Are the proposed problems accurate; is there really a hole in the heart?

Within music therapy, different scientific approaches appear to be acceding to distinct yet essential requirements expected of a legitimate scientific work. On one hand, the paradigm that is based on empirical evidence responds to the reasonable call for inter-subjective certifiability, through standardization of the results of efficacy research via adhering to an uniform structure of methodology. On the other hand there is a large number of authors who find that such structure of methodology does not do justice to the practice, and seek to provide comprehensive conceptual investigations which may explain the actualities of the interactions within music therapy.

However, as pointed out by authors from both fronts, an empirically verifiable approach does not self-evidently reflect the nature of the practice, and conceptual explanations regarding the nature of practice are not necessarily objectively verifiable. Although desires raised by both groups, namely for “conceptual congruity” as well as “an inter-subjectively certifiable framework of efficacy”, are evidently the most sensible demands for the scientific establishment of a discipline, they seem to be separated within the boundaries of “objectivist” and “interpretivist” (Wheeler

& Murphy, 2016) paradigms of research. And as unfortunate for the field of music therapy, these paradigms currently posited as irreconcilable.

Both of these requirements highlight indispensable qualities of established scientific theories, therefore it is clear that a successful theory which will account for the actualities of music therapy cannot emphasize one quality and ignore the other. Furthermore, to expect the up and coming music therapists and music therapy researchers to choose between the approaches of either the objectivist or the interpretivist paradigm, is simultaneously an imposition to give up on either one of the essential aspects of scientific congruence, and as such, is unacceptable.

Accordingly, the problem of the lack of a comprehensive theoretical foundation which is identified by authors as “the hole in the heart” of the field, under this light, stands as a crucial issue, not only of music therapy, but for the totality of the mental health sciences in their current status. This is because, the possible solutions of the stated problems of music therapy regarding its underlying principles, construct validity, the nature of evidence of success and scientific integration, depend essentially on the unraveling of the universal properties governing human mental health. Via the knowledge of these properties, the means as to how notions such as music or psychotherapy are ameliorative to mental health can be clarified. The identification of such properties therefore is the prominent need of multiple disciplines other than music therapy, such as psychology and psychiatry in their progress from proto-scientific stage to scientific stage (Bunge & Ardila, 2012).

We then can argue that the problems identified by the authors as genuine requirements of scientific development, because the underlined properties that are proposed as lacking in current theories of music therapy, can be found in the scientifically acknowledged theories and the essential quality of universality which they provide as their basis. Consequently, insofar as theories for mental healing proposed within music therapy, psychology or psychiatry do not reconcile the notion of objectivity with ascertainable essentiality regarding relevant conceptual rationales, it appears that the hole in the heart of the mental health fields, in their totality, may be retained.

Conversely, when theories, whose higher objective is to strive for elucidating such essential rationales, are instead promulgated as viewpoints within a certain scientific field (in this case, music therapy), the theories produced along these lines may fail to meet the genuine requirements of scientific development. Because propositions of this kind demand that the

requirements which a theory is expected to meet to be lowered from its scientific meaning, to a set of beliefs and assumptions or viewpoints of an individual (Aigen 2013; Bruscia 2005; Stige et al., 2009). This understanding of theory is not exclusive to postmodern influences within the interpretivist front of music therapy. For example, the neurological approach of Thaut (2008), among many other objectivist approaches, is based on the “identity theory”, which assumes that mental states are identical to brain states (Bunge, & Ardila, 2012) in a sense that mental properties “supervene” on the physical ones. (Bunge however, although a supporter of identity theory himself, out of scientific responsibility clarifies that it should in fact be referred to not as a theory but as identity hypothesis). Even the DSM, as the authority with which most objectivist research’s validity is trusted, while claiming to be atheoretical, operates on the psychobiological paradigm, which is in reality a long unconfirmed hypothesis that different disorders correspond to distinct biological realities.

Although the term also has daily and more broad uses, Oxford English Dictionary (2008) defines the scientific concept of “theory” as “...a [confirmed and established] statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed”; Thus, rather than mere opinions or assertions, they are a system of ideas purported to be tested in relation to the truth in order to claim their targeted explanatory power. They are theories, therefore, to the extent that they are proposed with an explicit desire to be evaluated on the basis of whether or not they correspond to the general laws or principles which they claim they do. Likewise, when we examine the established theories or theorems within general science (e.g. the theory of evolution, Planck’s quantum theory, Archimedes’ principle of buoyancy, Pythagorean Theorem etc.), we see their common property to be a concern with governing principles inherent in the world and in concepts, which are commonly referred to as universal laws. This concern of scientific theories, as outlined by the definition, point to a difference in quality with the etymological root of the word “to view”, which is highlighted by many scholars within the literature. However, a view does not necessarily carry an intention to be anything more than a view, thus does not necessarily have to be concerned with inherent actual properties of the world.

The scientific definition provided in Oxford likewise indicates a quality of universality which the probabilistic basis of the positivistic research neither can, nor is concerned to provide; the interpretations of correlative accounts instead call for individuals’ agreements, towards which inherent properties of the world are thoroughly indifferent.

To conclude, it can be argued that in order to better understand as to how and why current theories within the field of music therapy are unsatisfactory to intra and inter-field scientific communities, it is beneficial to study the common nature of theories established within a wide range of scientific fields have been historically satisfactory. The identification of the scientific requirements which such historically satisfactory theories sufficiently meet, can guide the due investigation of whether or not a similar approach is possible or appropriate for music therapy in its search for scientific establishment.

The two main inclinations within music therapy research are both unsympathetic to the notion of universality, and this has been found to be the possible reason as to why their respective theoretical outputs are found to be unresponsive to the necessary requirement for an explanation regarding the underlying dynamics of music therapy. Validity of constructs and the nature of evidence of success cannot be verified in exclusion from these currently unknown principles, and consequently this makes the field’s scientific establishment and interdisciplinary integration difficult. In this regard, all of the demands outlined by authors at the beginning of the chapter appear to be different aspects of the same indispensable requirement of science.

A concern with universality, which responds to similar needs within various other sciences in a number of ways, appears to be a possible solution for “the hole in the heart” of music therapy as well. Consequently, the nature of these universal principles commonly referred to as scientific laws, and their applicability to mental health as well as its relation with the current understandings of music and music therapy will be discussed in the following chapters.