Cultural Diversity  563 regarding music education. The study proposed a model for the incorporation of popular music ensembles into music education. Generally speaking, studies in high school were numerous and diverse, with most of them focusing on preservice teacher training in multicultural music education (Addo 2009; Chin 1996; Emannuel 2002; Miralis 2002; Montague 1988; Okun 1998). Others examined the views and experiences of preservice teachers (Addo 2009; Barry 1996; Emannuel 2002) and of music faculty (Chin 1996; Miralis 2002; Okun 1998). Some were case studies of exemplary music programs (Chin 1996; Okun 1998), whereas others focused on world music ensembles (Powell 2011; Zaretti 1998) and the teaching of popular music (Powell 2011). A couple of studies concentrated on the value of an immersion field experience (Emmanuel 2002) and of an internationalization and study abroad program (Addo 2009).

29.5 Studies in an Unclear or Combined Educational level (Elementary to University) Five of the studies included in this chapter did not fall under any of the above categories or focused on a combined educational level and are, therefore, presented in a separate category. Gilchrist (1980) was the author of the oldest study included in this chapter. The overall purpose of his mixed method study was to assess the preparation of vocal teachers from North Carolina’s public schools in performance practices of black gospel music. In addition to survey data collected from 60 vocal music teachers, the researcher interviewed 10 of them with regard to the performance practices used in three audiotaped excerpts of gospel arrangements. Analysis of data revealed that most of the teachers were not adequately prepared to teach black gospel music, were not aware of distinctions between traditional and contemporary forms of black gospel music, and did not perceive this music genre to be as significant as others. Norman (1994) sought to investigate the perceptions of selected participants regarding multicultural music education. Participants included music faculty and doctoral students from three American universities, as well as music supervisors and music teachers from suburban and urban school districts. They were equally associated with vocal and instrumental music and exhibited diversity in regards to their racial background and teaching experience. Data were collected primarily through serial interviews, focused group interviews, and participant observation. Findings from the study provided an extensive range of 15 issues, with a fundamental issue being that of a “. . . critical lack of a philosophy to support multicultural music education, and especially a philosophy that emphasizes equal opportunity in the classroom, school, community, and society at large” (434). Norman concluded that there is a need for a change

564   yiannis miralis in focus away from musical products to pedagogical and musical processes. A summative article from the dissertation appeared in the Council for Research in Music Education (Norman, 1999). In her study, Young (1996) examined the attitudes, philosophies, and approaches toward multicultural education of elementary and middle school music teachers in suburban and urban schools in Ohio. Data were gathered through teacher surveys, interviews, classroom observations, and document collection. Findings indicated an overall agreement in regard to the value and importance of multicultural education. Teachers considered music to be a major expression of cultural identity and felt that the diversity of the world’s music should be included in the curriculum regardless of the minority background of the students in the classroom. Nevertheless, the study also revealed an absence of a shared definition and understanding of multicultural education, a lack of teacher training, and ineffective implementation. In a case study of the Kamehameha Schools (K–12) in Hawaii, Szego (1999) investigated the history and practice of this unique intercultural educational setting in which native Hawaiians were educated in Hawaiian and Western musical styles. Through an existentialist phenomenological approach, the study explored issues of power between colonial education and native Hawaiian musical traditions. Data were gathered during extensive fieldwork and through document collection and formal and informal interviews with students, teachers, parents, and alumni. Analysis of the students’ diverse experiences with a broad range of musics and through “various kinds of practice, e.g., the singing, chanting, moving, dancing, perceiving and interpreting” (261), led to the development of the concept of “travel” and illustrated the complexity of sound perception, especially in regard to text-based music. According to Szego, “it may be wise to set our sights on charting an ‘aesthetics of incomprehensibility’ or at least an aesthetics of partial linguistic comprehensibility” (265). Hess (2009) interviewed nine fourth- to eighth-grade students of diverse backgrounds from a public school in Toronto with regard to their experiences from participating in the school’s Sankofa Drum and Dance Ensemble. The ensemble, initiated and taught by the researcher, focused on the study and performance of music and dances from the Ewe tradition in Ghana. Results revealed the students’ preference for learning music aurally and a valuing for both the visual and aural aspects of aural transmission. Results also illuminated the students’ feelings of enjoyment for the social aspect of the aural learning process, pointed to the importance of learning music “authentically” and brought attention to the need for expansion and enrichment of the music repertoire used in public school music education. Overall, the foci of these five studies were previously addressed in other studies described above. These ranged from examination of music teacher preparation for world musics (Gilchrist 1980), exploration of the views and experiences of administrators and teachers (Norman 1994; Young 1996), and specific examples of intercultural education and issues of power in music and culture (Szego 1999). One of the studies focused on student perceptions with regard to participation in world music ensembles (Hess 2009).

World Musics and Cultural Diversity  565

29.6 Studies in a Community Context Studies under this category occurred in the community, in a setting outside the confines of a school. The first such study was an ethnography by Gaines (1989), who investigated the educational role of Patakin/Carambu, an ensemble of eight professional musicians and dancers in New York City. The group presented lecture-demonstrations focusing on Afro-Cuban and Afro-Puerto Rican music and dances, providing cross-cultural education for a bilingual community. The study examined the role, function, and relevancy of music in the community. Data were gathered through participant observations, informal interviews, field notes, and analysis of recorded performance events. Results pointed at the critical role of music in cross-cultural education and illuminated music’s significant contribution toward the development of ethnic and cultural identity. Fourteen years later, Powell (2003) studied the social and cultural organization of learning within the context of San Jose Taiko, a nonprofit professional ensemble dedicated to the practice of Japanese American drumming. The group balances between its Japanese musical and cultural tradition and its desire for innovation and is involved in the cultural preservation and promotion of Japanese aesthetics and empowerment of community members. The study followed a sociocultural theoretical framework and also drew from theories of artistic and aesthetic knowledge and phenomenological theories of place. Data from this ethnographic study included participant observation over an extensive four-year period, interviews with many of its members and the artistic and managing director, document collection, descriptive field notes, and transcription and analysis of videotaped sessions. Findings were organized into six thematics regarding the quality of learning experiences and further included six broad implications for education. In an ethnographic study of Latino music culture in Toledo, Ohio, O’Hagin and Harnish (2006) sought to better understand Latino communities and educate public and school institutions about this distinct musical culture. Data were gathered through observations and interviews in the form of a free-flowing dialogue with community leaders and musicians from 12 different Latino bands, focusing on the histories, influences, perceptions, and effects of music-making in their lives. Findings focused on the nature and function of Latino music ensembles, the musical styles they perform, and their role as direct connections with the value of music for identity formation. The authors proposed that community migrant musicians be incorporated in the design of culturally sensitive, socially responsible curricula for school music education. They further supported that music educators and their students should acknowledge and understand the meaning of music in the lives of their students and community members and advocated for the value of field music experiences of university students. The study could serve as a model for fieldwork in preservice teacher education programs. Bradley (2008) investigated how world music (global song), antiracism pedagogy, and multicultural choral music education can contribute to the development of a grounded theory of multicultural human subjectivity. Data for this ethnographic study

566   yiannis miralis were collected through individual and focus group interviews with members of a community youth choir in the racially and ethnically diverse Canadian city of Mississauga, as well as through analysis of videotaped performances and a reflexive journal kept by the researcher. Results pointed to the need “. . . to move away from music education practices that ignore context in their overemphasis on musical technique, to pedagogies that situate music within the local habitus, and in doing so conscientize (Freire 1970) the power relationships that reiterate oppressions and reproduce biases” (132). It was further supported that the teacher’s role today is to explicate issues of power, engage ethically with music, promote antiracial pedagogies, and foster students’ self-understanding. In another ethnographic study of a Mariachi nonprofit, community-based arts association in Houston, Dodd (2001) examined the value of the experience of playing one’s own ethnic music and its impact on personal life and academic success. This case study of a specific successful model of multicultural education followed a participant observation methodology in which the researcher participated in rehearsals and concerts and held informal interviews with parents and semi-structured interviews with students and staff members. Analysis of data revealed that participation in the ensemble contributed significantly to the life of students in the areas of music, ethnic identity, and education; helped develop and enrich confidence, self-esteem, and interpersonal cooperation; enhanced students’ ethnic heritage and sense of belonging in a community; promoted cooperative learning and creativity; advanced musical skills’ strengthened the linkage between public schools and community centers; and positively affected their academic achievement. Finally, in a recent ethnographic study Montague (2011) sought to identify and document commonalities among pedagogical approaches, values, and beliefs of three master Ghanaian musicians and teachers who have extensive teaching experience in a wide range of classes, workshops, residencies, and ensembles in the United States. Participants were purposefully selected and data were gathered through participant observations of rehearsals and performances, semi-structured interviews, and collection of a wide range of documents. Results were presented in a descriptive narrative and focused on the identification of similar pedagogical approaches and the emergence of seven major themes. The study illuminated that the three master Ghanaian teachers successfully combined teaching and learning techniques from Ghana and the United States, leading to the development of innovative pedagogical approaches that take into consideration their own background and training as well as the background of their American students. Most of the studies in this category examined the development of ethnic and cultural identity through the richness of musical experiences available within the community (Dodd 2001; Gaines 1989; O’Hagin and Harnish 2006; Powell 2003). Some focused on the experiences within and the role of specific ethnic ensembles performing Afro-Cuban (Gaines 1989), Mariachi (Dodd 2001), Japanese-American (Powell 2003), and multicultural choral music (Bradley 2008), whereas others investigated the role of music within a local Latino culture (O’Hagin and Harnish 2006). One study explored the specific experiences and pedagogies of non-American expert music teachers (Montague 2011) and

World Musics and Cultural Diversity  567 others dealt with broader issues such as cross-cultural and bilingual education (Gaines 1989) and antiracial pedagogy (Bradley 2008).

29.7 Conclusion As this chapter has illustrated, qualitative research has been significantly used for investigating complex and multifaceted issues regarding cultural diversity and the use of world musics in the school and the community. Most of the studies were identified as case studies and ethnographies of selected students, teachers, music programs, and ensembles. A significant number of the studies followed a mixed method design. Almost two-thirds of the studies were dissertations and only a quarter of them were journal articles. One interesting observation is the publication gap under each type of source. Specifically, even though the first articles were written at the end of the 1990s, it was not until a decade later that other articles were published, with most of them published during the three-year period of 2006 to 2009. Such a gap is also observed in the publication of master’s theses and dissertations, with nine dissertations written during the seven-year period of 1996–2002 and another five during 2011. As indicated in the beginning of this chapter, this trend in dissertations was first observed by Kantorski and Stegman (2006). This might indicate that researchers are lately more inclined to take advantage of the benefits offered through qualitative research, as exemplified through ethnographic, phenomenological, action research, and case studies, for better understanding complex issues pertaining to music, culture, education, and pedagogy. Overall, the 38 studies included in this chapter focused on the rich and diverse views and experiences of teachers, students, and administrators with regard to cultural diversity and the teaching of world musics; examined exemplary teaching approaches, ensembles, and programs; explored innovative approaches in music teacher education; and brought attention to issues of cultural identity, culturally responsive teaching, and antiracial pedagogy. Even though it is difficult to categorize each study under a single thematic umbrella, most of the studies (n = 8 or 21 percent) investigated teacher attitudes toward and experiences with world musics, as well as preservice teacher training in multicultural music education (n = 7 or 18 percent). Researchers and music educators should continue to further investigate the important issues described above. At the same time, they should also turn their attention to other areas that have not been adequately examined and have to do with the teaching of world musics and cultural diversity. Such areas are, but are not limited to, the views and experiences of students and parents; the necessary skills, knowledge, and competences for future music educators; the breadth and depth of preservice and inservice music training; the value of non-typical and informal music experiences; the obstacles faced by practicing teachers; the quality and experiences provided by world music ensembles in the schools and the community; and broader issues such as the role and function of music, admission, and graduation criteria for music

568   yiannis miralis educators and the issue of teaching for democracy and social change. The profession would also benefit from longitudinal and historical research on the teaching of world musics and from action research conducted by practicing teachers in their individual classrooms. Qualitative research has a lot to offer toward a better understanding of the complexities of teaching, performing, and experiencing a wide range of world musics in the school and the community.

Note 1. Even though the study is focusing on Grades 5–6, it is nevertheless included in this category because the three schools were identified as elementary schools.

References Abril, C. R. 2006. “Learning Outcomes of Two Approaches to Multicultural Music Education.” International Journal of Music Education, 24 (1): 30-42. Abril, C. R. 2009. “Responding to Culture in the Instrumental Music Program: A Teacher’s Journey.” Music Education Research, 11 (1): 77-91. Abril, C. R. 2010. “Opening Spaces in the Instrumental Music Classroom.” In Alternative Approaches in Music Education: Case Studies from the Field, edited by A. C. Clemens, 3–14. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Addo, A. O. 2009. Towards Internationalizing General Music Teacher Education in a U.S. Context. Journal of Research in International Education, 8 (3): 305–25. Barry, N. H. 1996. “The Effects of Special Training and Field Experiences upon Preservice Teachers’ Level of Comfort with Multicultural Music Teaching Situations.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397035). Bradley, D. 2008. “Teaching in an Unforgiving Present for the Unknowable Future: Multicultural Human Subjectivity, Antiracism Pedagogy and Music Education.” In Diverse Methodologies in the Study of Music And Learning, edited by L. Thompson and M. R. Campbell, 111–35. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Calloway, J. 2009. “In Search of Music Equity in an Urban Middle School.” PhD diss., University of San Francisco. Chen-Hafteck, L. 2007. “Contextual Analyses of Children’s Responses to an Integrated Chinese Music and Culture Experience.” Music Education Research, 9 (3): 337–53. Chin, L. 1996. “Multicultural Music in Higher Education.” PhD diss., University of Oregon. Countryman, J. 2010. “Missing Voices in Music Education: Music Students and Music Teachers Explore the Nature of High School Music Experience.” PhD diss., University of Toronto. Dodd, J. C. 2001. “Playing Mariachi Music: Its Influence in Students’ Lives. An Ethnographic Study of Mariachi MECA.” MM thesis, University of Houston. Edwards, K. L. 1998. “Multicultural Music Instruction in the Elementary School: What Can Be Achieved?” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 138: 62–82. Emmanuel, D. T. 2002. “A Music Education Immersion Internship: Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs Concerning Teaching Music in a Culturally Diverse Setting.” PhD diss., Michigan State University.

World Musics and Cultural Diversity  569 Gaines, J. H. 1989. “Music as Socio-Cultural Behavior:  Implications for Cross-Cultural Education—A Case Study.” PhD diss., Columbia University. Gilchrist, C. H. 1980. “An Assessment of the Preparation of North Carolina Public School Music Teachers In Performance Practices of Black Gospel Music: Implications for Curriculum Revisions in Higher Education.” PhD diss., University of North Carolina. Hess, J. 2009. “The Aural Tradition in the Sankofa Drum and Dance Ensemble:  Student Perceptions.” Music Education Research, 11 (1): 57–75. Johnson, S. 1997. “High-School Music Teachers’ Meanings of Teaching World Music.” MM thesis, Queen’s University. Kelly-McHale, J. L. 2011. “The Relationship between Children’s Musical Identities and Music Teacher Beliefs and Practices in an Elementary General Music Classroom.” PhD diss., Northwestern University. Klinger, R. 1996a. “Matters of Compromise:  An Ethnographic Study of Culture-Bearers in Elementary Music Education.” PhD diss., University of Washington. Klinger, R. 1996b. “From Glockenspiel to Mbira: An Ethnography of Multicultural Practice in Music Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 129: 29–36. Lehmberg, L. J. 2008. “Perceptions of Effective Teaching and Pre-Service Preparation for Urban Elementary General Music Classrooms: A Study of Teachers of Different Cultural Backgrounds in Various Cultural Settings.” PhD diss., University of South Florida. Meidinger, V. F. 2002. Multicultural Music: Attitudes and Practices of Expert General Music Teachers in Oregon. PhD diss., University of Oregon. Miralis, Y. 2002. “Multicultural–World Music Education and Music Teacher Education at the Big Ten Schools: Identified Problems and Suggestions.” PhD diss., Michigan State University. Montague, M. J. 1988. “An Investigation of Teacher Training in Multicultural Music Education in Selected Universities and Colleges.” PhD diss., University of Michigan. Montague, D. M. 2011. “Traditional Ghanaian Music Pedagogy and Philosophy: An Overview of Teaching and Learning Techniques of Three Ghanaian Master Musicians Teaching in the United States.” PhD diss., Boston University. Norman, K. N. 1994. “Multicultural Music Education: Perceptions of Current and Prospective Music Education Faculty, Music Supervisors, and Music Teachers.” PhD diss., University of Michigan. Oare, S. 2008. “The Chelsea House Orchestra: A Case Study of a Non-Traditional School Instrumental Ensemble.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 177: 63–78. O’ Hagin, I. B., and D. Harnish. 2006. “Music as a Cultural Identity: A Case Study of Latino Musicians Negotiating Tradition and Innovation in Northwest Ohio.” International Journal of Music Education, 24 (1): 56–70. Okun, M. J. 1998. “Multicultural Perspectives in Undergraduate Music Teacher Education Programs.” PhD diss., University of New Mexico. Powell, K. A. 2003. “Learning Together: Practice, Pleasure and Identity in a Taiko Drumming World.” PhD diss., Stanford University. Powell, R. J. 2011. “Popular Music Ensembles in Post-Secondary Contexts: A Case-Study of Two College Music Ensembles.” PhD diss., Boston University. Ryan, C. B. 2011. “World Music Pedagogy in the United States Middle School: A Comparison of Western and Indigenous Teaching of Andean Music.” PhD diss., Boston University. Stafford-Davis, C. 2011. “Multicultural Education in The Music Classroom: Definitions, Methods, and Motives.” PhD diss., University of Arkansas.

570   yiannis miralis Stellaccio, C. K. 1995. “Theory to practice:  An Ethnographic Analysis of Multicultural Curriculum and Pedagogy in Elementary General Music.” PhD diss., University of Maryland. Szego, C. S. 1999. “Musical Meaning-Making in an Intercultural Environment: The Case of Kamehameha Schools.” PhD diss., University of Washington. Withers-Ross, H. K. 1999. “Multicultural Folksongs in Presenting Cultures in a Sixth-Grade Social Studies Classroom.” PhD diss., University of South Carolina. Young, S. M. 1996. “Music Teachers’ Attitudes, Classroom Environments and Music Activities in Multicultural Music Education.” PhD diss., Ohio State University. Zaretti, J. L. 1998. “Multicultural Music Education: An Ethnography of Process in Teaching and Learning.” MM thesis, Indiana University.

Bibliography Campbell, P. S. 1991. “What’s Wrong with This Picture? Cries for Research in Multicultural Music Education.” Paper presented at the American Orff-Schulwerk Association, San Diego, California. Campbell, P. S. 2003. “Ethnomusicology and Music Education: Crossroads for Knowing, Music, Education, and Culture.” Research Studies In Music Education 21: 16–30. Clemens, A. C., ed. 2010. “Alternative Approaches In Music Education: Case Studies from the Field.” Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Feay-Shaw, S. 2000. “Multicultural Perspectives on Research in Music Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 145: 15–26. Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press. Jordan, J. 1992. “Multicultural Music Education in a Pluralistic Society.” In the Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell. New York: Schirmer. Kantorski, V. J., and S. F. Stegman. 2006. “A Content Analysis of Qualitative Research Dissertations in Music Education, 1998–2002.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 168: 63–73. Lundquist, B. R. 2002. “Music, Culture, Curriculum and Instruction.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. Richardson, 626–47. New York: Oxford University Press. Norman, K. 1999. “Music Faculty Perceptions of Multicultural Music Education.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 139: 37–49.

PA RT  V

ETHICS , P U B LISHIN G , AND THE F UTU R E OF QUALITATIVE R ESEA RCH IN MUSIC EDUCATION

Chapter 30

Et hics and Qua l i tat i v e Research i n Mu si c Edu cati on judith m. birk and cynthia s. shindledecker

30.1 Introduction The conduct of qualitative human participant research represents a complex intersection of terminology, techniques, and settings. Bresler and Stake (1992) provided a dizzying list of terminology: case study, field study, ethnographic, naturalistic, phenomenological, interpretive, and descriptive. Mills (2003) added action research to the list to describe the technique of systematic inquiries into self-practice in educational settings. Contributing to the mix are research environments varying from large cityscapes where an observational researcher is unlikely to be noticed, to intimate classroom settings where the researcher may also be the teacher. Music educators conducting human participant research are familiar with these concepts and the challenges they may present. Music students and their teachers frequently gather in traditional classrooms or small group settings such as community ensembles. While these settings offer a convenient atmosphere to conduct research, the small environment may make it difficult for the researcher to maintain an anonymous presence or for the students or teachers in the classroom to feel that they retain autonomy relative to participation in research. This sense of autonomy may be further diminished when the teacher is the researcher and his or her own students are the object of the research investigation (Pritchard 2002). Research conducted in the context of music education settings provides an interesting opportunity to consider ethical and regulatory oversight of human research participants within the boundaries of qualitative research design. The breadth of this topic is extensive. This piece provides a perspective on qualitative human participant research under the purview of United States federal regulations. It offers a guide to researchers to more

574    judith m. birk and cynthia s. shindledecker easily navigate the Institutional Review Board (IRB) review process when approval is necessary for their research activities. Vignettes focusing on music education are provided to showcase research models and the corresponding IRB response. Suggestions are also offered to assist IRBs with maximizing regulatory flexibility to ease the regulatory burden on researchers while continuing to provide all necessary and appropriate protections for human participants.

30.2 Institutional Review Boards Most individuals conducting academic research are familiar with the origins of current human participant research regulations. Atrocities committed during the prior century under the guise of biomedical research, especially those committed during World War II, led to the eventual development of regulations for oversight of human participant research in many countries of the world. In the United States, the startling discovery of the unethical research protocols of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study conducted with African American men between 1930 and 1972 led to the creation of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The work of this Commission, published in 1979 as the Belmont Report, formed the basis for US federal regulations for human participant research and the framework for IRBs. The report provided three core principles for the ethical conduct of human participant research:

1) Respect for persons—individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection; 2) Beneficence—do not harm; maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms; 3) Justice—injustice occurs when some benefit to which a person is entitled is denied without good reason or when some burden is imposed unduly. IRBs are primarily associated with institutions conducting human participant research funded or supported by US federal agencies. Institutions are required to file a Federalwide Assurance (FWA) indicating their intent to comply with federal regulations (45 CFR 46 subpart A) for all federally supported research. In addition, each institution is required to choose a statement of ethical principles upon which it will discharge its responsibilities for protecting the rights and welfare of human participants in research conducted at or by the institution regardless of the source of support. Most US institutions select the Belmont Report. 45 CFR 46 is made up of five subparts, four of which are devoted to human participant protections. Subpart A, also known as the Common Rule, provides the basic framework for the IRB’s composition, criteria for the approval of research, informed consent requirements, and record-keeping obligations. Subparts B, C, and D provide

Ethics  575 additional protections for pregnant women, fetuses, and neonates; prisoners; and children. Many academic institutions have established IRBs, as they are major recipients of federal support for human participant research. Larger academic institutions may provide resources to constitute both biomedical and social/behavioral science IRBs in order to provide the specialized expertise necessary to review these distinct categories of research. Depending on the nature and risk level of the research, IRBs are able to conduct their work utilizing several review pathways. Reviews of research posing more than minimal risk to the participants must be reviewed by the full, convened IRB; research meeting regulatory qualifications for expedited review is reviewed by a single, experienced member of the IRB; and research qualifying as exempt may be reviewed by a member of the IRB or other qualified individual. Not all activities utilizing human participants are considered to be research regulated by an IRB. When IRB oversight is not required, professional codes of ethics or codes of conduct frequently provide an additional framework for protecting the rights of human participants in research. While the professional codes of conduct may provide less specificity than federal regulations, they outline the same ethical tenets to members of the profession. For example, the American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2010 Amendments) and the Code of Ethics of the American Educational Research Association (approved February 2011) both provide discipline-specific requirements for conducting research with human participants.

30.3  Qualitative Research and Regulatory Ethical Review Designing, conducting, and then overseeing qualitative research within the same regulatory framework as biomedical research poses challenges for researchers and IRBs. While all IRBs apply the same federal Common Rule requirements to research under their purview, a particular IRB’s experience with reviewing qualitative research may affect regulatory outcomes for individual researchers. For example, the same definition of research applies to biomedical and qualitative research: Research means a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. (45 CFR 46.102(d))

Some, but not all, qualitative researchers point out that their work is often not systematic and may not be generalizable. Regulations are frequently interpreted and

576    judith m. birk and cynthia s. shindledecker implemented via guidance documents. These documents are helpful to IRBs in providing clarification or additional direction on proceeding under the regulations. However, where the guidance is not prescriptive, varying interpretations may lead to inconsistent practice within an IRB or between IRBs at different institutions. This was likely the situation encountered by one researcher when she attempted to initiate a minimal risk music education survey at 26 academic institutions and was thwarted by varying IRB requirements (Thornton 2008). Qualitative research may be especially susceptible to inconsistent review outcomes from IRBs. Open-ended or observational research designs do not have solid parameters upon which IRBs are able to make consistent determinations. For example, a researcher wishing to study the effect of music lessons in a home-schooling environment may need to convince the IRB that such an environment is considered to be a “. . . commonly accepted educational setting involving normal educational practices . . .” under federal exemption #1. In the absence of specific guidance as to what constitutes a “commonly accepted educational setting” IRBs will arrive at different outcomes (45 CFR 46.101(b)(1)). Not all qualitative research is without risks to participants. The American Anthropological Association Statement on Ethnography and Institutional Review Boards (2004, 2), states that “Ethnographic research may involve significant risks of harm—for example, discrimination, disruption of personal and family relationships, loss of rights, or claims, civil or criminal prosecution—usually as the result of disclosure of private, identifiable information such as data gathered in interviews filmed on video, or recorded on tape or field notes.” Common Rule exemptions allow research to be free from IRB oversight if it involves the use of educational tests, surveys, interviews, or observation of public behavior but not if subjects can be identified directly or indirectly and “. . . any disclosure of the subjects’ responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects’ financial standing, employability, or reputation” (45 CFR 46.101(b) (2)). Risks to participants in biomedical research are usually evident. The research is stringently regulated to address the potentially significant, quantifiable risks associated with exposing participants to new or existing drugs, devices, therapies, or medical procedures. Standard protocols across one or more study sites assure consistent, reproducible data collection. Researchers can use lab values and other tools to monitor for significant changes in important body functions as an outcome of the research. By contrast, qualitative research frequently proceeds without the exacting requirements required in biomedical research. The research design may be open-ended to allow for unconstrained exploration of the research topic and reproducibility may be limited by circumstance. Risks to participants are not easy to quantify. It may be difficult for a researcher to assess whether a participant who cries only a “little” during the interview is able to proceed without some lingering effects. If a video recording labeled with the name and school affiliation of a student teacher in a music classroom is stolen, does it mean that the teacher or students would not be at risk since it was “only” a music education classroom? What about the potential for misuse of the tape?

Ethics  577 IRBs and researchers regularly struggle to reach consensus on risk to participants. IRBs are seen as over-managing risk to avoid institutional liability (Tierney and Corwin 2007; Gunsalas et al. 2007). However, IRBs are aware of the risks as they receive reports of research mishaps and must manage situations, including risks to participants when sensitive research data are lost or stolen. Even ethnographers acknowledge that publication of the work carries a very real possibility of exposing a participant and could result in a loss of confidentiality (Librett and Perrone 2010). Additionally, researchers, especially those new to the field, do not always plan appropriately for participant reactions. While qualitative research differs significantly in its data collection methodologies from the empirical data collection of quantitative research, it still requires careful consideration of the rights and welfare of the individuals under study as the risks are harder to quantify.

30.4 Designing Research Projects for Educational Settings An understandable tension exists between the researcher preparing an application for review and the IRB. Like a taxpayer completing their annual tax form, researchers hope to find one or more loopholes to avoid the extra work associated with IRB interactions. However, careful attention to research design and clear explanations provided to the IRB can improve the process for researchers and offer better protections for participants. Transparency at this juncture is important for IRBs to make exemption and other regulatory determinations. When an activity meets the definition of research and involves human participants, the activity is considered to be regulated by an IRB unless the activity qualifies for a regulatory exemption. Frequently, research in the area of music education in the classroom qualifies for such an exemption. Whether the research qualifies for exemption or not, educational settings require special consideration of the study population, research location, data, and involvement of the teachers as researchers or as participants themselves.

30.4.1 Students as a Vulnerable Population Students studied in a classroom setting, as the object of research, may be considered a vulnerable population. Researchers must assure that students are able to make fully informed, un-coerced decisions about their participation. Even observational research in the classroom may be perceived by students as limiting their autonomy to behave normally. When research is considered exempt from federal regulations, researchers continue to have an ethical obligation to obtain appropriate permissions from the students, and possibly their parents, if the students are minors.

578    judith m. birk and cynthia s. shindledecker Qualitative researchers should be careful to set boundaries between the research aspect of the relationship and the academic component. Where relationships might prove too confusing (as in teachers studying their own classroom practices), the researcher might consider assigning some of the research tasks to a third party to avoid any impression of limiting a student’s autonomy or biasing grades or academic outcomes. In cases where interactions with the students may involve sensitive data collection about illegal behaviors or child abuse inflicted upon the student, the researcher should work closely with an IRB to design appropriate protections for the data and to understand any reporting obligations necessary to protect the child. There may be additional issues related to obtaining parental permission in these circumstances and the IRB may ask the researcher to seek additional assurances to protect identifiable data such as a Certificate of Confidentiality.

30.4.2 Site Permissions Education researchers wishing to work within school or classroom settings should plan to obtain explicit permission from school officials before engaging in the activity. Many school sites have their own operating procedures or are subject to local laws and may not be able or willing to cooperate with the researcher. So important are these permissions that many IRBs require documentation of site approval before completing their review. As school districts place more emphasis on curriculum requirements and the safety of their students, researchers may face additional challenges in attempting to access students or teachers to engage them in research activities.

30.4.3 Data and Its Management Data in education research are collected and maintained in a variety of formats. Surveys, interviews, focus groups, field notes, and audio/video recording are common collection methods. Data may be maintained in hard copy, on local computer systems, or in a remote “cloud” storage facility. Some data are retained for future research use by the original researcher or intended for sharing with others in an archive or library format. If the research is not exempt, IRBs are required under the Common Rule to consider whether there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of the participants and to maintain the confidentiality of the data. Researchers conducting exempt research are usually governed by professional codes of ethics that provide discipline-specific requirements. All research studies should include a data management plan that describes how the researcher will protect, store, and use the data. Participants should be told of these plans during the informed consent process. Risks to participants are increased when research involves sensitive data collection. Care should be taken to protect participant confidentiality by de-identification of data when possible. Some data, especially video recordings or

Ethics  579 extensive field notes, may be difficult to de-identify due to their voluminous and qualitative nature. If the data are sensitive or may pose risks to participants, extra precautions should be taken. Data should be converted to storage mediums that allow for additional protections. For example, field notes and video recordings might be digitized and password protected. Data collected without participant identifiers, whenever possible, offers the best method of protecting the privacy of the participant and confidentiality of the data. Occasionally a participant may decide to withdraw from research already underway and request that his or her data be destroyed. Researchers should contemplate such events in their study design and informed consent materials should provide information to participants about their options regarding return or destruction of their data. For example, data already de-identified and aggregated cannot be returned to the participant. However, identifiable interview or audio/visual materials may be able to be removed from the dataset and destroyed or returned to the participant.

30.4.4 Teachers as Researchers Teachers wishing to study instructional methods and practice have readily available participants from among the students in their own classroom. When a teacher studies his or her own practice, the intent may not be to produce “generalizable knowledge” but rather to inform and improve his or her own teaching. If so, this activity is not considered to be human participant research according to the Common Rule definition of regulated research. When the activities of a teacher meet the regulatory definition of research, regardless of whether the research qualifies as exempt, careful consideration must be given to the students who are now also participants. If teachers conduct research in their own classrooms, they must seek to avoid bias in order to protect the non-research relationship with their students. For example, when both the researcher and the participant (who in this case are the teacher and the student) believe the research is being conducted for the good of the student participant, rather than the benefit of the research or researcher, participants may be misled. Pritchard (2002, 6) calls this the “educational misconception.” So significant is the risk to students for coercion, that some IRBs will not approve this research or will require additional protections before approval. Teacher-researchers might unintentionally single out one or more students in a manner that could draw unwarranted attention to them and constitute an invasion of their privacy. Teacher-researchers may subconsciously let knowledge of a student’s participation in their research (or not) affect their grading of the student. Therefore, research should be designed to protect the identity of participating students from being disclosed to the teacher-researcher. Instead, it may be more appropriate for a third party to handle collection of completed survey instruments or to conduct interviews with students in order to shield the teacher from the direct knowledge of a student’s participation. If participation in research is offered as extra credit, teacher-researchers must offer alternative, equivalent opportunities for individuals to receive extra credit if they decline to participate in the research.

580    judith m. birk and cynthia s. shindledecker All research, whether qualitative or quantitative, requires researchers to prioritize the interests of the participant ahead of their own. Music education research in its qualitative form is no exception. Even benign data, when mishandled, can raise issues of privacy and confidentiality for participants.

30.4.5 Teachers as Participants A teacher may occasionally be the object of a research study. In the same way that students in a classroom might have their performance outcomes assessed by education researchers, teachers may be evaluated for the effectiveness of their teaching style or their delivery of a new curriculum. As with students being studied in the classroom, teachers should be provided with appropriate opportunities to provide informed consent and receive assurances of how their data will used and stored and how their confidentiality will be protected. Even when the research intervention is directed toward the teacher, students may indirectly enter the data collection, as is the case when teachers are video-recorded as part of the research. Researchers should examine school policies to determine how to manage these situations. In the case of video-recording, some schools require that students without permission to be photographed be moved out of camera range.

30.5 Activities outside the Scope of IRB Oversight Not all activities connected with music education research are under the oversight of an IRB. IRBs regulate only those activities that are non-exempt and meet the definition of research conducted with human participants as defined by the Common Rule. To determine which activities qualify as research regulated by an IRB, IRBs systematically evaluate the basis for the activities and the nature of the interaction with human participants. Vignettes are useful as a method of illustrating IRB decision-making and may help music educators assess whether their efforts require IRB review and approval, are considered exempt from regulatory oversight, or do not represent research with human participants as defined by the regulations. The following vignettes describe common situations and discrete components of IRB decision-making to illustrate when activities do not meet the test for IRB oversight. Vignette  1:  Research on Organizational Systems (research not involving human participants) For his master’s thesis, a music education student is interested in assessing the current level of state support for music education in the Midwest and its effect on individual districts. The researcher will collect data by reviewing public records of

Ethics  581 state agencies, including budget information and transcripts of public meetings. In addition, he will conduct a telephone survey of school district administrators to seek information regarding current funding levels and the ability of the district to support music education. Since the student will be conducting surveys and using transcripts that identify participants from public meetings, his faculty advisor recommended that he submit an application to the IRB. IRB Considerations An IRB’s first decision point for a project is to determine whether it is an activity that meets the regulatory definition of research with human participants requiring IRB oversight. The Common Rule defines research as:  systematic investigation, including research development, testing and A evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge (45 CFR 46.102(d)). The proposed study meets the regulatory definition of research as it is a systematic data collection and the student intends to use the data for his thesis. Next, the IRB considers whether human participants are involved in the research. The Common Rule defines a human participant as:  living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or A student) conducting research obtains:  (1)  Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or (2) Identifiable private information (45 CFR 46.102(f)). Before determining whether the research includes human participants, the IRB must consider additional elements of the research design to characterize the source and nature of the data. 1. Defining “About whom” Conducting a telephone survey involves an interaction with a person. The key question is whether the survey collects information about that individual. If the survey questions directed at the institutional spokesperson are limited to collecting facts about district budgets and curriculum offerings, the activity does not involve a human participant. The information collected is about the organization, not the individual responding. However, if the survey elicits identifiable private information, such as personal opinions, the district official would be a human participant. District administrators did not provide identifiable, private information about themselves in this vignette. 2. Identifiable private information The student will review transcripts of public meetings. The student is not conducting an intervention or interaction with these individuals nor is the information collected considered private as the meetings were public and the transcripts are publically available. Thus, the individuals involved in the public meeting are not considered human participants. IRB Determination After considering the student’s IRB application, the IRB determined that while the activity was research, it did not involve human participants. Therefore, it did not require IRB oversight. 

582    judith m. birk and cynthia s. shindledecker Vignette  2:  Student Teacher in a Classroom (regulatory definition of research not met) A middle school student with a disability is enrolled in choir for the academic year. A graduate student working with the choir tries various methods to engage the student with the music and with her fellow singers. At the end of a successful year, the graduate student presents her experiences in working with this student as part of a class assignment for her master’s program. Her advisor suggests that she present her work to other music educators at a national meeting. The graduate student contacts the IRB to see if her project requires IRB review. IRB Considerations As with the first vignette, the IRB must assess whether this activity meets the definition of research with human participants. The graduate student did not start the academic year intending to systematically engage in planned interactions, interventions, and data collection with the middle school student. Only after hearing the graduate student’s presentation at the end of the year did her advisor realize that the experience offered value and should be shared with other educators. In this situation, the project does not meet the regulatory definition of research—a systematic investigation designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge. This situation is similar to that of a physician who reports on an interesting or unusual clinical case. Reporting of one or two interesting cases where research was not originally contemplated does not require IRB review and approval. Consistent with her own professional ethics, the graduate student should be careful to protect the confidentiality of the student or else obtain assent from the student and permission from the student’s parents to share the student’s identity. IRB Determination IRB review and approval of this activity is not necessary, as the activity does not meet the definition of research. However, going forward, if the student decided to design and implement specific educational interventions and methodology using this experience as a basis, and her intent is scholarly publication, IRB consultation and/or review should be sought before beginning the project, as the project may constitute research with human participants.

30.6 Exempt Research The Common Rule identifies six categories of human participant research that are considered to be exempt from the requirements of the regulations and from IRB oversight (45 CFR 46.101(b)). It is important to note that activities considered exempt from the federal regulations are still considered research with human participants. While federal regulations are silent on who may make a determination of exemption, the federal Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP), recommends that the researcher not make the self-determination due to an inherent conflict of interest. Most academic institutions vest within the IRB the authority to determine whether an activity meets the criteria for exemption, but may designate other institutional components, such as research administration offices or the researcher’s academic unit, with responsibility to issue exemptions.

Ethics  583 Receiving an exempt determination does not negate the need for the researcher to conduct the research in an ethical manner. The same ethical principles requiring minimizing risks to participants, maximizing research benefits, and protecting participant privacy and confidentiality must be met by the researcher. Additionally, if any modification to the study design exceeds the exemption category, then review by an IRB is required to determine if the activity now requires regulatory oversight by an IRB. The following vignettes describe common applications of exemption criteria to music education research. Vignette 3: Academic Collaborations in Classroom Research (exempt research #1) A faculty member from the music department of a university collaborates with a local fifth-grade teacher to add an African drumming module to her music classes. The faculty member plans to instruct the teacher on how to administer brief assessments to students before and after the module to evaluate the module’s impact. They also plan to videotape the classroom during the drumming activities for further evaluation at a later date. The module, as designed, meets required elements of the music curriculum for the school district. Results will be reported to the district as part of an effort to innovate music education. Additionally, the faculty member plans to publish the methodology and findings in a peer-reviewed journal. The faculty member consults with the IRB to determine if review necessary. IRB Considerations Because this project is taking place in a school setting, the IRB considers whether the project meets the criteria for exempt category #1: Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as (i)  research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods (45 CFR 46.101(b)(1)). The introduction of an African drumming module is consistent with normal educational practices already in place in the district. Use of the innovative module and assessment of its impact do not pose risks to students. The IRB recommends that the faculty member submit an application for exemption. According to institutional policy, the IRB is responsible for issuing exempt determinations. IRB Determination The IRB issues an exempt #1 determination for the project. The activity is considered research and involves human participants, but is exempt from IRB oversight, including any consent procedures for students and parents. The IRB reminds the researchers of their ethical obligation to notify parents about the research project according to school district guidelines and to design a process by which parents might opt out of having their child’s data used for research purposes. Vignette  4:  Qualitative Interviews with Adults in a Community Choir (exempt research #2) As part of her dissertation research, a university graduate student is interested in studying the interactions among the members of a local symphonic choir as well as

584    judith m. birk and cynthia s. shindledecker exploring their motivations for participation. The student plans to conduct one-onone interviews with choir members who agree to participate. The student will publish the results of her research and share it with the choir. The student’s advisor recommends that she discuss her project with the IRB office to determine the correct type of review for her project. IRB Considerations First, the IRB office inquires as to whether the community choir involves any high school or college students who might be under age 18. The student notes that group does not typically include student members and thinks it unlikely that any potential interview participants will be minors. Second, the IRB office asks whether the interview questions will elicit responses that might be embarrassing or pose a reputational risk to participants. The student does not believe that her questions are sensitive. Based upon these responses, the IRB office assesses that the project may qualify as exempt under category #2: Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless: (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects’ responses outside the research that could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects’ financial standing, employability, or reputation (45 CFR 46.101(b)(2)). The IRB office recommends that the student submit an application for exemption. Per institutional policy at the student’s university, only the IRB has the authority to make exemption determinations.The IRB reviews the proposed interview questions to determine if they meet the exemption criteria. The IRB notes that some questions about relationships among members might pose a reputational risk to individuals and suggests that the student eliminate data elements that could potentially identify a participant. Alternatively, the IRB suggests that the student could retain identifying elements, but revise the questions to eliminate the potential sensitivity. The student decides to collect the data without identifying information. IRB Determination The IRB issues an exempt #2 determination for the project. Because use of the exemption for interviews is limited to interactions with adults, the IRB cautions the student to include a screening question to ensure she does not interview anyone under 18. The IRB reminds the student that it is ethically appropriate to include an informed consent process for her participants even though the IRB does not review or approve consent materials for exempt projects. The project is considered to be research with human participants, but is exempt from IRB oversight after this initial determination.

30.7  Research Regulated by an IRB When activities are non-exempt and meet the definitions for research conducted with human participants, the research is regulated by an IRB. The nature of IRB review varies

Ethics  585 depending on the risk level of the study and whether the research involves any vulnerable populations as defined under the regulations. No more than minimal risk research that meets one of nine federal expedited review categories may undergo review by a single, qualified member of the IRB. Research that does not meet one of these categories and all research posing more than minimal risk to participants must be reviewed by the full, convened IRB. The following vignettes describe two types of IRB review. Vignette #5: Academic Research in the Classroom (expedited review) A university researcher wishes to study the persistence of students from a minority population participating in the concert band program at a suburban high school. The researcher is not affiliated with the school and asks the band director to help recruit the students. The band director as well as other teachers and students from the target population will be interviewed. The interviews will elicit private (though not necessarily sensitive) information about the individuals. The researcher will also observe band practice and videotape only the minority students during practice. Written informed consent will be obtained from the teachers. Parents of the minority students will provide written permission and the researcher will obtain assent from the participating students. Recognizing the activity involves research with human participants, the investigator submits an application for IRB review. IRB Considerations IRB review identified several issues with the researcher’s study design as described in the application. Changes were required to assure the protection of research participants. 1. Voluntary Participation Human research regulations offer special protections for children who are considered to be vulnerable to undue influence (45 CFR 46 Subpart D). Since the research is designed to use the band director to recruit minority students in the band, the IRB expressed concern that the students (and their parents) might feel compelled to participate. To avoid the possibility of this undue influence, the IRB indicated the band director may only forward information about the research to the families and provide the contact information for the researcher. Given that the band director will ultimately know whether any given student decides to participate, the students’ participation is not confidential. However, minimizing the band director’s involvement in the recruitment process limits his influence on the decision-making of the students and retains their autonomy. 2. Privacy and Confidentiality The researcher indicated that only a very small percentage of the school’s concert band are members of the minority study population. Interviews with the students will occur after school to ensure their privacy. However, the videotaping of the students during practice will focus only on the minority students. The IRB pointed out that it would be obvious to everyone in the class that these students were being singled out for some purpose. The IRB required that the researcher either revise the informed consent information to more fully disclose the taping process, devise a procedure that did not single out individual students, or utilize field notes to capture the observations of interest, rather than videotaping. 3. I nformed Consent The IRB noted that the consent materials were generally well-prepared but the researcher should prepare translations of relevant materials if English

586    judith m. birk and cynthia s. shindledecker comprehension for students or parents might be limited. In addition, since the band director and other teachers were to be asked questions about individual minority students, the IRB noted this process should be completely disclosed to the students and parents and they should be told that the students’ participation would not be completely confidential. 4. Assessment of Risk The IRB noted that the questions pertaining to the minority students would not elicit sensitive information and did not pose a risk to the students. Given the small sample size, this was particularly important in that knowledgeable individuals might be able to identify some of the students in published results. IRB Determination After revision of the study to respond to the IRB’s concerns, the research posed no more than minimal risk to the participants and met the criteria for expedited review by a single member of the IRB. Vignette #6  – Classroom Research Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Components (full IRB review) A doctoral music education student is interested in studying the impact of high school music teachers on at-risk students facing serious personal challenges such as substance abuse and homelessness. The research is a two-year study focusing on one teacher, in one classroom, at a small school for at-risk students. The school provided documentation of its support for the project. The doctoral student is not affiliated with the school. The research includes classroom observation, interviews with the teacher, focus groups, and a survey with the students. The survey will ask sensitive questions about the students’ use of drugs and alcohol and their participation in illegal behaviors. The researcher plans to obtain informed consent from the teacher, as well as signed parental permission and student assent. The doctoral student submits an IRB application and requests exemption #1 based upon the fact that she is conducting the research in a high school, an established educational setting. IRB Considerations IRB review determined that the proposed research did not meet the criteria for exemption #1 as it did not focus on curriculum-based activities considered to be normal, educational practices under the Common Rule, but rather on the relationships between the teacher and individual students. Since the study design requires identity-linked data collection points from individual students and the students are likely to reveal participation in activities that are considered illegal, the IRB determined that the research poses more than minimal risk to the students. Consequently, the IRB undertook a full regulatory review of the proposed research at a convened board meeting. The IRB identified a number of issues associated with the project that required reconciliation before granting approval. 1. Confidentiality Issues Surveys of the students include questions about specific illegal behaviors to be tracked over the study period. The data are individually identifiable and identities are maintained during the data collection period. Unauthorized access to the data

Ethics  587 through loss or intentional sharing could pose a risk to the students. Additionally, the sensitive nature of topics to be explored in open-ended interviews with the teacher and in student focus groups raised concern for the IRB that information might be revealed about the students or others. Unauthorized use of this information could prove damaging. 2. Informed consent issues The researcher proposes to use written consent materials and obtain signatures on parental permissions and student assents. The IRB acknowledged that there may be a challenge in obtaining signed parental permissions for students in this population, but given the sensitive nature of the questions, the IRB determined the research did not qualify for a waiver of signed parental permission. The IRB noted some students may be considered legally emancipated or qualify as adults under state law. No parental permission is required for these individuals and students may provide their own consent, rather than assent. IRB Determination Given that the federal regulatory framework for review and approval of research with children requires the IRB to make specific determinations of risk as weighed against direct or indirect benefit, the IRB determined that the researcher must devise strategies to minimize the risks to the student participants to ensure that the research poses no more than minimal risk to them. As this project involves both qualitative and quantitative research methods, the IRB offered suggestions to minimize the risk of breach of confidentiality in the focus groups by having students refrain from naming individuals in the discussion and suggested that the researcher use coded identifiers rather than participants’ names when collecting sensitive survey information.

30.8 Working with an IRB Brydon-Miller and Greenwood (2006, 122)  describe what happens when researchers and IRBs do not work well together. “. . . simply knowing the hurdles we will face in attempting to gain IRB approval may dissuade many researchers of all kinds from even attempting to address the truly important issues facing us, settling instead for studies that skirt the issues or in some other way ‘play it safe’ as a strategy for streamlining the approval process and completing their research in a timely manner.” While each IRB office functions under the same federal regulatory authority, each IRB has a distinct personality. Those housed within academic institutions are subject to institutional oversight and any additional parameters set by the institution. Operational budgets may also be limited by levels of institutional funding. Non-academic IRBs able to operate on a fee-for-service basis have more freedom to determine their staffing levels and workflows. The smoothest and, ideally, most efficient outcomes of an IRB review are usually the result of transparency in communication between the IRB and the researcher. IRBs are responsible for conducting reviews and regulatory assessments for numerous research

588    judith m. birk and cynthia s. shindledecker disciplines. Within each discipline, the application of scientific methodologies to human participants may present unique circumstances for reviewers. Researchers who complete their IRB applications with only the details they think the IRB needs to know are likely to provide only a partial or inaccurate description of the research. Researchers who take the time to clearly and completely describe their research are usually rewarded with fewer questions and requests for clarification from the IRB. These suggestions are equally important for qualitative or quantitative researchers. Bresler and Stake (1992, 84), describe the researcher in music education research as the “principal instrument” in determining whether the observations are providing sufficient data. Observations may be audio- or video-recorded, but these are only the storage media, as the data lie within the interpretation of the observations. When data are interpreted as insufficient, researchers desire the flexibility to return to the location of the participants to engage again in the same manner or perhaps to employ a new tactic. Qualitative researchers and IRBs should seek an open dialogue to develop the broadest parameters for the IRB-approved protocol. IRBs typically require specific details regarding when and how interactions with participants will occur. When a researcher takes care to fully outline the research protocol and its relevant factors, the IRB can review and approve a study design to offer greater flexibility for the researcher in the field and a reduced regulatory burden for both the researcher and the IRB. For example, rather than stating that the research interview will be completed in a single session, the researcher should indicate it might take up to three sessions to accomplish the desired data collection. This simple, broad statement eliminates the need for the investigator to seek an additional IRB review to add the extra interviews. Simple strategies such as contacting the IRB office to seek a consult can improve the application process. Researchers should also make an effort to attend or complete any training offered by an IRB, as this offers an excellent opportunity to ask questions about expectations and workflows. IRBs also have responsibilities to researchers. Gunsalas et  al. (2007) describe the tendencies of IRBs to over-regulate research that is not biomedical as “mission creep.” The authors note that IRBs are misdirecting their energies in an effort to avoid lawsuits instead of focusing on difficult ethical issues. They describe limited use of exemptions and the incorrect application of IRB regulations to activities that are not research with human participants. While not every IRB functions in this manner, these concerns have some validity. IRBs can address these issues with careful attention to workflow and the correct application of regulations to the research design. Thoughtful IRBs provide guidance to improve confidentiality protections and thereby reduce risk for the participants. IRBs can serve as a repository of best practices and offer recommendations to researchers based on their experience with well-designed and well-executed research. IRBs can partner with researchers to consider the most appropriate response in challenging research situations. For example, Dubois (2002) described IRB consideration of informed consent in educational settings. The best IRBs make an effort to listen to researchers and learn from their experiences and challenges.

Ethics  589 Even well-designed research protocols rarely proceed according to the written plan and IRB-approved protocol. Researchers should expect the unexpected and develop responses to common interruptions to their research. IRBs should work with investigators to develop a breadth and depth to the IRB-approved research design in order to allow the investigator the necessary flexibility to make modifications to the research design without compromising participant safety.

30.9 Conclusion Music education researchers face the classic qualitative science regulatory conundrum: how to develop a study protocol that meets ethical and regulatory obligations to participants as required by the IRB, while maintaining the flexibility to adapt the research to natural settings and circumstances. IRBs should be seen as partners with researchers in the development and conduct of human participant research. Many IRBs have broad and substantive experiences with a variety of qualitative research designs. A thoughtful dialogue between the IRB and the researcher can usually solve many of the review challenges associated with qualitative research designs. To address the unique qualities of qualitative research design, IRBs and the institutions that house them should make every effort to review these studies with an eye toward maximizing flexibility within the approved research protocol. Music education research generally does not pose a direct risk to participants in the same manner as biomedical research or other quantitative research designs. Federal research regulations make specific allowances to exempt certain types of research from ongoing regulatory oversight, including research conducted within classrooms for educational purposes. When IRBs correctly apply these exemptions, researchers are able to fluidly adjust their research designs to accommodate the natural educational settings, without IRB review and approval for each change to the research design. When research is subject to ongoing IRB oversight, the IRB and researchers should work together to assure that the study is designed with sufficient flexibility. The conduct of human participant research is based on a fluid trust model between the participant, the researcher, and the IRB. Each entity trusts the other to do the right thing—assure that the research is conducted in an ethical and compliant manner and safeguards the rights and welfare of the participants. Participants in qualitative research often receive little or no direct benefit or compensation for contributing their time and their data. Paramount for the participant is their expectation that research is well-conducted and may produce some future benefit. Whether a researcher’s activities are exempted from the regulations or subject to federal regulatory oversight, they remain ethically obligated to protect their participants. When directly interacting with students in academic settings, it is imperative that qualitative researchers remain cognizant of their role, eliminate bias and coercion, and conduct their activities in an ethical manner to respect the rights and autonomy of their participants.

590    judith m. birk and cynthia s. shindledecker

References American Anthropological Association. 2004. Statement on Ethnography and Institutional Review Boards. http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/irb.htm. American Educational Research Association. 2011. AERA Code of Ethics. Educational Researcher 40: 145–56. American Psychological Association. 2010. Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx. Bresler, L., and R. Stake. 1992. “Qualitative Research Methodology in Music Education.” In Handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the Music Educators National Conference, edited by R. Cowell, 75–90. New York: Schirmer Books. Brydon-Miller, M., and D. Greenwood. 2006. “A Re-Examination of the Relationship between Action Research and Human Subjects Review Processes.” Action Research 4 (1) 117–28. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45. Public Welfare. Department of Health and Human Services, Part 46: “Protection of Human Subjects.” 2009. DuBois, J. M. 2002. “When Is Informed Consent Appropriate in Educational Research?:  Regulatory and Ethical Issues.” The Hastings Center. IRB:  Ethics and Human Research 24 (1):1–8. Gunsalus, C. K., E. Bruner, N. C. Burbules, L. Dash, M. Finkin, J. Goldberg, W.T. Greenough, G. A. Miller, M. G. Pratt, M. Iriye, and D. Aronson. 2007. “The Illinois White Paper: Improving the System for Protecting Human Subjects: Counteracting IRB ‘Mission Creep.’ ” Qualitative Inquiry 13 (5), 617–64. Librett, M., and D. Perrone. 2010. “Apples and Oranges: Ethnography and the IRB.” Qualitative Research 10 (6): 729–47. Mills, G. 2003. Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. “The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.” Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (1978). Pritchard, I. A. 2002. “Travelers and Trolls: Practitioner Research and Institutional Review Boards.” American Educational Research Association 31 (3): 3–13. Thornton, L.C. 2008. “The Role of IRBs in Music Education Research.” In Diverse Methodologies in the Study of Music Teaching and Learning, edited by Linda K Thompson, 201–14. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Tierney, W. G., Z. Corwin. 2007. “The Tensions between Academic Freedom and Institutional Review Boards.” Qualitative Inquiry 13 (3): 388–98.

Chapter 31

The P oliti c s of Publicat i on Voices, Venues, and Ethics mitchell robinson

Publish or perish. These words have become an unquestioned fact of life for academics as we navigate the often thorny path toward tenure and promotion. For music and music education researchers, notions of what constitutes scholarship, or creative activity, are too often contentious and confusing. Questions have come from our colleagues outside of music as to what forms of activity “count” as research, as have queries regarding the boundaries between research, teaching, and service. For qualitative scholars in music education, these challenges have come both from outside our discipline and from within, as colleagues who hold different assumptions about the nature and structure of research in music education have questioned the very tenets of qualitative inquiry. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the issues surrounding the publication enterprise in music education, with particular attention to the dissemination of scholarship to our multiple constituent audiences. The first section will discuss the issue of finding and developing our scholarly “voice,” and will suggest new forms of delivering and presenting our research findings. The second section will address how authors can choose the appropriate venues to present their work, and will make the case for a broader conceptualization of what constitutes the dissemination of scholarly work. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of ethical considerations in respect to the publication of qualitative work.

31.1  Finding Our Voices Learning how to write for academic publications is a study in contradictions. As young students, we are encouraged to seek clarity in our writing; as academics, we are

592   mitchell robinson fascinated with the allure of impenetrable prose and jargon. As writers, we dream that our words and thoughts will be shared with millions of eager readers; as scholars, we become resigned to the knowledge that our work has a disappointingly small impact on those we seek to influence. The research community has become adept at “preaching to the choir,” at the very time when our message most needs to be heard beyond the pews.

31.1.1 Developing Our Voice As graduate students we are “socialized” to write in an academic style. This style, based on the type of writing found in traditional scientific journals, is often characterized by a reliance on citation, dense prose, and a parsimonious approach to writing. Brevity is favored over clarity, and the detailed explanation of methodology is valued over literary exposition. Our most prestigious music education research journals reinforce these values with guidelines that privilege page numbers over content, and equate length with quality. They ask for “clear and readable English,” but warn against the use of “excessive words” (CRME, “Instructions to Contributors,” 2012, no. 191). This may make sense when the “data” we are dealing with comes in the form of numbers, but for qualitative authors the glass slipper is an awkward fit. Think of the difference between reading a recipe and a restaurant review. One is an orderly, sequential outline of ingredients, preparation, and method, but provides no sensory information other than temperatures and measurements. There is an assumption that the reader’s context (i.e., access to and quality of ingredients, season of the year, proximity to the market, sharpness of knives, layout of the kitchen, time of day, whether or not guests are expected) has little or nothing to do with the successful replication of the recipe. A well-written restaurant review, on the other hand, is a story. It welcomes the reader into the reviewer’s world, and invites us to vicariously experience the meal along with the reviewer. We “see” the décor of the space, “smell” the aromas wafting from the plates that pass us by, and “hear” the rattles and bangs of the kitchen as the chefs prepare “our” food. Vivid descriptions of each dish help us “taste” the flavors and textures of the food, tripping memories of meals enjoyed in the past and enticing us to recreate these dishes in our own kitchens. The point of this exercise is not to favor one form of writing over the other. Clearly, both have a place at the table. But it also seems clear that each form of writing is governed by a different set of expectations, traditions and needs. Requiring a recipe writer to include a literary narrative for each dish makes as much sense as limiting the restaurant reviewer to a list of ingredients and 200 words. It also seems clear that some dishes (scrambled eggs) may require only a recipe for one to recreate them at home, while others (a paella enjoyed on one’s holiday at a seaside bistro in Valencia) lend themselves to a more descriptive treatment. As scholars, our research questions should drive the choice of paradigm, methodology, and writing style. As we discover our research interests and passions, we should develop

Politics of Publication  593 the commensurate skills and dispositions to pursue our goals. For some this will mean learning about an array of advanced statistical procedures and knowing how and when to apply particular measurement tools appropriately. For others it will mean becoming better storytellers, and becoming adept at transforming interview transcripts into compelling vignettes and narratives that draw the reader into the world of the participants. For research advisors, our task is to help our advisees find their voices as scholars. We must nudge, cajole, and prod our students to think deeply about what they want to know, to make them uncomfortable about critical issues in their teaching and in our profession, and to inspire them to follow their passion in scholarly ways. We must also work to make sure that there are places and spaces in which our students’ voices can be heard, and to advocate for greater inclusion of underrepresented and marginalized voices in our collective discourse as a research community.

31.1.2 New Voices As a scholarly community, we may wish to consider other means for welcoming more voices into our discussions. While the “solo” journal article has traditionally been the “coin of the realm” in music education research, our discourse in the “real world” is more varied and nuanced. We work with classmates and colleagues in classes, ensembles, committees, and professional organizations to produce work that would be impossible to accomplish on our own. It stands to reason that collaborative scholarly writing offers a mechanism for groups of researchers to work together in investigating a problem or line of inquiry. This notion is not without its detractors. The idea of collaborative writing creates anxiety regarding issues of authorship. Some academics are concerned with determining who wrote specific sections of a work and ascribing credit for various ideas and particular aspects of the finished product to individual authors. As collaboration scholars Ede and Lunsford note, “everyday practices in the humanities continue to ignore, or even to punish, collaboration while authorizing work attributed to (autonomous) individuals” (2001, 354). Yet as musicians, we value the ability to play with others (i.e., ensemble performance, chamber music) as much, if not more than playing alone. The panel presentation is also an accepted part of our academic conference “culture,” with participants understanding that each individual brings something special and unique to the group’s collective work. Collaborative writing should not be seen as taking the “easy way out”: “Collaboration is not always the best, or easiest, or fastest way to accomplish learning goals. Collaboration is often messy, inefficient, time consuming and difficult. Consider the following apparent contradictions that characterize collaborations: • We intuitively know that working together is preferable to working separately, but also understand that producing tangible results via teamwork can be harder and more time consuming than going it alone.

594   mitchell robinson • Collaborators know that differences in opinion and approach provide the creative energy and tension that fuels sustainable relationships, but are equally aware that these relationships must be built on a foundation of shared visions, missions, and goals. • The equitable allocation of resources from each partner is a prerequisite for effective collaboration, yet. . . partners are rarely equals in issues of power, prestige, or resources.” (Robinson, 2006) Indeed, the promise of sharing power with one’s participants and partners throughout the research process is one of the most intriguing attractions of collaborative writing. For scholars committed to an egalitarian stance as researchers, collaborative writing offers an avenue for pursuing this work in interesting ways. Another form of writing that holds promise for qualitative authors is web-based writing. Hypertext is text displayed electronically with embedded references to other forms of information, typically accessed by a mouse click or keyboard command. In addition to offering links to additional text, hypertext may also provide immediate access to figures, tables, graphics, and audio and video files. This kind of rich text is familiar to anyone who uses the Internet to browse for information, and offers authors the opportunity to imbue deeper context and alternative forms of information to their writing. Using hypertext also disrupts the linear, sequential presentation of the written form in favor of a webbed, non-hierarchical organizational structure that allows the reader to exert a measure of control over the navigation of information. Hypertext is also a natural device for reinforcing the postmodern approach to research embraced by qualitative scholars; rather than creating a narrative along a single path, which may imply a particular perspective or interpretation, using hypertext as a narrative device allows the reader to follow any number of multiple tracks or possible interpretations by simply clicking a link. While there are obvious obstacles in terms of the adoption of hypertext in mainstream publishing, the proliferation of online journals should reduce these challenges and increase the acceptance of this form of research presentation. The use of video in presenting qualitative research is another underutilized delivery system. To paraphrase the old saying, “writing about music education qualitative research is like dancing about architecture.” While language can carry a multitude of emotions, expressions, and meanings, it is, at its core, a relatively “flat” medium. The power of video is that it conveys events as they happen, with less reliance on the observer’s interpretive lens, and gives the viewer the power to make her or his own interpretive judgments. Video can also tell the story of an event or case in the participants’ own words and actions, eliminating—or camouflaging—the role of the researcher. Where a narrative tells the story in a series of vignettes or “snapshots,” a video plays out more seamlessly, showing the arc of the story in broad strokes and sweeping lines. These alternative forms of scholarly expression hold great promise for transforming the art of qualitative research in music education, and in bringing new voices and means

Politics of Publication  595 of expression into our professional discourse. As with any new forms there will be challenges and struggles in finding ways to bring these approaches “online” with our current practices (i.e., journal publication requirements, graduate school guidelines, conference submission formats), but the advantages of working and writing together in new ways and utilizing new technologies far outweigh these obstacles. If our goal is to share our knowledge with the community of music educators, and to blur the boundaries between researchers and practitioners, then welcoming these new voices and means of expression is not just our obligation; it is our privilege.

31.2 Choosing our Venues One of the most challenging aspects of becoming a scholar is figuring out how to get our work “out there.” For scholars interested in sharing their work with multiple and diverse constituent audiences, “publication” really means “dissemination.” Successful music education researchers are not just writers, scholars, and presenters; they are also entrepreneurs. Scholars must be aware of how to write for and speak to specific audiences, must understand the differences between and among the various journals, conferences, and professional organizations to which they will submit their work, and how to work with editors, reviewers, and conference planners during this process. We also need to consider the best ways to share our work with various audiences, and understand how these ways of sharing are valued by our multiple constituencies. As traditional dissemination patterns continue to adapt and evolve in response to technological innovations, we must also respond in innovative and entrepreneurial ways.

31.2.1 Understanding Our Audience It is important for authors to review the submission guidelines for any particular journal very carefully. For example, the Journal of Music Teacher Education is interested primarily in studies that pertain to teacher education, and the journal is less likely to accept articles on other topics. The journal Update: Applications of Research in Music Education requires that authors use terminology that is approachable to practitioners and discourages the use of statistical terms and research jargon that could be distracting to a non-researcher audience. Authors submitting to international journals should be aware of the questions that may be raised by an international audience regarding the topic of the manuscript and understand the differences between the music education enterprise in North America and other parts of the world. Be sure that the manuscript provides sufficient detail such that someone who knows little about the topic will be able to understand what has been done. Ask a colleague—or better yet, several colleagues—to read the manuscript before it is submitted to provide an “outsider’s” view of the work. Finally, a reminder about the

596   mitchell robinson importance of adhering to the style requirements (i.e., APA, Chicago, MLA) as outlined in the intended journal’s “instructions to contributors.”

31.2.2 Title and Consistency of Purpose The title of a manuscript can provide the reader with key details regarding the topic, participants, and design. Titles can also serve to draw in a prospective reader through the use of evocative language and imagery. With advances in search technology and computer databases it is no longer necessary to “load” one’s title with as many descriptive terms as possible, allowing authors to be creative without ignoring their literary inclinations. Consider the following titles from two articles on the same general research topic: • “Composing with Computers: Meg Makes Music.” (Sandra Stauffer, 2001, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education) • “A Study of the Relationship of Composition/Improvisation to Selected Personal Variables Differences in the Relationship to Selected Variables: An Experimental Study.” (Marianne Hassler and Arnold Feil, 1986, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education) Both titles are descriptive, but in very different ways. Each title provides clues as to the author’s approach to the investigation, and possible tips as to the study’s methodology and paradigm choice. Neither is better or worse than the other; they are different, and appropriate to the choice of design, theoretical foundations, and worldview of the researcher. I regularly suggest changes in title as a reviewer (and have often been asked to change my titles as an author). Look carefully at your title, the purpose statement and then the key findings of your investigation to be sure there is consistency in the language in all these sections of the paper. It is also important that the language of the purpose statement appear consistently throughout the manuscript. The crafting of one’s purpose statement is an exacting procedure, and each reiteration of the statement in the paper must be identical. Some papers include a restatement of the purpose in the method section and the conclusion of the paper. Variations in wording in the purpose statement may create confusion for the reader and can distract from the content of the writing. This is not the time to indulge one’s writerly instincts; keep the purpose statement consistent.

31.2.3  Responding to Reviewers/Tone of Response Authors need to understand that they should feel encouraged when they are asked to revise a manuscript. Most journals use variations on a three-point scale (i.e., Accept

Politics of Publication  597 without revision, Accept pending revision, Decline) for evaluating manuscripts, so a request for revisions is a very positive response. Journal editors typically ask authors to respond to each suggestion made by reviewers in a formal “Response to Reviewers.” As an author, it is difficult to take criticism on a paper you have worked on for an extended time period and it is important to avoid reflecting this frustration in your response to the reviewer. Always approach the reviewer process as a learning experience and an opportunity to make the paper better. Most published authors will acknowledge that the review process invariably improves the finished product and that the benefits of thoughtful comments from reviewers and careful copyediting are extraordinarily helpful. It is sometimes tempting to try to “teach” a reviewer something that you think they may have misunderstood about your design or analysis. Unless you are adding citations to the paper in response to a reviewer’s suggestion for clarification I would suggest avoiding additional citations in the response to reviewers. For example, if a reviewer has questioned a sampling procedure, a good way for the author to respond might be: The following sentence has been added to the method section of the paper: “Criteria sampling was used to select participants. Patton (2002b) defines ‘Criteria sampling’ as. . .”. Keep in mind that if a reviewer was confused, or appeared “un-informed,” a reader might have the same reaction and a clarification is warranted to address the concern. While it is not necessary to make every specific change requested by the reviewers, it is recommended that authors make an effort to provide a response to each of the reviewers’ comments. Strive for a positive, collaborative tone in your remarks, acknowledge the helpfulness of the suggestions, and thank the reviewers for their assistance in improving the paper. Although authors do not always welcome the initial comments from reviewers in any manuscript, the review process does result in stronger manuscripts. Sometimes it becomes clear in the process that the manuscript was not meant for the particular journal to which it was submitted. That does not mean that the manuscript might not be welcomed by another journal. Far too many music education researchers “give up” after one rejection or do not take the time to re-submit when asked to revise. If one can learn to consider criticism and not to take any reviewer comment personally, the process of publication can offer a satisfying end to any important music education project.

31.2.4 Toward a “Kinder” Review Process Serving on an editorial board is not a glamorous task. One is asked to dedicate considerable time, expertise, and effort to reviewing the work of others, often on short turn-around schedules, and with little in the way of compensation or professional “value.” Being a reviewer is, however, a noble endeavor. Providing advice and commentary regarding an author’s methodological choices, design strategies, and writing style can greatly improve the final quality of the published product and help authors gain a more comprehensive understanding of how their work “fits in” to the professional literature.

598   mitchell robinson The very nature of the review process, however, can sometimes work against the potential helpfulness of the reviewers’ contributions. Limited by time and space, many reviewers tend to dwell on the more critical aspects of the reviewing process. These reviews may be characterized by a focus on design or method choices, unintentionally rude or even hurtful comments, and a dismissive or negative tone. The author is left angry and defensive about her work, and disillusioned with the peer review process. I recently had an experience writing for a book project “outside” of music education, and was struck by the difference in the review process as compared to what I’ve become familiar with in our discipline; specifically, the nature of the reviewers’ comments. As this was my first attempt at submitting a book chapter in general education (Robinson, 2012), I was apprehensive about the reviewers’ perceptions of my writing; would it be “good enough” for this audience, understandable by non-music educators, and make a strong enough contribution to the book? I opened the e-mail attachment with the reviewers’ responses, steeling myself for the worst—and was pleasantly surprised to read a series of mostly positive and encouraging comments: “I like how you use this phrase, to draw the reader in”; “This section is very well done! And very interesting”; “Fascinating! This is so well written.” While there were a number of editorial requests and suggestions for changes included among the comments, the prevailing tone of the review was supportive, complimentary, and encouraging. As I finished reading the reviewers’ comments, I felt as though I had just had a helpful conversation about my writing with a group of supportive colleagues. Perhaps more importantly, I came away feeling good about my work, confident about making a strong contribution to the book, and excited about using the reviewers’ suggestions to improve the chapter. I believe there are several lessons that we can learn as reviewers from this anecdote. First, reviewers should approach the editorial process as a collegial exchange, not as a critical investigation. Just as good teachers and research advisors work in a gentle fashion with their students to help them find their “voices” as educators and writers, reviewers should enter the editorial process thinking about how they can “kindly” help an author to tell their story more clearly, and to encourage the author to let their voice come through in their writing. Second, if reviewers are truly interested in having their comments be used to improve the quality of the author’s submission, they should understand that an author is much more likely to listen to suggestions that are offered in a supportive, constructive manner than to criticisms and negative comments. While it may be easier to focus one’s critique on what the author needs to change or do differently, it is more helpful to the author when these suggestions are conveyed in an encouraging way. This does not mean that there is no place in a review for a critique of the author’s writing style or methodological procedure—there are, after all, legitimate issues that should be addressed in every review. Rather, the issue here is more about style than substance. Just as a well-written concert review can convey less than successful aspects of a performance while maintaining a generally positive impression of the performer or group’s efforts, a thoughtfully crafted editorial review can point out design flaws and writing errors in a kind, encouraging manner.

Politics of Publication  599 Finally, just as I came away from the editorial process described above feeling confident and positive about my work, reviewers should approach their task with the same goal in mind; to use the review process as a way to encourage and support aspiring scholars and authors. We often decry the lack of submissions to our scholarly journals and bemoan the preponderance of “one and done” studies in music education research; could the nature of the review process itself be a factor in these issues? Are authors who receive unnecessarily harsh critiques from reviewers dissuaded from pursuing further publication opportunities? Do negative comments from reviewers lead to a lack of confidence for some writers that precludes them from submitting additional articles to these journals? For me, the positive nature of the above editorial review process was an empowering, invigorating experience. Being treated in such a kind, compassionate way was a revelation for me as an author, teacher, and researcher. It has influenced how I respond to authors as a reviewer, and how I work with my students as an advisor. The end result was a renewed passion for writing, and a rekindled confidence in pursuing my scholarly interests. We should hope for nothing less for our colleagues who bravely submit their work for our review.

31.2.5  Journal-Article Formatting and Space One of the most pressing problems for qualitative writers is how to take a project that may have taken multiple years to complete and may have involved in-depth interviews and observations resulting in mountains of data, and turning that mountain into a 20-page article. In discussions with students and colleagues I have likened this process to a parent trying to decide which of his children he likes better. Inevitably, something has to be cut in order to trim the length to acceptable standards. The question is, how much can be cut without destroying the whole? Although there is some freedom in terms of formatting for articles that come from varying empirical traditions and styles, there has been somewhat of a common template for traditional journal-article reports. In the sciences, the most prominent format for journal length articles is referred to by the acronym “IMRAD,” which stands for Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. This structure follows from the linear sequence of the traditional scientific model, and is thought to be a “direct reflection of the process of scientific discovery” (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 2010). Due to the diverse array of topics and research styles found in the music education literature, it is not uncommon to find more variation in article formatting in our journals. There are some common elements in most published articles, however. Most journal-length research reports in music education include an introduction and rationale for the topic, a purpose statement, and research questions. The literature review section of most journal-length articles is between four and seven paragraphs in length, and synthesizes the most relevant points from the past literature; given the length required

600   mitchell robinson in a qualitative report to include interview transcripts and interpretive analysis, some authors truncate their literature reviews even further. For authors determined to adhere to the traditional format it can be a challenge to “fit” their work within journal page limits. APA Style requires double-spacing for all sections of a manuscript (including block quotes and references). Many authors ignore this, and editors may assume they are doing so in an effort to save space. A better way to save space is to examine the document carefully for repetition. Journal-length articles do not need the same sort of repetitious introductions and conclusions that thesis and dissertation documents typically have (with the possible exception of the purpose statement). A general rule in trying to format a 20-page qualitative paper is to be sure that the findings section is introduced by around page nine or so. Otherwise, the manuscript becomes too focused on design and analysis and does not highlight the importance of the findings in the study. Although the method and analysis sections of papers may differ significantly, most papers include a return to past literature after the presentation of results or findings, as well as a section on implications for future research and/or teaching practice. Another “space saving” strategy is to ruthlessly search each sentence and paragraph for unnecessary words. Search the entire paper for information that the reader may not need to know or for instances where writing is wordy and not “to the point.” Creating graphics, tables, or grids to describe participants and/or present findings may also help to cut down on text in the paper while clarifying information for the reader. It is particularly challenging to create a 20-page journal-length article from a large dissertation or thesis. The conclusion chapter of the dissertation often includes a scaled-down version of the literature review, method, analysis, and findings. In long qualitative studies, it may be necessary to report on only a limited number of research questions due to space limitations. Another useful strategy is to look at the major themes present in the completed dissertation or thesis, and extract one or more of the most salient themes to focus upon in a single article, keeping in mind issues of audience and journal mission (e.g., choose a theme related to teacher preparation for a JMTE article, or a practice-oriented theme for an MEJ piece). In mixed methods presentations, the author may need to report on mixed method analysis only.

31.2.6 Choosing the Right Venue: Publication as Dissemination Journals differ greatly in terms of mission, purpose and intended audiences, and authors must consider these characteristics carefully when developing their publication agenda. The major types of journals in our profession can be grouped broadly into two

Politics of Publication  601 categories: research journals and professional journals. The mission for a research journal is to present peer-reviewed reports of research on issues related to music teaching and learning. The audience for these reports is typically the community of music education researchers, and a “broad spectrum of other individuals with interest in music education” (JRME 2012). The mission for professional journals, on the other hand, is less focused on the research methodology or design of the report and more on its application to practice. Historically, research journals have held a privileged place in our profession’s value system, in spite of the fact that these journals have had a somewhat limited circulation among practitioners, and, as a result, a relatively limited impact on practice (Fung 2008). By way of comparison, the Music Educators Journal, a leading professional journal in music education, is circulated to roughly 65,000 homes and libraries, while the circulation for the Journal of Research in Music Education, one of our most prestigious research journals, is just over 4400 (E. Wilcox, personal communication, June 18, 2012). If the dissemination of scholarship to practicing music teachers is one of our primary goals as researchers, then perhaps we need to re-conceptualize the notion of “publication.” The current promotion and tenure system in place at many universities, for example, places a primary or even singular emphasis on published articles accepted by a small subset of limited-circulation research journals. If dissemination of our work is truly a desired outcome of the research enterprise, we need to embrace a broader view of scholarship that embraces publication in multiple journal types, presentations at research and professional conferences and meetings, inservice sessions provided for practicing music teachers, podcasts, webinars, and other ways to share our findings with the music education community. Scholars should be encouraged to develop professional trajectories that include submitting their work to research and professional journals, and presenting their scholarship at professional development conferences and inservice meetings. Our value structures for these different venues must be adjusted accordingly as well. We need to consider not just the prestige factor of having an article accepted for publication at a high-status research journal, but the dissemination value of sharing this information with teachers at a state music education association conference, with colleagues at a national meeting of a professional organization, or by posting our findings on a web page for post-publication review and comment. Further, if we are interested in having our scholarship influence music education policy and practice more broadly, we must also focus our efforts on sharing our work beyond our own disciplinary borders. As gratifying as it is to have our work accepted by our peers in our own discipline, the impact of our inquiry must also be shared with those who make the decisions regarding school policies, curriculums, and reform initiatives. By increasing our efforts at publishing and presenting our scholarship in venues in general education, we can exert a stronger influence on policymaking in the educational arena, and contribute our voices to the dialogue surrounding important issues in educational policy and practice. Establishing a more visible presence with professional organizations such as the American Educational Research Association,

602   mitchell robinson National Association of Secondary School Principals, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, and journals such as Arts Education Policy Review, American School Board Journal, and American Educational Research Journal, will bring the conversation to new audiences, and add our voice to the discussion at the policy level. Just as there is no “best” university or college, there is no “best” scholarly profile. Music teacher educators and researchers must be strategic and entrepreneurial in crafting personal research agendas and portfolios that “fit” their scholarly interests and the particular academic setting in which they work. As a scholarly community, we should embrace the dissemination and accessibility of our work through multiple delivery systems and venues, and continue our efforts at bridging the divide between theory and practice. We must also work with our colleagues and administrators to promote the diversity of scholarly expression in music education research, to demonstrate the recognition and value of these forms of dissemination appropriately in the promotion and tenure process within our institutions, and to help our students and peers navigate and negotiate the path toward the full realization of their scholarly potential.

31.3 The Ethics of Publishing Given the differences among the various forms of scholarship in music education, it is little wonder that authors conceive of publication strategies for their work differently. What all scholars agree on, however, are the beliefs that music education research is critical to advancing our understanding of the music teaching and learning process, that our research initiatives must be conducted ethically, and that the results of our inquiries must be reported clearly and appropriately given the methodological and epistemological choices we make as researchers.

31.3.1 Definitions Several terms are commonly used to describe a varied set of conditions surrounding the issue of piecemeal publication. While these terms may be related, there are nuanced variations among the meanings of these terms, and the following section is provided in an effort to promote further clarity.

31.3.1.1  Duplicate Publication While “duplicate” and “redundant” publications are often mentioned together, they are actually different phenomena. Generally, duplicate publication refers to the attempted simultaneous submission of a research report to multiple journals. Changes between the versions may be only cosmetic, including variations in title, abstract, and minor textual alterations.

Politics of Publication  603 As research advisors and journal reviewers, we find it difficult to think of circumstances that would rationalize such actions. Though some journals operate on frustratingly long backlogs, and can take months, if not years, for submissions to move from receipt to publication, this is not sufficient justification for sending the same article for consideration to more than one journal at the same time. In addition to being unethical, duplicate publication also puts journal editors and reviewers in untenable situations, and could create unnecessary confusion should the same article appear in multiple journals. Furthering the case against duplicate publication, secondary analyses and meta-analyses, though somewhat rare in music education research, could be compromised should identical findings be included more than once in these sophisticated forms of data analyses, giving unwarranted increased significance to the same set of results.

31.3.1.2  Redundant Publication Redundant publication is often described as “reporting (publishing or attempting to publish) substantially the same work more than once, without attribution of the original source(s)” (CBE Views 1996, 76–77). Identifying characteristics of redundant publications include:

a. at least one of the authors must be common to all reports (if there are no common authors, it is more likely plagiarism than redundant publication), b. the subject or study populations are often the same or similar, c. the methodology is typically identical or nearly so, and d. the results and their interpretation generally vary little, if at all (CBE Views 1996, 76–77).

A common practice of qualitative authors is the separation of multiple themes from a large-scale project into separate articles or other publications, often for different audiences, venues, or journals. While this sort of publication pattern may resemble items (b) and (c) from the above list, the decision to present individual themes, or groups of themes, in separate articles would appear to disqualify this practice from the above definition of redundant publication.

31.3.1.3  “Piecemeal” Publication Piecemeal publication has traditionally been defined as “the unnecessary submission of findings from the same study, in piece-by-piece fashion, rather than as an integrated single report or a smaller number of integrated reports” (Drotar 2010, 225). Another related term, the “least publishable unit,” is defined as the smallest unit of results from a study that can be published separately, and reflects the parsing of findings from one research project into several smaller publications (Stossel 1985, 123). Historically, the objections to piecemeal publication have been concerned with notions of parsimony, or economy of writing, and the belief that the significance of a study’s results could be diminished through publication redundancy. The basic notions surrounding piecemeal publication are based on a scientific, positivist view of the world,

604   mitchell robinson and of data—a view that is less understanding of postmodern paradigms, and can pose special problems for qualitative or narrative inquiry. Take, for example, the notion of parsimony. A lean, sparse writing style is often seen as a strength in technical writing, and comes in handy when communicating the results of an experimental investigation. Knowing how to convey the relationship of a complicated statistical procedure to one’s analysis of a data set in a clear, economical way is a valuable skill for a quantitative author. The qualitative author, on the other hand, needs a different “toolbox” at her disposal. Consider the following excerpt from Clifford Geertz, the “father” of thick description, reproduced at length here: Consider, he says, two boys rapidly contracting the eyelids of their right eyes. In one, this is an involuntary twitch; in the other, a conspiratorial signal to a friend. The two movements are, as movements, identical; from an I-am-a-camera, “phenomenalistic” observation of them alone, one could not tell which was twitch and which was wink, or indeed whether both or either was twitch or wink. Yet the difference, however unphotographable, between a twitch and a wink is vast; as anyone unfortunate enough to have had the first taken for the second knows. The winker is communicating, and indeed communicating in a quite precise and special way: (1) deliberately, (2) to someone in particular, (3) to impart a particular message, (4) according to a socially established code, and (5)  without cognizance of the rest of the company. As Ryle points out, the winker has not done two things, contracted his eyelids and winked, while the twitcher has done only one, contracted his eyelids. Contracting your eyelids on purpose when there exists a public code in which so doing counts as a conspiratorial signal is winking. That’s all there is to it: a speck of behavior, a fleck of culture, and —voilà!— a gesture. (Geertz 1973, 5)

It is hard to imagine how parsimoniousness could improve this vignette. The excerpt is characterized by several of the elements of good thick description: rich, evocative prose (i.e., “I-am-a-camera,” “twitcher,” “voilà”); the use of sensory cues (i.e., “rapidly contracting the eyelids”); an accessible, conversational writing style that brings the reader “in” to the setting (i.e., “Yet the difference, however unphotographable, between a twitch and a wink is vast; as anyone unfortunate enough to have had the first taken for the second knows”). It is Geertz’s use of literary conventions, word choices, and narrative writing style that distinguish this passage, not an overriding concern with word count. The issue of “piecemeal publication” has become a difficult and controversial subject for many persons in our profession. At the core of this complicated topic may be differing conceptions of what research is, how it should be conducted, and what our goals as scholars should be. Traditionally, definitions and notions regarding piecemeal publication have been based on understandings derived from experimental scientific inquiry, including positivist assumptions such as: • There is one “correct” or valid interpretation of a set of data. • Research questions are best when tightly focused on observable, measurable behaviors.

Politics of Publication  605 • Data collection is best done at a “distance,” and by individuals unconnected to the experiment—or better yet, via non-human means (i.e., a test, survey or other sort of measurement tool). • In order to be most easily understood, data must be reduced or converted to numerical form, and subjected to statistical methods of analysis. Qualitative researchers, on the other hand, operate on a different set of understandings concerning the research enterprise: • There are often multiple interpretations of the data, depending on one’s perspective, role, or background—and reanalyzing one’s data can result in different interpretations. • We avoid research questions that can be answered with a “yes” or “no,” and favor questions that lead to more questions. • Data collection is not an “objective” process, and is often best conducted by a participant-observer who is fully immersed in the research setting. • Reductionist approaches to data analysis are avoided in favor of a more inductive stance toward understanding what our data means. I have often encouraged my doctoral students to fashion multiple work products (i.e., research journal articles, professional journal articles, conference presentations) from a single large-scale study in an effort to disseminate particular research findings to specific audiences and venues. This sort of publication pattern appears to make sense when one is dealing with large amounts of disparate data, in the form of interview transcripts, videotaped observations, and archival documents, each analyzed in multiple ways. That being said, so-called piecemeal publication is explicitly addressed in the APA’s publication manual (2001). The manual states, “data that can be meaningfully combined within a single publication should be presented together to enhance effective communication” (352), and that whether the publication of two or more reports based on the same dataset constitutes piecemeal publication is a matter of editorial judgment.

31.3.2  The Issue of “Rigor” For many qualitative authors, the issue of “rigor” has become a problematic notion. Usually associated with the positivist construct of validity, rigor often becomes a catch-all term for critiques of qualitative methods from a quantitative perspective. For example, most quantitative data analysis choices, such as the decision to represent the results of a survey using means and standard deviations, rarely require descriptions of the theoretical reasons behind choosing these techniques. It is common, on the other hand, for a qualitative author to receive the following reviewer request: “I found the presentation of themes and subthemes very helpful and artistic and think this is a promising

606   mitchell robinson mode of representation for your findings, but you need to substantiate the decisions that went into the creation of this visual scheme.” Given the limited page constraints for most research journals, the qualitative author must then decide whether to include lengthy detailed justifications of common qualitative techniques (i.e., in vivo coding, constant comparative method of data analysis, member checks, peer review, etc.) in lieu of excerpts of dialogue or quotes from participants. According to Sandelowski, “four factors complicate the debate about the scientific merits of qualitative research: the varieties of qualitative methods, the lack of clear boundaries between quantitative and qualitative research, the tendency to evaluate qualitative research against conventional scientific criteria of rigor, and the artistic features of qualitative inquiry” (1993). Qualitative scholars have established an assortment of positions in response to editors’ and reviewers’ requests for “more rigorous” methodological provisions. Sparkes’ (2001) defines four perspectives on validity: the replication perspective (which asserts that validity is appropriate for both paradigms, but is assessed differently in each); the parallel perspective (that a separate set of criteria must be developed for qualitative inquiry, paralleling those in quantitative work); the diversification of meanings perspective (establishing new forms of validity that do not have reference points in quantitative research); and, the letting-go-of-validity perspective (which advocates a total abandonment of the concept of validity). Earlier in this volume, in c­ hapter 6, I suggest a set of alternative evaluative criteria for establishing quality based on the work of Patton (2002a). As research advisors, my colleagues and I have stopped asking our students to include lengthy justifications for the choice to use qualitative methods in their theses and dissertations. We found that such explanations were unnecessary, and were more distracting than useful in terms of the student’s ability to tell the story of their research. While I understand the need for qualitative researchers—indeed, all researchers—to “show their work” in the reporting of their work, there must also be an acknowledgement of the disproportionate impact of such requests on the quality of much qualitative inquiry. Requiring qualitative writers to devote significant space to lengthy explanations of common design choices and analytical techniques, in the name of rigor, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of qualitative work, and an intention for this form of inquiry to adhere to evaluative standards that are ill-fitting and inappropriate. I want to make a critical distinction here: I am not advocating for lower standards of rigor in qualitative research. Quite the opposite. What I am arguing for is an understanding of the differences between paradigms; of the inherent uniqueness of each form of inquiry, and the values that each espouses; and of the unfairness of holding one paradigm to the same methodological standards as the other, when doing so requires a wholesale abandonment of that approach’s worth and appropriateness. Rigor in qualitative research is not demonstrated by a detailed explanation of one’s coding choices, it is illustrated by the poignancy of an excerpt, or the richness of a vignette. Rigor in qualitative work is shown by the nuance of the author’s interpretation, not by the justification of one’s theoretical underpinnings with obscure citations.

Politics of Publication  607 The question becomes one of style over substance. As Sandelowski (1993) cautions, “We can preserve or kill the spirit of qualitative work; we can soften our notion of rigor to include playfulness, soulfulness, imagination, and technique we associate with more artistic endeavors, or we can further harden it by the uncritical application of rules. The choice is ours: rigor or rigor mortis” (Sandelowski 1993).

References Drotar, D. 2010. “Editorial:  Guidance for Submission and Review of Multiple Publications Derived from the Same Study.” Journal of Pediatric Psychology 35 (3): 225–30. Ede, L., and A. A. Lunsford. 2001. “Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship.” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 116 (2): 354–69. Fung, C. V. 2008. “In Search of Important Music Education Research Questions: The Case of the United States.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 176: 31–43. Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. Hassler, M., and H. Feil. 1986. “A Study of the Relationship of Composition/Improvisation to Selected Personal Variables Differences in the Relationship to Selected Variables:  An Experimental Study.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 87: 26–34. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 2010. “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals:  Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication.” http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf. National Association for Music Education. 2012. Manuscript Submission. Journal of Research in Music Education. http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?prodId=Journal2019 01#tabview=manuscriptSubmission. Patton, M. Q. 2002a. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd. Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Patton, M. Q. 2002b. “Two Decades of Developments in Qualitative Inquiry. A  Personal, Experiential Perspective.” Qualitative Social Work 1 (3): 261–283. doi:10.1177/14733250020 01003636. Robinson, M. 2006. “Issues Contributing to the Creation and Sustainability of Educational Collaborations.” In Teaching Music in the Urban Classroom, vol. 2: A Guide To Survival, Success, and Reform, edited by C. Frierson-Campbell. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education. Robinson, M. 2012. Music Teaching and Learning in a Time of Reform. In Theoharis, G. and Brooks, J. (Eds.), What Every Principal Needs to Know to Create Equitable and Excellent Schools. NY: Teachers College Press. Sandelowski, M. 1993. “Rigor or Rigor Mortis: The Problem of Rigor in Qualitative Research Revisited.” ANS. Advances in Nursing Science, 16 (2): 1–8. Sparkes, A. C. 2001. Myth 94:  Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 538–552. doi:10.1177/104973230101100409 Stauffer, S. L. 2001. Composing with Computers: Meg Makes Music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 150: 1–20. Stossel, T. P. 1985. Speed: An Essay on Biomedical Communication. New England Journal of Medicine 313: 123–26.

Chapter 32

Teaching Qua l i tat i v e Re search Expe ri e nt ia l ly and Aesth et i c a l ly liora bresler 1

The past 20 years has seen a tremendous increase in qualitative research in music education. This fine volume is a testimony of this growth. The increased use of qualitative research implies a corresponding need for qualitative research education. In reflecting on relevant contents and pedagogies, it is important to recognize that the conduct of fieldwork, interpretation, and writing involve more than theoretical knowledge and scripted procedures. Theories are essential to the teaching of research and the induction into a scholarly community. Yet, they are not enough. The goals, characteristics, and methods of qualitative research, reflecting the basic assumptions of a post-modern paradigm underlying this methodology, require the cultivation of corresponding dispositions. The post-modern assumption of the multiplicity of social reality (as discussed, for example, in c­ hapter 2 in this volume) implies that researchers aim to capture multiple perspectives, rather than one objective truth. The related recognition that the researcher is the main instrument requires that researcher’s subjectivity be attended to and articulated throughout the process of inquiry. The qualitative goal of understanding personal and cultural lived experience aims at depth in capturing complexity within a small number of contextualized cases and concepts.2 Because researchers learn about what is most worthwhile to study as they study it, research questions identified at the outset need to be complemented by those that emerge through increasing understanding of the specific cases and concepts. Conceptualizations and interpretations are ongoing. Accordingly, data analysis, concurrent with data collection, requires agility in traversing between the concrete and abstract, identifying additional themes as they emerge through the research process. The emergent nature of data means that methods must be flexible and adaptable. Indeed, the terms for the key qualitative methods—unstructured observations and open-ended or semi-structured interviews—designate their

Teaching Qualitative Research  609 open-endedness. Unlike quantitative research methodologies, where the initial design determines the research procedures, qualitative research requires responsiveness to unfolding data, manifested, for example, through probing interviews, and following promising directions in observations. In preliminary data analysis, which shapes the next cycle of data collection, a priori categories and codes are complemented with emergent ones. Scholarly literature that has served the researcher in the planning stage needs to be revisited and expanded to respond to evolving questions, themes, and issues. While thorough preparation, including knowledge of methodological and conceptual frameworks and the development of specific skills before embarking on the study, is critical, the cultivation of heightened perception and the ability to respond in data collection and analysis is equally crucial. Attentive presence is a prerequisite to fresh perception and connection, which in turn, enable responsiveness to what is encountered. Being a researcher, I argue, involves not “merely the sensation of knowledge in the making” but “a sensing of our selves in the making” (Ellsworth 2005, 1). That is true for veteran researchers, and is particularly true for graduate students. But is the ability to perceive richness and complexity teachable? How do we teach responsiveness? Agreeing with Etienne Wenger (1998/2003) that we can’t design learning but can design situations and experiences conducive to learning, this chapter addresses the teaching and learning of qualitative methodology within a research course. Dance educator Sue Stinson has commented that the music we listen to during our high school and college years is the music that most resonates with us throughout our lifespan (Stinson 2010). This lasting resonance, I believe, is equally applicable to the research experiences and dispositions gained in graduate studies. The qualitative dispositions described above include intensified perception, responsiveness and improvisation; awareness of subjectivities (Peshkin 1988, 1994) alerting researchers to the values that shape their perception; and the capacity for an ongoing interplay between the concrete case and the abstract theorizing towards conceptualizations that transfer broadly and deeply. It requires the ability to “zoom in,” move closer, and “zoom out,” gain a broader perspective on what is studied, as well as on one’s own stances and values. This chapter is part of the growing area of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL). Ernst Boyer, then president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, identified the scholarship of teaching along with the scholarship of discovery, integration, and application as “four separate, yet overlapping functions” of the professoriate (Boyer 1990, 16). By going public with their work, scholars of teaching and learning aim to create a new space for pedagogical exchange, a space in which communities of educators committed to pedagogical inquiry and innovation come together to exchange ideas about teaching and learning, share literature, and add a new body of knowledge derived from inquiry and innovation in situations of practice (Boyer 1990, 2).3 Given the exponential growth in the conduct of qualitative research in music education, I offer my perspective and reflections based on years of experience as a catalyst for research educators and their students to engage in this conversation.

610   liora bresler

32.1 The Power of Experiential Learning: Lessons from the Arts It was considerations of what knowledge, skills, and dispositions students need in order to conduct qualitative research and be able to function as members of the research community that sharpened my understanding of qualitative research as experiential processes. It is all too common to focus on what is easy to teach, relying on carefully organized knowledge outlined by textbooks. However, cultivating qualitative dispositions is fundamentally different from teaching a defined body of knowledge and skills. Building on the theoretical understandings of post-modern assumptions and qualitative scholarship, my courses aim to cultivate research skills through a series of experiential exercises, supported by an intellectual community that works together in “interpretive zones” (Bresler, Wasser, Hertzog, and Lemons 1996). Intensified perception and responsiveness to what is encountered during data collection requires going beyond the surface and the conventional. In this intellectual endeavor existing theories are starting points, guiding perception but not determining it. More than reporting of observational and interview data and matching them with existing theories, qualitative research includes the ability to generate innovative perceptions and interpretations, enhancing theories and developing concepts. Responsiveness entails the ability to note and pursue the emergent, rather than stick with the a priori; to deepen the conventional and established ways of seeing things. These dispositions call for experiential, improvised pedagogies where research is experienced as a dynamic practice. Experiential learning theory, introduced by John Dewey (1938), is based on the demonstrated value of active, personal, and direct experiences as opposed to reading about the subject or the vicarious experience of observing others (Kolb 1984). The literature on experiential learning focuses on the dialectical move between action and reflection (Schon 1983). This interplay of doing and thinking allows musicians, artists, educators, scientists, nurses, and physicians, among others, to interpret the outcome of their actions and learn from them. Underlying my teaching is the assumption that music in particular, and the arts in general, can teach us valuable lessons for qualitative research methodology (Bresler 2009). Fundamental to the power of the arts is their ability to engage us experientially, juxtaposing affect and cognition rather than dichotomizing them. The arts, as psychiatrist Daniel Stern has argued, manifest vitality in a relatively purified form, pure in the sense that the dynamic features of arts performances have usually been amplified, refined, and rehearsed repeatedly (Stern 2010, 75). It is the vitality of the arts and the amplification of their dynamic features that help us pay attention. In aiming to cultivate qualitative dispositions, I draw on encounters with artworks and musical performances as rich spaces to pay attention, wonder, contextualize, and interpret. Lessons from the arts address its capacity to evoke resonance, fostering empathic,

Teaching Qualitative Research  611 interpretive understanding. The arts engage us in exploring personal and cultural lived experience through interplay between the concrete (sounds, textures, colors, rhythm) and the abstract (moods, conceptualizations, ideas). Engagement with the arts requires an embodied presence that is cognitive and affective, creating a heightened perception. The very engagement with qualitative research, I suggest, parallels the engagement with the arts in the focus on attentive presence, heightened perception, interpretation, and quest for empathic understanding. Encounters with the arts require a commitment and ability to be fully present to what emerges “out there,” as well as to connect with our own subjectivities “in here.” This commitment and ability are also essential to qualitative research. The focal assignment described in this chapter involves fieldwork in music performances. The assignment aims to cultivate an aesthetic disposition to scholarship, drawing on the interdependent qualities of the holistic and the analytic, the concrete and the abstract, the temporal and the stable, the embodied and the conceptual. The aesthetics of scholarship, I suggest, is created through the juxtaposition of two types of distances— connectedness and detachment. Connectedness involves closeness and intimacy. It allows us to discern nuances, subtleties, and variations. Detachment involves distancing, allowing us a broader view. The juxtaposition of moving closer and farther enables fresh perception and conceptualization. When I first embarked on qualitative research, I turned to musical lenses to provide structures and conceptual organizers for meaning-making. These lenses can capture qualities of lived experience, highlighting attention to form, rhythm, dynamics, texture, and orchestration (Bresler and Stake 2006/1992; Bresler 2003). Perceptions of the fluid, evanescent quality of music and sound can sensitize us to the fleeting quality of lived experience. The ephemeral quality of music can heighten our attention to the temporal as a source of knowledge and understanding (Bresler 2005). Other arts-related aspects that prove directly relevant to the conduct of qualitative studies include the use of the body to perceive and communicate (Bresler 2006) and a dialogic, improvisatory style (Bresler 2009).

32.2 Detached Connection towards Intensified Perception and Conceptualization Intensified, fresh perception is not commonplace. All too often, as Dewey insightfully observed, recognition can be a hindrance to perception. “Recognition” Dewey wrote, “is perception arrested before it has the chance to develop freely” (1934, 52).4 While useful in daily life, when the ordinary does not need special attention, recognition hinders attentive perception. Indeed, the ordinary, British philosopher Peter de Bolla observes, is often too close for attention, extraordinary in its ability to go unremarked. The everyday

612   liora bresler has an “uncanniness of . . . proximity,” to slip behind attention (de Bolla 2001, 64). It is as if in order to survive we need to construct a mode of inattention, creating a domain too close for the reach of attention (de Bolla 2001). The adage “making the strange familiar and the familiar strange” addresses this very process of fresh seeing. Adopted in anthropological writing in the twentieth century, the familiar/strange interplay has actually been coined in the context of the art worlds in the late eighteenth century. It was not a coincidence, I  believe, that this concept was generated within the time period that the concept of aesthetic distance emerged and gained momentum. The disposition involved in aesthetic distance (Bullough 1912/1956) juxtaposes intimacy of perception with detachment from action, allowing us an expanded perception. This juxtaposition of distances, I argue, is at the core of the participant-observation stance in qualitative research. A second hindrance to exploratory perception is judgment. Like recognition, judgment is useful to our everyday functioning. However, it limits us when we aspire to go beyond, closing wonderment and further inquiry. The culture of trained musicianship can promote judgment to the point of glorification as the mark of expertise and professionalism, a proof of one’s refined taste. Detachment from readymade judgment creates a space, an opening for further exploration, suspending habitual ways of seeing in order to perceive in-depth. While we cannot (and don’t want to) give up our expertise, convictions, and established criteria of excellence—essential parts of being insiders to our musical communities and genres—we aspire as qualitative researchers to expand our expertise by seeking to understand before we evaluate. Experimenting with physical and mental distances allows us to question things taken for granted by incorporating additional perspectives. Like the distancing involved in aesthetic perception, it enables a broader view. Theorists of art since Aristotle have sought to capture the peculiar blend of closeness and distance in aesthetic experience. However, within the context of research methodology the issue of the right distance between the researcher and the researched is contentious. Distance is often marked as the distinguishing line between the worldviews of positivist “hard” sciences communities on the one hand versus post-positivist “soft” sciences communities on the other. The former is based on objectivity and detachment. The latter claims subjectivity and connection. Both communities regard distanced connection as an oxymoron. It is useful to acknowledge the historical meaning of distances as part of a worldview and their significance in the “paradigms wars” (Gage, 1989) of the 1980s as well as in contemporary research. Within a Cartesian research culture that has highlighted objectivity and distance as part of the enlightenment’s quest to reduce religious dogma, connectedness to participants and to settings is a breach. Avoiding connectedness was relatively easy to follow in the field of laboratory psychology given its setting, structures, and participants (mostly rats.) It was harder to maintain in disciplines that required prolonged engagement in social settings and extensive interaction with human participants. The discipline of anthropology was a pioneer in deconstructing distance in research; it discovered that distance was difficult to maintain through prolonged engagement in

Teaching Qualitative Research  613 a remote setting when researchers were dependent on their participants, as Bronislaw Malinowski experienced nearly a century ago. Interpretive, empathic understanding came to distinguish the aims and processes of the human sciences (van Manen 1990), including educational research, from other forms of research. In the social sciences, to various degrees and following different paces, the pendulum swung in the last 40 years from a demand for objectivity to the acknowledgement of situated subjectivity (Peshkin 1988; 1994). The rejection of the notion of objectivity (e.g., Lincoln and Guba 1985) meant for many the rejection of detachment, a concept that has come under fierce attack by post-modernists. In class preparation for the experiential, arts-based assignments, I suggest that it is precisely the juxtaposition of connectedness within detachment that is most generative for perception in qualitative research, allowing expansion of perspectives and new conceptualizations. How is detachment distinguished from the positivist objectivity? Detachment is situational rather than an epistemological state. Spinosa, Flores, and Dreyfus (1997, 6–7) contend that detachment enables us to obtain a wider view by extracting ourselves from the immediate pressures of the moment and to see what is before us in terms of its relationship to other matters. Spinosa et al. point to the two-sidedness of detachment, detachment from passion and detachment in order to see all the relevant interconnections. The former facilitates the latter. These two types, they maintain, support a third type that is related to distance in both the arts and qualitative research methodology— detachment from habitual and practical forms of seeing. I suggest that detachment from habitual seeing combined with intense engagement is characteristic of the practice of qualitative researchers, enabling them to go beyond recognition of the familiar, towards heightened, fresh perception, to “make the familiar strange.” How do we create learning opportunities in moving students beyond the dichotomy of detachment versus connectedness to a productive interplay between them? The challenge of qualitative research is maintaining an interested connectedness to what we study and to our participants, as well as detachment from our habitual forms of seeing and judging, upholding the necessary distance involved in disciplined scholarship. In striving towards this precariously balanced disposition, I find it useful to distinguish between connectedness and attachment, which I regard as the “near enemy”5 of connection. Experiential learning is key here. To that end, course assignments require students to perceive and examine their values and attachments, part of their “subjectivities,” not in order to get rid of them, but to be able to name and own them through reflective distancing. Physical distance, for example, in observations of performances, determines what researchers see and hear from their location. Similarly, an aesthetic, or intellectual distance applies to the ability to perceive the outside world. It also applies to perception of the inner self. How do we create this interplay of distances in teaching research? Course readings of anthropological and ethno-musicological literature, disciplines with a tradition of exploring “strange” settings, provide productive models for investigation and inspiration. Making sense when one is not able to “recognize” facilitates seeing afresh (Gottlieb and Graham 1995; Nathan, 2005; Saether 2003; Stoller 1987). De-familiarization can

614   liora bresler be useful in observing one’s home culture (Nettl 1995; Tobin et al. 2009). In fieldwork assignment I  draw on the aesthetic distance inherent in settings such as museums and performing arts centers, settings that invite both engagement and contemplation, to cultivate the interplay between the strange and the familiar. Other mechanisms for de-familiarization include the use of theoretical frameworks in writing organized by conceptualizations. Course assignments highlight communication with both teacher and peers in forming interpretive zones. Communication facilitates distancing. As important is the listening to multiplicity of credible perspectives, driving home the realization that the same situation can be perceived and comprehended in diverse ways, á la Rashomon6. This comprehension of multiple perspectives, a core goal of qualitative research, is basic to communication, enabling us to hear each other in dialogue rather than mere self-affirmation. Another strategy for intensified perception and conceptualization entails the explorations of dissonance and of themes and variations. The clash of dissonance jolts us into attention. Theme and variation activate a gentler discernment. In research, the theme is typically an identified concept; the variations are the manifestation of the phenomenon in diverse situations and contexts. Looking for variations cultivates nuanced perception through recognition of differences, allowing us to perceive subtlety and complexity. Underlying both dissonance and variation is comparison.7 Because qualitative research seeks to portray the uniqueness of the case and targets a small number of cases, statistical comparison and generalization are impossible. It is informal comparisons that are at play here. Informal comparisons are humble in that they have no aspiration to generalize, yet essential in providing a frame of reference as tools for perception. Comparisons enable the perception of variations, and of dissonance. Detached connection supports a comparison driven by wonderment and exploration rather than by readymade preferences of like/dislike. Fundamental to perception and discernment, comparison and contrast are present in the different genres of qualitative research including ethnography (Heath and Street 2005; Tobin et al., 2009); case study and evaluation (Eisner 1991; Stake 2010); variation theory (Marton and Booth 1997); phenomenology (van Manen 1990); and the constant comparative method (Charmaz 2006).

32.3 A Course as an Occasion for Cultivating Qualitative Dispositions The course on which this chapter focuses is semester-long, structured around weekly three-hour meetings and additional attendance of performances. The 21 students who took this class came from diverse units, including Curriculum and Instruction, Educational Policy and Organizational Leadership, Special Education, Music Education, and Art Education. My role as a teacher includes selection of reading

Teaching Qualitative Research  615 materials, designing educational experiences and activity planner, lecturing, facilitating discussions, and evaluating. Scholarly readings, an essential aspect of the course, provide a foundational support for the experiential activities. I select course materials for their potential to illuminate significant theoretical and practical issues. In the first course session I present the core assumption of the post-modern paradigm: the multiplicity of perspectives on social realities, including that of the researcher, shaped by viewpoint and contexts. We discuss the goals of interpretive, empathic understanding of personal and cultural lived experience; the characteristics of qualitative research (e.g., case and issue oriented, descriptive/interpretive, prolonged engagement, emic/etic perspectives), its methods and criteria. These discussions continue, stretto-like, throughout the course, as we address the multiplicity of realities in ethnographies and case studies and in our own observations, examining in each case how the multiplicity contributes to understanding the phenomena studied. We attend to the different types of realities (Lincoln and Guba 1985), from the tangible, “objective reality,” acknowledging the physical position from which we perceive and what it enables us to see, hear, and experience; to the “constructed realities,” centering on shared social and cultural values, and our personal “created realities” evoked in the process of interpretation. Drawing on qualitative books and dissertations as well as our own writing, we discuss the appropriate trustworthiness criteria compatible with the qualitative research worldviews, including a range of process criteria (e.g., prolonged engagement, persistent observations, triangulation, peer debriefing, member checking) and product criteria (e.g., transferability). The first assignment takes these ideas and concepts to the experiential level. I structure a museum activity aimed to support students in forming intensified relationships with a “bounded system,” a case, moving beyond habitual ways of seeing and hearing. To highlight the role of values in interpretation, students are asked to choose two artworks, one that appeals to them and another that evokes aversion or neutrality, and to stay with each for at least 30 minutes. Targeting the skills of observations, conceptualizations, and generation of further inquiries, students are assigned to describe in detailed field notes what they observe; to identify themes, issues, and curiosities; and to locate relevant contexts, including archival and Web-based information (Bresler 2012). The following assignment, described below, widens perception to a temporal bounded system, one that extends visual observations to listening and drawing on other senses. The temporal, ever-moving world of music brings a different level of complexity compared with the relative stability of qualities of artworks. Students are placed further in the methodological continuum of participant-observation towards increased participation. Music performances, I have found, make rich cases, evoking a mix of insider/ outsider musical and social identities, deep-seated subjectivities and values. Closely tied with identities, music performances are generative spaces to discern dissonances and consonances. Settings for the music performance vary, from community concerts in libraries to concerts in performing arts centers. Whenever possible, I choose events that present a wide array of musical styles, venues, audiences, and etiquettes, to facilitate a variety of choices and relationships. The ELLNORA Guitar Festival at Krannert

616   liora bresler Center was such an event. It served as the site for fieldwork and an occasion to cultivate intensified perception through detached connection. The task called for unstructured, improvised observations; contextualization; development of conceptualizations; identification of wonderments; and generation of questions to hypothetical participants to expand perspectives. It also required dialogical connections to scholarly literature, and the ability to reflect on their processes of inquiry.

32.3.1 Musical Performances as Learning Opportunities: Seeing, Hearing, and Conceptualizing Assignment for Paper #2 Based on your attendance of two concerts at the ELLNORA Guitar Festival:



1. Describe in detail what you observed in the concerts, attending to sights, sounds, smell, and touch. Note time every 5–10 minutes. 2. Identify themes and issues. 3. What are you curious about? Generate a list of questions to: a. One of the musicians. b. Two other audience members (address explicitly your purposive sampling). c. A person of your choice. 4. Identify contextual (including archival) information. 5. Reflect on how your observations followed the Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw’s guidelines on observations. If you were to write your own guidelines on observations, would you add anything to these suggestions? Relate your experience of observations to other course readings. 6. Reflect on your experience as a researcher.

32.3.2 Scaffolding the Assignment Qualitative sampling of events or interviewees is purposeful, never random. Sampling targets productive learning opportunities, ranging from best cases through ordinary to worse (as is the choice of an artwork that elicits aversion). In the guitar festival, the wide range of musical styles, settings, and etiquettes meant that class members could select the events they attended. Reflecting on their selections, they consider their choices (and its complement, what they did not choose), including settings and informants. In discussing emerging issues and contexts, we discussed which contexts are initially useful for the conduct of the study; which contexts emerged as being useful once the study is underway; which contexts were only minimally or not at all useful. The writing of paper #2 was scaffolded through several steps. Following the performance, students were asked to bring their field notes of the performances to class.

Teaching Qualitative Research  617 They shared their field notes with each other, and we discussed the various lenses and subjectivities that contributed to the individual observations, distinguishing between those objective aspects (e.g., facts relating to venues, time of day, ensemble makeup) and the created ones, shaped (but not determined by) their personal musical and artistic background and experiences, familiarity with the venue, ethnicity and age, among other influences. Below are excerpts8 from papers submitted by Christopher Dye and Stephanie Cronenberg, two doctoral students who took this research course in Fall 2011. Christopher was a second year EdD student in Music Education at the University of Illinois. Previously a middle school and high school band director in Texas, Christopher’s degrees are in music education and instrumental conducting from Texas Lutheran University and Columbus State University. Christopher’s position as an insider to the setting meant that he brought relevant musical experience and attention to nuances. His researcher’s role and the task of writing aiming to enhance others’ understanding and perception created a distancing.

Musical Borders and Boundaries Christopher Dye Coming to Krannert from New Perspectives My arrival at the ELLNORA Guitar Festival feels strange and impersonal. I spend a great deal of time in the Krannert Center for the Performing Arts as a teacher, conductor, and performer. I know the concrete slab floors and cinderblock walls of the production level by heart. The rehearsal rooms, the loading dock, the dressing rooms, and the percussion storage rooms: they all provide the context for the Krannert I am familiar with that is in contrast to the serenity of stepping on the stage of Foellinger Great Hall or slipping in through a side entrance. I buy my ticket to see Calexico the night before from the Krannert website. It is the first time I have paid to see a performance at Krannert. On the afternoon of Saturday, September 10, I ascend the concrete stairs to the main Krannert entrance, thinking, “This is what it’s like for the ‘regular’ people.” I feel as if I am ascending a monument, like a Mayan temple. At the top, I see that the area in front of the lobby and amphitheater is populated with short white tents. Vendors are selling food and drinks in the tents closest to the entrance, and the air smells of barbecue and the oil from a deep fryer. The lobby is alive. A wide spectrum of Champaign-Urbana society is milling about the open space, negotiating arced paths around small bistro tables laden with long, vibrantly colored cloths . . . We descend a staircase, and I enter door number 4, prepared to take my seat at the back of the hall in row AB, seat 4. My comfort and expectations are jarred when an usher checks my ticket and points at the stage, saying, “Front row, even seats on the right.” close enough to the stage to be aglow in the performance lights. My anticipated distance for quiet note taking had suddenly transformed into immediacy to the performers that profoundly impacted the way I reflected on the concert.

618   liora bresler

Traveling with Calexico The ELLNORA website describes Calexico in terms of geography, referring to how they have “meandered through landscapes,” “off into the horizon,” and are now “scouring the terrain” for further inspirations. Their performance indicated even broader travels, jet setting between American, Latin, and South American styles as well as time travelling to eras of classic country and West Coast surfer rock. 4:42 The performance begins. A  group of four white males, roughly in their forties, enter the stage and immediately initiates an undulating two-chord progression that builds throughout the first piece. They are joined by the rest of the ensemble, four men of Spanish or Hispanic background, before their second song. At this point, the music flows outside of the boundaries of any genre I can label. The combination of steel guitar, vibraphone, trumpet, synthesizer, maracas, and timpani mallets on the drumset produces a soundscape that is reminiscent of 1960s psychedelic rock shows. This is visually supported by a sudden shift in the lighting from blue to pink. 4:50 Each player in the group externalizes the pulse of the music in a different way. The drummer rocks back and forth between the heel and toe of his left foot on the hi-hat pedal. The lead singer and guitarist stomps his hard-soled black shoes aggressively to assert tempo. The lead trumpet player flexes his knees slightly on each beat, while the other trumpeter shows no externalization of the pulse. The bassist taps his toes, while the steel guitarist subdivides the beat with his right heel.. . 5:15 The southern geographic swing has resulted in a palpable change in the audience. What began as polite applause after each song has transitioned to performer-modeled backbeat clapping, and is now moving down to the feet of the listeners. The current song is a Bossa Nova in the key of A major, taking us below the equator, and the audience is responding with unprompted foot tapping that is vibrating the floor under my red cloth seat. Christopher’s second concert is Noveller at the outdoor amphitheater, the very last event of the festival. Christopher notes the variations created by the time of day, venue, ensemble, musical styles, and etiquette. His interpretive descriptions relate to the music, attending to textures, rhythm, and form, and the setting, for example, describing the amphitheater as transitional space rather than judging audience’s behavior. 10:16 Silence is not an essential part of this music. Loops of sound continue without pause, and it is difficult to discern what is being played live, what is being looped, and what is being created through filters and other effects. A lull in the sound elicits applause from some audience members seeking to identify the periodic breaks between pieces that are normal in most performances. The performer briefly nods her head as she continues with the next composition, reaching for a violin bow to create new effects with her guitar. 10:23 The amphitheater becomes a transitional space. A crew begins to break down the speakers and amplifiers set up from previous concerts, signaling the impending end of the festival. A  crew of festival workers passes through the crowd, creating a visual distraction with their florescent green vests and iridescent orange hats, presumably heading to

Teaching Qualitative Research  619 the street to guide post-concert traffic. The crowd on the terraces of the amphitheater has gradually changed and is now populated mostly by couples sitting close to each other, looking toward the tents. 10:37 I move from the amphitheater down to the small steps directly behind the café tables. From this vantage, I can now see various leafy plants casting shadows under the tents to the right and left of the performance stage. The sense of the organic meant literally in the name Sonic Garden also provides an apt metaphor for Noveller’s music. Each soundscape grows from a single motif and shifts of style and tonality happen gradually, almost imperceptibly. The combination of the dark shadows and her deep focus makes the performance feel deeply serious. 10:57 I move to the very top of the amphitheater. From this height, the performance in the tent is placed in the context of a larger campus. There are lights on in several offices across the street. In the distance, I can see the carillon on the south quad and the peak of Foellinger Auditorium. At the tents farthest from the stage, concertgoers are buying drinks and socializing, as oblivious to Noveller’s performance as the late night workers across the street. The top of the performance tent obscures my view of the performer, and I am struck by the complexity of the music. Without witnessing the mechanics of the performance, it is hard to imagine that the sound is all emanating from one woman with a guitar. Following narrative descriptions and questions incorporating explicit and implicit issues, Christopher’s subsequent discussion (not included here because of space limitation) was organized by issues. The theme and variations strategy is developed through consideration of a swap of venues and its impact on the experience. Self-observations are an essential aspect of the assignment, including relating one’s conduct of fieldwork in relation to course readings, and to other students’ sharing in class discussions, recognizing the multiplicity of experiences and perspectives. Christopher continued:

Reflecting on the Processes in the Field In the process of taking field notes at ELLNORA, I found myself getting wrapped up in observations. I had a difficult time pausing to consider my participation in the performances. I was concerned throughout that if I stopped taking notes for two or three minutes I would miss or misrepresent the details of what happened in those moments. David Howes (2003) asserts a historical tendency towards the primacy of visual perception, while I find myself drawn to give auditory stimuli the most focus. I made concerted efforts to include visual information in my encoding of musical performances. I found this particularly challenging when trying to describe kinesthetic actions that lead to sonic consequences, such as the motion of a drummer’s arm producing a particular tone quality. My initial instinct is to write “wide trumpet vibrato,” and I had to make myself pause and add “from embouchure/jaw movement.” Considering the advice on data collection in our course discussion and readings (specifically Emerson et al. 1995), I constantly fought a desire to analyze and thematize on the spot. As I took notes at Calexico, I started making columns of skilled/unskilled instrumental techniques and traditional/Mariachi trumpeting indicators. I am concerned that I have a tendency, especially in a field where I bring a high level of expertise, to focus in on specific

620   liora bresler areas but exclude many other details from my perception. In the classroom, this is usually an asset, allowing me to focus my pedagogy on targeted issues. This diagnostic skill is great for quickly individualizing instruction, but it may be a limiting habit for the qualitative researcher. As Emerson describes it, I have difficulty separating my “writing” and “reading” modes. My experiences as a researcher and audience member at ELLNORA were revealing. It gave me the opportunity to encounter the experiences of Krannert performances from the other side of the stage. From our classroom discussions, I am aware that there are still elements of that experience that are foreign to me, especially feelings of “otherness” and concerns about belonging. In my future planning of musical experiences and my participations in musical happenings, I will be more attuned to the dynamics of the setting and the organic and stylistic processes that take the performers and audience from one place to another. We note Christopher’s processes of “making strange,” of establishing distances. Distancing involves an inner mental state, but also actions like purchasing a ticket and exploring diverse physical viewpoints. We also note his awareness of his multiple roles: as a musician, as a teacher, and as a researcher. Christopher’s themes include the affordances and constraints of the different venues, and performers’ physical responses to the music. The second paper is by Stephanie Cronenberg. Stephanie’s degrees include Music Education, Arts Education, and Ethnomusicology from the University of Maryland and Harvard. Her teaching experiences encompass fourth- through eighth-grade general music, and directorship of education and community programs for The Choral Arts Society of Washington (DC). In Fall 2011 she was a first year PhD student in the Aesthetic Education program at the College of Education, University of Illinois. Stephanie organizes her paper around three themes and issues, illustrating them using short (indented) vignettes taken from her field notes.

What’s My Role? Performer Identities, Audience Behavior, and Researcher Synthesis Stephanie Cronenberg Themes:

1. Observing everyday events to understand rituals (acquiring tickets or not; positionality of artists). 2. Narrowing and widening the zoom (the music/artists versus the wider contexts, including audience). 3. Description and interpretation, including emerging themes, identified in the immersion in the setting.

At 3:50 pm on Friday, September 9th, 2011, I made my way across campus to Krannert Performing Arts Center for the ELLNORA Guitar Festival. . . The Colwell Playhouse event required a purchased ticket, a requirement that automatically created an altered

Teaching Qualitative Research  621 atmosphere from that of the crowded lobby. During my observations throughout the evening, I altered my role as participant/observer and attempted to attend to the environment with all of my senses. The crowded lobby at 4:00 pm prevented me from finding a seat, so I chose to move throughout the lobby during the performance to capture the experience of audience members from multiple perspectives. Given that the 6:30 pm event was ticketed, I was assigned a vantage point in a theatre, in the middle of the last row near the lightboard and soundboard, from which to experience the performance. As a trained musician, I can easily tune out all external distractions and focus solely on the musical performance. However, in this case, I challenged myself to not exclusively tune into the musical performances forsaking all other external “interference” as I might regularly do during a performance. In what follows, I attempt to describe three themes and the resulting issues I identified from my field notes, and I attempt to illustrate those themes and issues using short vignettes taken from my field notes. Within each section, I identify questions regarding the theme or issue that I would like to ask of the artists, audience members, or commissioners, as well as additional contextual information I would ideally like to obtain. In the final section of this paper, I conclude with a section referencing course readings. Stephanie’s first section, titled “Look at Me: Performer Identity,” is a rich description of artists and audience behavior, focusing on the role of vision in the concert in both the lobby and the hall. In the second section presented below, the focus is on physical response to the music. Stephanie starts with a broad overview of audience responses to concerts, as a framework and conceptual organizer to this specific event.

Feel the Beat: Physical Response to Music For many concert attendees or avid music listeners, music has the power to evoke physical responses in the listeners. In both churches and rock concerts, listeners moved by the music sing along and raise their hands high in the air. Although the purposes for hand-raising are different, both are physical responses evoked by music. Students learning a new instrument or receiving instruction in music appreciation are often taught to clap or tap their foot along to the beat of the music as a means for keeping time. At other times, the sound vibrations, whether amplified electronically or acoustically, can create physical responses in the ear or chest of the listener. Audience members love to respond physically to the beat of the music. The fourth song in the set performed by Luther Dickson and Alvin Youngblood Hart features a drone under the melody, all performed on one guitar. The lights on the brick wall serving as the back of the stage have changed and are now alternating blue, pink, and green. The lights are also shifting across the wall while alternating to accompany the beat of the song. Audience members, moved by the beat of the music, move their bodies in synchronization with the lights on the wall. Although unplanned, all move together. An older man lifts his cane up and down, people standing at the back bob their heads or tap their feet, a woman dances with a baby, and another woman fans herself with a piece of paper. If the audience were observed with the sound muted, it would appear as if many audience members were controlled by an invisible marionette string. Though parts of their

622   liora bresler bodies move in unison, the invisible force is not authoritarian; the musical beat simply invites them into the experience of the music with its own unique force. Much like the performance of “Sweet Home Alabama” at a social gathering in Mobile, the playing of “Georgia on My Mind” at Stone Mountain, or the singing of “Deep in the Heart of Texas” at the fourth of July in Dallas, the meaning of some songs is culturally constructed based on time and place. The physical reaction of the crowd led me to conclude that the final song played by Luther Dickson and Alvin Youngblood Hart was a song of this nature. As a geographical and musical outsider, I did not understand the reaction, but the audience reaction was unmistakable. There are cheers from the crowd as the final song in the set begins at 4:46 pm. I do not recognize the song, but it is clear from the cheers that even the opening cadence is recognizable to many people in the audience. In unison, the audience begins clapping on the beat as the song leaves the introduction and moves into the first verse. This is the first song that moves nearly the entire audience to respond physically to the beat. Long after much of the audience abandons the clapping to the beat, a young boy around age 10 continues clapping. He is standing approximately eight feet from me near the chair of a man I assume is his father. As he claps, he shifts his feet and turns half toward the stage and half toward his father while continuing to clap. It is as if he knows that everyone else in the audience has stopped clapping and therefore feels he should too, but he is unable to contain his physical response to the song. Eventually his clapping lessens and fades away, but he is still unable to stand still as the song progresses. Stephanie’s third section, titled “One person’s music, Another person’s noise: Musical Tastes,” is organized around the preferences of the audience of the performances accompanying the two silent films, one favorable, another unfavorable, preferences contrasting with her own. Stephanie’s substantiates with detailed descriptions (“a woman in the audience yells “turn it down!” A man in the audience yells “NO!” Another male voice yells “put your ear plugs in.” The girl next to me mutters, “didn’t know we’d need them.” The two guys at the light board chuckle and say something like, “early show and already everyone’s drunk.”), including her own responses (While I found these two moments of musical contrast most powerful, I do not believe I shared this reaction with much of the audience, who seemed to become uncomfortable in these moments.) It is only after the performance, while reflecting on the two dramatically contrasting interpretations of the appropriate music for a silent movie that I consider my preferences in relationship to the preferences of the audience. While the audience physically responded in a variety of ways to the Luther Dickson and Alvin Youngblood Hart performance, I remained rather neutral to the music. Both Lee Ranaldo and Marc Ribot elicited dramatic reactions from the majority of audience members, including me, but my reactions differed from those I could sense around me. Had I not experienced all three events and reflected on them as a collective experience, I would not have seen the dichotomies between audience reactions in different performances or the insider/outsider dichotomy (Bresler 2006, 25) of my own experience relative to that of the audience. Having read the Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (1995) chapters prior to my field research, I wanted to attempt to write jottings rather than my usual more detailed notes. In keeping with this goal, instead of using my iPad to make detailed notes, I chose a small notepad and

Teaching Qualitative Research  623 pen. Unlike in an art museum, the light from the iPad would be culturally unacceptable in a musical performance, especially one inside a theatre. I also primarily wrote phrases or sentence fragments throughout my observation in attempt to adhere to the instructions of Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (1995, 20). Despite anticipating this challenge, I had to balance my compulsion to continually write, with focusing on the most salient details that would help me construct a full picture of the important incidents later, when I fleshed out my field notes. Further, I was faced with determining how and when to write without disrupting the cultural construction of a quiet darkened theatre, a construction that I am sure impacted my field notes. Typically, my notes are quite messy and are composed in a manner unintelligible to anyone but me when I complete a final writing such as this paper. However, knowing that my classmates and professor would potentially see the messy way in which my brain operates led me “to include more details of background and context to make fieldnotes more accessible” (Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw, 1995, 44). Although I wanted my field notes to be comprehensible if I were called upon in class, the more natural position of “maintain[ing] a loose, flowing, and shifting approach, not [writing] with consistency of voice and style” eventually won out (Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw, 1995, 44). While Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw provide strong guidance and excellent tips for jotting notes in the field and later constructing field notes, I feel the need to add to their tips and guidelines. In rereading their writing, though they acknowledge that field research might be conducted at night—“as soon as possible after the day’s (or night’s) research is done” (Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw, 1995, 40)—they do not provide any guidance in creating jottings during nighttime research or in darkened venues. I would add tips to provide guidelines for conducting research in circumstances where jottings or field notes cannot easily be seen during the act of writing. While I feel that I was fairly successful, my notes were scrambled, spread out, and on a few occasions, written over each other. One tip I might offer is to place a finger of the non-writing hand on the page where the previous jotting ceased so that the writer can easily know where to begin jotting again. Another tip would be, should notes be written over one another, to later, out of the field, take two different colored pens and attempt to trace letters in order to discover the words or phrases of one jotting hidden under another jotting. When I asked Stephanie what she saw as relevant to music educators, she wrote: Perhaps most relevant to this paper is the opening mindset of musicians who are trained to listen and observe in a way that is necessary for qualitative research. I think that, for me, the course made the processes of qualitative research easier to grasp because we used art forms as our research sites. But specifically related to the musical performance at ELLNORA, I found that trying to think about the performance as a qualitative researcher first rather than as how I was trained, as an ethno-musicological qualitative researcher, both liberating and challenging. In my own training,9 the emphasis was always on the music or potentially on the accompanying dancing/ritual. There was an expectation that as an ethnomusicologist the goal would be to “capture” the music whether by recording or transcription. I realized going into ELLNORA that you didn’t want a musical transcription for the assignment, which left me challenged by what I should focus on, but also liberated

624   liora bresler to observe whatever I  found most important. For me, taking this class allowed me to begin thinking about what I thought was important (without the control of someone else) to observe and note during participant observation. It made me think about what I was observing and why and whether or not those things were ok to be observing, given whatever questions I might have as a researcher. This particular performance at ELLNORA also confirmed for me the importance of emergence, because if I hadn’t been thinking about what to observe outside of the musical performance, I might have dismissed the audience’s reaction to the performances and thus lost one of the most interesting aspects of the performance. Stephanie’s comments illustrate how the strengths of musicians—the ability to focus on the music—can also be liability in music education research. The need to transfer the focused connection exemplified in musical engagement to a broader arena needs to be addressed explicitly and systematically. Here it is the sensibilities of our teaching persona that support researchers in identifying and exploring educational issues. Teaching involves the ability to attend to multiple sources of information simultaneously, to respond to the unexpected dynamics and interactions of the classroom. The sensitivities of musicians and educators complement each other. If music teaches us to zoom-in, teaching requires the capacity to zoom-out. Another key movement of relationships is researchers’ agility in moving back and forth from attending to “out there” when doing fieldwork to “in here,” which is their values and commitments. The latter is typically conducted in the private space of data analysis and writing. Both of these movements often draw on dissonance as a useful tool for heightened perception. We noted the outside dissonance in Stephanie’s observations of the audience’s discomfort with the music accompanying the film. An example of an “inner dissonance” is the discrepancy between Stephanie’s own responses to the music as compared with other audience members’ responses, or Christopher’s disappointment in his allocated seat, clashing with his expectations of his researcher role. Dissonances usually announce themselves loudly. They often signal the presence of meaningful issues, alerting the researchers to underlying personal and cultural expectations and values. Because of their jarring quality and our tendency to shy away from discomfort, we often avoid dissonances or turn them into judgment, closing off exploration. The disposition of detached interest facilitates closer scrutiny, conducive to greater understanding. Another, gentler strategy to cultivate intensified perception is the identification of theme and variations within and across events. Theme and variations attend to the nuances of educational phenomena. The identification of themes is a process akin to Karl Popper’s notion of conjectures (Popper 1963). It involves a conceptual leap, to be developed and substantiated systematically. Christopher’s theme of performers’ expressions of musicality is developed through detailed observations of the two trumpeters, focusing on the variations in their technique and posture, speculating about their background and education. Stephanie’s theme on audience responses contextualizes it through descriptions of the varied use of music and the artists’ presentations of self in the lobby, at the concert, and in the films. She includes the disparity between her own responses and the rest of the (audible and observable) audience. These “thick descriptions” become part of a larger conceptualization, for example, musical and verbal

Teaching Qualitative Research  625 actions of musicians and audiences as reflecting traditions of specific genres and styles, or audiences’ enculturation and musical preferences. Improvisation is practiced in identifying promising directions and foci in observations; in generating and pursuing emerging questions to various key participants; and in seeking relevant contexts and theoretical frameworks. Fieldwork can be regarded as choreography, where students move closer and farther from specific events, situations, and foci, exploring how a change of distance contributes to their perception. We discuss qualitative works by master researchers in diverse fields (Barone 2001; Myerhoff 1978; Peshkin 1986) that exemplify this choreography of intimacy and detachment, the concrete and the abstract. Drawing on the wide array of course readings, the final course assignment calls for an elaborate discussion of related methodological issues.

32.4 Learning as Experiencing, Doing, Belonging and Becoming Wenger (1998/2003, 5) pinpoints four constituents of communities of practice: learning as experience; learning as doing; learning as belonging to a community; and learning as becoming, shaping one’s identity. I regard these components as central aspects of teaching qualitative research. Learning as experience is fundamental to fieldwork. Since experience is elusive to teach and evaluate, course assignments interlink experiencing with doing, for example, requiring a continuous note taking through fieldwork observations. Note taking is essential in fieldwork. Just as music is “phenomenally evanescent, relentlessly moving, ever changing” (Burrows 1990, 21), social life, too, is constantly changing. The personal experience of settings, sights, and sounds assumes another dimension when writing. The private experience is rendered public in the act of communication. In aiming to cultivate learning as belonging to a community, I construct the class setting as an “interpretive zone” (Bresler, Wasser, Hertzog, and Lemon 1996; Wasser and Bresler 1996). Drawing on Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development” (1986), among other uses of zone, the concept highlights the social and contextual aspects of interpretation. Zone, more than interpretation, forces us away from the image of the lone researcher working in isolation. The notion of zone implies dynamic processes, exchange, transaction, and intensity. Indeed, exchanging perspectives is an integral aspect of the course, including the sharing of foci, wonderments, relationships to the settings, descriptions and interpretations, and writing styles. Students become aware of the diversity of themes and respective variations identified by their peers, reflecting their background, areas of commitment, and expertise. Class discussions broaden and deepen understanding of the case, exemplifying the contributions of multiple perspectives of the event. They also manifest that not all perspectives are equal, countering a relativistic stance. Some issues, interpretations, and writing are better substantiated,

626   liora bresler generating new and meaningful understanding; others are more surface-level, thinner, easily refuted. The sense of belonging to the class (cemented, I am often told, by the experiential qualities of the course, including the performances, sharing food, and dynamics of the conversations) facilitates, I believe, a sense of belonging to the larger scholarly community. Learning as becoming is at the core of research education. Elsewhere (Bresler 2008), I referred to Parker Palmer’s famous saying that “we teach who we are” (Palmer 1998, 2), making a case that teachers’ inner landscapes are central to what they do. I argued that other occupations to various extents are shaped by those who “occupy” them, referring in particular to the profession of researchers, musicians, and artists. This shaping, I believe, is established through the connection to, and exploration of, what we study, the craft and skills we develop, and the voice and communication style we acquire through these processes. These processes move recursively. Supported by a space for prolonged engagement10 with both setting and data, inquiry is inspired by the deep wish to understand and communicate to our audiences—fellow researchers and students. Ultimately, conducting research, and as I have found, the teaching of research, intensifies the process of becoming.

Notes 1. I am grateful to my doctoral students who have collaborated with me in the exploration of pedagogies and beliefs, with a special thanks to Stephanie Cronenberg and Christopher Dye for allowing me to share their papers and insights. I am indebted to Diana Dummit, Eve Harwood, Betsy Hearne, Koji Matsunobu, and Philip Silvey for reading this paper and for their insightful comments. 2. That is, rather than generalizable causal relationships of pre-specified variables across large samples. 3. This is related but different from the genre of methodological books based on rich experience of teaching qualitative research, for example, Robert Stake’s Qualitative Research (2010) or Elliot Eisner’s The Enlightened Eye (1991). In music education, Janet Barrett’s pedagogical action research study, focusing on data analysis and the refinement of interpretive perspectives (2007) is a compelling example of SOTL in music education. 4. For a brilliant elaboration of this point, see Higgins 2007. 5. In the Buddhist discussion of the four highest Attitudes/Emotions and sublime abodes, the far enemy is the opposite quality, whereas the near enemy is a quality that can masquerade as the original, but is not the original. For example, the far enemy of compassion is cruelty, where its near enemy is pity. (Insight Meditation Center, n.d.) 6. Akira Kurosawa’s 1950 classic film that conveys that the same event can be genuinely perceived, interpreted, and communicated in diverse ways. 7. Heath and Street (2005, 37) suggest that contrast calls for more observations of qualities as compared to comparison that is guided by beliefs of what should be. 8. The original papers, about 16-20 pages each, were shortened for space limitations. 9. This is not generalizable for all ethno-musicology education. 10. This refers to experience in the processes of early research and dissertation, rather than the shorter one-shot course assignments.

Teaching Qualitative Research  627

Box 32.1  C and I 509 QRM Fall, 2011 Thursdays, 9:00–11:50 am Room 385 Education CURRICULUM RESEARCH: QUALITATIVE METHODS RESEARCH Instructor:    Liora Bresler Office Hours:   393 Education Bldg. Mondays 1-4:00 PM (These and other times by appointment) Telephone:    244-0734, 244-8286 E-mail:     [email protected] Purpose: This course is designed for people who wish to gain a general understanding of qualitative research and who want to conduct studies using qualitative methods. We will examine the nature of qualitative research in various research “genres” and intellectual traditions; will practice the tools and methods of qualitative research; and will discuss quality in qualitative research. Acknowledging the multiplicity of perspectives involved in qualitative research, we will explore ways of engaging in fieldwork and data analysis—procedures and techniques, as well as ways of connecting and improvising, exploring the continuous process of mutual discovery. We will examine the ways in which our identities and roles as fieldworkers, individuals, and members of our own communities shape the questions we ask and the answers we receive. Fundamental to qualitative research is the interplay between the concrete and the abstract. This experiential course will provide a space to explore the dynamic relationship between theory and method in diversity of settings. Format will be a mix of lecture, laboratory, and seminar. We will spend time doing intensive observations (of so-called “static” as well as “real time” events,) and interviewing, identifying research themes and issues, and using these for group reflections/interpretations, creating a space for an interpretive zone. Seeing, Hearing, Sensing, and Conceptualizing—the Foundations of Qualitative Research 8/25   Topic: The Journey, and a Map Overview of Course: Goals, assignments, and grading. Overview of Qualitative Methodology:  Epistemology, characteristics, and  methods. 9/01   Lingering observations towards empathic understanding. Assignments: • Read Liora Bresler’s Article: “Experiential pedagogies in research education.” • Read Bogdan and Biklen’s Chapter 1 in Qualitative Research for Education. Prior to September 1st: • Choose 2 artworks in the Krannert Art Museum, one that you find appealing, and one that evokes negativity (or leaves you neutral.) Spend at least 30–40 minutes with each artwork. Keep notes of your perceptions and observations. 1.  Describe in detail what you see (note how long you stayed with each of the artworks).

628   liora bresler 2.  Reflect and interpret. Identify themes and issues. 3.  What are you curious about? Generate a list of questions to:

a. The artist b.  The person who first bought it c.  The curator 4.  Identify contextual (including archival) information:  What else would you like to know to better understand and relate with the artwork? Where will you search for this information? 5.  Reflect on the way that lingering caress and mutual absorption (to draw on Armstrong’s aspects described in Bresler’s work) lent themselves to empathy (search for existing definitions and add your own understanding of the term). Following Armstrong, reflect on the ways in which these five aspects were manifested (or not) in your own interaction with the artwork. You are invited to identify other aspects and relationships that emerge through your encounter of the artworks, as relevant. •  Submit electronically paper no. 1 reflecting on these by Saturday, September 3rd, at 2:00 pm. 9/08 Topic: Observations Assignments: • Read Emerson, Fretz and Shaw’s Chapters 1–3 in Writing Ethnographic Field Notes. • Read Powell’s Chapter 2: “Inside-out and outside-in: Participant Observation in Taiko Drumming” in G. Spindler and L. Hammond’s Innovations in Educational Ethnography. • Read Graham and Gottlieb’s article:  “Tasting Culture, Writing Rhythm, Dreaming Worlds.” 9/08-10 Concerts at Krannert Performing Center: ELLNORA Guitar Festival. ****** • Attend two concerts at two different times from the festival www.ellnoraguitarfestival. com/

• Take notes for each concert for 60 minutes describing what you see, hear, touch, and smell. Reflect on the values (explicit and implicit) enacted in this setting. • Be prepared to share 2–3 pages of the field notes with class members on 9/15. 9/15 Topic: Multiplicity of Descriptions and Interpretations Assignments: • Bring to class 2–3 pages of your field record (use large [18–20] fonts) to share with other class members. • Read Constance Classen’s article: “Foundations for an Anthropology of the Senses.” • Read David Howes’s Fore-Taste and Chapter 1 in Sensual Relations: Engaging the Senses in Culture and Social Theory. • Read the first 6–10 pages from Bresler’s Danville Chapter 3 in Stake, Bresler, and Mabry’s Custom and Cherishing.

Teaching Qualitative Research  629 • Reflect on how your observations fit and diverge from these readings. Paper #2:  (10+ pages.) To be submitted by September 29, both electronically and hard copy. 1. Describe in detail what you observed in the concerts, attending to sights, sounds, smell, and touch. Note time every 5–10 minutes (e.g., 11:30; 11:35). 2. Identify themes and possible issues. Include (at least 5) themes identified by other class members on September 15. 3. What are you curious about? Generate a list of questions to:



a. One of the artists b. Two other audience members c. A person of your choice

4. Identify contextual (including archival) information:



a. What else would you like to know to better understand the event from any perspective that is of interest? b. Where will you search for this information?

5. Reflect on how your observations followed Emerson’s guidelines on observations. If you were to write your own guidelines on observations, will you add anything to their suggestions? Relate your experience of observations to Howes and Classen (this part of the assignment should be addressed at the end of your paper, and is worth 20 percent of this paper’s grade). 9/22 Topic: Initial Data Analysis and Interpretation. Assignments: • Read Miles and Huberman’s Chapter 3 in Qualitative Data Analysis. • Read Bernard and Ryan’s Chapters 1, 3, and 4 in Analyzing Qualitative Data. • Bring to class 2–3 pages of your one-page Contact Summary Sheet. 9/29 Topic: Educational Connoisseurship and Criticism: identifying areas of expertise and lack of. Assignments: • Read Elliott Eisner’s Chapters 4 and 5 in The Enlightened Eye. • Read Tom Barone’s Chapters 1 and 2 in Touching Eternity. • If you were to cultivate connoisseurship that would help you in the observations, what would it be? Address Eisner’s categories, as well as other relevant course readings. • Paper #2: 10 pages. To be submitted as a hard copy in class and electronically. 10/6 Topic: Multiple Perspectives and Multiple Narratives. Assignments:

630   liora bresler • Read Akutagawa’s chapter, “In the Grove.” • Watch (in class) Kurosawa’s movie, Rashomon. 1.  In small groups (of 3–5) discuss the multiple perspectives presented. 2.  Address objective realities and created/constructed realities. 3. In 1–3 pages, discuss the different versions of the event, and the self and other presentations in each of the stories. 4. What is Kurosawa’s film about? (if multiple views of Kurosawa’s themes, please list all views). • Submit group notes on Rashomon (one per group) on Oct. 13th. 10/13 Topic: Cultural and historical contexts in research. Assignments: • Read Tobin, Hsueh, and Karasawa’s book Preschool in Three Cultures Revised:  China, Japan, and the United States. • Reflect on methods, methodological issues, contexts, and themes. 10/20 Topic: Continuation of Preschools 10/27 Topic: Interpretive Zones Assignments: • Read Wasser and Bresler’s article, “Working in the Interpretive Zones.” • Watch the Japanese and American segments of the “Preschool in Three Cultures Revisited.” • In small groups of four people discuss: 1. What you have observed in the DVD that adds a dimension to the book, on any level. 2. A-priori themes based on your reading of the book, watching the Japanese section and classroom discussion (please come to class with three identified themes). 3. Emergent themes (2) based on the Chinese and American segments. 4. After sharing these themes, discuss how Tobin et  al. build and develop their themes, including use of contexts and scholarly literature. • Please submit group notes in class on Nov. 3rd. • Discuss in your small group the different types of interpretive zones of your discussion, focusing on the post-DVD discussion but when relevant include class discussions of the ELLNORA, museum visit and readings. 11/03 Topic: Interviews. Assignments: • Read van Manen’s Chapter 1 in Researching Lived Experience. • Read Steinar Kvale’s Chapters 1, 4, and 5 in InterViews. • Read Janet Cape and Jeananne Nichols’ chapter, “Engaging Stories:  Co-constructing Narratives of Women’s Military Bands.”

Teaching Qualitative Research  631 Guest Presentation: Professor Jeananne Nichols. Optional:  Professor Philip Graham’s visit at 4 pm. (Philip’s two chapters are on e-reserve for this class). 11/10 Topic: Participant/Observation and Interviewing Examined Closely. 11/17 Topic: The Use of Theory in Qualitative Research. Assignments: • Be prepared to discuss Myerhoff ’s Chapters 1 and 2 in Number Our Days, drawing on the questions sent a couple of weeks ago. • Reflect on methods, methodological issues (including insider-outsider), contexts, themes, and the ways in which the two chapters reflect (or not) Kvale’s ideas of interviewing. • Read Paul Prior’s Appendix A and Chapter 4 in Writing/Disciplinarity: A Socio-Historic Account of Literature Activity in the Academy. 1. Reflect on the research questions, design and data gathered in both studies. 2. Discuss methodological issues presented in the data of both studies. 3. Reflect on the multiplicity of perspectives and interpretations in each study. Guest Presentation: Professor Paul Prior 12/1 Criteria in Qualitative Research: Ethics, Trustworthiness and Usefulness. Assignments: • Read Lincoln and Guba’s Chapter 11 in Naturalistic Inquiry. • Read Wolcott’s Chapter 11 in Transforming Qualitative Data. • Submit paper #3 by Friday, December 9th, at 9:00 a.m.1 GRADING PROCEDURES Participation in all sessions and activities; careful, thorough reading of all course materials required; and timely submission of all three papers and the two group assignments. 1. Paper 1: Museum Paper. 6–7 pages.

20 percent Due date: 9/03

2. Paper 2: Observations and Issues. 10+ pages.

35 percent Due date: 9/29

3. Group Notes: 2 sets, 5 percent each A. Rashomon 05 percent Due date: 10/13 B. Interpretive Zones 05 percent Due date: 11/03 5. Paper 3: Methodology Paper of 7+ pages. 35 percent Due date: 12/09 REQUIRED TEXTS (Textbooks are available in the library on reserve for two-hour loans.) Tobin, J., Hsueh Y.  and Karasawa, M.  (2009). Preschool in Three Cultures Revisited: China, Japan, and the United States. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. REFERENCES (Readings are available online.) 1 

For those who would like to have an extension on this paper, the final due date is January 18th, 2011.

632   liora bresler Students can access e-reserve lists through the library online catalog reserve module at: http://library.uiuc.edu/ereserves/querycourse.asp Akutagawa, R. (1964). In the Grove, from Rashomon. Tokyo. (pp. 19–33) Barone, T. (2001). Touching eternity. New York: Teachers College Press. (Part 1: pp. 11–32; Part 2: pp. 34–102) Bogdan, R., and S.  Biklen (2003). Qualitative research for education:  An introduction to theories and methods (fourth edition preferred but not required). New York: Allyn and Bacon. (Ch. 1: pp. 1–48; Ch. 3: pp. 73–108; Ch. 4: pp. 109–146) Bernard, H., and G. Ryan. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data: systematic approaches. Los Angeles: Sage. (Ch. 1: pp. 03–16; Ch.3: pp. 53–73; Ch. 4: pp. 75–105) Bresler, L. (in press). Experiential pedagogies in research education: Drawing on engagement with artworks. In C. Stout (Ed.), Teaching and learning emergent research methodologies in art education. Reston: NAEA. Bresler, L. (1991). Ch. 3: Washington and Prairie Elementary Schools, Danville, Illinois. In Stake, R., L. Bresler, and L. Mabry (Eds.). Custom and cherishing: Arts education in the United States. CRME, Urbana: University of Illinois. (Ch. 3: pp. 55–61) Cape, J. and J. Nichols (in press). “Engaging Stories: Co-constructing Narratives of Women’s Military Bands” in M. Barrett and S. Stauffer (Eds.) Narrative Soundings and Resonant Lifework, xx–xx. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Classen, C.  (1997). Foundations for an anthropology of the senses. International Social Science Journal 153, 401–412. Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan. (Ch. 4: pp. 63–83; Ch. 5: pp. 85–106) Emerson, R., R. Fretz, and L. Shaw (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Ch. 1: pp. 1–16; Ch. 3: pp. 39–65) Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. (Ch. 1: pp. 3–30) Graham, P., A. Gottlieb. (2011, May). Tasting Culture, writing rhythm, dreaming worlds. In L.  Bresler and W.  Gershon (co-chair), The intersection of qualitative inquiry and the senses. Panel conducted at the 7th International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Howes, D. (2003). Sensual relations: Engaging the senses in culture and social theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. (Foretaste pp. xi-xxiii; Ch 1; pp. 3–28) Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Ch. 1: pp. 3–18; Ch. 2: pp. 19–37; Ch. 5: pp. 83–108) Lincoln, Y. and E. Guba. (1995). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Ch. 11: pp. 289–331) Miles, M. B., and A. Huberman, (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. (Ch. 3: pp. 49–78) Myerhoff, B. (1978). Number our days. New York: Simon and Schuster. (Ch. 1: pp. 01–39; Ch. 2: pp. 40–78) Myerhoff, B. (1988). Surviving stories; Reflections on Number Our Days. In J. Busch (Ed.) Between two worlds; ethnographic essays on American Jewry, Chapter 11 (pp. 265–295). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Neumann, A. (2009). Professing to learn: Creating tenured lives and careers in the American research university. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. (Ch. 1: pp. 16–42)

Teaching Qualitative Research  633 Powell, K. (2006). Ch. 2: Inside-out and outside-in: Participant observation in taiko drumming. In G. Spindler and L. Hammond (Eds.), Innovations in educational ethnography: Theory, methods, and results. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Ch. 2: pp. 33–64) Prior, P.  (1998). Writing/Disciplinarity:  A  Sociohistoric Account of Literate Activity in the Academy. Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Ch. 4:  pp.  99–134; Appendix A: pp. 288–311). Udvarhelyi, E.  (2011). Reflections on a Politics of Research for the Right to the city. International Review of Qualitative Research, 3, (4), 383–401. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. The State University of New York. (Ch. 1: pp. 1–34) Wasser, J., and Bresler, L. (1996). Working in the Interpretive Zone. Educational Researcher, 25, (5), 5–15. Wolcott, H.  (1994). Transforming qualitative data. (second edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Ch. 11: pp. 337–373). Class Assignments Paper #1: Observations Electronic Paper is due by September 3rd. Paper #2: Observations of two concerts in the ELLNORA The Guitar Festival, Krannert Performing Center. Paper is due by September 29th. Group Notes #1: Rashomon. Summary is due by October 6th. Group Notes #2: Creating and Working in Interpretive Zones Summary is due by November 3rd. Paper #3: methodological reflections. In the methodological paper, address the issues below in relation to the Krannert observations. Whenever you can, connect the issues with course readings as well as on classroom discussions (including references to individual class-members contributions). Drawing on course readings, program notes, and the interpretive zones/peer debriefing, respond to the methodological issues below. Paper is due on December 12th. I. Axioms

1. Truth.

What are my assumptions on the nature of the realities of this event? Did I attempt to portray multiple realities, if so, how? 2.  The Researcher instrument. What do I bring to these observations? Reflect on my “subjectivities,” lenses, and values as part of my background. When am I connoisseur and when am I an “outsider”? II. Titles, Contexts, and Criteria

1. Provide a list of titles for your field-notes (I suggest between three and four titles) and discuss the extent to which they reflect the evolution of your thinking.

634   liora bresler 2. Contexts. Which contexts did I provide for my case? Which contexts would I want to provide in a “best of all best worlds,” with more time for this study? 3. What criteria was I able to apply for my case? Did the class discussion following the performances contribute to the quality of the micro-case? Which criteria discussed in Lincoln and Guba and in Wolcott did I not apply? III. Coping with Emergence

1.  What themes did I anticipate before going to the Krannert Center (if any)? 2.  What themes emerged? 3. What did I  learn from doing these observations in terms of contents? In terms of methodology? Did I learn anything that surprised me? 4. What aspects of the research activity were most difficult? Most frustrating? Most rewarding? 5. What else do I need to learn to improve my perceptions and skills as a qualitative researcher? I suggest 6–10 pages for the methodology paper (these are only suggestions, papers can be longer). In the methodology paper, criteria for evaluation include the depth of thinking, the ability to relate meaningfully to a wide range (suggested five to nine readings) of course readings, the ability to reflect on your choices and values, and the substantiation of your responses with concrete examples.

References Barone, Tom. 2001. Touching Eternity. New York: Teachers College Press. Barrett, Janet. 2007. “The Researcher as Instrument: Learning to Conduct Qualitative Research through Analyzing and Interpreting a Choral Rehearsal.” Music Education Research 9 (3): 417–33. Boyer, Ernst 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bresler, Liora. 2003. “Out of the Trenches:  The Joys (and Risks) of Cross-Disciplinary Collaborations.” Council of Research in Music Education 152: 17–39. Bresler, Liora. 2005. “What Musicianship Can Teach Educational Research.” Music Education Research 7 (2): 169–83. Bresler, Liora. 2006. “Embodied Narrative Inquiry:  Methodology of Connection.” Research Studies in Music Education 27: 21–43. Bresler, Liora. 2008. “Research as Experience and the Experience of Research: Mutual Shaping in the Arts and in Qualitative Inquiry.” LEARNing Landscapes 2 (1): 267–79. Bresler, L. 2009. “Research Education Shaped by Musical Sensibilities.” British Journal of Music Education 26 (1): 7–25. Bresler, Liora. 2012. “Experiential Pedagogies in Research Education: Drawing on Engagement with Artworks.” In Teaching and Learning Emergent Research Methodologies in Art Education, edited by C. Stout. Reston: NAEA.

Teaching Qualitative Research  635 Bresler, Liora, and Robert E. Stake. 1992/2006. “Qualitative Research Methodology in Music Education.” In MENC Handbook of Research Methodologies, edited by R. Colwell, 270–311. New York: Oxford University Press. Bresler, Liora, Judy Wasser, Nancy Hertzog, and Mary Lemons. 1996. “Beyond the Lone Ranger Researcher:  Teamwork in Qualitative Research.” Research Studies in Music Education 7: 15–30. Bullough, Edward. 1953/1912. “Psychical Distance as a Factor in Art and an Aesthetic Principle.” In The Problems of Aesthetics, edited by E. Vivas and M. Krieger, 396–405. New York: Rinehart and Company. Burrows, David. 1990. “Sound, Speech, and Music.” Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dewey, John. 1938/1997. Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone. Eisner, Elliot. 1991. The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York: Macmillan. Ellsworth, Elizabeth. 2005. Places of Learning:  Media, Architecture, Pedagogy. New York: Routledge. Emerson, Robert, Rachel Fretz, and Linda Shaw. 1995. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gage, Nathaniel. 1989. “The Paradigm Wars and Their Aftermath. A  ‘Historical’ Sketch of Research on Teaching.” Educational Researcher 18: 4–10. Gottlieb, Alma, and Philip Graham. 1996. Parallel Worlds. Chicago:  University of Chicago Press. Heath, Shirley Brice, and Brian Street, with Mills Molly. 2005. On Ethnography. New York: Teachers College Press. Higgins, Chris. 2007. “Interlude:  Reflections on a Line from Dewey.” In International Handbook in Research for Art Education, edited by L. Bresler, 389–94). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Howes, David. 2003. Sensual Relations: Engaging the Senses in Culture and Social Theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Insight Meditation Center. (n.d.). Dhamma Lists. http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/ books-articles/dhamma-lists/ Kolb, David. A. 1984. Experiential Learning:  Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lincoln, Yvonna, and Egon Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications. Marton, Ference, and Shirley Booth. 1997. Learning and Awareness. New Jersey:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Nathan, Rebekah. 2005. My Freshman Year: What a Professor Learned by Becoming a Student. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Palmer, Parker J. 1998. The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Peshkin, Alan. 1986. God’s Choice:  The Total World of a Fundamentalist Christian School. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Peshkin, Alan. 1988. “In Search of Subjectivity—One’s Own.” Educational Researcher 17 (7): 17–21.

636   liora bresler Peshkin, Alan. 1994. “The Presence of Self: Subjectivity in the Conduct of Qualitative Research.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 122: 45–57. Popper, Karl. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge. Sæther, Eva. 2003. The Oral University. Attitudes to Music Teaching and Learning in the Gambia. Malmö: Malmö Academy of Music. Schon, Donald A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner:  How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Spinosa, Charles, Fernando Flores, and Hubert. L. Dreyfus. 1997. Disclosing New Worlds: Entrepreneurship, Democratic Action, and the Cultivation of Solidarity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stake, Robert. E. 2010. Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work. New York: Guilford. Stern, Daniel. N. 2010. Forms of Vitality: Exploring Dynamic Experience in Psychology, the Arts, Psychotherapy, and Development. New York: Oxford University Press. Stinson, Susan. W. 2010. “Music and Theory:  Reflecting on Outcomes-Based Assessment.” In Proceedings of the Congress on Research in Dance 2009, Special Conference, 25–27 June 2009, DeMontfort University, Leicester, UK, edited by T. Randall, 194–98. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Stoller, Paul. 1989. The Taste of Ethnographic Things:  The Senses in Anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. Tobin, Joseph, Yeh Hsueh, and Mayumi Karasawa. 2009. Preschool in Three Cultures Revisited: China, Japan, and the United States. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. van Manen, Max. 1990. Researching Lived Experience. Albany:  State University of New York Press. Vygotsky, Lev. 1986. Thought and Language. Edited and translated by A. Kouzolin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wasser, Judy, and Liora Bresler. 1996. “Working in the Interpretive Zone.” Educational Researcher 25 (5): 5–15. Wenger, Etienne. 1998/2003. Communities of Practice:  Learning, Meaning and Identity. London: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 33

F u ture P ossib i l i t i e s for Qualitative Re se a rc h i n Music Educ at i on janet r. barrett

Titling a chapter “future possibilities” calls for prescient acts of prognostication. At the very least, such a title suggests that qualitative research in music education has developed to the point that one can sense larger patterns at play within the field and that these larger patterns have gained enough momentum and heft to warrant their development, refinement, and expansion. Before pointing to future directions, it seems wise to first look back, if only briefly and perhaps indulgently (metanarratives of “progress” notwithstanding). During the 1980s and 1990s, qualitative research in education was finding its voice. The American Educational Research Association’s Educational Researcher served as a bellwether to presage what was to come. Derived from Middle English, a bellwether is the lead sheep in a flock, around whose neck a bell is hung so that you hear the flock coming before you can actually see the herd. Through that period, qualitative researchers in education at large made their way through rough terrain in an attempt to distinguish the epistemological groundings of qualitative work from the easier to locate and safer footings of quantitative research. In music education, there were stirrings and wanderings, although there was clearly no organized herd, or prominent group of researchers at the forefront. I read through the draft chapters for this Handbook in light of this historical trajectory, recalling how, in the late 1980s when I was a doctoral student, qualitative inquiry seemed to be forming in front of our eyes. In music education, there were few studies or proponents to be used as examples or mentors. We could hear the bell, faintly at times, but we certainly couldn’t see the herd. We weren’t even sure if there were enough researchers doing qualitative research in music education to justify calling ourselves a herd. Stepping out to propose a qualitative dissertation or study felt treacherous, probably just as much for those of us writing dissertations as those who were advising them, and together we expected to encounter boulders and ravines and unimaginable obstacles in our path. Put in this context, this volume represents

638   janet r. barrett considerable accomplishments for music education, as relatively small as we are as a field. Our growth has been organic rather than organized, moving in fits and starts, but notable nonetheless. To echo Conway and West’s observation in ­chapter 3, we have come a long way in 20 years from one chapter in the 1992 Handbook and qualitative “sightings” along the way to the body of research represented by this present volume. Recall the common justificatory language that served as a prologue for earlier dissertations and journal articles in which the researcher felt compelled to explain basic concepts of qualitative inquiry and argue for its validity and rigor before finally reaching the rationale for the actual study. It was as if each study required an overture of legitimizing explanation before establishing central phenomena and purpose statements. This era has passed. Although the paradigm wars still rage outside (fueled by the politicization of so-called “scientific research”), within music education, qualitative research has earned respectability. I recall as well my own process of proposing a qualitative dissertation on the cognitive processes children use to play by ear, completed in 1990, when qualitative work was just cresting on the horizon. I felt as if I was inventing a procedure for analysis (with some key structural support from Miles and Huberman), investigating a relatively underexamined area of study, while simultaneously convincing my committee of the project’s viability. My committee was split down the middle on the use of the word “hypothesis,” and as hard as I tried to argue that the term was not appropriate for the study, I lost the argument. I relied heavily on the volume on disciplined inquiry, Complementary Methods for Research in Education, published by AERA and edited by Lee Shulman, when I needed reassurance. Many years later, I found myself in the fortuitous position of teaching a qualitative research methods course, feeling again like a pioneer. Gracious gifts of syllabi from other colleagues helped to establish some principles for structuring a course. The pedagogy of qualitative research is far more established and variegated in recent years. The challenge of teaching methods has been intensified by the proliferation of methods texts and multiple decisions regarding the alignment of the epistemological fit with the method and the type of study proposed. We now enjoy a wealth of methodological literature, and the challenge is to choose wisely and to remain aligned with the underlying principles suggested by these perspectives. Reading the chapters in this Handbook sequentially (which few readers are likely to do, I suspect), also revealed some patterns, particularly in noting which studies and researchers are cited regularly throughout the manuscript. Another theme was seeing whose work outside the field has served as a beacon within. As a hybrid field ourselves (music and education), we thrive by borrowing from other traditions, scholars, and communities. I was most surprised that enough work can be cited to justify the syntheses of work in the content areas in part IV, and although nearly each chapter author called for more development, each subject area can legitimately claim a base of studies as starting points. Taken together, the first and last parts point toward a greater maturity of thought and oversight, and I suspect they will be consulted frequently in courses and seminars. The past, present, and future of qualitative research in general can be grasped, at least partially, by reading the prologues and epilogues that frame the four Sage Handbooks of

Future Possibilities  639 Qualitative Research. For each synoptic volume, Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln situate the current status of qualitative inquiry and dialogue amongst qualitative researchers as a series of moments or turns in which new vistas come into view, or segments of the journey are seen more clearly in retrospect. These include:

• • • • • • • •

The traditional (1900–1950) The modernist or golden age (1950–1970) Blurred genres (1970–1986) The crisis of representation (1986–1990) The postmodern (1990–1995) Post-experimental inquiry (1995–2000) The methodologically contested present (2000–2010) The future (2010–) (2011, 3)

I wondered if qualitative work in music education could be similarly partitioned, or whether it paralleled some of the distinctive yet overlapping phases that Denzin and Lincoln describe. I cannot find clear parallels or provide tidy synopses of where we have been, but as a result of reading the chapters in this current volume, it is safe to say that we have passed through infancy and childhood and we may have arrived somewhere in adolescence, headed toward greater maturity. I also looked to Denzin and Lincoln’s notions of the “eighth moment,” the future that is enmeshed in arguments related to the evidence-based neoliberal ideologies of national educational policy, a leaning toward “moral discourse, with the development of sacred textualities,” and a dynamic surge of questions related to “democracy, race, gender, class, nation-states, globalization, freedom, and community” (2011, 3). Music education, in my reading, has not yet caught up with or fully confronted the future that Denzin and Lincoln envision, although the call for social justice is becoming louder. The challenge of this epilogue, then, is to sketch out some of the challenges and opportunities facing qualitative research in music education that make sense for this particular moment in our field, amplified by the work in this first discipline-specific handbook. To use a favored word, the section headings for the remainder of this chapter were derived from the emergent themes seen across the Handbook. Seven future directions are proposed, in which qualitative research in music education will: • Attain greater clarity in aligning our research activities with wisely chosen and pressing aims, strong purposes; • Attend more closely to the epistemological coherence of our theoretical and analytical frameworks, strong footings; • Situate inquiry in new contexts, engaging new voices, and pursuing compelling new realms of study; • Utilize new affordances of technology and social media as strategic tools and environments for qualitative work; • Seek greater resonance and rigor through attending to writing and scholarly critique;

640   janet r. barrett • Integrate the community of qualitative researchers in order to build our professional capacity and collaborative power; and • Expand the reach of qualitative inquiry by attending to its overall impact on practitioners, scholars, and communities.

33.1 Strong Purposes No longer is it sufficient to propose a research study simply because no one else has investigated a particular topic, event, or context. There may be legitimate reasons that no one has invested the care and effort to do so. As a field, we must challenge ourselves to ask questions that will lead to substantive understanding, deep insight, and greater professional capacity. Each published study represents a precious investment of intellect, resources, time, and commitment both for those who collaborated in its genesis and for those enter into the text as readers. The care we take in framing and forming our questions, no matter how emergent and dynamic, is essential. An essay on the future of qualitative research in psychology borrows from popular culture, quoting an especially famous split infinitive—“to boldly go” . . . “Like the Starship Enterprise using warp drive to cover the immense distances involved in intergalactic exploration, qualitative researchers want to do things and go places that psychology has not been able to reach before” (Willig and Stainton-Rogers 2008, 591). So it is with music education. Through our research efforts, we have entered into lived worlds that have been unseen, unheard, and ungraspable before now. Inquiry has been directed toward the multiple ways that individuals experience and value music in their lives, the social surrounds that enable or constrict musical growth, the ways that music both shapes and shifts identities, the processes and pathways of teaching music. Through an array of studies, greater understanding of the complexities, particularities, nuances, and paths of musical engagement has developed. Qualitative research is also beginning to address the conundrums facing our field that resist facile solutions, such as the disjunctures between school music and music in society, attempts to reconceptualize the music curriculum to broaden its reach and impact, and perennial crises of access and legitimization. Yvonna Lincoln speaks of “the clandestine disfigurements and outrages of racism, sexism, homophobia, and class injuries” (2010, 4) that have been exposed through interpretive work in the larger qualitative community. Together with Norman Denzin, she adopts a nearly evangelical tone in the prologue and epilogue to the fourth qualitative handbook, calling researchers to commit to critical projects directed toward social justice. Their call is plain, clear, and straightforward: There is a pressing need to show how the practices of qualitative research can help change the world in positive ways. It is necessary to continue to engage the pedagogical, theoretical, and practical promise of qualitative research as a form of radical democratic practice. (2011, x)

Future Possibilities  641 A socially situated, critical perspective within music education has arisen to engage themes of race, class, gender, ability/disability; researchers will continue to pursue this critical work toward larger moral purposes. I am reminded of an essay written by Alan “Buddy” Peshkin that I frequently consult in teaching qualitative research methods. Moved to defend the goodness of qualitative research on behalf of his students, whose proposals had been criticized by departmental colleagues for failing to be sufficiently “theory driven, hypothesis testing, or generalization producing,” he was inspired instead to address a different question and therefore abandoned a defensive posture, “What is its generative promise?” (1993, 23). In other words, what is qualitative research good for? He develops the essay by explaining various outcomes or functions of qualitative research for description, interpretation, verification, and evaluation, taking care to address how these categorical distinctions are often blended and interrelated. The goodness of qualitative research in music education can be judged by considering the wisdom and care involved in naming and framing projects, forming questions, and aligning these research questions with the pressing needs and issues of our contemporary experience.

33.2 Strong Footings Qualitative researchers would be well-advised to read and re-read the first chapters in this collection, Matsunobu and Bresler, Conway and West, Scheib, and Robinson to develop greater discernment and judgment about the frameworks of ideas that undergird inquiry. Well-articulated foundations, the principled systems of ideas that convey distinct epistemological, ontological, and methodological beliefs about the nature of knowledge, reality, and modes of inquiry, distinguish various families of qualitative work from other paradigms of research. Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba review earlier work related to research paradigms: positivism, postpositivism, critical theory, and constructivism, while adding a fifth, the participatory paradigm (2011, 98). Situating work within various “ontologies and epistemologies that differ sharply from those undergirding conventional social science” (97), they list a corresponding variety of perspectives including feminist theories, critical race and ethnic studies, queer theory, border theories, postcolonial ontologies and epistemologies, and poststructural and postmodern work. In ­chapter 2, Matsunobu and Bresler describe how music education has borrowed from research traditions rooted in anthropology, philosophy, action research, ethnography, ethnomusicology, and hermeneutics. Generous appropriation from other traditions has informed and enabled many music education researchers to develop discipline-specific studies. Drawing liberally from other research methods, strategies, and techniques, however, can be counterproductive as well if the underlying assumptions and premises are at odds. Imagine a foundation consisting of a little poured concrete, some glass and chrome, a few weathered pine boards, mixed with recycled cardboard boxes. Such a foundation cannot hold. Instead, we strive for coherence and good fit without restriction, articulating clear organizing premises. Although it is

642   janet r. barrett challenging to sort through large systems or paradigms, epistemologies, frameworks, and perspectives, we notice the difference in tightly reasoned, analyzed, and reported studies. As Allsup reminds us in ­chapter 4, epistemology is the bedrock upon which our claims rest. He argues for thoughtful coherence when he says: “epistemology and researcher’s stance are inseparable: the relationship between one’s epistemological view of education must be consistent with the design of one’s research.” Educational thinking is intertwined with systems of thought that, whether articulated or tacit, influence how we approach music teaching and learning. Using Bruner as a case, Allsup traces the shifts in epistemological thought that have characterized Bruner’s leading voice in education. Moving toward this coherence while avoiding rigidity is a sign of growing maturity within the field. Scheib, in ­chapter 5, sorts through the panoramic array of superordinate and subordinate categorizations related to worldviews, orientations, perspectives, paradigms, theoretical frameworks, conceptual frameworks, models. At heart is the notion that qualitative research is informed by the researcher’s stance and beliefs as well as the sets of ideas derived from empirical inquiry and analytical theorizing. In every phase of the qualitative research process, a dynamic synergy between the abstract and the particular is at play. A counterpoint of ideas arises as the researcher sorts and sifts, names and labels, groups and clusters, annotates and comments on the data in correspondence with key ideas drawn into the mix from “outside” the study. New findings are situated into preexisting theories; new theoretical propositions emerge from key findings. As one instance, consider the constructivist orientation of many studies in music education and the way these studies have dovetailed closely through an emergent relationship of theory and data. Careful consideration of theoretical foundations and frameworks comes sharply to attention when contemplating the “new kid on the block,” mixed methods. Fitzpatrick, in ­chapter  12, cites Woolley’s distinctions of “quantitative as indirect and reductive; qualitative as direct and holistic,” a vivid conflict of worldviews. This is the crux of the incommensurability argument that suggests deep rifts in knowledge claims that cannot be held in view simultaneously because of their fundamentally irreconcilable positions. In the pragmatist’s view, these central tensions not only coexist, they inform one another. Methodological eclecticism is valued. Debates and dialogues about frameworks—their compatibilities and concordances—are of vital importance as a future direction for qualitative inquiry in our field. I can foresee lively debate as more solid mixed methods studies are proposed, conducted, and disseminated and these concordances interrogated.

33.3 New Realms Qualitative researchers in music education are called to situate inquiry in new contexts, engaging new voices and pursuing compelling realms of study. Many prompts

Future Possibilities  643 for expansiveness appear throughout this Handbook, most often based on the author’s realization that reviews of extant studies revealed gaps and lacunae. Among these compelling calls is the recurrent invitation for researchers to reach out to underrepresented groups. Carter, in c­ hapter 28, wisely acknowledges the “inherent problems associated with established social categories” as he draws attention to the ways that any social category, however well-intentioned and clearly defined, is itself an abstraction when situated in complex human experience, especially at the overlapping and fluid intersections of socially constructed and maintained categorical distinctions. Nonetheless, qualitative researchers are charged with giving voice to those who are silenced, marginalized, or misunderstood, especially related to issues of race, class, gender, dis/ability. Research in music education has interrogated questions related to power, access, poverty, privilege, oppression, injustice, and invisibility. Equity is an aim for us all. To pursue systematic inquiry involves entering into the realm of the political, where inequity is unveiled and confronted. It requires attending to “what is not yet seen or heard.” Elementary and secondary classrooms have traditionally been and will remain inviting contexts of inquiry in probing musical understanding, the reciprocality of teaching and learning, processes of social interaction, and especially the influences of educational policy on music education. Within schools, opportunities for collaboration are plentiful. Robbins, in ­chapter 11, speaks to the “democratic validity” of practitioner research, fostering shared inquiry with teachers in the field. In this regard, the intimate relationship of teaching as a form of inquiry and inquiry on forms of teaching can be explored. Given the inhospitable conditions that face music teachers in many school settings, employing teacher research as a form of professional agency seems an especially urgent need. A socially just orientation also takes qualitative researchers into new contexts of preschools, prisons, community schools, eldercare, and juvenile detention facilities, as well as churches, concert halls, street corners, ethnic fairs and festivals, and sites beyond. Several authors in this Handbook have beckoned researchers to consider virtual worlds of social media as multiple, simultaneous, and complex worlds of musical engagement. Music’s ubiquitous presence in the lives of children, adolescents, and adults is not contained within classrooms walls. The fullness of culture and community complements and often overlaps with the study of music in school settings. A frequently cited notion that corresponds to the emancipatory potential of qualitative research is that it “gives voice” to those whose voices go unheard. As the realms and contexts of inquiry are broadened, ethical considerations multiply in giving voice to children and adults in ways that protect their identities and acknowledge the ownership of their ideas.

33.4 New Affordances The processes of qualitative research are enabled through the use of strategies, tools, designs, and methodological guidebooks that enable inquiry; many such affordances

644   janet r. barrett will influence future work. I  have written elsewhere about how conducting qualitative research requires a series of transformations (Barrett 2007). Each transformative move—from the lived world of participants to data generation, from data generation to permanent data records, from data records to a complex theorized report—depends upon the researcher’s wise and skillful use of a vast array of personal and professional resources. The chapters in part II on approaches and designs as well as the chapters in part III on data collection and analysis will be invaluable in supporting the complex inner workings of a study that so often are mentioned in terse, telegraphic ways in articles, rarely laying open the rigorous systematic thinking governing the process of qualitative inquiry. Certainly a future direction for qualitative researchers points to greater use of music as data, as Pellegrino (­chapter 18) and others mention. Sounds shape our experiences and identities, but when the lived world of participants is represented in research reports, the very sounds at the center of these worlds are often difficult to capture or convey. Few journal articles supplement textual data through the use of photographs, video, audio, digital media, movement, and gestures, but this is likely to change. The affordances of technology in particular will allow a greater profusion of representational forms, requiring skillful analysis and interpretation, but leading to a deeper, richer engagement with the “primary sources” of sound, image, gesture, and text. Tobias, in c­ hapter 16, reminds us that these data types are both researcher-generated and participant-generated; allowing the reader to move fluidly back and forth. At the same time as we contemplate new data sources and means of analysis, we look to underutilized approaches for their potential to inform. A perusal of this Handbook shows that music education researchers have been drawn to case study and ethnography, with narrative and phenomenology less prevalent. Grounded theory, discourse analysis, and autoethnography are even less common. Methodological eclecticism is probably a sign of health, but not simply for the sake of eclecticism. Webster, in ­chapter 17, asks whether we are using all of the tools at our command to assist inquiry. Certainly, qualitative data analysis software enables researchers to organize, examine, annotate, manipulate, and search for patterns in complex data sets, but as I am always reminded when my students review these programs, each software program enables and constrains what one is able to do with the data. The researcher’s sensibilities trump all. The profusion of methodological literature in qualitative research also challenges us to choose wisely the kind of handbooks, guides, and manuals that provide guidance in learning useful techniques.

33.5  Resonance and Rigor Verisimilitude, when a research report “rings true” to the lived experience of participants and readers, is also a sign of its resonance with music teaching and learning. The quality of writing is of paramount importance to individual researchers, faculty

Future Possibilities  645 members who teach qualitative methods, reviewers, and the broad scholarly community, and perhaps most keenly to any reader, far and wide, who may engage with a text. Eisner writes, “words, except when they are used artistically, are proxies for direct experience. They point us in the direction in which we can undergo what the words purport to reveal. Words, in this sense, are like cues to guide us on a journey” (2008, 5). Eisner makes this compelling point before enlarging his scope to argue for additional forms of representation through arts-based research, but his observation about the power of words still obtains whatever the form or type. The central body of work in music education is inextricably bound to words as prompts for the journey. The researcher must carry meaning through sufficiently evocative, challenging, well-reasoned, and articulate prose. A well-crafted piece of writing enables the reader to enter into conversation with the ideas with clarity of focus and without distraction. Laurel Richardson, cited by Robinson elsewhere, points to common problems, however, as she reveals: “I have a confession to make. For thirty years, I have yawned my way through numerous supposedly exemplary qualitative studies. Countless numbers of texts have I abandoned half-read, half-scanned” (1997, 87). She hones homes in on a key dilemma: “Qualitative work depends upon people’s reading it. . . [it] has to be read, not scanned; its meaning is in the reading” (87). She speaks to professional socialization that “homogenizes” the text through use of common patterns derived from the social sciences. Richardson calls for attention to writing as a mode of inquiry, arguing for more imaginative, yet prismatically coherent, forms through the processes of crystallization. Her ideas, like those of other scholars in narrative and arts-based inquiry, challenge researchers, reviewers, and readers to pursue writing that is deep, complex, grounded, multifaceted, provocative. As qualitative research continues to develop in music education, so will the forms, structures, and means of representation employed. As a field, we continue to expand our capacities to foster more imaginative, socially meaningful, and rigorous projects. We have reached a point at which there is a critical mass of researchers in music education who are knowledgeable, widely read, and sufficiently established to provide the kind of scholarly critique to support and elevate professional discourse. Criticism, says Colwell, “implies an awareness of antecedents and consequence, means and ends; and comments need to be based on an understanding of the history and the purpose of the effort criticized” (2005, 76). With this Handbook, we now have a far keener awareness of the foundational grounding to enable informed criticism. Colwell cites a definition of “critical friend” by David Myers: “a critical friend can be defined as a trusted person who asks provocative questions, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critiques of a person’s work as a friend. A critical friend takes the time to fully understand the context of the work presented and the outcomes that the person or group is working toward. The friend is an advocate for the success of that work” (76). In many ways, doctoral advisors serve as critical friends, as can reviewers and editors when the purpose of the exchange is to help hone and shape more rigorous and resonant reports. At this point in time, much of the careful analytical and interpretive work of the researcher is frequently compressed into a short paragraph or two in the published document; the affordances of technology may help us to

646   janet r. barrett make these processes more transparent and available for the consideration of those who want to learn more. Editorial work often goes unsung. The overall maturity of qualitative work is enhanced through the diverse lenses, perspectives, and sophisticated commentary provided by critical friends, reviewers, editors, and doctoral advisors.

33.6 Community Many of us who count ourselves part of the community of qualitative researchers in music education have grown up as “school music people,” acclimated to the routines and grammars of music teaching and learning in powerful but often tacit ways. We can hold one another accountable as we probe normative assumptions, just as we benefit greatly from the cross-fertilization of collaboration with others outside the field. Music educators in higher education tend to be well-connected through regular participation in conferences, professional societies, and editorial activities. Eavesdropping on professional conversations at conferences, however, one often hears labels that sort individuals into neat and tidy categories as “quantitative” or “qualitative” researchers, as if these powerful identities, alliances, and affiliations are distinct and invariant. A key question for research education is whether this categorization is healthy. For example, the overall field of research may be strengthened if doctoral programs emphasize the development of research capabilities in multiple designs and across paradigms. Such methodological eclecticism must be balanced with the realization that a steep learning curve is often necessary to produce high-quality work using particular approaches. Campbell and Thompson (­chapter 24) note how qualitative work in music teacher education is quite prevalent, yet remains largely uncoordinated. Clearly, the field would benefit from addressing collaboration and coordinated efforts in nearly every subarea of scholarship. As universities establish centers for collaborative research, so might cross-university consortia be established to pursue agendas for inquiry across types and designs. Centered in powerful organizing questions, such consortia could contribute depth and breadth of understanding built from diverse forms of inquiry. In his senior researcher address, Bennett Reimer challenged the research community at large along these lines: We need to develop ways for individual researchers, steeped in a particular research methodology by their training and experience, to work in close cooperation with others who are expert in their particular mode of research, all of them focusing on the very same issue, aiming for the very same goal—each in his or her own way but in close contact and coordinative interactions with each of the others—with at least some of such projects (perhaps many) being longitudinal. (2008, 200)

In this manner, vital symbiotic understandings can be achieved. Patricia Shehan Campbell, in her senior researcher address, spoke to professional socialization, inviting music educators to seek broader realms of scholarly inquiry:

Future Possibilities  647 As in the case of all institutions, societies, and culture, we have created in our research what Michael Foucault called “the norms of our discourse” (1988). It is a solid training that we have known, a dynamic community into which we have been socialized, and a clear and concise style of discourse that we articulate and uphold. Yet, as Marcel Proust declared, “the voyage of discovery is not just in seeing new landscapes but in having new eyes” (1948). Having new eyes (and new ears) equates with the acceptance and application of a wider palette of possibilities relative to the subcultures within our midst, to the designs we use, to the techniques of information-gathering and analysis, and to the interpretive styles and forms of our published work. (2002, 94)

The infrastructures that support research in music education, including professional societies, editors and editorial boards, publishers, colleges and universities, conference organizers, and grant agencies can foster greater coordination and alignment toward broad and meaningful research initiatives. Such initiatives augur well for the development and dissemination of qualitative research, and for building greater awareness across the profession of the contributions to knowledge made by qualitative inquiry.

33.7 Broader Reach In this last section, I will address expanding the reach of qualitative inquiry by attending to its overall impact on practitioners, scholars, and communities. We have long yearned for a closer integration of the worlds of research and practice. We aspire for impact. Impact has multiple dimensions—on the researcher, the academic community, the field of study, the practitioners we aim to serve. Richardson captures this succinctly when she asks of the studies she reads: “Does this affect me? Emotionally? Intellectually? Generate new questions? Move me to write? Move me to try new research practices? Move me to action?” (2000, 254). A larger picture of impact speaks to a recurrent dilemma of qualitative work. In its particularity and complexity, qualitative studies are difficult to “sum up,” what Lincoln identifies as the “cumulation” problem. “The question of cumulation,” she writes, “revolves about how we know what we know with the knowledge we generate, what that knowledge means when we add it up, and for what purposes it will be used” (2010, 5). Unlike much quantitative research that can be synthesized and analyzed across data sets for meta-analyses of findings, qualitative research resists such summing up. How do we draw upon multiple studies that together constitute a larger gestalt without somehow compromising their particular insights? Lincoln challenges us to consider how knowledge gleaned through qualitative means “accumulates, philosophically, theoretically, metaphorically, pragmatically, because surely those who bury themselves in qualitative research know much about the world” (6). Keen imagination is needed to develop ways to represent the fund of knowledge without decontextualizing, reducing, or trivializing the work.

648   janet r. barrett Cumulation speaks to the use of qualitative research as a powerful means for transforming understanding, through conventional means of dissemination, including teaching broadly construed. I am reminded of the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate project, which calls for newly minted PhD recipients committed to: Generating new knowledge and defending knowledge claims against challenges and criticism, conserving the most important ideas and findings that are a legacy of past and current work, and transforming knowledge that has been generated and conserved by explaining and connecting it to ideas from other fields. All of this implies to the ability to teach well to a variety of audiences, including those outside formal classrooms. (Golde, 2006, 10)

Future possibilities in qualitative research build on researchers’ attention to strong purposes, strong foundations, new realms, new affordances, greater resonance and rigor, integration of the research community, and concern for impact. As qualitative researchers consider the moral obligations, ethical considerations, methodological commitments, communicative potentials, and aesthetic dimensions of their work, we will contribute to the vitality of qualitative inquiry in the field of music education.

References Campbell, Patricia Shehan. 2002. “A Matter of Perspective: Thoughts on the Multiple Realities of Research.” Journal of Research in Music Education 50, no. 3: 191–201. Colwell, Richard. 2005. “Can We Be Friends?” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 166: 75–91. Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2011. “Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–19. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. “Preface.” 2011. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, ix–xvi. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. 2011. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Eisner, Elliot. “Art and Knowledge.” 2008. In Handbook of the Arts in Qualitative Research, edited by J. Gary Knowles and Ardra L. Cole, 1–12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lincoln, Yvonna S. 2010. “‘What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been . . .’:  Twenty-Five Years of Qualitative and New Paradigm Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 16, no. 1: 3–9. Lincoln, Yvonna S., Susan A. Lynham, and Egon G. Guba. 2011. “Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences Revisited.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 97–128. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Peshkin, Alan. 1993. “The Goodness of Qualitative Research.” Educational Researcher 22, no. 2: 23–29.

Future Possibilities  649 Reimer, Bennett. 2008.“Research in Music Education: Personal and Professional Reflections in a Time of Perplexity.” Journal of Research in Music Education 56, no. 3: 190–203. Richardson, Laurel. 2000. “Evaluating Ethnography.” Qualitative Inquiry 6, no. 2: 253–55. Richardson, Laurel. Fields of Play: Constructing an Academic Life. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997. Willig, Carla, and Wendy Stainton-Rogers. 2008. “Review and Prospect.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, edited by Carla Willig and Wendy Stainton-Rogers, 590–604. London: Sage Publications.

Index

Page numbers followed by b, t, and f indicate boxes, tables, and figures. Numbers followed by “n” indicate notes. ABER. see Arts-based educational research ABR. see Arts-based research ABS. see American Boychoir School (Princeton, NJ) Academic journals, 52, 236–237. see also specific journals by title choosing your venue for publication, 595–602 mixed methods studies in, 220 Academic research. see Research Accompanying strategic “action groups” (ASPAs), 197 Accuracy, 100 Achilles, Elayne, 46, 47, 48 ACL experiences. see Authentic context learning experiences Acoustemology, 34 Action research, 44, 186, 189–190 band studies, 393–394, 401t definition of, 491–492 naturalistic, 370 participatory, 189 pedagogical, 198 preservice music teacher education studies, 450, 451t as professional development, 491–494 spiral of steps, 491–492 Active participation, 230 Activity theory, 87 ACT UP, 68 Adolescents with special needs, 527 Adrian College Choir, 441 Adult and Community Music Education Special Research Interest Group (ACME SRIG) (NAfME), 519t

Adult learners, 398 Adult music makers, 155 Advocacy/participatory worldview, 79 AERA. see American Educational Research Association AERJ. see American Educational Research Journal Aesthetics, 101, 611, 613 Afro-Cuban music, 564, 565 Afro-Puerto Rican music, 565 Age-appropriate pedagogy, culturally responsive, 381 Age of Enlightenment, 62 AIC. see Arts-in-Corrections Alternative styles programs and curriculum, 419–424 Altiplano musicians, 558–559 Amateur string instrument performers, 418–419 American Boychoir School (ABS) (Princeton, NJ), 142, 253–254, 439 American Educational Research Association (AERA), 3, 51–52, 191, 450, 601 Arts-Based Educational Research SIG, 308 Code of Ethics, 575 Complementary Methods for Research in Education, 638 Educational Researcher, 637 Music Education Studies Research Group, 540 Special Interest Groups (SIGs), 308 American Educational Research Journal (AERJ), 108, 602 American Folklife Center, 254

652   Index American music education. see Music education American Psychological Association (APA), 605 APA Style, 600, 605 Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2010 Amendments), 575 American School Board Journal, 602 American String Teachers Association, 509 Analog artifacts and data, 294–295 Analysis narrative, 178–179 phenomenological, 150–151 Analytical thinking, 456f, 465 Analytic generalization, 120–121 Andean music, 558–559 Andragogy, 504 Anger, Darol, 418–419 Annual Ethnography and Education Forum (University of Pennsylvania), 191 Anthropology, 26–27, 612–613 Antiracism pedagogy, 565–566 APA (American Psychological Association) Style, 600, 605 Appalachia, 29 Apple, Michael, 47 Applying Research to Teaching and Playing Stringed Instruments (Barnes, ed.), 409 Arizona State University, 332 Art-based inquiry, 264 Art education, 100 Artifacts, 236 analog, 294–295 cultural, 134 visual, 296 Artistic criteria, 103–104 A/r/tography, 264 The arts, 610–611 Arts-based educational research (ABER), 264, 307, 308–312 Arts-Based Educational Research SIG (AERA), 308 Arts-based research (ABR), 308 Arts Education Policy Review (AEPR), 13, 602 Arts-in-Corrections (AIC), 515, 516t Arts-informed or artistic scholarship, 44 ArtsPROPEL, 490 Art works, 296–297

Ashokan Fiddle and Dance Camp, 423–424, 509–510 Ashton-Warner, Sylvia, 190 Asia-Pacific Journal of Arts Education, 34n1 Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 152 Asking questions, 258–261 Asmus, Ed, 46–47, 50, 51 ASPAs (accompanying strategic “action groups”), 197 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 602 ASTA. see National American String Teachers Association ATLAS.ti, 329–331, 330t, 333 Attachment, 613 Attention hyperactivity development disorder, 529 Atwell, Nancie, 190 Auburn University, 400 Audacity, 334 Audience behavior, 620–624 Audio data generating through recording, 290 participant-generated, 295–297 Audit trails, 98 Australia, 152, 189 Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 152 Authentic context learning (ACL) experiences, 127–128 Authenticity, 97 Authors, 47 Autoethnography, 79, 144–145 Bakhtin, Mikhail, 67, 173 Bamberg, Michael, 168 Band action research studies, 393–394, 401t adult learners in, 398 composition in, 393 concert band, 390 documentation of teaching practices in, 388–390 gender discrimination in, 397–398 high school band, 70–71, 395, 527–528 high school jazz band programs, 390–391 jazz band, 390–392 Journal of Band Research, 387

Index  653 middle school band, 394–395 middle school jazz band, 391 qualitative research studies, 400–402, 401t questions for future research, 402–403 school jazz band, 390–392 school programs, 387 social aspects of, 396–397 student motivation for participating in, 395 student perspectives, 394–396 students with special needs in, 392 suggestions for fostering inclusive social atmosphere, 392 teaching, 387–396 Band directors, 397, 398–400 Bare identification, 227 Barone, Tom, 105, 173–176 Barrett, Janet, 626n2 Barrett, Margarett, 169, 180, 263–264 Barthes, Roland, 173 BCRME. see Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Beginning music teachers challenges faced by, 481–483, 484t induction of, 483–486, 487t mentoring for, 483–486, 487t phenomenological studies with, 156–157 professional development of, 481–488 support for, 483–486, 487t Behavior, cultural, 134 Behavioral research, 44, 45t Behaviorism, 62–64 Belmont Report, 574 Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra, 504–505 Berthoff, Ann, 187 The Best of All Possible Worlds (Bernstein, arr. Page), 440 Between-methods triangulation, 214 Bias, 380–381 Bias dump, 105 Bilkin, Douglas, 2 Biography, interpretive, 41 Bisexual studies. see Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and intersexed (LGBT2QI) studies Black feminism, 550 Black gospel music, 563 Blair, Deborah, 172–173

Blended studies, 158–160 Boardman, Eunice, 50, 73 Borton, Deb, 431–432 Boyer, Ernst, 609 Brass music instrumental music (winds, brass, percussion), 387–408 Japanese brass bands, 26–27 Breadloaf Project, 190 Bresler, Liora, 46–47, 50, 52, 53 Bricolage, 301 Brigham Young University New Horizons Orchestra, 504 British Journal of Music Education, 34n1 Britten, Benjamin, 440 Bruner, Jerome, 61, 62–71, 163–164, 166–169, 177–178 Buddhism, 626n4 Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education (BCRME or CRME), 43–48, 52, 77–78, 124, 142, 193, 387, 543, 563 “Instructions to Contributors,” 592 mixed methods research, 211 qualitative band research studies, 400–402, 401t sample article titles, 596 Burke, Kenneth, 167 Bush, George W., 63 Butler, Judith, 542 CAEP. see Council Accreditation of Educator Preparation Calexico, 618–619 Campbell, Donald, 120 Campbell, Mark Robin, 480 Camtasia, 293 Canada, 152 CAQDAS software. see Computer Assisted Qualitative Data AnalysiS software Career cycle, 494–496 Caregiving theory, 352 Carey, Tanya, 411 Carini, Patricia, 190 Carnegie Foundation, 188–189 Carnegie Hall (New York), 441 Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate project, 648

654   Index Case-specific understanding, 28–30 Case studies, 29, 43, 44, 113–132, 614 blended studies, 159 conceptions of, 115–119 definitions of, 115–119 dimensions of, 118–119, 119f elements of, 117 as empirical inquiry, 116 epistemological, 62–71 examination of select case studies, 124–129 frameworks for analysis of, 123–124 methodological problems, 122–123 misunderstandings about, 119–123, 120t presentation of, 128 preservice music teacher education studies, 450, 451t prevalence of, 113–115 promising avenues for, 130 purpose of, 128 qualitative band research studies, 401t, 402 Casing, 114, 124–125 Castle Conference (Castle, England), 191 Catalytic validity, 380 Cavani String Quartet, 414 Celtic music, 422–423 Center for Music Learning, 412 Certainty, 60–61 Chamber music performance, 489 Chamber music programs, 414, 420–421 Chaos theory, 79 Chelsea House Orchestra (CHO), 422–423, 559–560 Children. see also Early childhood adults as co-researchers with, 349 definition of, 347–348 musical lives and understandings of, 82–83 preschool, 345 primary age, 345 target, 99 Chinese choral music, 441 Chinese music, 556 CHO. see Chelsea House Orchestra Choi, Irina, 124–125, 437–438 Choir(s) church choirs, 505–506 college choirs, 157 community choir, 128–129, 157, 583–584 Concert Choir, 435

high school choir, 435–438 inclusion in, 527 middle school choir, 438–440 participation in, 434–444 as safe place, 430–434 teacher participation in, 442–444 Chomsky, Noam, 64 Choralier Men, 439, 440 Choral music, 429, 440–441, 442–444, 505, 527 Choral music education future directions, 444–445 instructional strategies, 442, 443 multicultural, 564, 565–566 qualitative research in, 429–447 Choral teachers, 442, 443 Christensen, Stephanie, 482–483 Church choirs, 505–506 Church music, 505–506 CIPP. see Collaborative intergenerational performance project Clandinin, Jean, 170–173 Clarity, 86–87 Classical music, Western, 66 Classroom culture, 100 Classroom music, 364 Classroom research academic research, 583, 585–586 combined qualitative and quantitative studies, 586–587 student teachers, 582 Classrooms, 100 as interpretive zone, 625 learner-centered, 413–414 Clusters, meaningful, 151 CM. see Community music CMA. see Commission on Community Music Activity CMC. see Computer-mediated communication CME. see Contributions to Music Education Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, 202 Code books, 263 Code dictionaries, 263 Code of Ethics (American Educational Research Association), 575 Codes data codes, 239–240, 263, 283 for music-making data, 321

Index  655 refining, 240–241 Code Table (Norgaard), 240 Cognitive focus, 44 Collaborations, 199, 203, 233 academic, 583 in classroom research, 583 future directions, 221 music programs, 508–509 in writing, 593–594 Collaborative intergenerational performance project (CIPP), 441, 508–509 Collaborative teacher study groups (CTSGs), 199, 374, 489 College choirs, 157 Collegiate-level string instrument students, 416–418 Columbia University, 189, 548 Colwell Playhouse, 620–621 Combined nonverbal, verbal, musical, and nonmusical analysis, 319 Combined verbal and nonverbal data analysis, 318 Come Ye Makers of Song (Henderson), 440 Commission on Community Music Activity (CMA) (ISME), 501–502, 519t Committee on Critical Issues, 342 Common Rule exempt research, 582–584 45 CFR 46, 574–575, 576, 582–583 requirements of, 574–575, 576 Communication collaborative conversations, 199 computer-mediated (CMC), 256 conversational interviews, 251 nonverbal, 280 “Communitas,” 26 Communities of practice, 192, 198–200, 352, 488–489 Community, 646–647 Community choir case study, 128–129 phenomenological studies with, 157 qualitative interviews, 583–584 social capital in, 128–129 Community music, 501 American, 501–502 categories of, 501 with cultural connections, 511–515, 514t

with educational aims, 507–511, 509t with focus on social justice, 515–516, 516t future directions, 517–519 online, 513–515 with performance objectives, 502–506, 506t spiritual connections, 505–506 vernacular, 512–513 Community music education, 501–523 Community music organizations, 519t Community music schools, 507–508 Complementary Methods for Research in Education (AERA), 638 Composition, 313, 393 Comprehensive Musicianship through Performance, 144 Comprehensiveness, 214t Computer Assisted Qualitative Data AnalysiS (CAQDAS) software, 263, 326 Computer-mediated communication (CMC), 256 Computer use, on-site participant, 292–293 Comte, August, 63 Concept maps, 296 Conceptual frameworks, 7, 77, 81, 86–87 Conceptual models, 77, 299 Concert band, 390 Concert Choir, 435 Concert experiences, 421–422 Conferences, 202 Confidence issues, 455f, 460–461 Confidentiality, 275–276, 585, 586–587 Confirmability, 97 Congregational Christian singers, 505–506 Conjectures, 624 Connectedness, 613 Connelly, Michael, 170–173 Connoisseurship, 227 Consistency, 98 Constant comparative method, 614 Constructed knowledge, 84 Constructionism, 79 Constructivist studies, 59, 79, 103, 379 Contemporary issues in 2002 Handbook, 44, 45t critiques and challenges, 200–201 Contemporary Music Project on Creativity, 343 Content logs, 299

656   Index Context(s), 29 Contributions to Music Education (CME), 387, 401t Conversational interviews, 251 “Cool” instruments, 547 Corey, Steven, 193 Corporate welfare, 105 Council Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), 497n2 Cox, Gordon, 254 Craft, 34 Craig, Cheryl, 172 “Creating Positive Discipline and Management” workshops, 375–376 Creativity, 527 Credibility, 97, 98, 100, 139 Crenshaw, Kimberlé, 550 Criteria, 30–32 Critical change criteria, 105 Critical feminism, 105 Critical friends, 195, 448, 645–646 Critical race theory, 73n3, 79 Critical sexuality studies, 542–543 Critical storytelling, 173–176 Critical theory, 44, 79 Critical thinking, 456f, 465 Criticism, 645–646 Critqiue papers, 196 CRME. see Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Cronenberg, Stephanie, 617–620, 620–624 CTSGs. see Collaborative teacher study groups Cultural artifacts, 134 Cultural behavior, 134 Cultural diversity, 553–570 Cultural knowledge, 134 Culturally relevant pedagogy, 539 Culturally responsive, age-appropriate pedagogy, 381 Culturally responsive teaching, 556, 557–558 Cultural relevance, 13, 539 Culture, 68–70, 126–127 classroom, 100 community music, 511–515, 514t Culture shock, 438 Culver, Robert, 423 Cumulation, 647, 648

Curriculum in 2002 Handbook, 44, 45t commonplaces of, 83 spiral, 66 “Curriculum Research: Qualitative Methods Research” course, 614–624, 627b–634b Assignment for Paper #2, 616 student paper excerpts, 617–624 Daily Observation Notes, 343 DAP. see Developmentally appropriate practice Data meanings-of-music-making, 314–316, 316b, 321 music as, 644 process-of-music-making, 312–314, 316b, 321 product-of-music-making, 312–314, 321 “Data” (term), 35n6 Data analysis. see Data collection and analysis Data audits, 97 Databases, large-scale, 302 Data codes, 239–240, 263, 283 for music-making data, 321 refining, 240–241 Data collection and analysis, 9–10, 578–579 for 2002 Handbook, 44, 45t of analog artifacts and data, 294–295 through audio recording, 290 through bricolage, 301 broadening analysis categories, 320–321 combined nonverbal, verbal, musical, and nonmusical analysis, 319 combined verbal and nonverbal data analysis, 318 coordination and synchronization of data, 293–294 from data, 297–298 in ethnography, 135–136 of focus group data, 271–287 future directions, 302 interrogation of data, 327 of interview data, 262–264 of multimodal and multimedia data, 288–306 of music-making data, 307–324, 312–316, 316b

Index  657 of observational data, 227–249 paradigmatic approach, 263 of participant-generated data, 295–297 preliminary data analysis, 237–238 preparing interview data for, 261–262 with QDAS programs, 327, 328t qualitative, 225–336 reflexive process of, 25–27 representation of data, 30–32 software for, 325–336 traditional, 102–103 transcription, 261, 262, 282–283 trends in, 44, 45t triangulation of data, 31, 100, 139–140, 217 validation of data, 31 through video and audio recording, 290 with web-based data, 302 Data management. see Data collection and analysis Data mixing, 216–217 Data records, 238 Data transformation techniques, 219–220 Data triangulation, 31, 100, 139–140, 217 The David Hochstein Memorial Music School, 507–508 “Death and the Maiden” (Schubert), 421 De Bolla, Peter, 611–612 Decision-making “in-flight,” 197 dedoose, 331 Defence mechanisms, 411 DeLay, Dorothy, 411 Delorenzo, 48 Democratic validity, 643 DeNardo, Greg, 543 Denzin, Norman, 50, 638–639, 640 Dependability, 97 Derivative knowledge, 65 Descriptions of observational data, 241–242 Descriptive observation, 234 Descriptive studies, 378–379 Desert Foothills New Horizons Band, 504 Desert Winds Community Steel Orchestra (DWCSO), 512 Detachment, 611–614 Development, manipulative, 342 Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP), 85, 352, 367

Developmental niche framework, 352 DEVONThinkPro, 334 Dewey, John, 170, 227, 610, 611–612 Dialogic interviews, 255 Dickens, Charles, 173 Dickson, Luther, 621, 622 Digital devices, 292–293 Digital media, 302 Digital records, 238 Digitization, 294–295 Dilthey, Wilhelm, 24 Direct music instruction, 44, 45t Disabilities, 154–155, 528–532 Disability theories, 79 Discourse analysis, 401t The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Glaser and Strauss), 41, 262–263 Discrimination, gender, 397–398 Dissemination, 647–648 publication as, 600–602 Diversification of meanings perspective, 606 Diversity cultural, 553–570 and music education, 538–552 Documentation of band teaching practices, 388–390 data records, 238 digital records, 238 media records, 293 Dominant-less dominant studies, 216 Down syndrome, 527 Draves, Tami, 258 Drawings, 296–297 Duckworth, Eleanor, 188–189 Dunkle, Heidi, 194 Duplicate publications, 602–603 DWCSO. see Desert Winds Community Steel Orchestra Dye, Christopher, 617–620, 624 Early childhood as adult construction, 347–348 age parameters, 345, 346–347 concept of, 347–348 definition of, 347–348, 352–353

658   Index Early childhood music education in 2002 Handbook, 44, 45t definition of, 346, 347–348 history of, 340–347 stakeholders in, 347–348 Early childhood music education qualitative research, 339–361 21st-century approaches, 351–352 considerations for, 347–348 contemporary, 350 definition of, 346 future directions, 352–354 interest in, 343–345 reporting on, 345–347 Early Childhood Special Research Interest Group (EC SRIG) (MENC), 344 Early qualitative research, 47–48 East Lansing, Michigan, New Horizons band program, 504 Ecological psychology, 79 EC SRIG. see Early Childhood Special Research Interest Group Education community music with educational aims, 509t music education (see Music education) music teacher education (see Music teacher education) in qualitative research, 608–636 theory of, 68 Educational ethnography, 135 Educational misconception, 579 Educational research, 64–67 arts-based (ABER), 264, 307, 308–312 site permissions, 578 Educational Researcher (AERA), 637 Educational storysharing, emancipatory, 105 Education Research Information Center (ERIC), 152, 450 Eighth moment, 639 Eisner, Elliott, 50, 173–176 Elegance, 100 Elementary general music, 364 outsider observation of students, 366 outsider observation of teaching practice, 366–367 panorama of, 365–373

Elementary school music education in, 643 string instrument students in, 415–416 world music studies in, 554–557 ELLNORA Guitar Festival, 615–616 music teacher student writing excerpts, 617–620, 620–624 Emancipation, 214t Emancipatory educational storysharing, 105 Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 1 Emic theories, 35n5 Empathy, 24, 34n2 Engagement in music teacher education, 455f, 462–463 preservice music teacher, 455f, 461–462, 462–463 prolonged, 31 Engaging in Narrative Inquiry (Clandinin), 170 England, 152 English-language learners (ELLs), 124–125 Enlightenment, 61, 62 Ensembles, 364 Epistemology, 57–75, 148–151, 642 case study, 62–71 implications for qualitative research, 71–73 Epistemology of the Closet (Sedgwick), 542 Epoche, 150–151 Equity, 538 Equivalent status research designs, 216 ERIC. see Education Research Information Center Establishing Identities: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies and Music Education, 541 Establishing Identity: LGBT Studies and Music Education, 540 Etherington, Kim, 258 Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2010 Amendments) (American Psychological Association), 575 Ethics, 32–33 core principles for human participant research, 574 in music education, 573–590 in observational studies, 244–245 in publishing, 602–607

Index  659 regulatory review, 575–577 Ethnographic interviews, 252–254 Ethnography, 26–27, 43, 44, 79, 134–140, 614 in 2002 Handbook, 44, 45t data collection and analysis, 135–136 definition of, 134, 145 educational or school, 135 interpreting, 43 levels of generalization possible through, 140 in music education, 133–147 new, 108 of place, 145 preservice music teacher education studies, 450, 451t qualitative band research studies, 401t quality in, 138–140 sampling, 141–144 school, 135 sonic, 28 sources of understanding for, 134 terminology, 48 theoretical framework for, 136–138 virtual, 145 Ethnography and Education Forum (University of Pennsylvania), 202 Ethnomethodology, 79 Ethnomusicology, 26–27, 142 Etic theories, 35n5 Evaluative criteria, 107–109 alternative sets of, 102 artistic, 103–104 constructivist, 103 critical change criteria, 105 establishing and selecting, 101–106 evocative, 103–104 traditional scientific research criteria, 102–103 Evaluative terminology, 95–98, 100–101 Evocative criteria, 103–104 Ewe tradition, 564 Exceptionalities, 524–537 Exempt research, 582–584 Experiential learning, 610–611, 625–626 Experiential learning theory, 610 Experiential qualitative research education, 608–636

Exploratory perception, 612 Express Scribe, 262 External reliability, 96, 138–139 Facebook, 302 Facilitators, 378–379 Faith-based ensembles, 505–506 Fauré’s Requiem, 441, 508–509 Federal research regulations, 589 Federalwide Assurance (FWA), 574–575 Feedback, student, 196 Feminism, 68, 73n3, 540, 548–549 Feminist inquiry, 44 Feminist interviews, 254–255 Feminist studies, 538, 548–549 Feminist theories, 79 Feminist Theory and Music Conference, 540 Field notes, 235–236, 622–623, 625 Daily Observation Notes, 343 labeling, 238 reflections, 619–620 time-stamping, 294 Field research, 96, 138–139 Fieldwork, 302, 625 Final Cut Pro X, 294 Finland, 152 Finlay, Linda, 258 Fittingness, 10 Flanders’ Interaction Analysis System, 413 Flip video, 313–314 Florida State University, 49 Flow theory, 436 Focused observation, 234 Focus group interviews, 271–287 analysis of, 281–284 defining characteristics, 272 definition of, 272 with four-student focus groups, 370 group dynamics, 276–277 guidelines for, 277–278 history of, 271–272 informed consent for, 275–276 interview protocol, 277–278 logistics, 277 moderation of, 279–280 in music education, 273–275 opening, 279

660   Index Focus group interviews (Cont.) posing questions during, 280–281 preparation for, 275–277, 277–278 process, 278–281 rationale for, 273 recording, 278 regulations for, 275–276 researcher role during, 278–279 selection of participants, 276–277 Focusing questions, 193–197 Folk-Music, 513 Folk songs, 557 Folk theories, 35n5 Follow-up questions, 260, 261 Formatting journal articles, 599–600 Foucault, Michael, 647 Foundational knowledge, 62–63 Four-student focus groups, 370 Freire, Paulo, 105 Friends, critical, 195 Fugitive literature, 201 Future directions for choral music education research, 444–445 for community music, 517–519 for early childhood music education qualitative research, 352–354 for future band research, 402–403 for interviewing, 264–265 for mixed methods research, 220–221 for music education, 639 for phenomenology, 160–161 for practitioner inquiry, 201–204 for preservice music teacher education research, 471–472 for professional development research, 496–497 for qualitative research data collection and generation, 302 for qualitative research in music education, 53, 637–649 recommendations for, 380–382 suggestions for future research, 535–536 for teaching students with special needs, 535–536 Fuzzy search, 329 The Gambia, 233 Gay rights, 68

Gay studies. see Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and intersexed (LGBT2QI) studies Geertz, Clifford, 167, 604 Gender definition of, 545–546 forms of, 545–548 and instrument choice, 397, 547 “Gender” (label), 546 Gender discrimination, 397–398, 547 Gender Research in Music Education, 255 Gender roles, 546, 547 Gender studies, 538, 540, 547–548 Gender Trouble (Butler), 542 General education, 151–154 Generalizability, 95, 98, 100, 121 Generalizable knowledge, 579 Generalization, 28, 29–30, 243 analytic, 120–121 levels of, 140 naturalistic, 243 propositional, 243 General music definition of, 363–365 elementary, 364, 365–373 secondary, 364 General music education, 362–386 General music teachers research on, 373–376 support for, 374 Ghanaian music, 27, 566 Ewe tradition, 564 Giftedness, 529 Gifted students, 529–530 The Girl with the Brown Crayon (Paley), 190 Glaser, Barney, 262–263 “GLBT” term, 538–539 Global song, 565–566 Good fit, 10 Goodness criteria, 10, 380 Goodrich, Andrew, 254 Goodson, Ivor, 168 Gospel music, 563 Gouzouasis, Peter, 264 Graduate school, 490–491 Grand tour questions, 253 Grashel, John, 50 Griffin, Shelly, 172

Index  661 G.R.I.M.E. (Gender Research in Music Education), 540 Grounded theory, 11–12, 30, 79, 85–86 The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss), 262–263 social constructivist, 15n2 Group dynamics, 276–277 Group interviews. see also Focus group interviews small-group interviews, 370 Group theories, 88 Guitar teaching, 414 Haack, Paul, 193 Halperin, David, 542 Handbook of Narrative Inquiry (Clandinin, ed.), 170 Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin and Lincoln), 170 Handbook of Research in Arts Education (Bresler), 34n1 Handbook of Research in Music Education (Colwell), 42–43, 540, 548 Hart, Alvin Youngblood, 621, 622 Harvard University, 84, 490 Harwood, Eve, 46–47, 49–50, 51, 52 Hawaiian music, 564 Head Start, 341–342 Hermeneutical phenomenology, 153 Hermeneutics, 79 Heteroglossia, 67 Heuristic inquiry, 79 Higher education college choirs, 157 collegiate-level string instrument students, 416–418 graduate school, 490–491 phenomenological studies with college choirs, 157 world music studies in, 560–563 High-quality inquiry, 31–32 High-quality reports, 31–32 High school, 82–83 High school band, 70–71 jazz band programs, 390–391 student perspectives on, 395 students with special needs in, 527–528 High school choir

case study, 124–125 participation in, 435–438 High school jazz programs, 390–391 High school string instrument students, 416–418 High school world music studies, 559–560 Hiland Mountain Correctional Center (HMCC), 516 Hip hop, 155 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 152 History of early childhood music education, 340–347 of qualitative research, 340–347 of qualitative research in American music education, 40–56 HMCC. see Hiland Mountain Correctional Center Hochstein School of Music and Dance, 507–508, 520n13, 520n20 Homeschooling, 156 Homonormativity, 541 Honkyoku music, 126–127 Horace-Mann-Lincoln Institute of School Experimentation (Columbia University), 189 Howes, David, 619 Hubbs, Nadine, 541–542 Human subjects core principles for research with, 574 proposals for studies involving, 257 requirements for research with, 589 Hurst, Lawrence, 411 Husserl, Edmund, 148–149 HyperRESEARCH, 329, 330t, 333–334, 509 Hypertext, 594 IDEA. see Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Identification, bare, 227 Identity, 538 Establishing Identity: LGBT Studies and Music Education, 540 music teacher, 127–128, 455f, 464–465 performer, 620–621 racial, 68 Ideological commitments, 81–82 IEPs. see Individualized education programs

662   Index iMovie, 334 Improvisation, 625 “IMRAD” (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) format, 599 IMTE Colloquium. see Instrumental Music Teacher Educators Colloquium Inclusion, 524–525 in choral music, 527 elements for success, 526 in instrumental music, 526 strategies for music education, 525–528 Incompatibility thesis, 217–218 Indexing, 238 Individual interviews, 250–270, 370 Individualized education programs (IEPs), 525 Individual responses, 321 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 524, 533 Individual theories, 88 Induction, 483–486, 487t Informal interviews, 253 Informants, 100 Informed consent, 585–586, 587 for focus group interviews, 275–276 requirements for, 275–276 Inquiry. see also Research art-based, 264 case study, 116 feminist, 44 heuristic, 79 high-quality, 31–32 narrative, 30, 44, 163–185 phenomenological, 151–154 practitioner, 186–208 as stance, 202 theoretical threads leading to, 86 Inquiry communities, 203 Inservice music teacher professional development, 84–85, 479–500 Inside-Outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge (Cochran-Smith and Lytle), 190 Insider observation, 368–371 Insider-outsider hybrid observation, 372–373 Insider/outsider observation, 367–368 Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), 228–229, 573–577, 587–589

activities outside IRB oversight, 580–582 regulations for focus group interviews, 275–276 research regulated by, 584–587 review by, 585–587 vignettes, 580–582, 585–587 Instructional strategies, 442 Instrumental ensembles students with special needs in, 527–528 that perform multicultural music, 559–560 Instrumental music inclusion of students in, 526 strings, 409–428 winds, brass, percussion, 387–408 Instrumental Music Teacher Educators (IMTE) Colloquium, 197 Instrument choice, 397, 547 Intellectually gifted students, 529–530 International Club, 438 International Journal of Community Music, 34n1 International Journal of Inclusive Education, 152 International Journal of Music Education, 34n1, 562 International Journal of Research in Arts Education, 34n1 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 152 International Night, 438 International Society for Music Education (ISME), 501–502 International Vocal Ensemble (IVE), 561 Internet online community music, 513–515 online interviews, 256 online music education, 33 web-based data, 302 web-based writing, 594 Interpretation, 24–25, 69, 242–243 Interpretive biography, 41 Interpretive communities, 79 Interpretive research, value-free, 35n3 Interpretive zones, 610 Interpretivism, 44 Intersectionalities, 550 Intersectionality theory, 550

Index  663 Interview guides, 257 Interview questions asking, 258–261 beginning, 259 follow-up, 260, 261 types of, 259, 259t Interviews blended studies, 159 conversational, 251 dialogic, 255 ethnographic, 252–254 excerpts, 260b feminist, 254–255 focus group, 271–272 future directions, 264–265 individual, 250–270, 370 informal, 253 life history, 254 modes of interacting with interviewees, 255–257 in music education research, 264–265 online, 256 open-ended, 608–609 oral, 254 phenomenological, 157–158, 251–252 preparing data for analysis, 261–262 process, 46–47 protocols for, 257 qualitative, 583–584 selection of interviewees for, 46–47 semi-structured, 251, 608–609 small-group, 370 standardized, 251 studies with, 257–258 think-aloud, 315 types of, 251–255 unstructured, 251 Interview transcripts, 261, 262, 282–283 iPads, 331, 351, 622–623 iPhones, 351 iPods, 351 IRBs. see Institutional Review Boards Irish music, 29 Irwin, Rita, 264 Iser, Wolfgang, 173 ISME. see International Society for Music Education

IVE. see International Vocal Ensemble Japanese American drumming, 564, 565 Japanese brass bands, 26–27 Japanese music, 126–127 Jazz band, 390–392 high school programs, 390–391 middle school, 391 themes, 391 JBR. see Journal of Band Research Ji-nashi, 126–127 JMTE. see Journal of Music Teacher Education Josselson, Ruthellen, 168 Journal of Band Research (JBR), 387, 401t Journal of Music Teacher Education (JMTE), 44, 48, 77–78, 124, 595, 600 Journal of Narrative and Life History, 168 Journal of Research in Music Education (JRME), 43–48, 52, 77–78, 95, 96, 124, 142, 325, 387 audience, 600–601 author connections to colleges of education, 47 circulation, 601 mixed methods research in, 211 qualitative band research studies, 401t review process, 47–48 Journal of String Research, 409 Journal review, 47–48, 597–599 Journals, 52, 220. see also specific journals by title choosing for publication in, 600–602 consistency of purpose, 596 formatting articles, 599–600 “IMRAD” (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) format, 599 “instructions to contributors,” 595–596 mixed methods studies in, 220 researcher, 236–237 review process, 47–48, 597–599 space constraints, 599–600 style requirements, 595–596, 600 titles of articles, 596 JRME. see Journal of Research in Music Education Kamehameha Schools (Hawaii), 564 Kennedy, Mary, 253–254, 258

664   Index Kent State University, 47 Khan, Samia, 115 Knowledge beliefs about, 59–60 constructed, 84 cultural, 134 derivative, 65 foundational, 62–63 generalizable, 579 latitudinal, 85 local, 128–129 meaning of, 62 narrative, 166–169 received, 84 teacher, 374–375 Knowledge acquistion in 2002 Handbook, 44, 45t women-specific perspectives on, 84 Knowledge critique, 200 Knowledge landscapes, 85 Krannert Center, 615–616, 617–620, 620–624 Krueger, 47–48 Kurosawa, Akira, 626n5 Labeling field notes, 238 La Foi (Rossini), 440 Lamb, Roberta, 548–549 Language acquisition, 352 Lassiter High School, 400 Lather, Patti, 105 Latino music, 565 League of American Orchestras, 509 Learner-centered classroom environments, 413–414 Learning as becoming, 626 as experience, 625–626 experiential, 610–611 scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL), 609 from students' point of view, 194 Learning disabilities, 529 Learning to teach music, 467–470, 468f–469f perceptions or attitudes regarding, 454, 455f, 460–465 preservice teacher beliefs or concerns about, 454, 454f

Leggo, Carl, 264 Lenawee Community Chorus, 441 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) studies, 540–545, 549 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and intersexed (LGBT2QI) studies, 538–539, 541–542 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning (LGBT2Q) studies, 541–545 Letting-go-of-validity perspective, 606 Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 64 Lewis, Brian, 411 Lewis, Sinclair, 173 LGBT2QI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and intersexed) studies, 538–539, 541–542 LGBT2Q (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning) studies, 541–545 LGBTQQCSI acronym, 539 LGBT Research Symposium, 540 LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) studies, 540–545, 549 Lieblich, Amia, 168 Life Cycle of the Career Teacher model, 85 Life history interviews, 254 Lincoln, Yvonna, 638–639, 640, 647 Listening maps, 296–297 Literary nonfiction, 173–176 Literature reviews, 77 Lived experience, 410–411 Local knowledge, 128–129 Local or grounded theory, 30 Local teaching movements, 192 Logico-scientific mode, 166 Logistics, 277 Lomax, Alan, 254 Lutheran choir singers, 505–506 Lytle, Susan, 202 Madsen, Cliff, 46–47, 49, 50, 51, 53 Magnificent Horses (arr. Ling-Tam), 440 Mainstreaming, 524–525 Making Stories (Bruner), 62 Manhattanville Music Curriculum Program, 343 Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project, 66, 69

Index  665 Manipulative development, 342 Marginalization, 538 Mariachi music, 558, 564, 566 Masculinity, 540 Mason, James, 362 Mason, Molly, 510 Master Teacher Profile observation form, 423 The Maud Powell Society for Music and Education, 255 MAXQDA, 329, 330t McAdams, Dan, 168 McCabe, Allyssa, 168 McGowan, John J., 46 McInnes, Donald, 411 Meaning, 606 Meaningful clusters, 151 Meaningful investigations, 382 Meanings-of-music-making data, 314–316, 321 Media Educators Journal (MEJ), 48 major themes, 600 qualitative band research studies, 401t Media records, 293 MEJ. see Music Educators Journal Member check, 31, 196 MENC. see Music Educators National Conference Mennonite singers, 505 Mentoring, 157, 483–486, 487t Merriam, Sharan B., 115 Methodist choir singers, 505–506 Methodological frameworks, 11, 450–453 Methodological mixes, 217 Methodological perspectives, 80–81 Methodological problems, 122–123 Metz, Elayne, 46 Michigan State University, 3–4, 561–562 Microsoft Word, 332 Middle school jazz themes in, 391 string instrument students in, 415–416 world music studies in, 557–559 Middle school band, 394–395 jazz band, 391 Middle school choir, 438–440 Middle school orchestra, 421–422 MIDI data. see Musical instrument digital interface data

Miller, Janet, 70 “Milton” Community Choir (case study), 128–129 MindManager, 326, 334 Mind maps, 296 Mindmeister, 326 Mini-tour questions, 253 Mishler, Elliot, 168 MIT, 189 Mixed Choir, 435–436 Mixed methods research, 5, 160, 209–224, 642 components of, 203 designs, 215–216 early U.S.-based dissertations, 211, 212t foundations of, 212–217 future directions for, 220–221 with multilevel use of approaches, 216 in music education, 210–211 preservice music teacher education studies, 450, 451t publication of, 211, 220 purposes of, 213–215, 214t qualitative research in, 217–221 qualitative rigor of, 218–219 MMR. see Mixed methods research Modeling, 442 Model of coherence, 470 Model of Exemplary Elementary Teachers’ Instructional Knowledge, 374 Montage, 301 Motivation for participating in band, 395 proximal theory of, 436 Mountain Lake Colloquium, 197 The Mountain Lake Reader, 197 Mr. Holland’s Opus, 105 MUDs. see Multi-user domains Multicultural choral music education, 564, 565–566 Multiculturalism, 13, 539 Multicultural music in elementary school, 556 in music teacher education, 553–554 school instrumental ensembles that perform, 559–560 Multilevel use of approaches, 216

666   Index Multimedia data. see also Multimodal and multimedia data generation and collection of, 290 preparation and processing of, 299–301 transformation and transcription of, 299–301 Multimodal and multimedia data, 288–306 analysis of, 298–301 generation and collection of, 289–298 Multimodality, 288 Multi-user domains (MUDs), 256 Mursell, James, 73 Music. see also specific types, instruments Afro-Cuban, 564, 565 Afro-Puerto Rican, 565 and arts-based educational research, 308–309 audible aspects of, 309 Chinese, 556 choral, 442–444 church, 505–506 classroom, 364 collaborative, 508–509 community, 501–502, 502–506 as data, 644 general, 363–365 Hawaiian, 564 hip hop, 155 honkyoku, 126–127 instrumental, 526 instrumental (strings), 409–428 instrumental (winds, brass, percussion), 387–408 instrument choice, 397, 547 Japanese, 126–127 Latino, 565 Mariachi, 558, 564, 566 in the moment, 312–316 at moment of articulation, 309 multicultural, 553–554, 556, 559–560 ownership of, 32 participation with, 440–441 physical response to, 621–624 popular, 69 selection of, 558 subjective experiences of, 309 teacher participation in, 442–444

visual representation of, 296–297 vocal, 364 vocal-general, 364 world, 553–570 Music acquisition, 352 Musical Futures, 511 Musical instrument digital interface (MIDI) data, 292, 293, 294 Musical instrument digital interface (MIDI) synthesizers, 529 Musical interactions, 320 Musical performance chamber music performance, 489 collaborative intergenerational performance project (CIPP), 441, 508–509 community music with performance objectives, 502–506, 506t Comprehensive Musicianship through Performance, 144 as learning opportunity, 616–625 as research, 311–312 traditional performing ensembles, 504–505 Musical responses, 318–319, 321 Musical taste, 622 “Music and Minds: A Talent Development Model” program, 530, 531 Music Atelieristas, 350 Music class participation, 194–195 Music education choral music, 429–447, 564, 565–566 community, 501–523, 646–647 contemporary issues, 44, 45t cultural diversity in, 553–570 disabilities in, 528–532 diversity in, 538–552 early childhood, 339–361 elementary school, 554–557, 643 ethics in, 573–590 feminism in, 548–549 future directions for, 639 general, 362–386 higher education, 561–562 inclusion strategies for, 525–528 inservice music teacher professional development, 479–500 instrumental (strings), 409–428

Index  667 instrumental (winds, brass, percussion), 387–408 middle school, 557–559 multicultural, 556, 564, 565–566 online, 33 personal experience method, 341 secondary school, 643 strategies in coursework, 455f, 463–464 students with exceptionalities in, 524–537 world music, 553–570 Music education career cycle, 494–496 Music education journals. see Journals; specific journals by title Music education research in 2002 Handbook, 44, 45t and ABER, 310–312 case studies, 113–132 choral music, 429–447 designing projects for educational settings, 577–580 early childhood, 339–361 ethnography in, 133–147 feminist studies, 548–549 focus group interviews, 273–275 gender studies, 547–548 interviews, 250–270 LGBT2Q studies, 541–545 LGBT studies, 543, 545 mixed methods research, 209–224, 212t narrative, 70–71, 163–185 observational, 227–249 phenomenological, 148–162 QDAS programs used in, 331–334 qualitative, 3–4, 6–10, 19–110, 111–224, 225–336, 337–570, 573–590, 637–649 Music Education Research, 34n1, 124 Music Education Research Council (MERC), 341 Music Education Studies Research Group (AERA), 540 Music Educators Journal (MEJ), 47, 387, 601 Music Educators National Conference (MENC), 105, 342, 343, 354n5 Archives, 343 Early Childhood Special Research Interest Group (EC SRIG), 344 music standards for children 2-4 years old, 346

music standards for students k-12th grade, 346 National Council for Elementary General Music, 362 North Central Conference, 50 Music for Early Childhood, 342 Musicians performer identity, 620–621 string instrument performers, 418–419 Musicianship education, 158 Music Learning Theory, 507 Music Learning Theory for Newborn and Young Children (Gordon), 352 Music makers, 82–83, 418–419 Music making, 489–490 Music-making data, 307–324 analysis of, 317–321 coding of, 321 collection of, 312–316, 315–316, 316b meanings-of-music-making data, 314–316, 316b, 321 process-of-music-making data, 312–314, 316b, 321 product-of-music-making data, 312–314, 321 research topics that may benefit from, 322 Music Mania, 529 Music mentors, 157 Music of Young Children (Wilson), 343 Music Pedegogues or Music Atelieristas, 350 Music Standards (NAfME), 347 Music teacher education, 480, 531–536 engagement in, 455f, 462–463 multicultural music in, 553–554 preservice music teacher education, 448–478 self-study in, 197–198 strategies in coursework, 455f, 463–464 suggestions for future research, 535–536 for teaching students with special needs, 531–536 Music teachers. see also Teachers in 2002 Handbook, 44, 45t beginning, 481–488 career cycle, 494–496 experienced, 488–494 general music teachers, 373–376 identity development for, 127–128, 455f, 464–465

668   Index Music teachers (Cont.) inservice, 84–85, 479–500 phenomenological studies with, 157 preservice, 83–84, 127–128, 448–478 professional development of, 481–488, 488–494 role stressors, 84 second-stage, 495–496 self-study, 197–198 Music teaching. see also Music education; Teaching in 2002 Handbook, 44, 45t Music therapy, 321 Myers, David, 645–646 NACCM. see North American Coalition for Community Music NAEYC. see National Association for the Education of Young Children NAfME. see National Association for Music Education Narrative(s), 163 analysis of, 178 Bruner and, 166–169 configuration of, 263–264 definition of, 170 in music education research, 163–185 Narrative analysis, 79, 178–179 Narrative inquiry, 30, 44, 163–185 commonplaces of, 171 critiques of, 176–181 definition of, 170–171 Engaging in Narrative Inquiry (Clandinin), 170 Handbook of Narrative Inquiry (Clandinin, ed.), 170 markers of, 176–181 possibilities for, 176–181 preservice music teacher education studies, 450, 451t purposes of, 170 rigor in, 180 with underrepresented populations, 155 Narrative Inquiry, 168 Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Inquiry (Clandinin and Connelly), 170–173

Narrative Inquiry in Music Education (NIME), 4 Narrative Matters conference, 168 Narrative phenomenology, 160 The Narrative Study of Lives (Lieblich and Josselson, eds.), 168 Narrative trends, 70–71 “Narrative turn,” 99–100, 163–164 Narrativists, 173 Narratology, 79 National American String Teachers Association (ASTA) Conference, 409 National Association for Music Education (NAfME), 3, 105, 354n5, 382n1, 450, 479 Adult and Community Music Education Special Research Interest Group (ACME SRIG), 519t call for musically rich environments for all children, 347 Music Standards, 347 National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) age parameters for early childhood, 345, 346–347 Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP), 85 National Association of Music Merchants, 254 National Association of Secondary School Principals, 602 National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), 488 National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 574 National conferences, 202 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), 479, 497n2 National Council for Elementary General Music, 362 National Education Association, 340 National Guild for Community Arts Education (NGCAE), 501, 502, 519t, 520n1 National Museum of American History, 254 Naturalism, 43 Naturalistic action research, 370 Naturalistic generalizations, 243

Index  669 Naturalistic observation, 367 Naturalistic research, 43, 49 criteria for, 96 of student perceptions of band, 396 with underrepresented populations, 154–155 Naturalistic study, 366 NBPTS. see National Board for Professional Teaching Standards NCATE. see National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education Negotiated thought, 198 The Neighborhood Music School (NMS), 507 Networks, 202 New Directions in Music Education (Michigan State University), 3–4 New ethnography, 108 The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (Colwell and Richardson), 43–44, 45t, 346 New Horizons International Music Association (NHIMA), 395, 503–504, 520n8 New York City public schools, 73n1 New Zealand, 152 NGCAE. see National Guild for Community Arts Education NHIMA. see New Horizons International Music Association Nichols, Jeananne, 175–176, 179 NIME. see Narrative Inquiry in Music Education NMS. see The Neighborhood Music School No Child Left Behind Act, 63, 480 Noesis, 151 Nonfiction, literary, 173–176 Nonmusical responses, 318–319, 321 Non-participation, 230 Nonverbal, verbal, musical, and nonmusical analysis, 319 Nonverbal communication, 280 Nonverbal interactions, 317–320, 321 Norfolk Chorale, 505 North American Coalition for Community Music (NACCM), 519t North American Teacher Research Movement, 190, 192 Northern Week (Ashokan), 423–424

Northridge Children’s Choir, 431, 434 Northwestern University, 450 Notes Daily Observation Notes, 343 field notes, 235–236, 622–623, 625 labeling, 238 reflections, 619–620 time-stamping, 294 NVIVO, 281, 333 Objectivity, 613 Observation apprenticeships of, 196–197, 464 Daily Observation Notes, 343 descriptive, 234 effects on subjects, 379–380 ethical issues in, 244–245 focused, 234 insider, 368–371 insider/outsider, 367–368 insider-outsider hybrid, 372–373 modes of, 227 in music teaching and learning, 227–249 naturalistic, 367 outsider, 366–367, 371–372 participant, 44, 232, 234 participant-observer continuum, 230–231 preparing for, 228–229 qualitative, 227 researcher role in, 230–232 selective, 234 teacher, 367–368 unstructured, 608–609 Observation data analysis of, 239–241 collection of, 232–233, 234–235, 235–238 writing about, 241–244 writing descriptions of, 241–242 writing interpretations of, 242–243 Occupational identity development, 127–128 Occupational role stress, 84 Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP), 582 OHRP. see Office of Human Research Protections OmniFocus, 334 Online community music, 513–515

670   Index Online interviews, 256 Online music education, 33 Open-ended interviews, 608–609 Opening questions, 252 Open sound control (OSC) data, 293 Operationalization, 80–81 Oppressed: pedagogy of the, 105 Oral inquiry, 192 Oral interviews, 254 Orchestra programs and curriculum, 419–424 Orff Schulwerk, 199 Orff-Schulwerk teacher training, 374 OrffSPIEL collaborative, 199, 374 Organizational systems research, 580–581 Organizational theories, 88 Orientational theories, 79, 81 Orientations, 78–81 OSC data. see Open sound control data OSCulator, 293 Outsider observation, 371–372 of students, 366 of teaching practice, 366–367 Ownership, 32 Paley, Vivian, 190 Palmer, Parker, 626 Paradigm(s), 76–93 definition of, 78–79 theory as, 81–82 Paradigmatic approach, 263 Paradigmatic or logico-scientific mode, 166 Paradigm wars, 42, 612–613 Parallel perspective, 606 Parallel/simultaneous studies, 215 Paraprofessionals, 528 Participant-generated data, 295–297 Participant observation, 44, 232, 234 Participant-observer continuum, 230–231 Participation active, 230 in choir, 434–444 complete, 230–231 moderate, 230 with music, 440–441 in music class, 194–195 non-participation, 230 passive, 230

researcher, 230 student value on, 194–195 voluntary, 585 Participatory action research, 189 Partnerships, 203 Passive participation, 230 Past research, 7 Patakin/Carambu, 565 Patton, Michael Quinn, 257 PCK. see Pedagogical content knowledge Pearson intercorrelation, 96 Pedagogical action research, 198 Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), 374, 464 Pedagogy antiracism, 565–566 culturally relevant, 539 culturally responsive, age-appropriate, 381 of the oppressed, 105 world music, 558–559 Peer tutors, 421 Peery, J. C., 345, 346 Pen-pals, 463 Perception, 227, 612 Percussion Japanese American drumming, 564, 565 winds, brass, percussion (instrumental music), 387–408 Performance chamber music performance, 489 collaborative intergenerational performance project (CIPP), 441, 508–509 community music with performance objectives, 502–506, 506t Comprehensive Musicianship through Performance, 144 as learning opportunity, 616–625 as research, 311–312 traditional performing ensembles, 504–505 Performers identity of, 620–621 string instrument performers, 418–419 Permissions, site, 578 Personal experience method, 341 “Personal Experience Methods” (Clandinin and Connelly), 170

Index  671 Personal frameworks, 7 Personal interests, 77, 81–82, 86–87 Peshkin, Alan, 50, 641 Phenomenological analysis, 150–151 Phenomenological reflection, 150–151 Phenomenological research, 148–162 blended studies, 158–160 in general education, 151–154 interviews, 157–158, 251–252 in music education, 151–154, 154–161 in preservice music teacher education, 450, 451t qualitative band research studies, 401t study themes, 154 Phenomenology, 26–27, 79, 80, 148, 614 definition of, 150 foundations of, 148–151 hermeneutical, 153 methodology, 148–151 suggestions for future use, 160–161 Philadelphia Orchestra, 418 Philosophical inquiry, 352 Photo elicitation, 297 Physical response to music, 621–624 Piecemeal publication, 603–605 The Pillsbury Foundation for the Advancement of Music Education, 339, 341, 343 The Pillsbury Foundation School, 339, 344, 349 The Pillsbury Foundation Studies (The Studies), 339, 341, 346, 349, 352, 353 Pioneers, 402 Pittsburgh public schools, 490 Place: ethnography of, 145 Plato, 58, 60–61 Play theory, 352 Plummer, Kathryn, 411 PluralEyes, 294 Pluralism, 70 Poetic representation, 264 Polkinghorne, Donald, 168, 263 Popper, Karl, 624 Popular music, 69 Positivism, 31, 62–64, 79 Positivist objectivity, 613 Possible Selves Program in Music, 437 Post-humanism, 73n3

Postmodernism, 44, 66–67, 69, 73n3 Postmodern perspectives, 79 Postpositivism, 43, 79 Post-structuralism, 65–66, 66–67 Poststructuralism, 73n3 Practice-based orientation, 492–493 Practitioner inquiry, 186–208, 643 cautions, 203–204 contemporary critiques and challenges, 200–201 defining qualities, 186–188 future directions, 201–204 knowledge critique, 200 in music education, 193–200 new venues for, 202 roles for, 203 roots of, 188–192 science critique, 200 visibility of, 202 Practitioner Inquiry Series, 202 Practitioners, reflective, 188–189 Pragmatic utilitarianism, 106 Pragmatism, 79, 214 Prairie View Interscholastic League (PVIL), 399–400 Prendergast, Monica, 264 Preschool children, 345 Preservice band directors, 399 Preservice music teacher education research categories of interest, 450, 451t critique and conclusion, 470–472 future directions, 471–472 literature quality, 470–471 literature review, 450, 451t, 452f, 453, 454f, 455f, 456–467, 456f methodological framework for, 450–453 phenomenological studies, 155, 158 qualitative, 448–478 results, 467–470, 468f–469f studies, 450, 451t theoretical framework for, 449 types of studies, 450, 451t Preservice music teachers analytical, reflective, and critical thinking, 456f, 465 beliefs about learning to teach music, 454, 454f, 456–460

672   Index Preservice music teachers (Cont.) beliefs about teaching, 454f, 458–459 case study, 127–128 concerns about self, technical, and impact issues, 454f, 457–458 confidence issues, 455f, 460–461 course connections, 456f, 466 education of, 83–84, 448–478 engagement in courses, 455f, 462–463 engagement in specific actions, 455f, 461–462 improvements/interventions aimed at, 454, 456f, 465–467 occupational identity development of, 127–128, 455f, 464–465 perceptions or attitudes regarding learning to teach music, 454, 455f, 460–465 phenomenological studies with, 155, 158 preparation for research, 196–197 prior knowledge or experiences, 454f, 457 reflection that generates self-awareness, 454f, 459–460 relationships, 456f, 467 self-evaluation, 456f, 465–466 skill proficiencies, 456f, 466 strategies in coursework, 455f, 463–464 Primary age children, 345 Primary sources, 644 Prior knowledge or experiences, 454f, 457 Privacy, 585 Private information, identifiable, 581 Procedural knowers, 84 Procedures, 98 Process-of-music-making data, 312–314, 321 Product-of-music-making data, 312–314, 321 Professional development of beginning music teachers, 481–488 categories of, 83 continued, 370 definition of, 480 of experienced music teachers, 488–494 graduate school as, 490–491 inservice, 84–85, 479–500 music making as, 489–490 Professional Development Area for Strategic Planning (Society for Music Teacher Education), 489

Professional development research, 480–481 in 2002 Handbook, 44, 45t action research/teacher research, 491–494 future directions, 496–497 phenomenological studies, 156–158 Professional Development School (PDS), 463 Professional socialization, 646–647 Professional string instrument performers, 418–419 Progressive Education movement, 341 Projects, 349 Project Zero, 350, 490 Prolonged engagement, 31 Proportionate reason, 245 Propositional generalizations, 243 ProQuest database, 325 Prospect School and Center (Vermont), 190 Proust, Marcel, 647 Proximal theory of motivation, 436 Psychology, ecological, 79 Publication(s), 591–607 choosing venues for, 595–602 as dissemination, 600–602 duplicate, 602–603 ethics of, 602–607 piecemeal, 603–605 redundant, 602, 603 style requirements, 595–596 writing for, 591–595 PVIL. see Prairie View Interscholastic League QDAMiner, 329, 330t QDAS programs. see Qualitative Data Analysis Software QRME. see Qualitative research methods QSRNVivo, 329–331, 330t, 332–333 Qualitative comparisons, 96 Qualitative Conference in Music Education (University of Illinois), 325 Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS), 326–327 decision to use, 334–335 main tasks of analysis with, 327, 328t major programs, 329–331, 330t programs used by music education researchers, 331–334 use and special features of, 329–331

Index  673 Qualitative data collection and analysis, 225–336 software for, 325–336 Qualitative interviews, 583–584 Qualitative observation, 227 Qualitative research 21st-century approaches for, 351–352 in American music education, 19–110 in American school band programs, 387 approaches for, 111–224 assumptions of, 22–24, 605 band studies, 390, 400–402, 401t basic studies, 8 characteristics of, 21–39 in choral music education, 429–447 in community music education, 501–523 conceptual framework for, 7, 21–39 considerations for, 347–348 contemporary issues, 44, 45t criteria for, 101 “Curriculum Research: Qualitative Methods Research” course, 614–624, 627b–634b defining terms, 67 definition of, 22 designs for, 7–8 detachment and, 611–614 in diversity, 538–552 in early childhood music education, 339–361 emergence of, 67–68 epistemology and, 71–73 ethics and, 573–590 evaluative criteria for, 95, 101–106, 107–109 factors that contribute to external reliability, 138–139 foundation of, 641–642 framing, 76–93 functions of, 29 future directions, 53, 637–649 in general music education, 362–386 goals of, 21–39 guidelines for, 98 history of, 40–56, 340–347 in inservice music teacher professional development, 479–500 in instrumental music (strings), 409–428

in instrumental music (winds, brass, percussion), 387–408 intellectual roots of, 22–24 interpretive turn, 57 key criteria for, 6–10 key methods, 608–609 in learning to teach, 449 methodological frameworks for, 11 in mixed methods studies, 217–221 model of coherence for, 470 in music education, 3–4, 6–10, 163–185, 310–312, 538–552, 573–590, 637–649 “narrative turn” in, 99–100 new affordances, 643–644 new realms for, 642–643 past research, 7 personal frameworks for, 7 in preservice music teacher education, 448–478 processes of, 643–644 professional evolution of, 51–52 purpose of, 640–641 quality in, 94–110 questions to consider, 108–109 regulatory ethical review of, 575–577 requirements for, 611–614 in selected areas, 337–570 sightings of, 42–45 on specific disabilities in music education, 528–532 strategies for, 643–644 on students with exceptionalities, 524–537 suggestions for, 98 suggestions for future research, 535–536 teaching, 608–636 techniques and strategies for ensuring “goodness,” 98 terminology, 48 theoretical frameworks for, 7, 8 world music studies, 554–557, 557–559, 559–560, 560–563, 563–564 Qualitative Research Conference (University of Illinois), 41 planning and implementation, 49–53 speaker and participant experiences, 51 Qualitative Research Methodologies Conference, 193

674   Index Qualitative research methods (QRME) course, 198 Qualitative sampling, 616 Qualitative sightings, 40, 42–45 Quality in 2002 Handbook, 44, 45t criteria for, 10 in ethnographic studies, 138–140 in literature, 470–471 in music education qualitative research, 94–110 in research and reporting, 44, 45t Qualrus, 329, 330t Quantitative research, 31, 134 Quasimixed methods research, 216 Queer studies. see Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and intersexed (LGBT2QI) studies Queer theory, 73n3, 79, 540, 542, 543 Questioning studies. see Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and intersexed (LGBT2QI) studies Questions asking, 258–261 beginning, 259 closed, 259 focusing, 193–197 follow-up, 260, 261 for future band research, 402–403 grand tour questions, 253 mini-tour, 253 open, 259, 260 opening, 252 posing, 280–281 of practice, 195–196 research questions, 6 types of, 259, 259t “What if ” questions, 195–196 Race To The Top, 480 Racial identity, 68 Radical deconstructionism, 542 Radocy, Rudy, 46, 47–48 Ranaldo, Lee, 622 Rapport, 276–277 Rashomon, 614, 626n5 Rational thought, 62

Realism, 79, 107 Reality testing, 79 Reason, proportionate, 245 Recall, stimulated, 297 Received knowledge, 84 Reclaiming the Classroom (Goswami and Stillman), 190 Recognition, 227 Recording, video and audio choosing and operating devices for, 290–292 of focus group interviews, 278 generating data through, 290 time-stamping field notes, 294 time-stamping media records, 293 Records. see also Data collection and analysis data, 238 digital, 238 media records, 293 Redundant publications, 602, 603 Reflection shared, 297, 298 that generates self-awareness, 454f, 459–460 Reflective practitioners, 188–189, 196–197 Reflective thinking, 456f, 465 Reflexivity, 101, 258 Reggio Emilia philosophy, 349, 350 Reggio Emilia projects, 350 Regional conferences, 202 Regulatory ethical review, 575–577 Rehearsal, 413 Rehearsal Priorities Analysis Form, 413 Reid, Rufus, 418–419 Reimer, Bennett, 646 Reismann, Catherine Kohler, 168 Rejoice in the Lamb (Britten), 440 Relationality, 178 Reliability, 95, 96, 98 external, 96, 138–139 Renzulli’s Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness, 529 Replication perspective, 606 Reporting. see also Publication(s) on early childhood music education qualitative research, 345–347 quality in, 44, 45t Representation of data, 30–32

Index  675 Requiem (Fauré), 441 Research. see also Inquiry; Qualitative research academic, 585–586 action research, 186, 189–190, 370, 393–394, 491–494 activities outside IRB oversight, 580–582 arts-based educational research (ABER), 264, 307, 308–312 classroom, 585–586, 586–587 cognitive focus of, 44 combined qualitative and quantitative studies, 586–587 constructivist studies, 379 credibility of, 139 descriptive studies, 378–379 designing projects for educational settings, 577–580 educational, 64–67, 70–71 effects on participants, 380–381 ethnographic, 43 exempt, 582–584 on general music teachers, 373–376 goal of, 106–107 with interviews, 257–258 mainstream, 63 meaningful investigations, 382 mixed methods, 209–224 with multilevel use of approaches, 216 musical performance as, 311–312 in music education, 163–185, 310–312 narrative in, 163–185 naturalistic, 43, 49, 96, 370 on organizational systems, 580–581 phenomenological, 148–162 philosophical perspectives on, 44 practice-based orientation to, 492–493 as professional development, 491–494 in professional development, 480–481 proposals for studies involving human subjects, 257 qualitative, 19–110, 111–224, 337–570, 573–590, 608–636, 637–649 qualitative research methods (QRME), 198 quality in, 44, 45t quantitative, 31, 134 recommendations for, 380–382

reflexive process of, 25–27 regulated by IRBs, 584–587 as research, 51 scientific, 638 self-study, 191–192 subjectivity of, 258 teacher, 186, 189, 190–191, 491–494 terminology, 48 topical, 77, 81, 86–87 topics that may benefit from music-making data, 322 training in, 203 validity of, 139 Research Center for Group Dynamics at (MIT), 189 Research community, 646–647 Researchers, 99, 202 as adult visitors, 348 as collaborative participants, 233 as co-researchers with children, 349 as facilitators, 378–379 during focus group interviews, 278–279 influences on subjects, 379–380 as insider-outsider, 377 as insider/outsider, 381 as insiders, 377 as instruments, 375 as interviewers, 278–279 as “least adult,” 378 as moderators, 278–279 as Music Pedegogues or Music Atelieristas, 350 as observer/observer-participant, 379 as observers, 230–232, 376–377 on-site roles, 348 as outside experts, 379 as outsiders, 379 participation of, 230–231 perspectives of, 376–379 pioneers, 402 positioning of, 377–379 relationships with participants, 231–232 as research instruments, 231 selective inattention of, 231 teachers as, 189, 579–580, 643 visibility-invisibility of, 378 Researcher-storytellers, 173

676   Index Research interviews, 250. see also Interviews definition of, 251 Research journals, 236–237. see also specific journals by title Research participants collaborative, 233 data generated by, 295–297 relationships with, 231–232 selection of, 99, 276–277 terminology, 48 use of computers and digital devices on-site, 292–293 views of, 381 Research questions, 6 Research Studies in Music Education, 34n1, 124, 164 Research subjects. see also Research participants terminology, 48 Resonance, 644–646 Resources, 84 Respondent validation, 31 Responses culturally responsive, age-appropriate pedagogy, 381 culturally responsive teaching, 556, 557–558 individual, 321 to music, 621–624 musical, 318–319, 321 nonmusical, 318–319, 321 physical, 621–624 to reviewers, 596–597 to reviews, 596–597 “Response to Reviewers,” 597 Responsivity, 318 Reviewers importance of, 645–646 responding to, 596–597 Review process, 597–599 Ribot, Marc, 622 Richardson, Carol, 49, 50 Richardson, Laurel, 645 Richness, 100 Rigor, 180, 605–607, 644–646 Ritchie, William, 411 Rochester (NY) New Horizons band program, 503

Rodriguez, Nelson, 541, 542 Role theory, 84 Sacred songs, 159 Safety in choir, 430–434 less safe places, 433–434 “Safe Place” concept, 432 Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin and Lincoln), 539, 638–639 Saldaña, 164 Salvaging, 214t Samples, 98 Sampling, 8–9, 228 qualitative, 616 San Jose Taiko, 565 Sankofa Drum and Dance Ensemble, 564 Sartre, Jean-Paul, 29 Satisficing, 214t Saturate, 331 Scaffolding, 616–625 Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 152 Schleuter, Lois, 47, 48 Scholarship. see also Publication; Research aesthetics of, 611 of teaching, 609 Scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL), 609 School band programs, 387 high school band, 70–71, 395, 527–528 high school jazz band, 390–391 jazz band, 390–392 middle school band, 394–395 middle school jazz band, 391 School ethnography, 135 School instrumental ensembles, 559–560 School of Education (University of Illinois), 49 School orchestra programs, 419–424 Schools community music schools, 507–508 teaching models and approaches in, 412–414 School-Wide Enrichment Model (SEM), 530–531 Schulwerk Project: Implementing Eastman’s Levels, 199

Index  677 Schumsky, Abraham, 193 Science critique, 200 Scientific method, 62 Scientific research, 638 traditional, 102–103 Scientific thought, 62–64 Screencasting software, 293 Screenflow, 293 ScreenFlow, 334 Seattle Girls’ Choir, 144 SEC (Southeastern Conference), 400 Secondary general music, 364 Secondary school. see also High school; Middle school music education in, 643 “Second Chair,” 164 Second-stage music teachers, 495–496 Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, 542 Seeing for Ourselves (Bissex and Bullock), 190 Seelman, Marilyn, 411 Selective observation, 234 Self-awareness, 454f, 459–460 Self-concern, 454f, 457–458 Self-confrontation, 459–460 Self-efficacy, 417 Self-evaluation, 456f, 465–466 Self-image, 430–434 choir and, 436 Self-making, 167 Self-portraits, 296–297 Self-studies, 191–192, 203 in music teacher education, 197–198 qualitative band research studies, 401t Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP), 191 SEM. see School-Wide Enrichment Model Semiotics, 79 Semi-structured interviews, 608–609 Sengstack Educational Foundation, 354n7 Sensory exploration, 27–28 Sequential studies, 215 “Sex” (label), 546 Sexuality, 541–542 Shakuhachi music, 126–127, 240 Shared music focus, 320 Shared music interactions, 320 Shared music understandings, 320

Shared reflection, video-based (VBSR), 297, 298 Shelley, Shirley, 343 Shipps, Stephen, 411 Shuler, Scott, 479 Shulman, Lee, 638 Signature: Women in Music, 255 Silence, 84 Simons, Helen, 115, 118 Sims, Wendy, 211 Site permissions, 578 Skinner, B. F., 59, 63 Skype, 33, 256, 284 Small-group interviews, 370 Smithsonian Jazz Oral History Program, 254 Smithsonian Museum, 254 SMV systems. see Synchronous multiple video systems Social construction, 103 Social constructivist grounded theory, 15n2 Social context, 320 Social influence, 320 Social interactions/connections, 319–320, 321 with band, 396–397 with community choir, 128–129 Socialization professional, 646–647 teacher, 410–411 Social justice, 515–516, 516t, 538, 539 Social networks, 153–154 Social theories, 88 Society for Music Teacher Education, 197, 489 Software, 325–336 Solow, Jeffrey, 411 Sonic ethnography, 28 SOTL. see Scholarship of teaching and learning Sources, primary, 644 Southeastern Conference (SEC ), 400 Special learners, 525 Special needs adolescents with, 527 band students with, 392, 527–528 preparation for teaching students with, 531–536 Speech act theory, 81 Spiral curriculum, 66

678   Index Spirituality spiritual connections, 505–506 as universal experience of music, 126–127 S-STEP (Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices), 191 Stake, Robert E. (Bob), 50, 115–116 Stauffer, Sandra, 263–264 Stern, Daniel, 610 Stinson, Sue, 609 Stokowski, Leopold, 339 Storytelling, 164 critical, 173–176 emancipatory educational storysharing, 105 self-making through, 167 Strauss, Anselm, 262–263 Stress, occupational role, 84 Stressors, 84 String Jam, 423, 511, 520n20 String Research Journal, 409 Strings (instrumental music), 409–428 “Strings Attached: The Reality Show,” 421–422 Structuralism, 64–67, 69 Student-directed teaching, 390 Student feedback, 196 Students. see also Preservice music teachers band students, 392, 394–396, 527–528 choir students, 434–444 with disabilities, 154–155 with exceptionalities, 524–537 four-student focus groups, 370 gifted, 529–530 high school, 82–83, 434–444 insider observation of, 368–371 insider/outsider observation of, 367–368 in instrumental music ensembles, 527–528 intellectually gifted, 529–530 learning from, 194 middle school, 438–440 outsider observation of, 366 phenomenological studies on, 154–155 qualitative research on, 524–537 special learners, 525 with special needs, 392, 527–528, 531–536 string instrument students, 414–418 teacher observation of, 367–368 value on participation, 194–195 as vulnerable populations, 577–578

Student teachers, 582 Studio settings, 411–412 Study groups, collaborative teacher (CTSGs), 199, 374, 489 Style requirements, 595–596 Style vs substance, 607 Stylization, spectacular, 27–28 Subjective knowers, 84 Subjectivity, 23, 67, 121–122, 258, 613 subjective experiences of music, 309 transcendental, 149 Summer camp, 423 Summer music programs, 509–510 Suncoast Symposium (University of South Florida), 3–4 Support for beginning music teachers, 483–486 for general music teachers, 374 Suzuki Method instruction, 411–412, 507 Symbolic interaction, 79 Sympathy, 34n2 Synchronization of data, 293–294 Synchronous multiple video (SMV) systems, 294 Systems theory, 79, 87 Tanglewood Symposium, 342 Target children, 99 Teacher (Ashton-Warner), 190 Teacher-as-research movement, 189 Teacher concerns model, 83–84 Teacher-directed modeling, 442 Teacher knowledge, 374–375 Teacher research, 186, 190–191 definition of, 491–492 as professional development, 491–494 Teacher Research Day (University of Pennsylvania), 191 Teacher-researchers, 579–580 Teachers. see also Music teachers in 2002 Handbook, 44, 45t community of, 646–647 development of, 83–84 education of, 44, 45t, 83–84, 152–153 life cycle model, 85 lived experience of, 410–411 observation of students by, 367–368

Index  679 as participants, 580 preservice, 448–478 as reflective practitioners, 188–189 rehearsal priorities, 413 as research, 189 as researchers, 579–580, 643 socialization of, 410–411 student teachers, 582 teacher study by, 375–376 Teachers College, Columbia, 332, 548 Teacher study groups, collaborative (CTSGs), 199, 374, 489 Teaching. see also Education in 2002 Handbook, 44, 45t band, 387–396 beliefs about, 454f, 458–459 in chamber music settings, 414 guitar, 414 models and approaches for, 411–414 outsider observation of, 366–367 as profession, 44, 45t qualitative band literature on, 390 qualitative research, 608–636 scholarship of, 609 scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL), 609 in school settings, 412–414 student-directed, 390 in studio settings, 411–412 Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 152 Teaching movements, 192 Teaching Music to Learners with Special Needs course, 534 Technical issues, 454f, 457–458 Technology, 153–154, 644 focus group interviews with, 284 phenomenological studies with, 158 web-based, 302 Terkel, Studs, 254 Terminology, 31 changing use of, 48 choosing our words, 102–106 evaluative, 95–98 gender vs. sex, 546 music therapy, 321

new vocabulary, 100–101 Texas band programs, 399 Theoretical frameworks, 7, 8, 81–82, 86–87, 642 absence of, 85–86 definition of, 77–78 for ethnography, 136–138 from methodological perspectives, 80–81 for research in learning to teach, 449 understandings of, 77 Theoretical sampling, 29–30 Theoretical traditions, 79 Theory absence of, 85–86 of education, 68 finding, 87–88 formal theories, 77 group theories, 88 individual theories, 88 levels of, 77 organizational theories, 88 as paradigm, 81–82 in qualitative research, 76–93 social theories, 88 understandings of, 77 Thick descriptions, 24, 31, 160 Think-aloud interviews, 315, 372 Think-aloud protocols, 100 Think alouds, 44 Thomas, Gary, 115, 117–118 Thompson, Linda K., 480 Thorndike, E. L., 59, 63 Three Flower Songs (Beach), 440 Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness (Renzulli), 529 Timelines, 238 Time-stamping field notes, 294 Time-stamping media records, 293 Titles, 596 Topical research, 77, 81, 86–87 Touching Eternity: The Enduring Outcomes of Teaching (Barone), 29, 173 Toward a Methodology of Naturalistic Inquiry in Educational Evaluation (Guba), 41 Traditional music, 155–156 Traditional performing ensembles, 504–505 Traditional scientific research criteria, 102–103 Training, research, 203

680   Index Transana, 330t, 333–334 Transcendental subjectivity, 149 Transcription of focus group interview data, 282–283 of individual interview data, 261, 262 linguistic-focused frameworks, 300–301 of multimedia data, 299–301 Transcripts, 261, 262, 282–283 Transferability, 10, 97, 121 Transgender studies. see Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and intersexed (LGBT2QI) studies Triangulation between-methods, 214 of data, 31, 100, 139–140, 217 definition of, 214 as state of mind, 235 Turner, Victor, 26 Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 574 “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star,” 420 Twitter, 302 Underrepresented populations, 154–156 Ungar, Jay, 510 United Kingdom, 189, 256 University of Illinois Qualitative Conference in Music Education, 325 Qualitative Research Conference, 41, 49–53 Qualitative Research Methodologies Conference, 193 School of Education, 49 University of Maryland, 343 University of Pennsylvania Annual Ethnography and Education Forum, 191 Ethnography and Education Forum, 202 Teacher Research Day, 191 University of South Carolina (USC), 509 University of South Carolina String Project (USCSP), 509 University of South Florida, 3–4 University of Washington, 561 University of Wisconsin, 47 UPDATE, 48 Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 562, 595

Updike, John, 173 Upper Arlington, Ohio orchestra, 420 USC. see University of South Carolina USCSP. see University of South Carolina String Project Utilitarianism, pragmatic, 106 Validation, respondent, 31 Validity, 95, 96, 98, 139, 214t catalytic, 380 democratic, 643 perspectives on, 606 Value-free interpretive research, 35n3 Van Wynsberghe, Rob, 115 Variation theory, 614 VBSR. see Video-based shared reflection Venues, 202 Verbal and nonverbal data analysis, 318 Verbal and nonverbal interactions, 321 Verbal interactions, 317–320 Verbal protocol analysis, 44 Verisimilitude, 644–646 Video and audio recording, 290 Video-based shared reflection (VBSR), 297, 298 Videoconferencing, 284 Video confessionals, 296 Video data or footage, 290 content logs of, 299 participant-generated, 295–297 transformation and transcription of, 299–301 writing with, 504 Video diaries, 296 Video elicitation, 297 Virtual ethnography, 145 Visibility, 202 Visual artifacts, 296 Visual data, participant-generated, 296–297 Vividness, 100 Vocabulary, 100–101, 102–106 Vocal events, 318 Vocal-general music, 364 Vocal music, 364 Voice, writer’s, 243–244, 591–595 Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), 256 Voluntary participation, 585

Index  681 Vygtoskian models, 87 Walls, Billy G., 400 Walt Disney Company, 105 Wang, Shi-Hwa, 411 Watkins, Alfred, 400 Watson, John, 59, 63–64 “Ways of Being at Risk: The Case of Billy Charles Barnett” (Barone), 174–175 Web-based data, 302 Web-based writing, 594 Webster, Peter, 46–47, 51, 52, 53 Wenger, Etienne, 609 Western classical music, 66 “What if ” questions of practice, 195–196 Whitaker, Nancy, 49, 50 Williams Beuren syndrome, 530 Williams syndrome, 530, 531 Wilson, Bruce, 343 Winds, brass, percussion (instrumental music), 387–408 Wolof language, 233 Women-specific perspectives, 84 World music(s), 553–570 World music pedagogy, 558–559 World music studies in community context, 565–567 in elementary school, 554–557 in higher education, 560–563 in high school, 559–560 in middle school, 557–559 in unclear or combined educational levels, 563–564

Worldviews, 79 Wright, Frank Lloyd, 187 Writer’s voice development of, 592–593 establishing, 243–244, 591–595 new voices, 593–595 Writing, 30–32, 645 for academic publication, 591–595 as analysis, 178–179 collaborative, 593–594 descriptions of observation data, 241–242 goals in, 241–242 in hypertext, 594 “IMRAD” (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) format, 599 interpretations of observation data, 242–243 about observation data, 241–244 researcher positioning, 377–379 space-saving strategies, 600 style requirements, 595–596, 600 with video, 504 web-based, 594 Writing assignments, 616–625 WS. see Williams syndrome Yarbrough, Cornelia, 106 Yin, Robert K., 115, 116, 120–121 YouTube, 33, 302 Zimmerman, J. R., 345 Zimmerman, M. P., 345 Zimmerman, Marilyn, 73 Zone of proximal development (ZPD), 317, 625