Some Challenges of Practice Based/Centred Enquiry

Chapter
Part of the Landscapes: the Arts, Aesthetics, and Education book series (LAAE, volume 11)

Abstract

Finding a methodological approach within which to work is not straightforward for practitioner-researchers engaged in practice centred enquiry. These enquiries typically have a qualitative orientation, sometimes centred on a small sample of participants, allowing for an in-depth analysis of particular cases and interactions rather than a general analysis of populations. These projects tend to result in knowledge that is useful for other practitioners and in the researchers’ enhancement of their own reflectivity skills-set. Authors of such projects also become practitioners with increased sensitivity and understanding of how research knowledge is produced and reported. This chapter focuses on these issues within the context of music education research.

Keywords

Research approach Dissemination Practice-centred research 

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
  2. Barrett, M. S., & Stauffer, S. L. (Eds.). (2009). Narrative enquiry in music education: Troubling certainty. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. British Educational Research Association. (2011). Ethical guidelines for educational research. London: BERA.Google Scholar
  4. British Psychological Society. (2010). Code of human research ethics. Leicester: British Psychological Society.Google Scholar
  5. Burgess, H., Sieminski, S., & Arthur, L. (2006). Achieving your doctorate in education. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Burnard, P., & Younker, B. A. (2002). Mapping pathways: Fostering creativity in composition. Music Education Research, 4(2), 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabrera, L., Lluna, J., & Odena, O. (2006). Teatralizar la partitura para aprender mejor: un estudio sobre “La flauta mágica” como imagen interpretativa del concierto de clarinete de Mozart [Dramatizing the score to enhance learning: a study of ‘The magic flute’ as performance guide of Mozart’s clarinet concerto – Original in Spanish]. Eufonía. Didáctica de la Música, 36, 113–123.Google Scholar
  8. Cain, T., Holmes, M., Larrett, A., & Mattock, J. (2007). Literature-informed, one-turn action research: Three cases and a commentary. British Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Elliott, J., & Adelman, C. (1975). Classroom action research. Unit 2: Research methods. Ford teaching project. Norwich: The Ford Teaching Project, Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
  11. Elliott, J., & Norris, N. (Eds.). (2012). Curriculum, pedagogy and educational research: The work of Lawrence Stenhouse. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Elliott, J., James, M., Norris, N., Pring, R., & Torrance, H. (2012, September 4–6). Reviewing the implications of the work of Lawrence Stenhouse in emerging education policy contexts, with special reference to the UK. Symposium presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference 2012, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  13. Forrest, D. (Ed.). (2003). The doctoral journey in music education: Reflections on doctoral studies by Australian music educators. Altona: Common Ground Publishing in association with the Australian Society for Music Education.Google Scholar
  14. Forrest, D. (Ed.). (2010). Journeying: Reflections on doctoral studies by Australian music educators. North Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing, with the Australian Society for Music Education.Google Scholar
  15. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice, a reader. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Green, B., Maxwell, T., & Shanahan, P. (Eds.). (2001). Doctoral education and professional practice: The next generation? Armidale: Kardoorair Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gregory, M. (1995). Implications of the introduction of the Doctor in Education degree in British universities: can the EdD reach parts the PhD cannot? Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 47(2), 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hargreaves, D. (2002, February 8). Opening speech at the launch of the Centre for International Research in Music Education. London: University of Surrey Roehampton.Google Scholar
  19. Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Lee, A. (2011). Successful research supervision: Advising students doing research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Leitch, R., Gardner, J., Mitchell, S., Lundy, L., Odena, O., Galanouli, D., & Clough, P. (2007). Consulting pupils in assessment for learning classrooms: The twists and turns of working with students as co-researchers. Educational Action Research, 15(3), 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lennon, M. (1996). Teacher thinking: A qualitative approach to the study of piano teaching. Unpublished Ph.D, University of London, Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  23. Lepherd, L. (Ed.). (1995). Music education in international perspective: National systems. Toowoomba: University of Southern Queensland Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lunt, I., Brown, A., & Scott, D. (2002). Professional doctorates and their contribution to professional development and careers. ESRC Grant reference: R000223643. End of award report.Google Scholar
  25. Määttä, K. (2012). Obsessed with the doctoral theses: Supervision and support during the dissertation process. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  26. Markea, G. (2002). Teachers’ perceptions of musicality and its contexts: A study of piano pedagogy in Athenian conservatories. Unpublished Ph.D, University of London, Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  27. MENC: The National Association for Music Education. (2009). Code of ethics: MENC research publication/presentation code of ethics. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57(3), 284–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Odena, O. (2001). The construction of creativity: Using video to explore secondary school music teachers’ views. Educate, 1(1), 104–122.Google Scholar
  29. Odena, O. (2002). Using videotaped extracts of lessons during interviews to facilitate the eliciting of teachers’ thinking: An example with music schoolteachers’ perceptions of creativity. Education-line. www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002206.htm. Accessed 28 May 2013.
  30. Odena, O. (2004). Some considerations on research dissemination with particular reference to the audience and the authorship of papers. Music Education Research, 6(1), 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Odena, O. (2007). Recitar suonando [Enacting a story when performing – Original in Italian]. Musica Domani, 142(March), 17–21.Google Scholar
  32. Odena, O. (2008). El significado del término “instrumentos en la educación musical” [What does the term ‘school instruments’ mean? – Original in Spanish]. Música y Educación, 73(1), 40–46.Google Scholar
  33. Odena, O. (2012). Perspectives on musical creativity: Where next? In O. Odena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 201–213). Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  34. Odena, O., & Burgess, H. (2013). Enquiring into writing development across research degrees: A new generative model. Education-line. www.leeds.ac.uk/bei/COLN/COLN_default.html (paper to be discussed at BERA Annual Conference in September 2013 and added to Education-line during 2014).
  35. Odena, O., & Cabrera, L. (2006). ‘Dramatising the score: An action research investigation of the use of Mozart’s Magic flute as performance guide for his clarinet concerto’. In M. Baroni, A. R. Addessi, R. Caterina, & M. Costa (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on music perception and cognition (pp. 706–709). Bologna: The Society for Music Perception and Cognition and European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music.Google Scholar
  36. Odena, O., & Spruce, G. (2012). Part 4. Music learning and teaching during adolescence: Ages 12–18. In G. McPherson & G. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education, volume 1 (pp. 435–548). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Odena, O., & Welch, G. (2007). The influence of teachers’ backgrounds on their perceptions of musical creativity: A qualitative study with secondary school music teachers. Research Studies in Music Education, 28(1), 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Odena, O., & Welch, G. (2009). A generative model of teachers’ thinking on musical creativity. Psychology of Music, 37(4), 416–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Odena, O., & Welch, G. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of creativity. In O. Odena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 29–48). Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  40. Odena, O., Plummeridge, C., & Welch, G. (2005). Towards an understanding of creativity in music education: A qualitative exploration of data from English secondary schools. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 163(1), 9–18.Google Scholar
  41. Phillips, E. M., & Pugh, D. S. (2010). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors (5th ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pim, D. (2009). An investigation into how 1:1 music sessions have been used as a tool to develop communication, following studies on two children with autism. Master of Education dissertation. School of Education, Queen’s University Belfast.Google Scholar
  43. Rex, L., Murnen, T., Hobbs, J., & McEachen, D. (2002). Teachers’ pedagogical stories and the shaping of classroom participation: “The dancer” and “Graveyard shift at the 7–11”. American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 765–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. França e Silva, M-C. C. (1998). Composing, performing and audience-listening as symmetrical indicators of musical understanding. Unpublished Ph.D, University of London, Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, N.-J. (2009). Achieving your professional doctorate: A handbook. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Spruce, G., & Odena, O. (2012). Commentary: Music teaching and learning during adolescence: Ages 12–18. In G. McPherson & G. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education, volume 1 (pp. 437–440). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Stevens, R. S. (2000). Where are we twenty years on? A review of Australian music education research for the period 1978–1997. Research Studies in Music Education, 14, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Swanwick, K. (2001). Musical development theories revisited. Music Education Research, 3(2), 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swanwick, K., & França, C. C. (1999). Composing, performing and audience-listening as indicators of musical understanding. British Journal of Music Education, 16(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor, J. (2008). Quality and standards: The challenge of the professional doctorate. Higher Education in Europe, 33(1), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thomson, P., & Walker, M. (2010). The Routledge doctoral supervisor’s companion. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Wilson, G., & Roland, D. (2002). Performance anxiety. In R. Parncutt & G. McPherson (Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 47–61). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations