DOI: 10.5064/f6i9i1t1
title: Data for: Divisive Concepts Laws and Music Education: PK-20 Music Educators’ Perceptions and Discourses

description: &lt;h3&gt;Project Overview&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This study investigates the perceptions and discourses of PK-20 music educators around divisive concepts laws in music education in the United States.&lt;/p&gt;
description: &lt;h3&gt;Data and Data Collection Overview&lt;/h3&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The researcher surveyed the National Association for Music Education (NAfME) in October, 2022. The researcher used a qualitative survey design to allow maximum opportunity for diverse responses (Jansen, 2010) and to minimize social desirability and affirmation biases (Hibberts et al., 2012). After the study was declared exempt from human subjects review (because it was designed not to collect direct identifiers), NAfME emailed all active members (approximately 40,000) a survey invitation on October 15, 2022 followed by one reminder a week later. The survey closed on October 30, 2022.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Using fixed-choice questions, the researcher asked about the respondent’s job (location [state], grade levels, content areas) and age. For other demographic information (gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation), the researcher used open-ended questions, such as “How do you describe your gender?” [Note: None of the individual-level demographic information is included in the data project]. The core substantive question respondents were asked to address was: “In a few sentences, please outline how the divisive concepts laws/policies in your state or district are affecting you and your music teaching.”&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Participants (N = 318) taught in 45 states. The highest number of responses came from Georgia (n = 29), Florida (n = 27), Ohio (n = 18), California (n = 16), North Carolina (n = 15), and New York (n = 15) (see shared file for remaining states). Participants taught all grade levels PK-20 in a variety of music content areas (e.g., band, choir, general music).&lt;/p&gt;
description: &lt;h3&gt;Shared Data Organization&lt;/h3&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The data file includes all responses from the open-ended research question. Any changes or removal of words or phrases for de-identification purposes are flagged by including [brackets].&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The documentation files included in this data project are the invitation and consent to participate in the study, a table breaking down respondents by state, this data narrative, and an administrative README file.&lt;/p&gt;
description: &lt;h3&gt;References&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hibberts, M., Johnson, R., & Hudson, K. (2012). Survey methodology for the social sciences. Springer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Jansen, H. (2010). The logic of qualitative survey research and its position in the field of social research methods. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 11, No. 2). Article 11. &lt;u&gt; &lt;a href="https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.2.1450"&gt;https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.2.1450&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/u&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
description: CONTENT WARNING BY RESEARCHER “These responses contain language and rhetoric that may be disturbing to many, particularly LGBTQ+ people. Given the nature of this inquiry, the researcher felt it was important to include respondent words unfiltered. The researcher does not intend to cause harm by including these words.”