Dissertation - World Federation of Music Therapy

In this study, I have used the third option, anchored in a non-positivist – or more precisely:
post-positivist paradigm, acknowledging the world of human beings as a world of multiple
realities, and focusing on the personal experiences of the participants. However, I think I can
see why readers might come to a different conclusion – perceiving the study as belonging to
one of the first two options: the use of the word “effect” (or “outcome”) in some of the
research sub-questions, the different reporting styles, and the order of reporting (in chapters 5-
8) seem to send the signals of a positivist paradigm and a cause-effect focus. I certainly have
defined some (or selected some defined) variables for the quantitative investigation, which
was based upon the participants’ self reports in well-known questionnaires. This was not done
with the intention of proving something like ‘the truth about BMGIM as a cause to certain
effects on the participants’ mood and QoL’, and there was no experimental control of
variables, only the pragmatic use of standardized questionnaires, descriptive and inferential
statistics. The BMGIM therapy setting was naturalistic, which I consider a conditio sine qua
non of post-positivist research, and the inclusion of a small quantitative investigation was
made in order to secure not only a dialogue with the participants on their views on such self
reports, but also – and more important – a dialogue with professionals from medical oncology
who may not share the tenets of a post-positivist paradigm but who has a legitimate right to
demand certain types of ‘evidence’ from research in little known complementary therapies.
The interview study revealed the ambivalence of most of the participants towards the
standardized definitions of mood and especially QoL, and this is not very surprising. Quality
of life is a very personal issue. This points at an inherent paradox in most post-positivist
research in hospitals, I think: The (music therapy) researcher wants to document certain
aspects of the participants’ experience, focusing on meaning; while the oncologist wants
documentation of specific effects of the therapeutic intervention, focusing on measurable
outcome. Bruscia (1995) addresses the issue of the ‘audience’ and its interests and demands.
He describes the consequences of a researcher’s wish to provide “proof or evidence” or
“holistic understanding” – the researcher must choose either a quantitative or a qualitative
approach. A researcher should be able to address both types of audience in one study without
falling into the paradigmatic trap. In the first brief report on this study (Bonde 2003) – to the
funding agency – the quantitative audience was primary, and thus results reported as
descriptive statistics were in the forefront, while qualitative results were preliminary and only
reported in outline – with the promise of a much deeper analysis in the dissertation. In the
dissertation I have tried to keep this promise.