Feeding the People: Rethinking Music Education
For all the studies pouring out of university music education departments, you would be hard-pressed to find their influence in the average school music classroom. A yawning gap separates the ivory tower of research from the day-to-day realities of teaching music. Music education research is often written by researchers for other researchers, and it rarely makes its way into the hands (or lesson plans) of practicing teachers. Meanwhile, teachers are overwhelmed with packed schedules and mandates, leaving little time or energy to sift through dense academic journals. The result is a system in which research and practice live in parallel universes, creating a disconnect that ultimately shortchanges students.
This article examines why this gap exists, draws analogies to fields that better integrate research and practice, and argues for down-to-earth changes that can make music education research more usable and impactful. The tone is candid and critical because the stakes are high: if research is not reaching classrooms, what is the point?
The Ivory Tower vs. the Classroom
Music education research today often feels like it is stuck in an ivory tower. Scholars churn out articles in specialized journals that only their peers read. As one critic noted, the field is “productive in quantity,” but it is unclear how much of this work “informs current music teacher education or has produced advances in teaching practice.” Too often, studies are conducted to satisfy “the paradigms, interests, and needs of the Ivory Tower rather than the down-to-earth conditions and needs of schools and schooling” (Regelski, 2007, p. 3). In other words, researchers sometimes pursue questions that interest academia more than they address the real challenges faced in K–12 music rooms. The writing is frequently theoretical or statistical, loaded with jargon, and tucked behind paywalls. It is research written for researchers, not for the folks in front of a band or choir every day.
It is telling (and troubling) that one analysis found the average academic article is read by about 10 people, and fully half of academic articles are never read at all (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2018). Think about that: a professor might labor for months on a study that, in the end, essentially vanishes into a black hole of unread literature. If most research lives and dies in journals with microscopic readership, is it any wonder it rarely reaches practicing teachers? This insular “publish or perish” culture means researchers mostly write to impress tenure committees and one another, rather than to inform everyday teaching. As a result, practitioners sometimes accuse researchers of being “out of touch” with what really happens in the classroom, while researchers sometimes think practitioners “do not care” about systematically finding and utilizing best practices (Alsop, 2020). Neither side is really the villain here, but this mutual frustration points to a systemic disconnect.
Teachers Overwhelmed, Research Overlooked
On the flip side, music teachers are not exactly combing through JSTOR on their lunch breaks. It is not because they are lazy or uninterested; they are incredibly busy and often lack access to academic resources. A band director juggling rehearsals, performances, grading, parent meetings (and maybe a fundraiser thrown in) simply does not have the luxury to pore over a 30-page research article on rehearsal techniques. Practicing teachers have to prioritize what directly helps them get through next week’s classes. When it comes to professional development, they gravitate toward sources that are immediately practical and accessible. In a Texas survey of music educators, 92% said workshops improved their teaching, and over 50% pointed to magazines or the internet, but only around 17% said the same about research journals (Paney, 2011). In fact, only about 10% of those teachers even read the field’s leading research journal, and almost all of those few were people with graduate degrees or in grad school (Paney, 2011). The data are clear: most K–12 music teachers do not regularly read academic research.
Teachers themselves will tell you why. Many feel that scholarly articles are not relevant to their daily challenges. “I feel that current research is rather abstract and very useless,” one music teacher wrote bluntly in a survey, noting that “many articles are written for college professors or directors at large schools; consequently the information is not useful to the small school director” (Paney, 2011, p. 42). Front-line educators often struggle to see how a controlled university study applies to their chaotic, unique classroom. Even if they are interested in research, accessing it is another hurdle. “I would be more likely to read highly applicable, readily available, quick and easy to read material… I am interested, it’s just not easy and so I don’t make it happen!” one teacher admitted (Paney, 2011, p. 44). This comment distills a common sentiment: teachers do care about improving their practice, but the way research is packaged and delivered makes it impractical for them. Dense language, paywalled journals, and studies without clear takeaways mean that even the best findings go unused.
Instead, busy music teachers rely on sources that fit their needs: workshops and conference sessions that hand them ready-to-use strategies, online forums or social media groups where colleagues trade tips, and practitioner journals like Music Educators Journal that present ideas in plain English. As one analysis observed, “Workshops often give teachers ready-made lessons and strategies they can implement immediately,” whereas research journals “require money and time” and tend to challenge one’s thinking more than they provide handy solutions (Paney, 2011, p. 44). After a long day of teaching, it is a lot more appealing to grab a quick idea from a YouTube video or a method book than to decode academic prose. So it is not that teachers are resistant to new ideas; they are locked out of the format in which most new ideas are being delivered.
Publish or Perish: Misaligned Incentives in Higher Ed
Why is so much research disconnected from practice? A big reason is the incentive structure in higher education. University faculty in music education are under heavy pressure to “publish or perish.” To earn tenure or promotion (and to build prestige), they must churn out articles in peer-reviewed journals, present at research conferences, and generally impress other academics. There is far less reward for writing an accessible article for a practitioner magazine or spending time translating research into teacher-friendly formats. In fact, a professor who devotes time to simplifying findings for teachers or creating practical resources might even be viewed as not focusing enough on “serious” research. The system essentially nudges academics to talk to each other, not to the teachers in the trenches.
Over time, this has created a kind of echo chamber. Scholars tackle topics that will get published in prestigious journals, often using esoteric theory and statistics to satisfy reviewers. There is no malicious intent here. Many researchers genuinely hope their work will eventually help classrooms, but the immediate goal is usually adding to the scholarly conversation, not producing a handy classroom toolkit. As a result, even well-meaning research can end up answering questions that teachers are not asking. One biting editorial observed that a lot of music education research, while abundant, fails to produce tangible advances in teaching practice, functioning more to bolster academic careers and disciplines than to help actual teaching (Regelski, 2007). The late Ernest Boyer famously called for academia to broaden its definition of scholarship to include applied research and teaching, but traditional measures of success still dominate.
The culture of academia can feel alien to practitioners. To a teacher, it might seem baffling that a researcher spent a year producing a paper on, for example, a new model of musical aptitude testing that has no clear application to how they teach tomorrow’s choir rehearsal. From the professor’s viewpoint, that study might be a stepping stone in theory or an effort to fill a gap in the literature. If no one translates those findings into plain-spoken advice or curricula, the work effectively stays on the shelf. As one pair of education researchers bluntly put it, many teachers do not find research directly useful and “we think these teachers have it right… the problem lies with researchers, not teachers” (Willingham & Daniel, 2021, p. 3). In other words, if research is not reaching practice, academics need to shoulder some responsibility. After all, what is the ultimate purpose of all this inquiry if not to improve teaching and learning?
A Disconnect at Students’ Expense
When research and practice do not connect, the ones who ultimately lose out are students. The whole point of educational research is (or should be) to discover better ways of teaching and learning. If those discoveries never leave academic journals, students in classrooms do not benefit from potential improvements. Teachers end up relying on tradition, intuition, or trial-and-error rather than evidence-based strategies. That can maintain the status quo, but it can also mean missed opportunities to solve persistent problems or to adopt more effective methods. As one group of scholars warned, “The cost in terms of time, money, and student achievement is excessive when methods of instruction are chosen by trial and error and perpetuated because of a lack of alternatives” (Yarbrough et al., 1991, as cited in Paney, 2011, p. 41). In plain terms, sticking with “the way we have always done it” because teachers are not aware of alternatives can waste precious time and hamper student progress.
Consider an analogy: if medical doctors never read the latest research, they might still be using outdated treatments, and patient health would suffer. In education, the harm is less visible in the short term but just as real. Students might not be learning as effectively as they could. For example, research might offer insights on how to better motivate adolescents in band, how students learn rhythm or notation best, or how music can support social-emotional development. Such findings could inspire new approaches or curricula. If teachers never hear about this research, their teaching might not evolve with the growing knowledge base. Years or decades can pass before a proven idea trickles down to widespread classroom use, if it ever does. One education report noted that “research alone does not change practice” and that simply handing studies to practitioners does not work because “just putting information into someone’s hands does not help them understand how to use that information to improve their work” (Boser & McDaniels, 2018, p. 3). Bridging that understanding gap takes effort, and our current system is not consistently investing that effort in music education.
It is important to say that nobody becomes a music teacher to deliberately ignore evidence or shortchange students. Likewise, researchers usually do not enter the field just to play academic games. The disconnect is largely systemic, a byproduct of two communities (teachers and researchers) operating in isolation with misaligned priorities. Teachers operate under immediate pressures such as managing the class, preparing the concert, and satisfying the curriculum and administrative demands. Researchers operate under pressures to publish novel work and advance theory. In between, there is a missing link to translate and integrate knowledge. Until we fix that, students remain caught in the middle, not getting the full benefits of advancements in the field.
Other Fields: Bridging Research and Practice
Is this research-practice divide unique to music education? Not at all, but other fields provide instructive comparisons. In medicine, for instance, there has long been concern about the lag between discovery and implementation. Studies have shown it can take years, even decades, for new medical evidence to become standard practice. The difference is that the medical field actively works to close that gap. It has developed the entire concept of evidence-based practice and a science of “knowledge translation” to push research into clinics faster. Doctors are expected (and often required) to stay current through continuing education, and research findings are distilled into clinical guidelines, protocols, and professional development courses. While this system is not perfect and many physicians will admit they do not read every journal either, there is an infrastructure to move research into practice. It is difficult to imagine a surgeon saying, “Oh, I do not really have time to keep up with medical research,” because the culture of medicine treats research as integral to good practice. If a new study convincingly shows a better way to treat a condition, the medical community mobilizes (through conferences, medical associations, pharmaceutical representatives, and other channels) to spread that knowledge. In short, there is an expectation that research will change practice, along with systems to help make it happen.
The business world also values integrating research or data with practice, although in a different way. Companies invest heavily in R&D and market research, and they are quick to adopt innovations that might give them a competitive edge. In fields like technology or finance, professionals routinely engage with the latest studies or at least with practical summaries of those studies. For example, managers read popular business books and attend seminars that simplify academic research on leadership or organizational psychology into digestible lessons. A concept like “evidence-based management” has gained traction, urging business leaders to use research and data in decision-making rather than relying on gut instinct alone. It is not that every CEO is poring over academic journals, but there is an army of consultants, industry analysts, and professional publications whose job is to translate research into actionable advice for practitioners. In other words, other fields have bridging mechanisms: people or organizations whose role is to carry insights from the lab to the field.
Even within education more broadly, there have been movements to better connect research and practice. Consider the recent focus on the “science of reading” in general education. Cognitive science research on how children learn to read (some of it conducted decades ago) is finally being integrated into classroom reading instruction after years of disconnect. Why now? Journalists, educators, and policymakers shone a spotlight on that research and packaged it in ways teachers and school leaders could grasp and apply. The gap between research and practice is not inevitable. It can be narrowed when there is enough will. Fields like medicine and others show that although some gap will always exist, because change is hard and research cannot ever be perfectly translated, it does not have to be as wide as it is in music education. Our field could borrow from their playbook by establishing clearer channels for knowledge transfer, setting expectations that keeping up with research is part of professionalism, and creating roles for “research brokers” or liaisons.
Evidence of the Gap in Music Classrooms
We do not have to rely on anecdotes alone, because research on music education itself confirms the gap. As mentioned earlier, surveys have found that only a small fraction of music teachers regularly read research journals (Paney, 2011). Most stick to easily accessible sources for new ideas, and many feel existing research does not speak to their needs (Paney, 2011). In one study from Texas, teachers overwhelmingly preferred hands-on professional development and reported being interested in research but inhibited from accessing or applying it (Paney, 2011). Notably, fewer than 3% of surveyed music teachers said they had “no interest” in research at all (Paney, 2011). In other words, the vast majority were open to the idea of research-informed teaching; they just found it difficult to integrate in practice. That is an important point: the issue is not that teachers are close-minded or apathetic to new knowledge. The pipeline is broken. The information is not reaching them in a usable form, or it is not reaching them at all.
Even within higher education circles, the lack of impact on practice has been a recurring concern for decades. As far back as the late 1970s, music education leaders were asking if research had become an “ivory tower” pursuit enjoyed only by an elitist few and largely ignored by the teaching rank-and-file. In 1984, a prominent journal bluntly asked, “Has music education research fallen into disrepute?”, suggesting that many in the field felt it had, at least from the perspective of working teachers. In recent years, scholars like Thomas Regelski have criticized the academic system for promoting research that serves careers more than classrooms (Regelski, 2007). A 2020 analysis by Michael Alsop noted that the research-practice gap in music education “has been discussed for decades” with many attempted solutions, yet it still persists (Alsop, 2020, p. 93). All this shows that the problem is well known, and that the field has been talking about it for a long time. The fact it keeps coming up means we have not fixed it yet. A kind of resignation can set in, where folks shrug and say, “Well, that is just how it is, that researchers do their thing and teachers do theirs.” That attitude reflects dangerous complacency. Students deserve better than parallel silos of knowledge and practice.
Let us look at a concrete example of how this gap might play out in a music classroom. Imagine a middle school orchestra teacher struggling to keep students motivated to practice. There might be multiple research studies on motivation in music education, perhaps investigating the impact of choice of repertoire, goal-setting strategies, or the effects of different types of praise on student motivation. Those studies, however, might live in journals like Psychology of Music or Journal of Research in Music Education. Unless our orchestra teacher is unusual, she is not reading those. She might continue with trial-and-error or just assume motivation is entirely up to individual student personalities. Meanwhile, a researcher somewhere has evidence that could help her, such as findings showing that students practice more when they have a say in selecting one piece of music to work on, or when they record themselves and track progress. If that evidence never reaches her, nothing changes in her classroom, and a promising practice goes unused. Multiply that scenario by hundreds of topics and thousands of classrooms, and the scope of the missed connection becomes clear.
Closing the Gap: From Critique to Collaboration
How do we bridge this long-standing gap? The consensus among many critics is that it will take effort from both sides, researchers and practitioners, and likely require rethinking some of our structures in music education. Here are a few strategies and solutions that have been proposed or are beginning to gain traction:
Translate and Simplify Research. Academia must make research findings more accessible. This could mean writing summary articles in plain language for practitioner journals, creating one-page teacher guides or infographics for each study, or producing short videos or podcasts that busy teachers can absorb on the go. Several journals (like Update: Applications of Research in Music Education) and blog platforms attempt this, but more scholars need to value and contribute to such outlets. As one education expert quipped, studies do not change practice by themselves; it “takes work to make a study relevant to what’s happening on the ground” (Boser & McDaniels, 2018, p. 4). Researchers should view that “last mile” effort, translating knowledge into practice, as part of their job, not an optional add-on.
Foster Collaborative Research. One powerful way to ensure research is relevant is to involve teachers in it. “A viable way to address the research-to-practice gap… is to encourage practitioners to become more involved in research,” note experts in a Massachusetts research-practice initiative, adding that teacher involvement can “increase professionalism and improve educational practice in classrooms” (Parker et al., 2018, p. 1). When teachers help design studies or act as co-researchers, they make sure the questions address real needs and the results are immediately applicable to their context. Such action research or practitioner research blurs the line between researcher and teacher. Teachers who engage in research often find it “helps them evaluate, monitor, and innovate their own teaching practices” (Parker et al., 2018, p. 2). They also become ambassadors, sharing what they learn with colleagues in the school hallway in ways a university professor simply cannot. We should create more programs that train and support teachers to conduct research in their own classrooms, and give them platforms to publish or present those findings to peers. This not only yields practical insights but also empowers teachers as professionals contributing to the knowledge base.
Build Research-Practice Partnerships. Beyond individual teachers doing studies, broader partnerships between schools and universities can bridge the divide. In other fields, formal Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs) have shown promise (Boser & McDaniels, 2018). In music education, a partnership might look like a district working with a nearby university on a multi-year project, for example, studying the impact of a new curriculum or teaching method across several schools, with teachers and professors jointly analyzing the data. Such partnerships mean researchers are grounded in the reality of classrooms, so their studies stay practical, and educators get real-time feedback and access to findings. A team of scholars suggested that these collaborations provide “shared resources, bridge the existing gap between theory and practice, and ensure that research has practical relevance” (Parker et al., 2018, p. 3). Crucially, partnerships build relationships, so teachers know a researcher personally and feel more comfortable reaching out, and researchers gain respect for the complexity of teachers’ work. Everyone learns from each other.
Empower “Brokers” or Liaisons. Following the model of other sectors, music education could benefit from designated knowledge brokers. These might be individuals or committees within professional organizations (like NAfME) whose job is to continuously scan new research and figure out ways to get it into teachers’ hands. Michael Alsop, for instance, has discussed adapting “brokerage structures,” such as roles like coordinators, gatekeepers, and liaisons who connect the two worlds (Alsop, 2020). Imagine each state music educators conference having a session where a panel of teachers and researchers together present the top five research findings of the year and how they could be applied in classrooms. Or consider a website that teachers could query in everyday language (“How can I help my students sight-read better?”) and receive answers drawn from research, written in teacher-friendly terms. These kinds of intermediaries can interpret academic findings and deliver them in the context of what teachers need.
Change Incentives in Higher Ed. Universities and colleges of education need to rethink how they evaluate scholarship. If tenure committees only reward technical research publications, the disconnect will persist. What if, instead, institutions also gave weight to evidence of community impact, such as a professor’s work that has been adopted by a number of schools, contributions to widely read practitioner outlets, or successful teacher training workshops? This aligns with Boyer’s vision of the scholarship of application and teaching. Some forward-thinking institutions are starting to include public engagement and field impact in their review criteria, but this is far from the norm. We need a cultural shift in which music education professors see part of their legacy not just in how many citations their articles receive in other research, but in how many classrooms their research influences. That might mean writing fewer grant reports that sit on a shelf and more open-access guides that any teacher can download and use. It also means graduate programs should train future researchers to communicate with lay audiences and collaborate with schools, not just to run statistics and write academic prose.
Make Research Accessible (Literally). Even the best research cannot do any good if teachers cannot access it. Many teachers are shut out by paywalls and journal subscriptions that their schools will not cover. One easy win is to support more open-access publishing. Journals like Visions of Research in Music Education (an online open-access journal) and institutional repositories can make research free for all to read. Professional associations might negotiate member access to research databases as a benefit, similar to how some provide access to certain journals. Technology could also be used to create centralized, searchable databases of music education research summaries, a one-stop-shop where a teacher can find digestible research on whatever topic they need. In one survey, over two-thirds of music teachers said a searchable web resource for research would benefit them (Paney, 2011). It is 2025; finding ways to share knowledge broadly should not be a major hurdle.
Crucially, none of these changes can stand alone. As one article noted, bridging the gap “will not be possible if it is a one-sided affair. It is going to take efforts from all parties involved to successfully [close it]” (Alsop, 2020, p. 100). Researchers must reach out, teachers must be open to new ideas and part of the process, and administrators and institutions must support the connection. The good news is that there are pockets of progress: more practitioner-oriented sessions at conferences, the growth of teacher action research groups, and conversations like this one that shine light on the issue. To really move the needle, however, structural change is needed, not just individual heroics.
Of course, technology may soon shift this landscape. The rise of AI tools like ChatGPT and education-specific large language models offers new ways to make research more accessible to time-strapped teachers. These tools can summarize dense studies, translate findings into plain language, and even answer practitioner questions with research-backed suggestions. While far from perfect, they hint at a future where engaging with research doesn’t require a PhD or an afternoon off, just a good question and a few minutes. Still, technology alone won’t close the gap. It takes structural change and a shared commitment to putting students, not academic prestige, at the center of our research priorities.
Conclusion: Making Research Matter
It is time to close the chasm between research and practice in music education. We cannot afford for our scholarly knowledge to live in a vacuum, nor for our teaching practice to remain isolated from advances in understanding. Bridging this gap is not just a feel-good ideal; it is essential for improving music learning for students. Every young musician in a classroom stands to gain when their teacher is equipped with proven strategies, fresh insights, and innovative approaches derived from research. Conversely, they stand to lose when their teacher is left isolated, reinventing the wheel or clinging to methods that might be surpassed by new knowledge.
What would a better integrated system look like? It would be one where a music teacher and a music education professor see each other as collaborators in the same mission. Research articles would start with questions teachers actually need answered and end with clear, applicable conclusions. Teachers, instead of saying “I do not have time for research,” would have quick access to research-based solutions when they encounter a challenge, whether it is classroom management in orchestra or promoting creativity in general music. It would be a system where a teacher can say, “I tried this new technique because I read about a study on it,” and a researcher can say, “I adjusted my study because local teachers pointed out something I had not considered.” In such a system, students get the best of both worlds: the wisdom of experience and the innovation of research.
To get there, the culture in higher education must evolve, and the support for teachers must increase. We call on university leaders, journal editors, professional associations, and professors themselves to make structural changes. Reward professors who engage with K–12 schools and translate their findings into practice. Invest in platforms and people that disseminate research in teacher-friendly ways. Encourage and train teachers to be part of the research process, not just end-users of whatever trickles down. On the ground, school administrators should recognize the value of research-informed practice, perhaps by giving teachers time in their schedule for professional learning that includes examining research. Imagine a PLC meeting where teachers discuss a research finding and how it might apply in their classes.
Ultimately, we need to reframe the whole notion of “research vs. practice” into a more collaborative, continuous cycle of learning. Think of it this way: in music, theory and practice inform each other. A composer learns from performers’ interpretations, and performers study the composer’s intentions. Likewise, in music education, research and teaching should be two parts of a harmonious duet, not a tug-of-war. By breaking down walls between the ivory tower and the classroom, we can ensure that brilliant ideas do not just languish in journals but come alive in our classrooms. The gap may be wide, but it is not insurmountable. The time has come to bridge it, for the sake of our teachers, our researchers, and, most importantly, our students, the ones we are all trying to serve. In the end, music education research will only truly matter when it resonates in the real world of music making and learning. It is on all of us in the profession to make sure that happens.
References
Alsop, M. A. (2020). The research-practice gap in music education: Applying brokerage structures to guide future inquiry. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 30(1), 93-104.
Boser, U., & McDaniels, A. (2018). Addressing the gap between education research and practice. Center for American Progress.
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2018). Can it really be true that half of academic papers are never read?
Flowers, P. J., Gallant, M. W., & Single, N. A. (1995). Research dissemination in music education: Teachers' research questions and preference for writing style. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 14(2), 25-30.
Paney, A. S. (2011). Educator access, awareness, and application of music research. Texas Music Education Research, 2011, 40-47.
Parker, E. C., Mello, J., Oakes, W., Rounsaville, J., & Silva, T. (2018, March). Research to practice: Bridging the gap [Panel discussion]. Massachusetts Music Educators Association Conference, Boston, MA, United States.
Regelski, T. A. (2007). Doing and publishing music education research: Promoting careers, disciplines, or teaching? Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 6(1), 2-29.
Willingham, D. T., & Daniel, D. B. (2021). Making education research relevant: How researchers can give teachers more choices. Education Next, 21(2).
Yarbrough, C., Price, H. E., & Bowers, J. (1991). The effect of knowledge of research on rehearsal skills and teaching values of experienced teachers. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 9(2), 17-20.
