Forum

“Why doesn’t the JRME publish more [fill in the questioner’s favorite paradigm] studies?” is a question that I receive often. Over and over again in this column, in talks given to various groups, in response to messages I receive, and at any opportunity that may have arisen, I have tried to dispel the misconception that the JRME is biased, either for and against, different “genres” or topics of research. The typical belief seems to be that the journal represents a primarily quantitative bias, but that simply is not true, and has not been for a number of years. Maybe this is the issue that will help me convince the doubters that the Editorial Committee members are capable and willing to review research representing a wide variety of topics and methodologies, and to accept those articles that they believe meet our high quality standards.

The seven articles you will find here include quantitative and qualitative descriptive studies, and single and collective case studies. Topics are diverse and represent a variety of different participant groups and settings.

The authors of two studies examined aspects of classroom and studio music instruction. String teacher’s approaches to teaching tuning in string classes (see the Hopkins article) and to teaching musical expression to children in private lessons (see the Bressner and Strand article) were the topics of these studies. While Hopkins gathered his data via a survey, Brenner and Strand approached their data through interviews and observations in a case study.

The two other case studies in this issue represent important topics that are not typical areas of focus found in the JRME. The research by Major provides valuable insights into school district decision making, via in an in-depth investigation of a public school district that had demonstrated strong support of their music program. The insights provided as a result of the collective case study by Carter, regarding the experiences of African American gay band students who attended historically Black colleges or universities, also are quite compelling and timely.

It’s interesting that two of the descriptive articles, submitted within one month of each other, address preservice music education students and student teachers. Both teams of authors investigated changes in responses over time, and while taking somewhat different approaches, each drew heavily on the influential work of general education researchers Fuller and Bown (see the articles by Miksza and Berg, and by Killian, Dye, and Wayman).

There is one more descriptive study in this issue—the report of a survey investigating prospective music education majors’ career influences. This study was completed by eight co-authors from eight different states, brought together through the work of an “Area of Strategic Planning and Action Society” under the auspices of the Society for Music Teacher Education. I have not checked back through the first 60 volumes, but would guess that this may be the largest number of co-authors for a JRME article.

From participants studied, to topics addressed, to the methodologies used to address them, this issue is composed of a diverse set of articles. The equally diverse group of authors ranges from JRME novices, to others with long records of publications in this journal, and includes single-authored pieces and multiple-author collaborations. I hope this issue will help put to rest the notion of “journal bias,” and that this Forum will inspire you to read this fascinating collection of articles!