Music Education Research

Vol. 8, No. 2, July 2006, pp. 143
152

EDITORIAL

Telling half the story: making explicit

the significance of methods and
methodologies in music education
research
Pamela Burnard*
University of Cambridge, UK

Introduction
There is an extensive literature generated by educational researchers and reviewers
which prioritises the research development agenda across the education systems and
reports on trends in scholarly inquiry. This includes calls to avoid fuzzy general-
izations (Bassey, 1991) and for more use of meta-analyses (see Review of Educational
Research issues 2002
2006). There are criticisms about the obscuring of methods
and methodological pluralism (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) to critical reviews of
what is ‘good’ educational research (Rudduck & McIntyre, 1998; Hostetler, 2005).
These and other debates have helped to identify the significance of distinguishing
between research methods and methodology in the reporting of research (Maykut &
Morehouse, 1994). Emerging from this literature is a new reflective awareness of the
importance of researchers being explicit about the assumptions and theories that
underpin their work. This paper builds on the rise in interest and the proliferation of
new publications which contribute to the advancement and evaluation of research in
the social sciences,1 educational research,2 arts-based research,3 psychology of
music4 and music education.5
So, what are some of the issues which obscure how we understand and conduct
research in music education? What are the research policies being pursued by official
bodies in the UK and elsewhere, and the impact of these policies on funding for
music education research? How should we, as a research community, assess the
methodological rigour and analytical defensibility of our work in music education
research? Why do we, as researchers and teachers, not agree what to expect of the
terms ‘methodology’ and ‘methods’ of research? Why is there a tendency among

*Faculty of Education, Cambridge University, 184 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2PQ, UK.
Email: pab61@cam.ac.uk
ISSN 1461-3808 (print)/ISSN 1469-9893 (online)/06/020143-10
# 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14613800600827730
144 Editorial

some researchers to treat epistemology and method as synonymous? What are the
issues with making explicit the research process (for example, distinguishing between
‘theoretical perspectives’, ‘methodology’ and ‘methods’ as specific understandings)
which so crucially underpin the processes of enquiry? Why is it important that we
make explicit the ontological (i.e. questions concerning the nature of knowledge) and
epistemological assumptions (i.e. questions concerning what constitutes knowledge
and how humans come to know) which are central to how we conduct our own
research and guide that of others?
It is on such questions as these, along with issues arising from this and previous
issues of Music Education Research which form the primary focus of this extended
editorial paper.
The aim here is to provoke reflection and debate about the importance of being
explicit about the assumptions and theories that underpin research and of being
articulate about the research process in achieving research rigour. Here, I am
reminded of and echo Crotty’s (2005) call ‘At every point in our research . . . we
inject a host of assumptions . . . without unpacking these assumptions and clarifying
them, no (one) . . . can really divine what our research has been or what it is now
saying’ (p. 17).

Reflecting on the papers in this issue

The articles in this issue report, synthesize, review or analyse scholarly inquiry. The
empirical studies include quantitative, qualitative and mixed method research work.
Studies are undertaken in a range of educational contexts. Research topics include
teacher knowledge, beliefs and experiences as well as learners’ understandings; all
contributors reinforce that there are synergies between the interaction of teachers’
beliefs and teaching practice in university and conservatoire settings as well as in
primary and secondary school and community contexts.
The six papers which make empirical contributions are flanked by a review of
literature and a conceptual paper. There is broad methodological coverage which
governs choice and use of methods, running through the issue (although, as will be
discussed later, the methodologies are made less explicit than the methods in use).
The first and last articles are scholarly, substantive, thorough and sophisticated
reviews, each of which looks to analyse and synthesize research in and around a
particular topic. In the opening article of the issue, Kathy Roulston offers a timely
illustration of what constitutes an exemplary literature review.6 In this, she identifies
the main qualitative methods used in music education research and what methodologies
govern choice and use of methods. Data collection techniques that have been used
and feature heavily in music education research are analysed in terms of their
advantages and disadvantages. Kathy offers researchers ideas that will help them
show how methodological choices relate to issues of research design and research
methods and why all researchers’ choices need to be justified in relation to the
research questions. In addition, this review reinforces how the researchers’ beliefs,
 Editorial 145

theories or assumptions influence every step in the process of research and how this
relates to the various paradigms of enquiry. Roulston’s offer of clear steps for
conceptualizing and clarifying (and making explicit) the process of qualitative
research is worthy of much detailed attention and substantiates my own views
expressed later in this paper.
The next four articles directly examine the phenomenon of teaching and learning
with public school, university and conservatory teachers in Greece (Stamou,
Humphreys & Schmidt), with piano teachers in Australia (Ryan Daniel), with
secondary school music teachers in Sweden (Eva Georgii-Hemming) and primary
school teachers in Sweden (Cecilia Ferm). The fifth article explores careers of
musicians graduating from a UK conservatoire (Janet Mills). This is followed by an
article which describes the scope and significance of music learning in community
programs (Steve Dillon).
In the closing article of the issue, Thomas Regelski examines with distinguished
scholarship some of the well-reasoned and key philosophical perspectives on the
nature of music and music in education. Through sustained argument, he presents
an historical mapping from which he offers a conceptual framework for music
teaching with related implications for practice and future research. At the heart of his
philosophical enquiry into models of music teaching is a quest for advancing music
education through theorizing music education and its research.7
Each article illustrates one of three realms of research in education as classifica-
tions or kinds of research assigned by Bassey (1992). These are as follows.
. Reflective research in which the findings of empirical research become the starting
point for review and argument about educational issues (as exemplified in the first
article by Roulston).
. Empirical research of the kind where data collection is centre stage and
conclusions are drawn from, in this case, quantitative, qualitative and mixed
method approaches (as exemplified in Stamou et al., Daniel, Georgii-Hemming,
Ferm, Mills, and Dillon).
. Creative research in which the devising of new systems, the development of novel
solutions, and the formulation of new ideas is achieved, by systematic and critical
enquiry (as exemplified in the final article by Regelski).

Each article is subject to the page and space limitations that researchers encounter
with scholarly journals. Each demonstrates different understandings of the use of the
terms methodology and methods, and the extent of justification, detailed explanation
and description to allow judgments of validity to be made by the reader.
Whilst these studies are filled with achievements, not all of the articles make
explicit the theoretical assumptions that have guided the focus of inquiry and the
gathering, analysis and presentation of data. Not all the articles make explicit, or
distinguish between what methods are used and what methodology governs choice and
use of methods; what theoretical perspective lies behind the methodology in question;
or what epistemology informs this theoretical perspective (Crotty, 2005).
 146
Table 1. Methods and methodologies employed by the contributors in this issue

Study Research question(s) Methods Methodology Theoretical perspective Source of data

Editorial
Roulston What characteristics Critical review of Hermeneutic enquiry: Critical enquirya Research articles
distinguish qualitative existing studies
research in music education?
Stamou, What are the effects of Measurement & Correlational enquiry Positivism/ Research Interest and Ability
Humphreys & instruction (and selected scaling Postpositivism Scale (RIAS); a 15-item
Schmidt background variables) on measure each with a 5-point
music teachers’ attitudes and Likert-type scale; administered
self-evaluation regarding as a pre- and post-measures
research?
Daniel What interactions between 162 hours of Qualitative/naturalist Interpretivism Observation (systematic
teachers and students, teaching videographic enquiry/ procedures applied to the
strategies, roles and learning in observation of small (with commitment to analysis qualitative data; some
the process and learning group lessons & detailed description) data quantified)
outcomes in studio music one-to-one lessons
learning environments?
Georgii-Hemming How do teachers experiences Life history Hermeneutic enquiry Interpretivism Narratives (texts);
of teaching impact on Life stories Conversations (interviews)
teaching?
Ferm What are teachers’ views of the Observation Phenomenological Interpretivism Observation Written
core subject Music; what Written reflections enquiry reflections
characterises their personal
experiences of music?
Mills What are the career aspirations Interviews Mixed methods Pragmatism Interviews
of musicians at a conservatoire? Questionnaire Questionnaires
Dillon What are the ways in which we Case study Ethnographic Interpretivism Observation
can best assess the positive meanings set against Field notes
influences of music activities in backdrop of ‘culture’ Written reflections
community development (or ‘Portfolio approach’
programs? Documents
Regelski What is music as praxis and Philosophical Philosophical inquiry Philosophical Oppositions from theory and
how can it inform music methods pragmatism practice
education?

a
See Morrow and Brown (1994).
 Editorial 147

For this reason, I want to spend some time arguing for why the justification of our
choice of methods and methodology is crucial to advancing discussions on the
significance of distinguishing between methods and methodologies and on the
prioritizing of a future research agenda in music education. In so doing, I draw upon
the wisdom of Peshkin (2000) who wrote: ‘To be forthcoming and honest about how
we work as researchers is to develop a reflective awareness that, I believe, contributes
to enhancing the quality of our interpretive acts’ (p. 9).

Being ‘forthcoming and honest about how we work’

It was nearly 70 years ago that the US-based Journal of Research in Music Education
was launched and 14 years ago the first MENC Handbook of Research on Music
Teaching and Learning edited by Richard Colwell (1992) which was extended ten
years later by the New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning edited by
Richard Colwell and Carol Richardson (2002). Clearly, as a research community,
there has been no lack of attention to reflecting on the nature and progress of the
educational enterprise in music education.
The mounting evidence of comprehensive reviews of published and unpublished
studies (see for example, BERA) provides further support to the view that we are, at
best, recognised as a field of research which has and continues to accommodate
change and growth, and, at worst, considered to have not achieved anything more
than ‘sporadic’ work, as Richard Colwell and Carol Richardson (2002, p. vii) argue,
There continues to be a lack of appreciation for rigorous research in music education
despite a century of sporadic efforts. Any historical review indicates not only peaks and
valleys in quality but the remarkable influence of non-music educators with an interest
in topics musical. The research work of music educators is uneven; further, those who
evaluate our work either have little confidence in our products or are unable to critique
them . . . We, of course, have done little to police our own efforts or to discuss and
establish research priorities. The source of a research agenda for the profession has been
top-down, driven by two gatekeepers: doctoral advisors and the MENC leadership. A
wide diversity exists in the ability of doctoral programs to produce skilled and insightful
researchers who ask the important questions that lead to a career-length program of
research. There is also a lack of consensus among doctoral advisors about what
constitutes ‘quality’ in dissertation-level research products. A source of confusion is the
numerous calls for more ‘kinds’ of research and the suggestions that our journals should
publish more historical, more qualitative, more quantitative, or whatever, research.
. . . We have found that there is no agreement on what qualifies as research.

Issues of value cannot be ignored. The attitudes of the music education research
community continue to be influenced by conditions and contexts external to the
research (i.e. the research councils and other funding agencies). For, if this kind of
generativity, as Shulman (1999) argued, being the ability to build on the professional
educational scholarship for those who have come before us, is not, as yet, something
recognized in our work as music education researchers, then we need to rethink the
research preparation programs in music education. We need to produce future
148 Editorial

researchers who think deeply about the nature of the claims that can be made in
music education research, who pay attention to explicitness in research process and
can address the central philosophical arguments that shape various paradigms of
enquiry. We also need to identify the source of a research agenda for the profession,
which, as with all educational researchers, is driven by top-down policy agendas
(whether they be central, regional or local) for educational systems and research
assessment exercises.
Whilst there have been some relatively recent developments demonstrated in the
mapping of UK music education research which illustrates the formulation of new
ideas and inclusion of ‘systematic’ and ‘trustworthy’ research studies’ (Welch, 2003,
p. 2), the generativity that grants music education research integrity and sophistica-
tion, and which raises its status, has yet to be achieved.

Distinguishing the significance of what has been done from what needs to be
done
Research in music education is concerned with, amongst other topics, individual
musical development, the potential impact to musical learning of social group
membership, inclusion, participation, schooling, creativity and new technologies,
formal and informal learning, artist
educator partnerships and school
university
partnerships. We have seen a new emphasis on the relationship between music and
education, shifting from curriculum statements and performance skills to cultural
difference, participation and engagement. As well as particular research topics, new
research literatures have been developing that link music education with ethnomu-
sicology, psychology (including neuropsychobiology, social, cognitive and develop-
ment psychology), ethnomusicology, history, sociology and philosophy, as well as
with mainstream studies in pedagogy (Welch, 2003, p. 5).
Music education research is not, however, filled with achievements in terms of
what methods are used and what methodology governs choice and use of methods and
what theoretical perspective lies behind the methodology in question, and what
epistemology informs this theoretical perspective. There are, however, illustrations of
the range of traditions of enquiry peppered in past issues (and in the present issue) in
which researchers justify, account for and disclose their approach to all (or many)
aspects of the research process.
The following articles illustrate the extent to which the range of epistemological
frames informing music education research has proliferated. These are some
examples from Music Education Research’s past issue, 2006, Volume 8, Number 1
where:
. Cathy Benedict draws upon a critical theorist framework, informed by the
theoretical perspectives of Paulo Freire, Henry Giroux, and Michael Apple, which
provides the particular methodological postures and epistemological positions for
exposing the assumptions underlying the National Music Standards and policy.
 Editorial 149

. Tony Whyton draws upon an integrated methodology, including use of heuristic

methods for the study of values in jazz education and cross-cultural divides and
differences in jazz practices.
. Maria Calissendorff draws upon grounded theory, a methodology which is
informed by the theoretical perspective of interpretivism, involves one of many
particular research designs that guide a researcher in choosing methods (observa-
tion, interviews) and shape the use of theory generating analytic methods chosen
for new understanding of the learning style of preschool children learning the
violin in Sweden.
. Cristina Grossi draws upon pragmatism, the attractive philosophical partner for
mixed methods research, whose key feature is its methodological pluralism. A
theoretical perspective which emphasizes phenomenology in addition to a frame-
work for designing and conducting a study on teacher training and the working
world for music teachers using the methods of questionnaire and interview.
. Reinhard Kopiez and Ji In Lee draw upon experimental research, a methodology
that is informed by the theoretical perspectives of positivism and post-positivism
which governed the choice and use of methods of measurement and statistical
analysis (regression analysis) to identify the relationship between selected
predictors of achievement in playing unrehearsed music and the changing
complexity of sight reading tasks.

What is important with these examples is that they make explicit many of the choices
and particular uses of methodology and methods in the documentation of the
research processes. What counts as good research here concerns how well the
justification for what methods (the techniques or procedures used to gather and
analyse data); what methodologies (i.e. the strategy, plan of action, process or design
lying behind the choice and use of particular methods); and what theoretical
perspective (or philosophical stance informing the methodology) is made to provide
a context and basis for the process.
My point here is that we should not obscure how we understand and conduct
research in music education nor fail to make the distinction between methodologies
and methods at the frontiers of new knowledge. It is from this point that we set our
priorities as researchers and present a rigorous rational argument.

Implications for future music education research

Simply put, the most basic implications for future research in music education are to
clearly articulate the research questions that guide the enquiry. Furthermore, future
research would be enhanced if researchers explicitly mapped out their assumptions,
theories of action, and their research process, including the ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘why’
of methods and methodologies as distinct but interrelated dimensions. If this is done,
other researchers can reference, extend, test, build and make links. Importantly, it is
the clarity of justification, detailed explanation and description provided by the
researcher which allows judgments of validity to be made by the reader.
150 Editorial

How researchers justify, account for and disclose their approach to all aspects of
the research process remains an important issue. One needs only to observe the
criticism of qualitative researchers when, in their eagerness to transform research
findings into generalizations, they make unsubstantiated claims, or do not provide
adequate and clear justifications for the methods. On the other side, there are the
interpretivists8 who fault the positivists9 for being too narrow, clinical, and
positivistic. The criticisms emerge partly from the traditional divide between
quantitative and qualitative approaches, and, from within each camp, in reaction
to ‘the drift from conventional scientific standards’ (Gergen & Gergen, 2000,
p. 1030). So, in addressing how researchers justify their approach to all aspects of the
research process, the distinction between methods and methodology becomes a
principle concern. How researchers justify, account for and disclose their approach
to all aspects of the research process, particularly in relation to distinctions between
methods10 and methodology,11 are key to evaluating their work substantively and
methodologically.
There are no simple solutions to the challenges of music education research. As a
research community, we need to:
1. advance new methodological and theoretical approaches to music education
research;
2. engage in more critical reviews and synthesis of research in particular topics;
3. reassess the utility of methods and theories used in educational research,
psychology of music and other fields not in education;
4. build bridges between the fields of music education, music psychology, sociology
and educational research;
5. foster overlapping research development agendas and make explicit the
unresolved issues presently facing researchers working in the field of music
education;
6. create new research methods and norms that will better enable us to learn from
innovative practitioners (Brown, 2005; Burton & Bartlett, 2005);
7. continue to theorize, study and historicize the rapidly changing relationships
between music, education, and research, practice and policy, in order to ensure
the ability of music education research to respond to changing social,
pedagogical, technological, learning and cultural contexts;
8. work on alternative representations of research (Eisner, 1997), and for the
democratization of scholarly writing and the communication of music education
research;
9. reward methodological pluralism or eclecticism; which according to Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie (2004), frequently results in superior research; and
10. make the research process more public (Anfara, Brown & Mangione, 2004).

What is clear is that this issue of the journal makes a significant contribution to a
growing body of research in music education and provides the reader with much to
consider about the way ahead for research in music education. It is hoped that the
 Editorial 151

research issues addressed in this and future issues will continue to stimulate thinking
about research methods and methodologies in music education.
Music education as a context for education about research is of critical importance
to raising our profiles as researchers in the twenty-first century. Let us keep focused
on developing new methods, new methodologies, re-examining the successes and
failures of 50 years of research, and evaluating the types of research and quality of
research needed to be produced in the future of music education by telling the whole,
not half of the story of the methods and methodologies we use.

Notes
1. See Crotty (2005); Somekh and Lewin (2005).
2. See Stenhouse (1975); Mouly (1978); Bassey (1990); Anfara et al. (2004); Brown (2005);
McIntyre (2005).
3. See Bresler (forthcoming); Eisner (1997); Burnard and Hennessy (2006).
4. See Deliege & Wiggins (2006).
5. See Welch (2003); Colwell (1992); Colwell & Richardson (2002).
6. For an excellent paper on what constitutes a literature review see Boote & Beile (2005).
7. Another essay on a similar topic can be found in Music Education Research , 2005, Volume 7,
Number 2, written as a keynote by Wayne Bowman, who gives a brilliant scholarly account
and argument for why we need to theorize music education and its research.
8. For more on interpretivists see the article written in this issue by Kathy Roulston.
9. In the preface to the New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning , Colwell and
Richardson (2002) make this statement: ‘The positivists begin with a theory and seek to
disprove it but they often suggest problems that are only tangentially related to philosophy or
theory, whereas the purpose of qualitative research is to arrive at theory from the data, and
the power of qualitative research is dependent upon the integrity, completeness, and
coherence of the derived theory’ (p. vi).
10. Methods are referred to by Cohen and Manion’s (1994) definition which refers to ‘that
range of approaches used in educational research to gather data which are to be used as a
basis for inference and interpretation, for explanation and prediction’ (p. 38). In other
words, the techniques and procedures used in the process of data collection.
11. For more on methodology, refer to Crotty (2005).

Notes on contributor
Pamela Burnard, PhD is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at the
University of Cambridge, UK where she coordinates and lectures on the MPhil
in Educational Research and the MPhil in Arts, Culture and Education courses
amongst others in music education. She is co-editor of the International Journal
of Music Education: Practice; Associate Editor of Psychology of Music, on the
editorial boards for Music Education Research, Journal of Thinking Skills and
Creativity, Asia-Pacific Journal of Arts Education, and the British Journal of Music
Education. She publishes widely on musical creativity, creativity in education
and qualitative research methods. She is Co-convener of BERA: SIG Creativity
in Education and a member of the International Society of Music Education
(ISME) directorate.
152 Editorial

References
Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M. & Mangione, T. (2004) Qualitative analysis on stage: making the
research process more public, Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28
38.
Bassey, M. (1990) On the nature of research in education, Research Intelligence, 37, 39
44.
Bassey, M. (1991) The concept of fuzzy generalisation, in Fuzzy Generalisation: transforming
research findings into fuzzy predictions which can inform teachers’, policy-makers’, and researchers’
discourse and action (Southwell, British Educational Research Association), 5
7.
Bassey, M. (1992) Creating education through research, British Educational Research Journal,
18(1), 3
16.
Boote, D. N. & Beile, P. (2005) Scholars before researchers: on the centrality of the disssertation
literature review in research preparation, Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3
15.
Bresler, L. (forthcoming) International handbook of research in arts education (Dordrecht, Kluwer).
Brown, S. (2005) How can research inform ideas of good practice in teaching? The contrituions of
some official initiatives in the UK, Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(3), 383
405.
Burnard, P. & Hennessy, S. (Eds) (2006) Reflective practices in arts education (Dordrecht, Kluwer).
Burton, D. & Bartlett, S. (2005) Practitioner research for teachers (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994) Research methods in education (London, Routledge).
Colwell, R. & Richardson, C. (2002) The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning
(Oxford, Oxford University Press).
Colwell, R. (1992) Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (New York, Schirmer).
Crotty, M. (2005) The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process
(London, Sage).
Deliege, I. & Wiggins, G. (Eds) (2006) Musical creativity: multidisciplinary research in theory and
practice (London, Psychology Press).
Eisner, E. W. (1997) The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation,
Educational Researcher, 26(6), 4
10.
Gergen, M. M. & Gergen, K. J. (2000) Qualitative inquiry: tensions and transformations, in: N.
Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd edn) (Chicago, IL, Aldine),
1025
1046.
Hostetler, K. (2005) What is ‘good’ education research? Educational Research, 34(6), 16
21.
Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004) Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose
time has come, Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14
26.
Maykut, P. & Morehouse, R. (1994) Beginning qualitative research: a philosophic and practical guide
(London, Falmer).
McIntyre, D. (2005) Bridging the gap between research and practice, Cambridge Journal of
Education, 35(3), 357
382.
Mouly, G. J. (1978) Educational research: the art and science of investigation (Boston, MA, Allyn &
Bacon).
Peshkin, A. (2000) The nature of interpretation in qualitative research, Educational Researcher,
29(9), 5
9.
Rudduck, J. & McIntyre, D. (1998) Challenges for educational research. New BERA dialogues
(London, Paul Chapman).
Shulman, L. S. (1999) Professional educational scholarship, in: E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman
(Eds) Issues in educational research: problems and possibilities (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass),
159
165.
Somekh, B. & Lewin, C. (Eds) (2005) Research methods in the social sciences (London, Sage).
Stenhouse, L. A. (1975) An introduction to curriculum research and development (London,
Heinemann).
Welch, G. (Ed.) (2003) Mapping music education research in the UK (British Educational Research
Association).