“A recent programme on National Public Radio exemplifies this point. This was a much-needed feature highlighting the efficacy of music therapy, surely a topic not often featured on national radio. The show was going along nicely expounding on the use of music therapy in medical settings when a woman who is the mother of two autistic boys called in. She openly stated that she was sceptical of music therapy when it was suggested to her by a physician. However, she was calling in to say it had saved her two sons who until then had been mute, and allowed them the possibility of speech and human interaction. Then the question came, 'Music therapy has been a life saver for my children. Why has the funding been cut for these services?'. Prominent researchers and therapists on the show all agreed that the funding comes from those who only believe in 'empirical research', and therefore more 'empirical research' is needed. So there it was, the ultimate conclusion that the only way this woman was going to get continued services was for researchers to invest time and energy in this one kind of research. It was not enough to document her story (and probably thousands more) or to document the lived experience of these two autistic boys engaged in their music therapy. I was hoping that at least one person on the panel would have said, We need to convince those who hold the funds that a research method that includes the arts merit continued funding but it was not to be. Once again the dominant paradigm took precedent and only one kind of method was valid enough. And once again the essence of the field, the thing that saved these two boys, the art, was pushed aside. Like Waterhouse criticizing Gardner, it is determined that the research is not based enough on empirical findings.” p. 22
Even when there is evidence of impact, research methods that include the arts can get passed over because it doesn’t meet the dominant paradigm of research.
Planted on:
Feb 10, 2023 10:45 PM
Tended on:
May 5, 2024 11:39 PM