See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233451194

Music researchers’ musical engagement

Article  in  Psychology of Music · June 2011

DOI: 10.1177/0305735610381592

CITATIONS READS

6 556

3 authors:

Clemens Wöllner Jane Ginsborg

University of Hamburg Royal Northern College of Music
59 PUBLICATIONS   277 CITATIONS    85 PUBLICATIONS   696 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Aaron Williamon
Royal College of Music
126 PUBLICATIONS   1,947 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Healing Soundscape View project

Slow Motion: Transformations of Musical Time in Perception and Performance (SloMo) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Clemens Wöllner on 16 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Psychology of Music
39(3) 364–382
Music researchers’ musical © The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
engagement sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305735610381592
pom.sagepub.com

Clemens Wöllner
University of Bremen, Germany

Jane Ginsborg
Royal Northern College of Music, UK

Aaron Williamon
Royal College of Music, UK

Abstract
There is an increasing awareness of the importance of reflexivity across various disciplines, which
encourages researchers to scrutinize their research perspectives. In order to contextualize and
reflect upon research in music, this study explores the musical background, current level of musical
engagement and the listening habits of music researchers. A total of 103 respondents of 17 different
nationalities, working in music psychology, music science and related areas at various academic
levels (e.g., doctoral students, professors and independent researchers), completed an internet survey.
Questions addressed four major areas: (1) detailed demographic information and research interests;
(2) musical training; (3) current musical activities (e.g., composing, conducting, improvising,
listening, performing); (4) musical preferences and listening habits. Findings indicate that nearly
all respondents to the survey had studied one or more musical instrument(s), and around 90% still
enjoy performing music to some extent. A relatively high number of researchers had composed
or improvised music, thus engaging in particularly creative musical activities. Respondents show
stronger preferences for classical music and jazz/blues/RnB as compared with other musical genres.
Contrary to notions of expert listening, emotional listening styles were rated as more important than
analytical listening. Strong relationships between respondents’ musical practice and research were
found, leading to the conclusion that music research is a highly practice-informed field.

Keywords
listening, music psychology, performance, reflexivity, research and practice, research context

Corresponding author:
Clemens Wöllner, Institute of Musicology and Music Education, University of Bremen, Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 7,
28359 Bremen, Germany.
[email: [email protected]]
Wöllner et al. 365

Introduction
The ways in which research participants listen to music and make music have been investigated
in numerous studies. Conversely, researchers’ musical backgrounds and perspectives have
rarely been addressed. Most researchers have presumably developed particular relationships
with music, such as specific musical preferences, which may even shape their research interests
to some extent. Given the increasing awareness of research reflexivity in other disciplines, we
argue in this article that exploring the background of researchers not only provides a basis for
further critical reflections of the field, but may also function as a window into the self-conceptions
of a group of expert listeners and, to varying degrees, current or former music performers.
The value of music psychology research has been questioned repeatedly. Sloboda (2004), for
example, asks if the world of music would be different without the study of music psychology.
He observes that researchers typically begin by displaying a certain ‘sensitivity to historic aca-
demic norms’ in their work, go on to show greater ‘sensitivity to applicability’ and only come to
‘focus on value’ (pp. 413–414) with experience. It is difficult to summarize all the potential
benefits of music psychology, given the great variety of research areas that would have to be
reviewed in detail. Basic psychological theory-testing as well as applied research that provides
important suggestions for musicians and music teachers do undoubtedly have an impact on
practice and further research (for overviews see Davidson, 2004; Williamon, 2004). Nevertheless,
Sloboda’s thoughts raise questions of who engages in this area of research and for what rea-
sons. We argue that these questions can only be answered in a systematic way if we learn more
about the musical training and career backgrounds of music researchers.
In qualitative research (cf. Davies et al., 2004; Jootun, McGhee, & Marland, 2009) and disci-
plines such as ethnography (see e.g., Barz & Cooley, 2008; Pasquini & Olaniyan, 2004),
researchers have argued that attempts to find ‘objective’ results are limited, especially if obser-
vations of other humans are involved and interpretative judgements need to be made. This has
led to calls for more reflexivity in research, for critical discussions of the researcher’s viewpoint
and the acknowledgement of potential limitations related to it. On the other hand, a large body
of research tries to eliminate potential authorial biases by means of blind and double-blind
experimental designs and inferential statistics. Some (postmodernist) researchers, however,
reject the concept of objectivism and claim that representations of the world are always influ-
enced by the author and should even be treated as works of ‘fiction’ (Linstead, 1994, p. 1321).
Although the intention of this article is not to explore this problem comprehensively, we believe
that links between researchers’ perspectives and their research should be made more explicit.
Research reflexivity, rather than being mere ‘navel-gazing’, can be a means of enhancing the
level of insight and critical thinking, and enables us to draw more far-reaching conclusions.
In order to answer the question of who engages in research, it is worth noting that many
musicians have been involved in research of their own performance in collaboration with
researchers from other disciplines such as psychology (e.g., Chaffin & Imreh, 2002) or as
researchers themselves (e.g., Ginsborg, Chaffin, & Nicholson, 2006; Repp, 1999). These stud-
ies and many further examples seem to suggest that music research is a particularly practice-
informed field. Yet it cannot be assumed that the results of most studies are generally known
outside the academic research field. In accordance with Sloboda’s (2004) critical questioning,
Parncutt and McPherson (2002) opened their handbook by asking ‘How fluently do music
psychologists, music educators, and practicing musicians communicate with one another?’
366 Psychology of Music 39(3)

and concluded that ‘[e]ach group has its own language’, with limited exchange of ideas
between them (p. ix).
Links between research and practice have been investigated in other fields. Van Rijnsoever,
Hessels and Vandeberg (2008) found that collaborations between researchers and industry are
not necessarily beneficial for initial research careers. Younger researchers benefited more from
collaborations within academic networks, while more experienced researchers established an
increasing number of links with industry later in their career. The relationship between experi-
ence and nature of collaboration also reflects researchers’ career decisions and academic devel-
opment. Particularly in psychology and other social sciences, researchers’ specific interests
and motivations may be related to their general experiences outside academia (Zimbardo &
Crandall, 1999). Although knowledge of researchers’ motivation and development is an
important basis for research reflexivity and, furthermore, provides insights into creativity more
generally, there is little research on researchers’ career paths (cf. Akerlind, 2008; Cohen, 2006).
Below we review studies of academic careers in one specific academic area as an example, and
into career transitions of musicians, both of which show some parallels with music researchers’
pathways.
In some disciplines, researchers have begun to investigate careers, institutional positions
and creativity. Medicine, for instance, is characterized by strong links between research and
clinical practice. Early-career medical researchers in particular benefit from a supportive insti-
tution, potential collaborations and personal factors such as high motivation (Grbich, 1998).
Estabrooks et al. (2008) report differences between applied and basic researchers that are
mirrored in their self-perceived research impact (higher for applied researchers) and number of
publications (higher for basic researchers). Both may influence careers. While one could
assume that co-workers in a medical institution would have similar career trajectories, Thomas
et al. (2004) found that clinician-educators in a university research hospital ranked lower and
were paid less than researchers. On the other hand, Clegg (2008) notes in a small study of aca-
demics of various fields that researchers, teachers and research managers all report strong
academic identities regardless of their specific roles in their institutions.
Studies of musicians’ careers provide insights into individual pathways and factors that may
facilitate the transition from student to professional level (for overviews, see Bennett, 2008;
Gembris, 2006; Ivaldi, 2011). Manturzewska (1990) was among the first who systematically
investigated the career paths of 165 professional musicians. She identified several developmen-
tal stages and emphasized crucial factors such as a supportive family and high intrinsic motiva-
tion. Building on previous work on music students’ development (Davidson, Moore, Sloboda, &
Howe, 1998), Burland and Davidson (2004) interviewed 18 young people who had been edu-
cated at a specialist music school. Besides coping methods, a supportive institution and helpful
others, the importance of music to the self-concept was crucial for those who were successfully
pursuing a musical career compared with those who decided to work in other fields. Gembris
and Langner (2006) focused on musicians’ perception of their conservatoire education and the
constraints of the ‘music market’ in relation to their careers. A retrospective interview study of
career transitions of high-ranking musicians (Macnamara, Holmes, & Collins, 2008) found
evidence for a number of important psychological factors such as determination, commitment,
ability to adapt and learn from mistakes, as well as institutional constraints, all of which shaped
musicians’ careers.
As for music researchers, Parncutt, Dibben, Painsi and Marin (2008) carried out an initial
survey on the early careers of music psychology graduates. As most respondents graduated
within a limited number of years prior to the survey, the percentage of graduates who actually
Wöllner et al. 367

became researchers in the field is not known. We are not aware of any retrospective study of the
musical and academic background and the careers of established researchers. Similarly, there
are no empirical data on music researchers’ actual enjoyment of music-making and -listening.
The aim of the current study was to explore the musical background of researchers, their
listening habits and current enjoyment of practical musical activities. In addition, the reciprocal
influences of research findings on respondents’ own music-making were investigated. Over
a hundred researchers were invited to complete a comprehensive online questionnaire.
Respondents worked in music psychology, music science, music education and comparable areas.
By ‘music researcher’ we refer to people who actively carry out empirical research in these fields.
This term includes a variety of disciplines and is used throughout the article for reasons of prac-
ticality; it is not limited to these fields. Based on studies of career trajectories in comparable fields
and numerous personal accounts of music researchers, we hypothesized that respondents to the
questionnaire would show past and/or present high levels of musical engagement that are to
some extent related to their research interests. Furthermore, level of musical training should also
be reflected in musical preferences and listening habits (cf. Burke & Gridley, 1990). The nature of
these preferences and listening habits has not yet been scrutinized for music researchers.

Method
Respondents

Respondents were invited via several professional mailing lists to take part in an online ques-
tionnaire. Responses from 103 (out of a total of 115) people who carry or carried out music
research and had a higher education degree were considered for analysis. Not all of these
103 respondents answered every question. In these cases the number of responses for the par-
ticular question is indicated and all calculations are based on the new number. Respondents’
age ranged from 25 to 70 years (M = 42.44 years, SD = 12.75) and 48.54% were female. They
had 17 different nationalities and worked at the time of completing the questionnaire in
13 different countries, most frequently the UK (40 respondents), Germany (15), Norway (15),
the USA (12), Austria (5) and Australia (3).
Over half (55.34%) of all respondents had a PhD or higher academic degree; all others had
at least one degree. 34.95% worked in university music or musicology departments, 23.30% in
a music conservatoire, 13.59% in a university psychology department, and 7.78% in a univer-
sity education department. The remainder worked in other types of institutions, were retired,
or worked as independent researchers. 30.10% were students and PhD students, 5.83% were
research assistants, 4.85% post-doctoral researchers or temporary lecturers, 15.53% assistant
professors, lecturers or research fellows, 15.53% associate professors, senior lecturers, readers,
or senior research fellows, and 12.62% held the position of full professor. 4.85% were indepen-
dent researchers, 3.88% retired academics, and 6.80% had other career positions.

Survey
Based on previous literature, for example on musical expertise (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-
Römer, 1993), musical preferences (e.g., Williamon, Burt-Perkins, Ritchie, & Thompson,
2010, in preparation) and functions of listening (cf. Sloboda, 1999), an online survey with
multiple choice questions, rating scales and open-ended questions was developed (see Appendix).
The survey questions were ordered as follows:
368 Psychology of Music 39(3)

1. detailed demographic information and research interests;

2. musical training and further biographical aspects;
3. current musical activities and relationship with own research;
4. musical preferences and listening habits.

As the survey was addressed to academic music researchers, questions were formulated in a con-
cise way and some concepts (e.g., emotional versus analytical listening) were explained with less
detail than would have been necessary for surveys addressed to non-experts. A pilot version of the
survey was sent to colleagues working in the field and their comments informed the final version.
Calculations of percentages, statistical differences and correlations refer to the number of respon-
dents for each question. Open-ended responses were categorized by two of the authors with an
initial mean agreement of 90.7%. Disagreements were subsequently resolved by discussion.

Results
Musical engagement

Nearly all respondents (97.09%) had received instrumental and/or voice lessons in the past.
While the remaining three respondents had not received lessons, they reported having impro-
vised and/or composed and/or conducted. Hence, all respondents to this survey had active
musical experiences. 66.02% learned between two and four instruments (including voice) with
a teacher, the mode being three instruments by 29.13% of all respondents. There was great
variety in instruments studied, such as the violin, clarinet, viola da gamba, trumpet, percus-
sion, and many more, while piano was mentioned most often. 51.46% of all respondents had
improvised music, 48.54% composed and 36.89% conducted music. 83.50% had been part of
one or more musical ensemble(s).
A total of 65.05% of the respondents had stopped playing at least one of the instruments
they had studied (including voice), and 9.90% of respondents (n for this question = 101) cur-
rently do not engage in active music-making any more, including playing an instrument, sing-
ing or conducting. Sixty-five respondents provided reasons why they had stopped playing at
least one of their instruments. From these reasons, 90 statements were identified that were
placed in 10 categories (Figure 1).
Many respondents reported that they had stopped playing their instruments for lack of time or
because other activities became more important to them. Sample responses for categorized state-
ments are provided below beginning with an example of the most frequently mentioned reason:

  1. ‘I felt I didn’t have time to practise’;

  2. ‘got interested in other things’;
  3. ‘played briefly and badly, stopped due to lack of … progress’;
  4. ‘I no longer play any instruments because of performance-related injuries’;
  5. ‘was a member of the school orchestra, which doesn’t exist [any] longer’;
  6. ‘changed teacher and the new one seemed uninterested and critical when I needed
support’;
  7. ‘recorder – got bored with it’;
  8. ‘Accordion: only played for a year or so when I was [in] late teens’;
  9. ‘Stopped because I don’t actually own the [instrument]’;
10. ‘Guitar: I sold it in 1997 to spend the money on piano lessons’.
Wöllner et al. 369

“ ”

Figure 1.  Categorized reasons for why respondents stopped playing an instrument or singing

Most respondents currently play two instruments or sing (mode, 32.04% of respondents),
78.64% play between one and three instruments, and 11.65% play four and more instruments.
In a typical week, respondents (n = 79 valid responses) practise on average 5.94 hours (SD = 6.55).
There is a significant negative correlation between current academic position (with full profes-
sor as highest position, independent researchers and retired academics excluded) and mean
number of weekly practice hours in the year before respondents completed the questionnaire,
rS(67) = -.33, p < .01. The more junior respondents are in their career, the more they report
practising. On the other hand, there is an abrupt decline in practice hours for researchers with
lecturing or more senior research positions (Figure 2). High standard deviations in mean prac-
tice hours indicate large individual differences between respondents.
In the year before completing the questionnaire, respondents (n = 85) performed in a mean
of 7.67 (SD = 15.91) concerts or in other situations as a soloist or accompanist and/or in a
mean of 9.72 (SD = 18.95) concerts as a member of an ensemble. In these performances, they
performed a mean of 13.37 (SD = 28.73) compositions that were new to them. Taking solo and
ensemble performances together, respondents indicated a mean of 17.13 performances, with a
large standard deviation of 30.84. There is no significant correlation between the number of
all performances and the academic position, rS(78) = - .14, p < .21.

Listening habits
Respondents reported greater enjoyment from listening to music than performing it. On seven-
point scales (7 = ‘very much’), mean ratings of enjoyment were higher for listening (M = 6.48,
370 Psychology of Music 39(3)

Figure 2.  Current practice hours in a typical week according to work position (M, SD)

SD = 0.89) than for performing music (M = 5.95, SD = 1.72), t(97) = 2.72, p < .01 (paired
samples, two-tailed). Classical music genres as well as jazz/blues/RnB (grouped in one cate-
gory) were generally favoured over other genres. Table 1 lists ratings for different musical genres
(7 = ‘very much enjoyable’) and the number of performances attended for each genre. Results
of a one-sample test against the centre of the scale (test value = 4) indicate whether ratings were
higher or lower from ‘somewhat enjoyable’. Eighteen respondents further indicated often very
specific musical genres.
A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of musical genre on preference ratings,
F(9, 971) = 40.08, p < .001, h2 = 0.27. Post-hoc tests (Bonferroni) revealed that classical instru-
mental music was rated higher at p < .001 than all other genres (difference to jazz p < .05), apart
from classical vocal (ns). Classical vocal music was rated significantly higher (p < .001) than
pop, rock, folk, rap, ethno and dance. Jazz was rated higher than pop, folk, rap, ethno (p < .001) and
rock (p < .05). Classical opera was rated higher than rap or dance (both p < .001) and higher
than pop, folk or ethno (p < .05). Rock, ethno, pop and folk were all rated higher than rap or
dance (p < .001). Although pop music received higher ratings than rap/hiphop, both genres are
similarly correlated with the age of the respondents. The older the respondents were, the less
they liked pop and rap/hiphop, both rS(98) = -.25, p < .01. No further correlations were found
with the respondents’ age. Jazz/blues/RnB live performances were attended most often.
The number of hours respondents (n = 99) reported listening to music both actively and
passively varied widely. Active listening was defined as ‘listening carefully or on purpose, instead
of doing other things as well’. 5.05% listened ‘not at all’ actively, while the majority of
71.71% listened up to 4 hours per week, 16.16% listened between 4 and 10 hours, and 7.07%
listened more than 10 hours per week actively. Passive listening was defined as ‘listening in the
Wöllner et al. 371

Table 1.  Preference ratings for selected musical genres

Musical genres Preference ratings One sample test Performances attended

n M SD t p n(respondents) M SD

Pop 98 4.12 1.84 0.66 .51 80 1.94 7.65

Rock 99 4.44* 1.99 2.23 .03 80 2.32 7.97
Jazz/blues/RnB 99 5.31** 1.62 8.06 .00 90 11.62 15.01
Classical instrumental 99 6.18** 1.34 16.26 .00 83 4.27 7.57
Classical vocal 99 5.54** 1.53 9.96 .00 82 2.21 2.98
Classical opera 99 5.02** 1.82 5.57 .00 80 1.19 3.54
Folk, country 97 4.02 2.02 0.10 .92 86 3.13 5.52
Rap, hiphop 98 2.83** 1.85 -6.28 .00 75 0.21 1.20
Dance, techno 99 2.65** 1.86 -7.22 .00 75 1.15 4.73
Ethno, world 94 4.19 1.75 1.06 .29 82 1.27 2.29
Other genres 18 5.61** 2.20 3.11 .01

Note: Asterisks mark significant differences from the centre of the scale (one sample t-tests, test value 4 = ‘somewhat
enjoyable’).
* p < .05, ** p < .01

background, while you do other things’. 18.18% indicated ‘not (listening) at all’ in the back-
ground, 34.34% listened up to 8 hours per week, 33.33% between 8 and 20 hours per week, and
14.14% listened more than 20 hours per week in the background. The younger respondents
were, the more they engaged in passive listening, rS(99) = -.41, p < .001. On the contrary, the
older respondents were, the more they seem to enjoy active listening, rS(99) = .26, p < .01. The
following statements further illustrate the importance of active as opposed to passive listening:

1. ‘I rarely sit in my room and just listen, but I often listen while waiting for the bus/sitting
on the train, and I do consider this active listening, as I’m not doing anything else actively
(other than waiting).’ (26 years old)
2. ‘After decades of making and listening to music professionally I put myself on a diet; this
may be a temporary phase. I choose stillness instead.’ (51 years old)
3. ‘[active listening] This is very distressing to me – I don’t seem to find the time and the
energy for this any more!’ (44 years old)
4. ‘I cannot listen to music in the background. It immediately becomes an active listening
process.’ (38 years old)
5. ‘[active listening] isn’t that very rare for people to do anyway? – My academic work does
not always go together with music, I rather work in silence. If I don’t work I tend to relax
with movies and not music (since I have to find other things to do then). In other words,
most of my participants listen to way more music than I do.’ (30 years old)

The second and third comments indicate that professional uses of music may result in decreased
private listening time. Different views of active listening are put forward in the fourth (inevitable)
and fifth comment (rare). Overall, the comments show the respondents’ high level of reflection
on these issues. In addition, respondents were asked what functions active or passive music-
listening have for them. Results are presented in Table 2, indicating that music mainly serves as
372 Psychology of Music 39(3)

Table 2.  Functions of music listening for respondents (cf. Sloboda, 1999), and correlation with listening
hours per week

Functions of music listening One sample Correlation (rS) with

test listening

n M SD t p active background

Reminds of past events 97 4.46* 1.77 2.58 .011 .21* .29**

Evokes visual images 97 3.41** 1.97 -2.94 .004 .27** .23*
Source of pleasure and enjoyment 99 6.46** 0.88 27.73 .000 .13 .06
Enhances negative moods 94 3.31** 1.90 -3.53 .001 .15 .22*
Matches or reinforces current 96 4.75** 1.85 3.98 .000 .14 .24*
mood
Moves to tears, chills or other 96 4.41* 1.73 2.31 .023 .07 .07
bodily reactions
Functions as catharsis 93 4.19 2.01 0.93 .355 .05 .19
Excites 96 5.31** 1.71 7.51 .000 .06 .20
Motivates 96 5.54** 1.71 8.83 .000 .03 .28**
Calms, releases stress, relaxes 94 5.18** 1.69 6.80 .000 .01 .33**

* p < .05, ** p < .01

a ‘source of pleasure and enjoyment’ or ‘motivates, excites or calms’. Significant correlations

with listening hours were found for six functions of music-listening, indicating that respon-
dents tend to listen more to music actively or in the background in relation to the specific func-
tions they associate with music.
Respondents also indicated their listening styles on seven-point scales. The highest ratings
were yielded for ‘emotional listening’ (i.e., experiencing personal emotional responses to music,
M = 5.53, SD = 1.43), followed by ‘analytical listening/concentrating on the structure’ (M =
4.73, SD = 1.85), ‘moving the body or parts of the body’ (M = 4.55, SD = 1.77), and ‘having
visual or other associations’ (M = 4.26, SD = 1.98). Several respondents indicated other ways
of listening, which in some cases also reflect their professional involvement:

1. ‘I am imaging the performance.’

2. ‘When working professionally (editing recordings) I listen critically for aspects of perfor-
mance error such as intonation or note/timing error.’

A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of listening style, F(3, 386) = 9.25, p < .001,
h2 = 0.07. Post-hoc tests (Games-Howell, given unequal variances according to Levene’s test)
showed that emotional listening is rated as significantly more important than analytical listen-
ing (p < .01) as well as moving the body and having associations (both p < .001). No further
differences were observed post hoc. While no significant correlations were found between ana-
lytical listening and other listening styles, emotional listening correlated with ‘moving the
body’, rS(98) = .23, p < .05, and ‘having associations’, rS(96) = .27, p < .01. The latter two listen-
ing styles were also correlated with each other, rS(96) = .50, p < .001.
Wöllner et al. 373

Musical practice and research

The final section addressed the importance of practical musical engagement for researchers,
and the extent to which research findings have influenced the researchers’ own music-making.
Respondents (n = 101) indicated on a seven-point scale (7 = ‘highly important’) the importance
for music researchers in general of continuing to perform music in their daily lives (M = 4.91,
SD = 1.93) and the importance of music-making for their own research (M = 4.88, SD = 2.24).
The extent to which research findings have influenced respondents’ own music making was
rated equally (M = 4.15, SD = 2.34). These three ratings are significantly correlated with each
other, all rS(101) > .41, all p < .001.
64 respondents provided further comments on the influence of music research on their own
musical activities, yielding 74 statements that were categorized. Thirty of these statements indi-
cate that research findings influenced respondents’ performance in general, and/or their practice
and memorization strategies. Categories of responses are presented in Figure 3. Sample responses
for statements are provided below, beginning with the most frequently mentioned aspect.

1. ‘Research on the parameters of expressive performance helps me think and be more

conscious of how I shape the performance (expressively).’
2. ‘A lot of my research now focuses on effective practice, looking at concepts such as self-
regulated learning and uses of imagery within practice, which I now use a tremendous
amount in my own practising.’
3. ‘Research work is too special and very little useful for my own musical activities.’
4. ‘My research has contradicted a lot of folklore so I use it to try and change teachers’
views of some basic misconceptions about teaching and developing musical potential.’
5. ‘… I have more effective ways of dealing with performance anxiety.’
6. ‘I now know what sort of music to play to influence people in certain ways …’
7. ‘In conducting educational ensembles, I refer to different research as appropriate.’
8. ‘My research has deeply influenced how I interact with other performers and composers,
how I work with them on a regular basis, how I conduct myself.’

A large number of statements refer to very specific influences that were not categorized (miscel-
laneous), and some statements indicated that research findings were too specific to be applied in
musical practice. In general, researchers’ comments suggest that the findings of music research
permit critical reflection on the intuitive knowledge that generations of musicians have accumu-
lated, and help to refine individual approaches to music learning, performance and teaching.

Discussion
This study provides a first overview of the levels of researchers’ musical engagement and
describes some of their self-conceptions. Evidently, research interests and personal motiva-
tions (cf. Zimbardo & Crandall, 1999) have an impact on career decisions in various academic
fields (Akerlind, 2008; Cohen, 2006). We hypothesized that music researchers’ previous
musical training and their enjoyment of listening are related to their research. Researchers
(of 17 different nationalities) working in music psychology, music science and comparable
fields at various academic career levels in 13 different countries took part in an online
374 Psychology of Music 39(3)

Figure 3.  Categorized responses about the impacts of research on own music-making

questionnaire and provided answers on their musical background, current musical activities
and listening habits. Nearly all respondents had learned one or more musical instrument(s),
and a high number (91.10%) still enjoy performing music. Respondents indicated musical
preferences for classical music and jazz/blues/RnB, while generally listening to music more
emotionally than analytically. It is remarkable that about half of all respondents had com-
posed and/or improvised music. These musical activities require a high level of creativity,
which may be related to general creativity in other fields (cf. Kenny & Gellrich, 2002; Sawyer,
2000).
We argue that our results provide information about some of the reasons underlying music
research. With respect to Sloboda’s (2004) essay on the value of music psychology, it seems
that many researchers can draw on their own rich experiences of music-making, which may
ultimately influence their research and provide beneficial insights for practitioners. Even so,
reflecting on the research perspectives (cf. Barz & Cooley, 2008; Davies et al., 2004) appears a
necessary endeavour, as carried out in other disciplines. Knowing more about music research-
ers’ perspectives and training can shed light on the appropriateness of research methods, for
example, when studying music and musicians of different cultures or specific genres such as
popular music (cf. Middleton, 2000). Although music researchers seem to favour classical
music and jazz/blues/RnB over other music, there is some variety in preference ratings for
musical genres. Out of ten genres, only dance/techno and rap/hiphop received significantly
Wöllner et al. 375

lower mean ratings than the midpoint of the scale (i.e., ‘somewhat enjoyable’). Genre rating
scales are widely used in music research – and are also widely criticized (cf. e.g., Russell, 1997),
since stereotypes associated with terms such as ‘opera’ may lead to lower verbal ratings com-
pared with ratings of actual sound examples. The use of musical excerpts, on the other hand,
limits the variety of pre-selected music within genres. Keeping these difficulties in mind, we
adapted a list of genres from other studies (Williamon et al., 2010) including three classical
subgenres, based on the assumption that many researchers were trained in classical music or
jazz. Given that eight of the ten genres were at least perceived ‘somewhat enjoyable’, music
researchers may indeed be relatively open to a range of different music. According to Peterson
and Kern’s (1996) ‘omnivore’ hypothesis, educated ‘elites’ increasingly seem to enjoy listening
to various musical genres in contrast to traditional associations of ‘highbrow’ (classical) music
with higher education and social class. Regarding education, music researchers as expert
listeners seem to support this hypothesis. The ratings for pop music – particularly high for
younger respondents – may additionally reflect the fact that pop music is now receiving
increased attention from researchers.
Listening styles vary according to the individual functions and purposes associated with the
music. Many respondents provided comments on their listening habits, which to some extent
reflect their professional engagement with music. On the basis of Adorno (1962/2003), one
might assume that music researchers, as expert listeners, display high levels of analytical lis-
tening styles, for example by focusing on the musical structure (cf. Cook, 1990). In his specula-
tive typology of listeners, Adorno (1962/2003) characterizes expert listening as fully conscious,
structural listening (p. 182). He considers only this way of listening to be truly adequate, while
emotional listening ranks fourth. Results of the current study indicate that music researchers
rated emotional listening as more important than analytical listening, which in fact was not
rated as being different from ‘moving the body’ and ‘having associations’. Thus, researchers
responding to this survey may not uphold Adorno’s legacy in this respect. Nonetheless, listen-
ing for enjoyment, which was considered the most important function of music-listening, can
be different from work-related, perhaps more structural listening.
Although musical training and active musical experiences are not generally considered to be
a prerequisite for studying and researching music psychology and related areas, results indicate
that all respondents to the survey had been musically active in the past by learning an instru-
ment, conducting, composing or receiving voice training. This finding underlines the impor-
tance of musical training – to varying degrees – for many music researchers in their careers
(see Ginsborg, Wöllner, & Williamon, 2010). Although no comprehensive study of the musical
training of researchers and professionals in other disciplines such as medicine has been pub-
lished, it seems likely that the percentage of those who were engaged in active training is con-
siderably lower. In an early survey of more than 300 Irish medical students’ career preferences,
Egerton (1979) found out that only very few students had an A level in music; and apart from
the respondents’ sex no clear factors emerged for their particular career choices. With regard to
the professional identities of medical students, Broadhead (1983) states that their motivation
to train as physicians is ‘not rooted so much in their personal psychology or early socialisation’
but rather related to their training (p. 59). The specific skills that are seen as prerequisites to the
decision to work in a designated field are debatable. In medicine, for example, researchers have
noted that students lack competence and therefore need training in key interpersonal skills
such as medical interviewing (Engel, 1982; Girgis, Sanson-Fisher, & Walsh, 2001). There does
376 Psychology of Music 39(3)

not seem to be a general consensus, however, as to whether skills such as these should be devel-
oped before individuals embark on a course of study or whether they can be developed success-
fully later on. By contrast, it is absolutely necessary for performers including musicians, dancers
and athletes to have acquired high levels of the skills required in their professions before start-
ing tertiary education (cf. Ericsson et al., 1993).
With regard to music researchers’ current music-making, respondents to our survey had
generally played more instruments in the past before reaching their current position. They
play fewer instruments at present (or none) mainly because of time constraints and shifts of
priorities. Respondents also tend to practise less if they are in more senior academic positions.
It should be noted that the number of current practice hours per se is no indication of musical
expertise or performance quality, because experts may need less practice. Despite the signifi-
cant negative correlation between academic position and practice hours, there was no signifi-
cant correlation between academic position and estimated number of public performances
given per year. In fact, many respondents reported taking part in musical performances regu-
larly; in some cases performance schedules resembled those of professional musicians.
Although we did not specifically ask about initial career ambitions, a considerable number of
music researchers may once have aspired to become professional musicians. Some evidence is
provided by the finding that nine respondents had to stop playing an instrument because of
injuries or other health reasons, and consequently may have decided to work in music research
instead. Other respondents had previously been professional musicians, but had decided at
some point in their careers either to work primarily in research or to carry out research in
addition to teaching, performing or composing music. A forthcoming paper (Ginsborg et al.,
2010, in preparation) will shed more light on researchers’ career transitions. A potential limi-
tation of the study, as in comparable research using self-reports, lies in the fact that more
researchers who are musically engaged may have chosen to respond to the questionnaire than
researchers who are musically less engaged. Although this issue may affect the sample, we
found that many respondents provided comprehensive answers, even for example if they had
stopped playing an instrument. Similarly, a high proportion of respondents worked in
European countries. Research traditions may be different in other countries, although there
seems to be a great variety of different institutional affiliations and research interests in the
field even within countries. Many respondents mentioned the impact of research on their own
music-making. Music researchers themselves clearly appreciate the applicability of findings in
their field (cf. Parncutt & McPherson, 2002; Sloboda, 2004). For example, they reported
concentrating on expressiveness, body movements and fingering, as well as mentioning
enhanced practice and memorization strategies, and the mastery of performance anxiety.
These results provide evidence for the relationship between research and practice – even for
those engaged in research.
In conclusion, investigating researchers’ motivations, their background and current enjoy-
ment of music-making and -listening enhances our understanding of the context of research
and may lead to greater reflexivity in the field. Future research could build on the questionnaire
by Parncutt et al. (2008) and investigate the careers of music researchers in a longitudinal
study. In-depth interviews could explore researchers’ self-concepts in this context. We believe
that carrying out research along these lines, as already undertaken and published in other
fields (e.g., Estabrooks et al., 2008; Grbich, 1998; Thomas et al., 2004), may not only contex-
tualize research but can also support institutional decisions and, not least, optimal career plan-
ning for individual musicians and music researchers.
Wöllner et al. 377

References
Adorno, T. W. (1962/2003). Dissonanzen. Einleitung in die Musiksoziologie [Introduction to the sociology of
music]. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Akerlind, G. S. (2008). Growing and developing as a university researcher. Higher Education, 55, 241–254.
Barz, G. F., & Cooley, T. J. (Eds.) (2008). Shadows in the field: New perspectives for fieldwork in ethnomusicology
(2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bennett, D. (2008). Understanding the classical music profession: The past, the present and strategies for the
future. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Broadhead, R. S. (1983). The private lives and professional identity of medical students. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Burke, R., & Gridley, M. C. (1990). Musical preferences as a function of stimulus complexity and listeners’
sophistication. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 687–690.
Burland, K., & Davidson, J. W (2004). Tracing a musical life transition. In J. W. Davidson (Ed.), The music
practitioner (pp. 224–250). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Chaffin, R., & Imreh, G. (2002). Practicing perfection: Piano performance as expert memory. Psychological
Science, 13, 342–349.
Clegg, S. (2008). Academic identities under threat? British Educational Research Journal, 34, 329–345.
Cohen, L. (2006). Remembrance of things past: Cultural process and practice in the analysis of career
stories. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 189–201.
Cook, N. (1990). Music, imagination and culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Davidson. J. W. (Ed.). (2004). The music practitioner. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Davidson, J. W., Moore, D. G., Sloboda, J. A., & Howe, M. J. A. (1998). Characteristics of music teachers
and the progress of young instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(1), 141–160.
Davies, B., Browne, J., Gannon, S., Honan, E., Laws, C., Mueller-Rockstroh, B., et al. (2004). The ambiva-
lent practices of reflexivity. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 360–389.
Egerton, E. A. (1979). Medical undergraduate career preference enquiry. Ulster Medical Journal, 48, 43–61.
Engel, G. L. (1982). What if music students were taught to play their instruments as medical students are
taught to interview? Pharos of Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society, 45, 12–13.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. Th., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisi-
tion of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.
Estabrooks, C. A., Norton, P., Birdsell, J. M., Newtond, M. S., Adewalee, A. J., & Thornley, R. (2008).
Knowledge translation and research careers: Mode I and Mode II activity among health researchers.
Research Policy, 37, 1066–1078.
Gembris, H. (Ed.). (2006). Musical development in a life-span perspective. Frankfurt: Lang.
Gembris, H., & Langner, D. (2006). What are instrumentalists doing after graduating from the music
academy? Some results of the Alumni project. In H. Gembris (Ed.), Musical development in a life-span
perspective (pp. 141–162). Frankfurt: Lang.
Ginsborg, J., Chaffin, R., & Nicholson, G. (2006). Shared performance cues in singing and conducting:
A content analysis of talk during practice. Psychology of Music, 34, 167–192.
Ginsborg, J., Wöllner, C., & Williamon, A. (2010). Why we became empirical musicologists. Manuscript
in preparation.
Girgis, A., Sanson-Fisher. R. W., & Walsh, R. A. (2001). Preventive and other interactional skills of gen-
eral practitioners, surgeons, and physicians: Perceived competence and endorsement of postgraduate
training. Preventive Medicine, 32, 73–81.
Grbich, C. (1998). The academic researcher: Socialisation in settings previously dominated by teaching.
Higher Education, 36, 67–85.
378 Psychology of Music 39(3)

Ivaldi, A. (2011). Routes to adolescent musical expertise. In I. Deliège & J. W. Davidson (Eds.), Music and the
mind: Investigating the functions and processes of music (a book in honour of John Sloboda). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jootun, D., McGhee, G., & Marland, G. R. (2009). Reflexivity: Promoting rigour in qualitative research.
Nursing Standard, 23, 42–46.
Kenny, B. J., & Gellrich, M. (2002). Improvisation. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson (Eds.), The science and
psychology of music performance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 117–134). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Linstead, S. (1994). Objectivity, reflexivity, and fiction – humanity, inhumanity, and the science of the
social. Human Relations, 47, 1321–1346.
Macnamara, Á., Holmes, P., & Collins, D. (2008). Negotiating transitions in musical development: The role
of psychological characteristics of developing excellence. Psychology of Music, 36, 335–352.
Manturzewska, M. (1990). A biographical study of the life-span development of professional musicians.
Psychology of Music, 18, 112–139.
Middleton, R. (2000). Popular music analysis and musicology: Bridging the gap. In R. Middleton (Ed.),
Reading pop: Approaches to textual analysis in popular music (pp. 104–121). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Parncutt, R., & McPherson, G. E. (Eds.). (2002). The science and psychology of music performance. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Parncutt, R., Dibben, N., Painsi, M., & Marin, M. (2008, August). The professional relevance of music psychol-
ogy: An internet survey. Paper presented at ICMPC 10, Sapporo, Japan.
Pasquini, M. W., & Olaniyan, O. (2004). The researcher and the field assistant: A cross-disciplinary, cross-
cultural viewing of positionality. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 29, 24–36.
Peterson, R. A., & Kern, R. M. (1996). Changing highbrow taste: From snob to omnivore. American
Sociological Review, 61, 900–907.
Repp, B. H. (1999). Control of expressive and metronomic timing in pianists. Journal of Motor Behavior,
31, 145–164.
Russell, P. A. (1997). Musical tastes and society. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (Eds.), The social psychol-
ogy of music (pp. 141–158). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2000). Improvisational cultures: Collaborative emergence and creativity in improvisation.
Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7, 177–179.
Sloboda, J. A. (1999). Everyday uses of music listening: A preliminary study. In S. W. Yi (Ed.), Music, mind
and science (pp. 354–369). Seoul: Western Music Research Institute.
Sloboda, J. A. (2004). Assessing music psychology research: Values, priorities, and outcomes. In
J. A. Sloboda, Exploring the Musical Mind: Cognition, emotion, ability, function. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Thomas, P. A., Diener-West, M., Canto, M. I., Martin, D. R., Post, W. S., & Streiff, M. B. (2004). Results of
an academic promotion and career path survey of faculty at the Johns Hopkins University School of
Medicine. Academic Medicine, 79, 258–264.
Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Hessels, L. K., & Vandeberg, R. L. J. (2008). A resource-based view on the interactions
of university researchers. Research Policy, 37, 1255–1266.
Williamon, A. (Ed.). (2004). Musical excellence: Strategies and techniques to enhance performance. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Williamon, A., Burt-Perkins, R., Ritchie, L., & Thompson, S. (2010). Musical beginnings: A study of children’s
engagement with music. Manuscript in preparation.
Zimbardo, P., & Crandall, R. (1999). Recollections of a social psychologist’s career: An interview with
Dr. Philip Zimbardo. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 1–22.
Wöllner et al. 379

Appendix:
Survey
Questionnaire items analysed and reported in this article are listed below; for further items, see
Ginsborg et al. (2010). The formatting of the original online survey differs from the slightly
abbreviated items presented here (hence the gaps in the numbered sequence presented below).
A PDF version of the complete questionnaire can be obtained from the authors.

Demographic information
1. Year of birth
2. Your sex [m/f]
3. Please indicate your nationality.
4. Please indicate the country in which you are currently living and working, if different
from your nationality.
5. Please indicate your highest academic qualification. [multiple choice, e.g., PhD]
6. What is the subject area of your highest academic qualification (e.g., music, psychology,
computer science, medicine)? Please specify.
7. Please indicate the highest level of practical music making you have gained. [multiple
choice, e.g., A levels in music]
8. Please indicate your current academic position. [multiple choice, e.g., assistant professor]
9. Please tick the box that matches your main institutional affiliation best. [multiple choice,
e.g., university musicology department]

Musical training
12. The following questions relate to any of your musical experiences in the past. Please
tick all boxes that apply for you, if you ...

 learned one or more instruments.

 had singing lessons.
 improvised music.
 composed music.
 conducted music.
 were part of a musical ensemble (chamber music, orchestra, choir).
 none of the above.
 Other (please specify):
Even if you did not learn an instrument (or learn to compose or improvise), please do not quit
the questionnaire, since your data are crucial for gaining a general idea. Please continue.
13. Please write down the instruments you studied (including voice, conducting):
a) with a teacher: .............................................................................
b) independently: .............................................................................
14. Have you stopped playing any of these instruments? [yes/no]
If yes, please indicate when and why you stopped playing it. ..................
(Continued)
380 Psychology of Music 39(3)

Appendix (Continued)
Current musical activities and relationship with research
26. What instruments (including voice, conducting) do you currently play?

Please list instruments according to their importance for you, beginning with the most impor-
tant one. If you do not play any instruments at present, please indicate.

27. Please indicate for all your instruments (including voice/conducting) your activities in
the past year:

- How many hours per week, on average, have you practised?

- How many public performances have you given as a soloist or accompanist?
- How many public performances have you taken part in as a member of an instru-
mental ensemble or choir?
- How many times have you played or sung repertoire that was new to you?

30. Please answer the following questions.

- In general, how important do you think it is for music researchers to continue per-
forming music in their daily lives? [seven-point rating scale from ‘not at all impor-
tant’ to ‘highly important’]
- For you personally, how important is it for your own research to make music regu-
larly? [as above]

31. Have the findings of research in music psychology/science (your own or that of col-
leagues) influenced your own music making? [seven-point rating scale from ‘not at all’
to ‘very much’]

Please provide further comments on the influence of research on your musical activities. .......

32. Please rate:

- your level of enjoyment as a performer.

- your level of enjoyment as a composer.
- your level of enjoyment as an improviser.
- your level of enjoyment as a listener.

[seven-point rating scales from ‘not at all enjoyable’ to ‘very much enjoyable’, additional option:
‘does not apply to me’]

Musical preferences and listening habits

33. Please rate your level of enjoyment when listening to the following musical genres:
(Continued)
Wöllner et al. 381

Appendix (Continued)
- Pop
- Rock
- Jazz/Blues/RnB
- Classical: instrumental
- Classical: vocal (solo, choir)
- Classical: opera
- Folk/country
- Rap/Hip-hop
- Dance (e.g., Techno, House)
- Ethno/World music
- Other (please specify)

[seven-point rating scales from ‘not at all enjoyable’ to ‘very much enjoyable’]

34. Approximately how many live musical performances of these musical genres have you
attended over the past year? [same list of genres, free answer options]
35. Approximately how many hours per week do you choose to listen actively – when you
are listening carefully or on purpose (instead of doing other things as well)?

[seven-point scale: not at all, up to 1 hour, up to 2 hours, up to 4 hours, up to 6 hours, up to

10 hours, more than 10 hours]

36. Approximately how many hours per week do you choose to listen in the background
(while you do other things)?

[seven-point scale: not at all, up to 2 hours, up to 4 hours, up to 8 hours, up to 12 hours, up to

20 hours, more than 20 hours]

37. Why do you enjoy listening to music? Please indicate the importance of different func-
tions that music listening may have for you personally (cf. Sloboda, 1999).

- Music reminds me of past events.

- ... evokes visual images.
- ... is a source of pleasure/enjoyment.
- ... enhances negative moods.
- ... matches or reinforces current mood.
- ... moves to tears/chills/other bodily reactions.
- ... functions as catharsis.
- ... excites.
- ... motivates.
- ... calms/releases stress/relaxes.
- Other (please specify)

[seven-point rating scales from ‘not at all’ to ‘very much/often’]

(Continued)
382 Psychology of Music 39(3)

Appendix (Continued)
38. How do you listen to music? Please indicate the importance of different ways of listen-
ing for you.

- I listen to music emotionally.

- I listen to music analytically (concentrating on the musical structure).
- I move my body or parts of my body while listening to music.
- I have many (visual and other) associations while listening to music.
- Other (please specify).

[seven-point rating scales from ‘not at all’ to ‘very much/often’]

General comments

Concluding information

Author biographies

Clemens Wöllner is currently interim professor of Systematic Musicology at Bremen University,

Germany. He gained an MA degree in Psychology of Music from the University of Sheffield, UK.
For his PhD research on the perception of expressiveness in conducting (University of Halle
Wittenberg, Germany), he was awarded an ESCOM Young Researcher Award in 2006. Prior
to his current position, Clemens lectured at different German institutions and worked as
Research Fellow at the Royal Northern College of Music, Manchester, UK. His current research
interests focus on the execution and perception of skilled movements in music performance. He
enjoys playing the piano and performed as a chorister with various choirs in major concert
venues, including the London Proms at the Royal Albert Hall.

Jane Ginsborg, PhD, was a professional singer before she became a psychologist. She holds BA
(Hons) degrees in music (York, UK) and psychology (Open University, UK); she undertook her
PhD research at Keele University, UK. She was a lecturer at the University of Manchester, UK,
a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Sheffield, UK and Senior Lecturer in Psychology
at Leeds Metropolitan University, UK. She is now Associate Dean of Research at the Royal
Northern College of Music, UK, having been a Research Fellow there since 2005. She has pub-
lished widely on expert musicians’ preparation for performance, collaborative music making
and musicians’ health. She won the British Voice Association’s Van Lawrence Award in 2002
for her research on singers’ memorizing strategies.

Aaron Williamon is Senior Research Fellow at the Royal College of Music (RCM), UK, where he
heads the Centre for Performance Science (CPS). His research focuses on skilled performance
and applied scientific and health-related initiatives that inform music learning and teaching.
His book, Musical Excellence (Oxford University Press, 2004) draws together the findings of
initiatives from across the arts and sciences, with the aim of offering musicians new perspec-
tives and practical guidance for enhancing their performance. Aaron is a fellow of the Royal
Society of Arts (FRSA) and the UK’s Higher Education Academy (FHEA). In addition, he has
performed as a trumpeter in chamber and symphony orchestras, brass bands, and brass quin-
tets in both Europe and North America.

View publication stats