Abstract
Welcome to the 2012 fall issue of Update! This issue includes eight wonderful papers, across a variety of topics pertinent to music education, and reveals insights into the research processes used across several research modalities. There are different ways to study the world of music education, and Update is pleased to include these!
Before launching into comments on these papers, however, let me share some of the data on the last two years. These are points that show the vitality of our journal, shared with MERC, our governing body in SRME and NAfME (if you are not up on all your acronyms, this is the time for a quick scavenger hunt within our professional organization’s website!). This is the report of Update’s activity for 2010-2012.
First, I want to deeply thank the editorial board members who have completed six years of service, Abby Butler, Martha Miller, and Alice-Ann Darrow. They have read so many papers, been so responsive and encouraging to authors, and contributed so well to the growth of writers and readers in our field. I cannot express my admiration enough to these three wonderful board members!
This is also the time to welcome our three new editorial board members. Nicole Robinson (Syracuse University) is our new Elementary Practitioner representative, Debbie Rohwer (University of North Texas) is our Special Topics Researcher, and Vicki Baker (Texas Woman’s University) is our Choral Practitioner. The practitioner representatives read papers with a particular “eye” towards writing style and topics that will be interesting and useful for teachers in the field, especially those who may be relatively new to music research. We strive for a mix of practitioner and research readers when we read submissions in order to have a well-balanced review panel.
Our “inbox” was plenty full during this biennium, with 49 submissions during 2010-2012. This was up over 25% from the previous biennium, probably because we moved to online submission through SAGE’s ScholarOne system. I believe authors appreciate the ability to submit and monitor their submissions online and that was the primary reason for the increase. Of course, we also now have access to Online First publication, and that is an incentive to submit to Update as well.
Our publication rate for 2010-2012 was 35%, in the ballpark of previous reports (ranging from a low of 29% in 2006-2008 to a high of 41% in 2008-2010). All together, this shows our publication rate is relatively stable, around 30-40%. Indeed, we have tracked this rate since 1996 and it has stayed within those bounds the entire time, a period of 16 years.
How many revisions do our papers usually require? During 2010-2012 for papers accepted, 9 required one revision, 11 required two revisions, and four required three revisions. Clearly our editorial board is willing to work with authors to come to a very satisfactory outcome on these papers.
Some of the highlights for 2010-2012 included reducing the long publication queue we had developed; moving to on-line-submission, which is a fairly steep learning process for all the editors (and perhaps the authors too); increasing the number of submissions; maintaining a rigorous and consistent publication rate; receiving a variety of topics and modes of research, including a number of new topics. Our author pool continued to represent both “younger” writers and those with long scholarly records. During this biennium we continued to include the presentation made at the SRME invited presenter session from the 2010 national conference (Clifford Madsen); however, this presentation was discontinued at the 2012 conference and thus we will not have that offering in the Fall/Winter 2012 issue of Update.
I have continued to notify current and alumni institutions each time an author is published; while it means an investment in time and resources to research those institutions and personnel in order to send personalized e-mails and letters, it seems worthwhile in terms of building readership, cultivating relationships, and supporting our authors as they seek promotion and tenure. Perhaps it is a little selfish…. I just enjoy hearing back from Deans and Department Chairs that they are so excited and proud to hear their faculty members have published in Update!
Now for a bit of info from SAGE. Impact Factor has become the metric of quality for academic journals. While Impact Factor is not a perfect metric, it currently dominates our market and is used in tenure and promotion decisions, library subscription decisions, and by authors when they choose where to submit manuscripts. The most important criterion is citation activity, and it is important to understand how Impact Factor is calculated. It is citations in a given year relative to articles published in either the prior two or five years. This means only citations of articles published in the last five years “ count”, in this way of calculating Impact Factor.
While these nuances of citations and publications are important to how our journal is perceived by librarians, publishers, and other researchers, it is also important to remember the importance of seminal research. As the number of databases and online sources has grown, and our reliance on electronic searching has surged concomitantly, I have noticed a tendency for earlier, seminal research to be omitted in literature reviews (wittingly or unwittingly). It is also quite easy for a researcher, in the deluge of information available online, to simply miss a study. Therefore, the Update board, at the biennial meeting in St. Louis, decided to “divide and conquer”. Rather than every reader making comments over a range of topics (writing style, adherence to APA, integrity of references, etc.), we decided to split up the work. Now one reader is charged to look particularly at the references, checking to see that they are both complete and accurate. Another looks at APA issues and gives advice. The third keeps “an eye out” for practitioner-friendly writing style. Of course, the division of labor rotates from paper to paper, and all three readers make comments on the method, the analysis, and the writing style. We hope this will be a way to “work smarter, not harder”, and will also keep the reviews lively.
Last, SAGE reports Update has increased in both individual and library subscriptions over the past biennium. While internet access appears relatively stable, it is important to note that we get the most “credit” when readers look up papers through SAGE (if they access through a library or a SAGE membership) or through the NAfME website. We get less credit when Update is accessed through sites like J-STOR. It is important that teachers who give reading assignments in Update avoid downloading papers into sites like Dropbox or Blackboard or Sakai, as this generates no data beneficial to the journal’s dissemination. Please guide your students to access it through SAGE or NAfME.
And now, for the Fall Issue! As usual, I am scratching my head as to how to characterize these different papers. For example, Michael Alexander’s pilot study exploring string performers’ improvisation is clearly a topic noteworthy to instrumentalists, but it might be considered a special topic as well, given that so many vocalists and general music specialists are interested in improvisation. His examination of students’ confidence and anxiety is sure to give us many insights into how we may approach improvisation. Of course, we have seen many string performers stepping “out of the box” in regards to broadening their styles and improvising. Yo-Yo Ma’s recent “The Goat Rodeo Sessions” and ASTA’s Eclectic String Festival are just a couple of examples. I am very excited for Update to feature a paper on this topic, presenting research on what may be a new frontier for many teachers.
Another “cutting edge” special topics paper by Matthew Garrett looks at teacher preparation concerning LGBTQ issues. This is an area gaining increasing interest, with recent conferences on the topic. I believe you will find this paper a thoughtful and insightful introduction if you have not read much in this area before.
Special learners is a topic that has been studied over the years, but continues to be somewhat “out of the comfort zone” for many teachers. Alice Hammel builds on two decades of research as she looks at effects of instruction on teachers’ perceptions of their competence. For those of us in teacher education, this paper gives good ideas on how to increase feelings of competence, which of course inspires a positive spiral of action in the field.
Another special topics paper related to teacher education is Nathan Kruse’s study of university-school partnerships. I find his paper interesting in that it looks at both middle school and high school students. Many of our university programs have moved to include more partnerships with schools throughout the degree and credential preparation process, so Kruse’s findings on teacher persona, literature selection, and student feedback should prove useful to many.
An elementary paper in this issue by Vanessa Bond examines early childhood journals to see patterns regarding music’s representation. She focuses on eight journals, such as Early Childhood Education Journal, Early Childhood Research and Practice, and Early Childhood Research Quarterly, finding several themes. Her references explore the early childhood journals primarily, so it is worth noting that one of the themes that emerges, Parenting, brings to mind another piece of research published in Update a few years back. Wendy Sims’ and Dneya Udtaisuk’s study, “Music’s Representation in Parenting Magazines: A Content Analysis”, was published in Update (2008), and featured an analysis of musical content in the three most widely circulated parenting magazines of 2004. How interesting it is to see how research evolves and we continue to learn more about our different constituencies, with new data appearing every few years to enlarge our perspective!
Another paper which should probably be considered Special Topics, but has implications for General Music, Elementary, and Choral as well, is Rhonda Hackworth’s study of perceived musical tension. She focuses on the effects of instruction on a particular piece by Debussy; if you do not know this piece, you will find this paper especially interesting! I will say no more here, so as not to spoil any surprises.
In the General Music category, Kimberly VanWeelden shows us interesting overlaps in Classical Music and Popular Music. As one of my favorite teachers says, “perception is everything”. As a musician long-interested in categories of music and how those very categories reveal experiences and values, I find this paper very intriguing. It will also prove most useful to musicians and teachers looking for enticing material for their students. While I listed it General Music, clearly it has implications for choral and instrumental teachers as well.
Finally, Vicki Baker brings us an in-depth look at urban music education, looking at elementary, middle school, and high school teachers to better understand this special topic. I found the method used to select respondents very interesting; after all, what IS an urban district? The three districts studied are in Texas, and the respondents give some very interesting insights into the career urban educator. I imagine educators from across the country will be comparing perceptions about their own urban districts to those revealed here.
Have a wonderful autumn enjoying your students, your music, and your research!