The Music Therapist as Qualitative Researcher

Abstract

In recent years music therapy clinicians and researchers have been asserting that traditional approaches to research have serious deficiencies in illuminating important as­ pects of their clinical practice. These authors have turned to various types of qualitative research with the intention of preserving the musical and other inherent aspects of their practice. In this article the author investigates as­ sumptions and procedures common to both qualitative research and creative music therapy practice. The intent is to inform creative music therapists of a research approach consonant with their clinical beliefs and methods, and to demonstrate that prominent approaches to music therapy practice have incorporated analogues to procedures and beliefs characteristic of qualitative research. The choice between paradigms in any inquiry or evalu­ ation ought to be made on the basis of the best fit between the assumptions and postures of a paradigm and the phenomenonbeing studied or evaluated. (Guba & Lincoln, 1981, p. 56) The lack of relevance of traditional research to clinical practice in music therapy has been noted by prominent authors and surveys of practicing music therapists The Music Therapist as Qualitative Researcher 17 Aigen, 1990; Amir, 1992). In a previous work (Aigen, 1991), I have discussed the historical, social, and conceptual factors behind this schism between research and clinical practice in music therapy.' Yet, once one realizes that the clinical and theoretical efforts of prominent music therapy clinicians-such as Paul Nordoff, Clive and Carol Robbins, Helen Bonny, and Florence Tyson--are actually based upon the use of in-depth qualitative research methods, the impetus that maintains this schism is lessened. Rather than holding that there is a schism between research per se and clinical practice, it is more accurate to say that this schism exists between professional researchers and music therapy clinicians. One of the first groups (Research Group, International Sympo­ sium, 1982) to comment on this problem wrote that " researchers should study master clinicians. " This novel suggestion was an important first step, yet it implicitly maintained the dichotomy between the researcher and the clinician. I will advance this ground-breaking position further by claiming that master clini­ cians are researchers and offering a supporting concept of re­ search. This perspective supports the implementation of research pro­ jects whose focus, method, and presentational form are guided by experienced music therapy clinicians. Once one abandons the notion that the only valid research is quantitative, one can seehow a wide range of clinical experiences-for example, (a) Paul Nordoff and Clive Robbins' discovery of theoretical constructs, such as that of the Music Child (Nordoff & Robbins, 1977), through the intense scrutiny and analysis of many hundreds of hours of session tapes; (b) Helen Bonny's (1978) construction of Guided Imagery and Music tapes through years of trial and error and self-experimentation; and (c) Florence Tyson's (1981) use of case studies to generate novel theory-all represent bona fide 1Aigen (1991)presents a description of differences between traditional and new research in music therapy and documentation of clinicians' dissatisfaction with traditional research.