I must be a PhD candidate, because I just returned from our regional music therapy conference, and my two presentations focused not on my usual topics -- teaching clinicians -- but on Serious Research Projects. More than that: I loved it. It is such a privilege, at this point in my life, to be able to focus on questions I've had for years.
For example, I've just finished an article about a content analysis of articles from our primary research journals. Depending on their philosophical backgrounds, music therapists tend to write for publication in two entirely different ways: one group emphasizing quantitative research and results; and the other group emphasizing the process of therapy -- qualitative research without a need to find definitive outcomes. This dichotomy reflects debates within the profession.
Certainly, some music therapists are doing rigorous experimental research that should be expressed in a form and in words that parallel research articles for other health sciences. This kind of writing will earn us respect from colleagues and advance the profession's ability to be funded and otherwise supported. But what about the music? Reviewing the way music therapy authors write when they are not bound to the peer-reviewed journal format, I found that they all express their feelings about music with passion and vivid language. Yet once these same authors are writing a research article, most of the emotional, creative, joyous tone about music (for themselves or their clients) is lost. Should we be so concerned about our acceptance from other professions that we fail to express what is unique about what we do?
Most importantly, I think there is a middle ground that many of my peers in music therapy have found between the two main "schools" of music therapy -- an eclectic style that incorporates both behavioral, data-based planning, and improvisational, creative sessions. Is it possible for the music therapy "discourse community" to begin to accept writing that reflects both elements of practice, especially as more and more music therapists practice in a diverse way?
My other presentation at conference was on my primary area of research: harmony. I presented some of my research questions to the people who attended my session and found that the clinicians had similar experiences and opinions to mine -- and they all expressed enthusiasm for research that might validate things we all "know."
These are some of the questions I shared:
- Does a V7 chord help cue a client to respond on the tonic?*
- Do major 7th chords, or those with added notes (6ths, 9ths) promote a higher level of arousal in a listener than basic 1-3-5 chords?
- Do suspensions, anticipations, and changing tones provide needed interest, or unwanted distraction?
- What different harmonic choices do we make depending on our clinical goals?
*Every music therapist in the room answered as I do: emphatically "YES." Yet there is no physiologically/neurologically-based research that confirms this, and there should be. I'm excited about the prospect of providing some of that through my dissertation. Plus, the two studies I'm doing now will provide a great deal of "pilot" information for years of research on this topic. I'm excited.
