Research Realities: Embracing the Complexity of Expressive-Creative Learning and Teaching

  • David Myers
Part of the Landscapes: the Arts, Aesthetics, and Education book series (LAAE, volume 23)


Taking its lead from Christopher Small’s challenge to understand, “What’s really going on here,” this essay urges that researchers embrace the complexity of understanding music’s essential expressive-creative dimensions in relation to the values of music learning and teaching. Positing that methods must derive from questions, rather than to be imposed upon reductionist research topics, it argues that pluralistic approaches are inherently consistent with the nature of music, music learning, and the exploration of music’s intrinsic and humanizing values. In contrast to research designs that seek to artificially limit variables, pluralistic research acknowledges the multidimensionality of music experience, and thus of music learning and teaching. This multidimensionality, in which a nexus of technical, expressive, and creative impulses collide in order to effect an experience called “music,” requires a complex of research strategies, i.e., mixed methods, that embrace, rather than deconstruct, music learning as an holistic phenomenon. As most musicians agree, technical achievement serves the larger expressive-creative meanings, and it is in these meanings that an understanding of music’s complex and transcendent value resides.

In considering disruptive innovations to longstanding research paradigms, complexity theory provides a context by positing that when a broad array of variables and influences find balance, an institution [or field] is positioned for progress. Applied to music education, the logical extension might be that the ultimate creative and expressive import of music learning is a function of a complex of variables and influences that bridge aesthetic, artistic, social, and technical dimensions. Therefore, the common assumption of advanced levels of technical competence as the prerequisite of expression is insufficient for understanding music’s interactions with human emotions and intellect. However, the applications of pluralistic methods can be limiting if they seek only to understand what is, rather than what is possible. The question of “what is really going on here” is not simply about what is happening, but also about what could be happening relative to music and meaning in various contexts.


Music Meaning Learning Teaching Complexity theory Expressive Creative Pluralistic Research 


  1. Agre, P. (1997). Toward a critical technical practice. In G. Bowker, L. Gasser, L. Star, & B. Turner (Eds.), Social science, technical systems and cooperative work: Beyond the great divide. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Culturally Embedded Computing Group. (n.d.). Critical technical practice as a methodology for values in design. Retrieved from
  4. Dalmau, M. C. (2005). Asking powerful questions: Seeking powerful action. In F. Bodone (Ed.), What difference does research make and for whom? (pp. 43–57). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  5. Eisner, E. (1993). Forms of understanding and the future of educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(7), 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eisner, E. (2005). What can education learn from the arts about the practice of education? Reimagining schools: The selected works of Elliot W. Eisner (pp. 205–213). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Gregory, S. (2005). Creativity and conservatoires: The agenda and the issues. In G. Odam & N. Bannan (Eds.), The reflective conservatoire (pp. 19–25). London and Hunt, UK: The Guildhall School of Music & Drama & Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Highet, G. (1950). The art of teaching. New York, NY: Random House. IBM Corporation (2010). Capitalizing on complexity: Insights from the global chief executive officer study. Retrieved from
  9. Languis, M., & Wilcox, J. (1981). A life-span human development model of a learning for early education. Theory Into Practice, 20(2), 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mason, M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 4–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Morrison, K. (2010). Complexity theory, school leadership and management: Questions for theory and practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(3), 374–393. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Savin-Baden, M., & Wimpenny, K. (2014). A practical guide to arts-related research. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan.Google Scholar
  15. Taylor, P. C., & Medina, M. N. D. (2013). Educational research paradigms: From positivismto multiparadigmatic. The Journal of Meaning-Centered Education, 1(2.) Retrieved from
  16. Wan, C. Y., & Schlaug, G. (2010). Music making as a tool for promoting brain plasticity across the life span. The Neuroscientist, 16(5), 566–577. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Myers
    • 1
  1. 1.MinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations