-- continued from first page

Feature #1 — Methods that can he applied by any- one at any time, and yield the same results. If Methods used by different investigators seem to be the same, but produce different findings, generally they turn out really to have been different.

Feature #2 — Building on the past, on the studies that have come before. It is this cumulative aspect of science that allows progressive and increased understanding of the universe and the earth with all its inhabitants, whether mountains, moose, marigolds or musicians.

Notice that Feature #2 follows Santayana’s advice, which boils down to “Know the past ... or you can’t benefit from it.” But Feature #1, applying Methods to get new results, is closer to Satchel Paige’s continuous forward movement to the future.’ While this double-aspect of science is its strength, each feature is a source of confusion to the general public. Until we understand why this is so, and how to avoid the involved problems, we can’t make much sense of the state of music research.

How Can You Get Different Answers to the Same Music Research Question?

Let’s begin with Feature #1, “Methods:’ that is, exactly what was done by the investigator to answer the question asked. First of all, we should realize that the exact same question can be asked hut the Methods used to answer it can he, indeed often are, different. For example, “Does listening to music increase intelligence?”

Suppose two studies ask this question and come up with different answers: Study A says “yes” but subsequently Study B is done and says “no.” Newspapers, magazines and TV first report “Study A says yes:’ Readers should not be faulted for then believing that “yes” is the correct answer. But later they report “Study B says no:’ What is a reader to conclude? Well first of all, the authors of Study B will naturally criticize the authors of Study A, because Study B came after Study A. So the reports of Study B have two effects. First, there is the new belief that “listening to music doesn’t, etc.” Second, people may be disappointed to learn that their belief, based on the positive results of Study A. was wrong, perhaps because the authors of Study A made mistakes. Thus, the general public may feel let down, confused, etc. The result of this “shift in the facts” can lead to the idea that the topic is all a big muddle, that research on music can’t be trusted, that music behavior is “too complex” to understand scientifically, etc. So they are both confused and “turned off” by research.

But is this an appropriate response? Is it reasonable and justified? Generally, no. The fact that different researchers are asking the same question doesn’t mean that they are using the same Methods. For example. “intelligence” can be measured many ways and indeed there are many different types of intelligences, such as verbal, mathematical, emotional and social. Moreover, there are different aspects of each type. Thus, “spatial intelligence:’ the ability to effectively mentally and physically manipulate real objects in space. has at least two components. spatial recognition and spatial ordering (“spatial-temporal reasoning”). Recognition ability might be measured by having a child match a sample geometric pattern to one of several patterns using colored blocks. Spatial ordering ability might he assessed by requiring the assembly of puzzle pieces to create a simple picture. This task benefits from the ability to mentally rotate and shuffle the puzzle pieces. You might think that the two tasks measure the same thing. “spatial intelligence” hut the human mind is more finely developed; someone who shows high scores on spatial recognition does not necessarily produce high scores on spatial ordering. In fact, it seems that keyboard lessons in pre-school children increase the ability to do spatial ordering tasks hut has no effect on spatial recognition abilities,2

If different studies had asked “Does keyboard training benefit spatial reasoning?” but one focused on measures of spatial ordering while the other used spatial recognition tests, they would have reached opposite conclusions. I-low much greater the possible confusion if the questions are about “intelligence” and different studies measure different types of intelligence?

How to React to Different Answers to the “Same” 
Question: Good Science Takes Time

Let’s return now to the issue of how the public should react to different answers to the “same” question about music research. Without the appropriate training and access to the original scientific papers, the general reader cannot decide whether the “same” question was asked in the “same” way (i.e., using the same Methods), We have to rely on the media to a large extent.3 If they don’t provide enough background, explanation and evaluation of new findings~. readers are likely to be confused.

In that ease, I suggest that we suspend judgment for the moment. Good science is a matter of continual “give and take,” a journey as well as a destination. The public demand for answers far outstrips the resources or abilities of scientists to provide immediate final answers. (Actually. the public, through its elected representatives

-- continued on page three