A Knowledge Framework For The

Journal of Music Therapy, XX(XX), 2018, 1–29
doi:10.1093/jmt/thy018
© American Music Therapy Association 2018. All rights reserved. For permissions,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jmt/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jmt/thy018/5151282 by INSEAD user on 23 December 2018

please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
A Knowledge Framework for the

Philosophical Underpinnings of Research:
Implications for Music Therapy
Bill Matney, Ph.D, MT-BC
University of Kansas
Current music therapy studies suggest great diversity and complexity in

research approaches. Authors note the importance of increased clarity in
many facets of research reporting. Some authors have also encouraged
increased understanding and reporting of the philosophical underpinnings of
knowledge generation in research. However, like other social science fields,
we appear to have struggled to provide clear frameworks that can address
such diverse and complex approaches to research. In this article, I offer one
way to resolve such struggles by presenting a re-envisioned version of Michael
Crotty’s knowledge framework. I seek to meet this purpose through the fol-
lowing objectives: (a) discuss philosophy and its role in research; (b) detail
challenges related to understanding and reporting epistemological underpin-
nings; and (c) present a modified version of Crotty’s knowledge framework to
promote understanding and reporting, including visuals, brief examples, and
resources. I also re-envision the framework to address potential challenges to
typologies and to maintain the spirit of Michael Crotty’s work. Modifications
promote the dynamic and interactive relationship between and within epis-
temological positions, theoretical perspectives, methodologies, and meth-
ods, while also integrating surrounding factors: research question, researcher,
context, and participant. I dialogue with related literature on knowledge gen-
eration, show how some recent music therapy research engages with the
knowledge framework, discuss methodologies and approaches that may not
align with the knowledge framework, offer resources for further reference and
learning, and describe implications for researchers, research consumers, and
the ongoing body of knowledge.
Keywords: epistemology; philosophy; knowledge framework; theory
development; innovation
The author wishes to give thanks and credit to the following: Dr. Claire Ghetti for
initial collaborations and ongoing support on this project, Dr. Eugenia Hernandez-
Ruiz for ongoing dialogue and support, and the JMT editorial board for their work.
Conflict of Interest: None declared.
Address correspondence concerning this article to Bill Matney, PhD, MT-BC, KU
School of Music, Murphy Hall, Room 448B, 1530 Naismith Drive, Lawrence, KS
66045-3103. E-mail: matneyb@ku.edu. Phone: 940-391-0029
2 Journal of Music Therapy

Introduction
The truth is rarely pure and never simple. ―Oscar Wilde
The field of music therapy is justifiably noted as complex (Robb,
2012). Such complexity persuades our field to examine the rela-
tionship between music and health1 from a multiplicity of vantage
points. Perhaps few professional fields employ such a broad range
of research methodologies and procedures; authors have recently
published articles employing structural equation modeling (Robb
et al., 2014), Cochrane Review (Bradt & Dileo, 2014), critical real-
ist evaluation (Porter et al., 2017), arts-based research (Gilbertson,
2013), ethnography (Ansdell & DeNora, 2016), phenomen-
ology (Melhuish, Beuzeboc, & Guzmán, 2017), mixed methods
(Ettenberger, Beltràn, & Yenny, 2018), and critical theory (Boggan,
Grzanka, & Bain, 2018). We use, modify, evolve, and even create
research approaches because our nuanced work benefits from
diverse examination.
In order to clearly communicate how music therapy can pro-
mote health, authors suggest increased transparency and detail
in research reporting. Examples include music intervention
reporting (Robb, Burns & Carpenter, 2011); detailed methods
(CONSORT, 2010); and characteristics and qualities of substantial,
ethical research (Aigen, 2012; Bruscia, 1998; Stige, Malterud, &
Midtgarden, 2009).
A simple reason underpins our move toward diverse examination
and increased transparency; we wish to better know if, how, and why
music therapy promotes health. We refer to our research as a body
of knowledge.2 Clearer processes and reporting help us understand
and apply what we know to research, theory development, and prac-
tice, as well as connect the three (Baker & Young, 2016).
Our diverse research also implies different ways to generate
knowledge. We can benefit by more clearly understanding and
reporting “how we know what we know” (Crotty, 1998, p. 8), detailing
how we philosophically position ourselves within our research
endeavors. I agree with authors who recognize “various types of
knowledge claims” (Aigen, 2015, p. 14; Crotty, 1998); who promote
1
For this article, health refers to states of physical, mental, and social well-being
(World Health Organization, 2006).
2
Knowledge described in this sense includes information, skills, and theory
based on documented evidence, experience, education, and reflective practice.
Vol. XX, No. XX 3

the legitimacy of different types of evidence (Abrams, 2010; Aigen,
2015); and who note the progress we can achieve through a
multiplicity of approaches (American Music Therapy Association,
2015, p. 7). As someone engaged in diverse research projects
and philosophy, I have gained interest in the underpinnings of
our knowledge. I believe that we are faced with the important
endeavors of understanding, valuing, and reporting these complex
underpinnings as clearly as possible. I also believe that music
therapy and other healthcare fields have historically struggled to
frame such in a clear and nuanced fashion. I argue for one way to
resolve these struggles, using a re-envisioned version of Michael
Crotty’s knowledge framework3 (Crotty, 1998; Feast & Melles, 2010).
My objectives include discussing: (a) philosophy and its role in
research; (b) struggles related to understanding and reporting;
and (c) the modified version of Crotty’s knowledge framework
through narrative, tables, and visuals. I occasionally include page
numbers when quotations are not used, so that readers can locate
information.
Philosophy and Its Role in Research

The unexamined life is not worth living. ―Socrates
The word “philosophy” originates from the Greek φιλοσοφία,
which translates into philo (love) and sophia (wisdom). Pythagoras
of Samos and Socrates both referred to philosophy as the search
for wisdom (Strong, 1890). Inherent in this search is a systematic
inquiry, examination, and clarification of the ongoing history of
thought. Philosophy promotes inquiry in many areas, which can
largely be understood through the studies of reality, knowledge,
and values.
Three major branches help organize philosophical inquiry: met-
aphysics (reality), epistemology (knowledge), and axiology (val-
ues) (Carroll & Markosian, 2010). Ontology (existence, being) has
historically been considered a sub-branch of metaphysics, focus-
ing on the “inventory” of reality (Simons, 2009, p. 413). Research,
as a pursuit of knowledge, most immediately and directly engages
Michael Crotty was a theologian, university educator, author, and researcher

3
who passed before The Social Foundations of Research was published. The term
“knowledge framework” was created posthumously.

with epistemology (Crotty, 1998). At the same time, “bounda-
ries between different branches of philosophy are not clear-cut”
(Sheppard, 1987, p. 3). Problems in research may therefore navi-
gate the many ways that knowledge (epistemology) intersects with
reality (metaphysics) and existence (ontology), as well as with val-
ues (axiology). I will focus primarily on the most direct relation-
ship: research and epistemology.
Epistemology in Research
Epistemology originates from the Greek ἐπιστήμη, which trans-
lates to knowledge, understanding, or acquaintance. Epistemology
is the study of knowledge; it can also be described as “how we know
what we know” (Crotty, 1998, p. 8), or “how we gain knowledge of
what we know” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018, p. 37). Epistemology
seeks to understand (a) how and where knowledge originates
(Edwards, 2012); (b) what constitutes knowledge and truth (Seel,
2012); and (c) what kinds of knowledge are possible, adequate,
and legitimate (Aigen, 1995).
We typically start (research) with a real-life issue that needs to be
addressed, a problem that needs to be solved, a question that needs
to be answered. ―Michael Crotty
Philosophers have noted that a well-posed problem is a problem
partially solved.4 A researcher begins with a problem, and then
poses a question to explore and help answer that problem. A well-
posed problem therefore includes a deeper understanding of the
particular way a research question is framed.
I believe in the importance of scientific presuppositions, in the
notion that there are better and worse ways of constructing scien-
tific theories, and in insisting on the articulate statement of pre-
suppositions so that they may be improved. ―Gregory Bateson
A research process also begins with presuppositions―implicit
assumptions―about how we acquire knowledge (Aigen, 2015, p. 13;
Edwards, 2012, p. 386); we assume that a particular approach to
gaining knowledge will best answer our research question(s). Our
Philosophers Gilles Deleuze, John Dewey, and Maurice Merleau Ponty each
4
re-envisioned Henri Bergson’s account of the problem.

Vol. XX, No. XX 5

assumptions help us frame our question, and therefore a portion of
our pending answer. Epistemological positions help a researcher articu-
late assumptions about their knowledge generation; they also help
articulate different ways of understanding the efficacy, effectiveness,
or impact (Matney, 2018) indicated by study findings. Epistemological
positions can therefore play an important role in a research process
from beginning to end, allowing us to better understand and com-
municate questions, assumptions, processes, and outcomes.
Understanding and Reporting Epistemology

If the epistemology of science no longer goes incognito, we may find
that interesting issues have been neglected. ―Philip Kitcher
While we view the sciences as creating one of our largest bodies of
knowledge, philosophers and researchers describe the current rela-
tionship between research and epistemology as limited at best
(Crotty, 1998; Goldman, 2002; Kitcher, 2002). Aigen (2008) found
that few “qualitative” research studies reported epistemology or
methodology. Hiller (2016) shared concerns about the lack of
epistemological reporting in “objectivist” studies. My experience
suggests that authors have at times ignored, been unaware of, or
in some cases argued against reporting epistemology; I also believe
that authors have at times been ambiguous with their terminology.
Each of these concerns warrants further examination.
To understand a science, it is necessary to know its history.
―August Comte
Social science inquiry developed through a set of beliefs, including:
that the human condition could be improved, that we could seek
agreement regarding that improvement through study, and that
society could be reorganized to facilitate that improvement (Singer,
2005). August Comte believed knowledge would be acquired through
positive sense experience and empirical investigation; research would
lead to explanations of “scientific laws” that could be applied to peo-
ple, resulting in strong predictive power (Singer, 2005). Comte also
included in his larger vision the importance of love, subjectivity, con-
text, and social reform (Crotty, 1998, p. 21; Singer, 2005, pp. 43–47).
Each assumption was quickly challenged and diversified, even by
supportive associates (Singer, 2005, pp. xii, 72–83).

Approximately one century later, the work of Comte and
his contemporaries was largely eclipsed by a group known as
the Vienna Circle. These thinkers brought forth a new form of
(logical) positivism that they believed would provide us direct
and systematic access to truth, and therefore would be capable
of replacing epistemological inquiry altogether.5 Their assump-
tions set the stage for an “incognito” approach to reporting, veil-
ing the philosophical underpinnings of knowledge acquisition
if not ignoring their existence completely (Goldman, 2002).
Researchers using positivist approaches today may therefore be
unaware of or disinterested in the epistemological assumptions
underpinning their work (Hiller, 2016, p. 323); such veiling has
also likely also reduced awareness of the historical and context-
ual differences between and within positivist ideas (Feichtinger,
Fillafer, & Surman, 2018; Singer, 2005).
“Qualitative” authors have also challenged the need for epistem-
ology. Avis (2003) questioned the use of conceptual schemes, or types
of epistemology. However, he also noted the need for “rational
empirical investigation” (2003, p. 995); whether purposeful or
inadvertent, such an assertion results in contradicting premises.
Avis’s mention of “rational empirical investigation” may also reflect
a rather prevalent assumption about research endeavors: that there
exist few ways (or one way) to generate knowledge. Regardless,
Avis’s challenge to typologies does warrant further consideration.
Typologies can be understood as ways to classify things; they help
us organize our thinking. When applied rigidly, typologies can also
limit emergent, contextual, and practical approaches to research
(Aigen, 2015; Patton, 2002; Polkinghorne, 20066). However, a typ-
ology can promote flexibility.
I agree with authors who assert the value of epistemology in
research to promote individual understanding (Crotty, 1998, p. 9;
Hiller, 2016, p. 365), to build research communities (Hiller, 2016,
p. 365), and to help healthcare collaborators understand the diver-
sity of music therapy (Edwards, 2012, p. 383). Clear and detailed
reporting of epistemology can help us justify, translate, and apply
research. I argue here for one way to promote this type of reporting.

5
Subsequently, William Van Orman Quine believed naturalized knowledge
could achieve the same result.
Acknowledging Jane Edwards’s location of the Avis, Patton, and Polkinghorne
6
articles (Edwards, 2012).

Vol. XX, No. XX 7

Knowledge Framework: Original Version
Crotty (1998) articulates the relationship between four ele-
ments within a research process (p. 4) (see Figure 1). Methods
are specific steps taken by the researcher within the research pro-
cess. A methodology provides a “plan of action” to help guide the
methods. A theoretical perspective frames assumptions made by
the researcher, while specifying the epistemological position.
The epistemological position communicates a researcher’s larger
assumptions regarding how knowledge is generated within a study.
I describe each element in detail below, beginning with methods
and moving outward. I also examine complex problems that details
within each element can address.
Methods Within the Knowledge Framework

Methods are understood as specific action steps that move a
research process forward. Methods commonly focus on partici-
pants, measurement tools, ethical actions, intervention imple-
mentation, information collection, information management,
information review, analysis, and reporting (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2018, p. 35; Crotty, 1998, p. 6). Methods may be chosen
according to guidelines, past uses, or emergent contextual need.
Re-Solving the Quantitative/Qualitative Dichotomy

The concrete will never be attained by combining the inadequacy of
one concept with the inadequacy of its opposite. ―Gilles Deleuze
Authors have historically described research through binary
opposition, communicating what they view as philosophical and
political divides (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2009, p. 95). One need
only open a common textbook, article, or university course
catalog to witness the pervasive use of the terms “quantitative” and
“qualitative” as overarching categories of “research,” “approaches,”
“paradigms,” or “methodologies” (Bruscia, 2014; Denzin & Lincoln,
2018). I agree with authors that have argued such categories as
imprecise, counterproductive, and constraining (Crotty, 1998;
Edwards, 2012; Stige et al., 2009). The clearest distinction between
the terms “quantitative” and “qualitative” “occurs at the level of
methods” (Crotty, 1998, p. 14). We count and calculate to measure,

Figure 1
Elements of the knowledge framework.
compare, and contrast quantities. We interpret, narrate, and create

themes to assess, compare, contrast, and connect qualities. The
terms “qualitative” and “quantitative” therefore classify specific
types of information and specific actions using that information;
neither term proffers an appropriate genus for the complexities of
our research. We can count in methodologies that do not focus
on objective measures. We can compare qualities in experimental
studies. We can employ many methodologies (e.g., case studies,
grounded theory studies) using quantitative or qualitative
methods, or both. We conduct formal mixed methods studies, where
we synthesize information from both quantitative and qualitative
methods. These terms therefore remain clear and open to
complex implementation when we acknowledge them as types of
information and methods using that information.
Vol. XX, No. XX 9

Methodology Within the Knowledge Framework: Differentiating
from Methods
Moving from methods outward to methodology (Figure 1), we
begin with another challenge. Authors within and outside of music
therapy have used the terms “method” and “methodology” inter-
changeably. Edwards (2012) described randomized controlled trials
(p. 375), grounded theory (p. 378), and interpretative phenom-
enological analysis (p. 379) as both methods and methodologies
(p. 390). Aigen (2008) also described a broad range of methodolo-
gies as “methods” (p. 254). While related, these terms do not mean
the same thing. A methodology is defined as a system of methods, and
therefore is not a method itself (Kaplan, 1998, p. 18). A method-
ology frames a set of steps, providing a “plan of action” (Crotty,
1998, p. 3). Methods can be informed by a methodology or inform
the methodological framework to “change the plan,” so to speak.
Through specific actions, we end up with innovations and variations
in methodologies, sometimes resulting in sub-methodologies (e.g.,
scientific phenomenology, existential phenomenology, or interpret-
ative phenomenological analysis) (Wheeler & Murphy, 2016).
Theoretical Perspectives and Epistemological Positions:

Clarifying and Organizing Concepts
Continuing outward in the Figure 1 visual, we move to the last
two of the four elements: theoretical perspective and epistemo-
logical position. I assume these two elements will be the least famil-
iar for most readers; they are also the elements that can help clarify
and organize a range of complex theories and ideas. I briefly situ-
ate these two elements, and then discuss in further detail how they
resolve some of the struggles found in prior writings.
Defining Theoretical Perspectives

A theoretical perspective is “a statement of the assumptions
brought to the research task...reflected in the methodology as we
understand and employ it” (Crotty, 1998, p. 7). A theoretical per-
spective helps frame a methodology and specify an epistemological
position through these assumptions. Table 1 provides descriptions
and resources for common theoretical perspectives and sub-per-
spectives, which we will discuss in more detail later.
Table 1
10
Theoretical Perspectives and Sub-Perspectives: Descriptions and Resources
Theoretical Perspectives
and Sub-Perspectives Description and Resources
Classical Positivism Knowledge is posited (given) through direct sensory experience and observation, giving us access to knowledge.
August Comte, who popularized the perspective, was interested in using such knowledge to promote social
reform (Singer, 2005).
Logical Positivism All sciences are unified, and unlimited in capability to access complete knowledge and truth, eliminating need
for epistemology, metaphysics, or ethics (Singer, 2005).
Postpositivism Modest claims regarding objectivity and access to knowledge, focusing on available evidence and acknowledging
that theories are limited, situated, falsifiable, and to some degree socially constructed (Crotty, 1998; Zammito,
2004).
Interpretivism Knowledge is historically derived and culturally constructed. Considered less likely to engage in critical
assessment, but created impetus for more critical perspectives.
Phenomenology Considered both a theoretical perspective and a methodology. Originally intending to focus on description
of objects through lived experience. Current trends in research move toward greater subjectivity, where
researchers study the “lived experience” of participants in relation to a phenomenon or event. Researchers
use a broad range of sub-methodologies that emphasize that phenomenon in different ways (Vagle, 2018).
Hermeneutics Considered both a theoretical perspective and a methodology, with many specific sub-methodologies available.
Derives from the Greek word ἑρμηνεύω or hermeneuō, which means “to interpret.” Originating in the 17th
century as the scientific, textual interpretation of scripture, the approach has expanded to include interpretation
of language and its impact on meaning (Crotty, 1998, p. 87; Moules, McCaffrey, Field, & Laing, 2015).
Symbolic An American perspective originating in the 20th century. Meaning is repeatedly constructed through the
Interactionism interactions that human beings have with things, as well as with society. Can be understood as a social
creation of the self. Interaction with objects, as well as with others, becomes key to this theoretical perspective
(Blumer, 1969, p. 2).
Journal of Music Therapy

Table 1
Continued
Vol. XX, No. XX
Social Constructionism Belief that knowledge of “reality” is created by society, influencing the individual. Originally rooted in symbolic
interactionism and phenomenology. Differentiated from constructivism by its focus on the creation of
meaning through social contexts (Crotty, 1998; Weinberg, 2014).
Theoretical Perspectives Description and Resources
and Sub-Perspectives
Constructivism Focuses on the individual creation of meaning within the constructionist epistemological position. Offered
as an option to the purely social constructionist approach. Differs from social constructionism and symbolic
interactionism in that the individual creation, outside of social constructs, becomes the focus (Crotty, 1998;
Schwandt, 1994; Young & Colin, 2004).
Heuristics Both a theoretical perspective and a methodology. Generally speaking, a way to approach problem finding
through activity and engagement, location of emergent meaning, and reflection (Moustakas, 1990, p. 9).
Structuralism Originated with the work of Emile Durkheim, Ferdinand de Saussure, Claude Levi-Strauss, and inspired to some
degree Karl Marx. Asserts that human life can be understood through the analysis of relational structures
and systems, including: linguistic, economic, social, and psychological. A primary focus on the larger social
context than smaller groups of individuals. Can be most directly related to certain types of language analysis
and in research, and indirectly related to analysis of systems that inform post-structural and critical theory
(Hawkes, 1977; Pace, 1978).
Critical Theory/ Solidified through the Frankfurt School of sociology. An assessment and critique of social and cultural practices,
Action Research focusing on a historical understanding, allowing for opportunities to change “social facts” (Tyson, 2014).
Action research carries the theoretical critique into solidified action and practice (Stringer, 2014).
11

Table 1
12
Continued
“Intersectional” and Intersectional theory can be considered an umbrella for a broad range of theoretical perspectives focusing
Standpoint Theory on equality and empowerment. Includes but is not limited to race theory, gender theory, LGBTQIA theory,
and critical socio-economic theory. Each of these perspectives can either be employed individually or
can combine with any other intersectional perspective (e.g., black feminist theory), as well as with other
theoretical perspectives (e.g., postmodern feminism) (Windsong, 2018). A standpoint is a place from which
an individual views the world and then works with others to socially construct that world. Every particular
standpoint is partial, and coexists with other standpoints. Standpoint theory often focuses on inequalities and
marginalization, acknowledging the existence of a lived, subjugated knowledge (Rollin, 2009).
Postmodernism Term originated through philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard. References the valid progression of thought
after modernism. Challenges and tends to reject absolute, essentialist, and (often) transcendent forms of
knowledge (Butler, 2003).
Post-structuralism Often related to postmodernism, but more specifically a progression of structuralist thought. Rather than just
analyzing structures (e.g., cultural institutions, political relations, language), post-structural thought also
poses challenges to those structures (Belsey, 2002).
Journal of Music Therapy

Vol. XX, No. XX 13

Epistemological Positions Within the Knowledge Framework
The knowledge framework uses three primary epistemological
positions: objectivism, constructionism, and subjectivism (see
Figure 2). These positions remove the constraints that dichotomies
can produce. These positions are also not to be “seen as watertight
compartments” (Crotty, 1998, p. 9); they can therefore be under-
stood along a flexible continuum from “pure objectivism” to “pure
subjectivism.”
Examining and Re-Solving Problems of Ambiguity

Two dynamics contribute to the complexity of knowledge gener-
ation: theories constantly interact with each other, and approaches
evolve and diversify. Unsurprisingly, social science literature histor-
ically struggles to keep terms clear and consistent. Recent writings
within our field illustrate these struggles. The following examples
introduce terms that you need not be completely familiar with to
understand how we may benefit from greater clarity. Hiller (2016)
referred to objectivism as both an epistemology (pp. 325, 329) and
a set of epistemologies (pp. 324, 330). He also referred to interpre-
tivism as an epistemology (p. 329), as having multiple epistemolo-
gies (p. 342), and as being an epistemological perspective (p. 342).
Finally, he described constructivism as a “perspective” with epis-
temological commitments (pp. 342, 344, 347), and noted multiple
“constructivist epistemologies” (p. 346). A reader may wonder
how one epistemology can encompass other epistemologies, or if
a perspective and epistemology are the same or different, or how
an epistemology and a perspective relate to each other. Similarly,
Figure 2
Epistemological positions.

Edwards (2012) discussed a “positivist” epistemology (p. 382), after
equating “the epistemology of positivist research” with “objectivist
research” (p. 377). Does the reader assume that these terms refer-
ence the same epistemology?
Examining and Re-Solving Problems of Epistemological/

Theoretical Dichotomy
We briefly discussed the problems of the quantitative/qualita-
tive dichotomy. Authors both within and outside of music therapy
have also historically promoted other dichotomies. I will describe
examples from the music therapy literature. Bruscia (1998, 2014)
equated the quantitative/qualitative dichotomy with “positivism”
and “non-positivism.” Both historical and contemporary critiques
of the “positivist idea” are warranted (Bruscia, 1998, 2014; Hiller,
2016), including in the ways that such may confine our under-
standing of legitimate knowledge (Aigen, 2015). I also believe that
interpretations and manifestations of “positivism” are historically
more diverse and nuanced than we have recognized in our work;
some demonstrations do not fit entirely into either of the above
categories.7
Wheeler and Murphy (2016) have largely framed research into
two dichotomous epistemological positions: objectivism and inter-
pretivism. This use of dichotomous positions maintains the same
risks: a reductive oversimplification that struggles to account for
all types of theory and research. To illustrate such, I focus on the
description of interpretivism. Hiller (2016) asserts that interpretiv-
ism “contrasts” with the idea of cause and effect (p. 327); such does
not appear to take into account Max Weber’s8 own explicit men-
tions of causality (Weber, 1962, pp. 35, 40, 51). A researcher employ-
ing interpretivism must take historical and cultural interpretations
into account, but can also choose to search for and understand
causes and effects. Furthermore, interpretivism has not histor-
ically described study types that take an intensely critical or sub-
jective role in the generation of knowledge (Crotty, 1998, p. 112).
Phenomenological inquiry, as one interpretivist approach, has
generally gathered descriptions and interpreted themes regarding
7
Paul Feyerabend, Roy Bhaskar, and Feichtinger et al. (2018) provide examples
to this effect.
8
Max Weber is considered a primary historical contributor to interpretivist
thought.
Vol. XX, No. XX 15

the constructed, “lived experience” of a phenomenon. In contrast,
critical theory explicitly focuses on the type of socio-political cri-
tique that challenges power relations and promotes change toward
equality. With these examples in mind, I question whether Hiller’s
presented interpretivist position is too large to clearly account for
the diversity in our work.
Revisiting Epistemology: Defining the Three Positions

Crotty offers three epistemological positions―objectivism, sub-
jectivism, and constructionism (see Figure 2). I discuss and include
examples of each position in relation to music therapy.
Objectivism
At one end of the epistemological continuum, “pure objectivism”
posits that truth and meaning exist completely independent of any
operation of human consciousness (Crotty, 1998, p. 8). Any object
or event has its own intrinsic meaning that is discovered through
strategic observation (Edwards, 2012, p. 377; Hiller, 2016). General
objectivist research will lean in this direction.
In the case of general objectivist music therapy research, an
intervention can be seen as an “object,” sometimes emphasizing
the effect of specific music characteristics or experiences on cli-
ents’ health. For an explicit reporting example of a knowledge
framework in an experimental study, see Matney (2017). We can
also briefly assess examples that do not explicitly report the four
elements. Uhlig, Jansen, and Scherder (2018) conducted a study
with adolescents in a school setting. The researchers employed
a “Rap and Sing” intervention focusing on rhythm, vocal expres-
sion, and composing lyrics to see if such would have an effect on
emotional regulation and self-esteem (see Figure 3). The authors
note the methodology as a randomized controlled trial, and pro-
vide information about their methods. Randomized controlled tri-
als employ a general objectivist position because the intervention’s
effect generates knowledge regarding any changes in health. We
can see in the discussion section that the authors provide some
contextual information that affected the study, such as student
exhaustion during a particular time of year, and aversion to ques-
tionnaires. The authors also discuss how their results are limited
because of the researchers’ inherent biases, and because the study

Figure 3
Examples of general knowledge framework elements in objectivist, constructionist,
and subjectivist studies.
did not take into account the cultural considerations of hip-hop.

These mentions of context, limitation, and culture note a degree
of subjective consideration, implying a post-positivist theoretical
perspective.
Subjectivism
At the other end of the continuum, “pure subjectivism” asserts
that only human beings can create truth and meaning; humans
then impose that meaning onto objects (Crotty, 1998, p. 9). Truth
and meaning can be imported from anything other than objects,
including but not limited to psychoanalytic, cultural, religious,
or linguistic frames (Crotty, 1998, pp. 9, 152). General subjectiv-
ist research will therefore emphasize subjects’ specific or collect-
ive meanings (Crotty, 1998, p. 9). Critically oriented subjectivist
research may challenge power relations, the idea of objectivity,
and current socio-cultural practices (Crotty, 1998, p. 157; Sajnani,
Marxen, & Zarate, 2017). Subjectivist research can inform future
theory, research, and practice by highlighting individual, social,
and cultural matters (Baker & Young, 2016).
Subjectivist music therapy research emphasizes the generation
of meaning by individuals or groups, either about music, health,
or the music therapy process. Sajnani et al. (2017) discuss the
Vol. XX, No. XX 17

importance of cultural expression and inclusivity, resulting in the
need to critique models of music therapy that may be anchored in
Eurocentric musical perspectives. Boggan et al. (2018) conducted
a study to assess a music therapy model focusing on LGBTQ+ cul-
tures (see Figure 3), in order to inform the music therapy model
and music therapy practice at large. Authors note the use of critical
analysis discourse methodology, and describe their specific meth-
ods. While not explicitly noted, the article implies the use of (a)
critical theory, as implied by the methodology used; (b) the emer-
gence of intersectional theory within the study due to discussions
revolving around ageism (p. 388) and ableism (p. 392); and (c)
post-structural theory due to critiques on the “structural limitations
of the music therapy discipline” (p. 385).
Constructionism
In the middle of Crotty’s epistemological continuum lies con-
structionism. The general constructionist position assumes that
meaning is created through interactions between object and sub-
ject; we neither discover objective knowledge nor impose subjective
knowledge, but rather construct it through our own engagement
with the world (Crotty, 1998, pp. 8, 43). Individuals or groups may
construct different meanings through their interactions, but the
contributions of the object are necessary to those constructions.
Constructionism is less about the subjective “self,” and more about
what the individual or group can make of a particular thing or
event (Crotty, 1998, p. 50; Deleuze, 1994, p. 7).
The constructionist epistemological position encompasses the
theoretical perspectives “social constructionism” and “construct-
ivism.” However, the similarity of these terms can quickly fos-
ter confusion; Crotty distinguishes them while also showing how
they relate to each other. Social constructionism refers to social,
cultural, and institutional factors that play a role in determining
meaning. Constructivism refers to the individual construction of
meaning (also see Table 1) (Crotty, 1998, p. 58).
Constructionist music therapy research emphasizes the navigation
and of music-based interventions with the person who experiences
them. Similar to this description, Aigen (2015) notes how knowledge
can be gained when people engage in a “more active relationship”
with their environment (p. 13) and “negotiate the world” (p. 14).
Matney (2015) provides an example of reporting the four elements

using a constructionist position. Thompson (2018) conducted a
descriptive phenomenological study, providing us with the specific
type of methodology and methods used. We can also assess the study
for the other two elements (see Figure 3). We take into account that
phenomenology is both a methodology and a sub-theoretical per-
spective under interpretivism (see Table 1). A phenomenological
study most likely employs a constructionist epistemological position,
which appears to be confirmed by the author’s mention that “the
analytic aim is to illuminate the lived experience of the phenom-
enon under investigation” (Thompson, 2018, p. 439). The phenom-
enon in this case, according to the questions asked, was participation
in music therapy. The questions are asked in a way that focuses on
meaning navigated through that experience, rather than explicitly
seeking to understand more subjective concerns such as power rela-
tions, minority perspectives, or structural obstacles.
Revisiting the Complexity of Epistemological Positions

One may be hard pressed to find a defense of pure objectivism
or pure subjectivism within contemporary social science research.9
However, a research study can enact a general objectivist, construc-
tionist, or subjectivist epistemological position as a difference in kind.
Furthermore, a study can lean toward more objective or subjective
inquiry, demonstrating a difference in degree along the continuum,
depending on the researcher’s chosen theoretical perspective,
methodology, and methods.
Re-Envisioning Crotty’s Framework

Crotty states that our research processes should not just select an
established plan, but should rather invoke an idea “to be delineated
and illustrated on our own” (1998, p. 216). However, his original
visuals imply a “top down” way of thinking, where epistemology
informs theoretical perspective, which informs the methodology,
which organizes the methods.10 In this re-envisioning of Crotty’s
work, I emphasize a two-way, dynamic relationship between the
four elements and the research question(s). I also add surrounding
9
hilosophy, however, maintains dialogue to this effect. See Quentin
P
Meillassoux’s After Finitude (2010).
10
Visuals implying this “top down” approach can either be viewed in Crotty
(1998, pp. 4–6), or in Viega (2016, pp. 5–6).
Vol. XX, No. XX 19

factors in research process: the researcher, the context, and the
participant (see Figure 1).
Researcher
A researcher designs a study according to a topic of interest, often
based on personal experiences and expertise. Edwards (2012)
provides valuable guidance on reporting researcher reflexivity.
Researchers may also hold experience and expertise in a particu-
lar methodology, or may choose to commit to an epistemological
position or a theoretical perspective in their continued work. To
this effect, Hiller (2016) discusses “interpretivist researchers”
(p. 323), “postpositivists” (p. 333), and “constructivists” (p. 343),
implying that one may decide to identify as a type of researcher.
However, researchers may continuously choose various approaches
to inquiry, depending on the questions being asked.
Context
Research happens within particular places, times, and states of
affairs. A researcher may first pose a question without being aware
of the exact setting within which the study may take place, or may
be thinking of a setting that prompts a research question. Context
can reshape the way a research question is asked, and can inform
the types of methods used in a study. Conversely, a research ques-
tion can influence what methods are used to interact with or foster
a particular context.
Participants
Our research, first and foremost, seeks to understand how music
promotes health for and with those who participate in music ther-
apy. Participants are therefore stakeholders in our body of know-
ledge; their individual agency and well-being inform our research
decisions, regardless of our chosen epistemological position or the-
oretical perspective.
Summarizing and Visualizing the Re-Envisioned Knowledge

Framework
The four elements of the knowledge framework can help us
understand how a research question is asked and answered. An

epistemological position provides an overall understanding of how
knowledge will be acquired. A theoretical perspective situates the
epistemological position along the continuum with greater detail,
and links that position with the methodology. The methodology
promotes an organized framework of action steps. Methods can
also innovate, inform, or even change the methodology. All frame-
work elements support and cohere with the research question
and interact with all other surrounding factors. Figure 4 provides
readers a visual “snapshot” of the dynamic relationships between
the four elements. The visual maintains porous relationships, and
shows how different theoretical perspectives commonly overlap; it
also shows how versatile some methodological types can be. This
snapshot neither seeks to be entirely comprehensive nor spatially
precise; it rather illustrates some of the complex ways we have
organized our knowledge generation. Such may be a useful refer-
ence for the discussion below.
Figure 4
Complex links between epistemological positions, theoretical perspectives, and
methodologies.
Vol. XX, No. XX 21

Revisiting the Complexity of Theoretical Perspectives
As mentioned, a theoretical perspective frames assumptions
within a methodology, and specifies an epistemological position
along a continuum. There exist a range of theoretical perspectives
(Table 1), and many have interacted with each other over time.
Furthermore, some theoretical perspectives inform some general
methodologies by the same name (e.g., phenomenology). While
there are no hard-and-fast rules, we can help organize our under-
standing and reporting through umbrella perspectives (e.g., inter-
pretivism, intersectional theory), related sub-perspectives (e.g.,
symbolic interactionism as a sub-type of interpretivism), and hybrid
perspectives (e.g., postmodern feminism). Hybrid perspectives may
change a researcher’s epistemological position. For example, the
addition of critical theory within phenomenology to employ a post-
intentional phenomenological study (Vagle, 2018) may change the
epistemological position from constructionist to subjectivist.
Revisiting the Complexity of Methodologies and Epistemological

Positions
Some methodologies consistently use the same epistemological
position. A randomized controlled trial will be objectivist, because
it largely focuses on our discovery of the intervention’s effects. We
can also employ some methodologies using different epistemo-
logical positions and a broader range of theoretical perspectives.
For example, grounded theory has histories in both objectivism
and constructionism (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2009; Crotty, 1998).
Ethnographic methodologies can be framed through construction-
ism or subjectivism, depending on the question(s) being asked and
the theoretical perspective employed (Crotty, 1998, p. 74). A crit-
ical ethnography will be more subjective than a symbolic inter-
actionist ethnography; each will employ methods that, although
similar, will reflect this degree of difference. A phenomenological
study will most likely be constructionist, but a researcher with a
deeper understanding of phenomenology also has the capacity to
at least move within constructionism as somewhat more objective
or subjective.11
11
Crotty argued that phenomenological research is always constructionist, but
the more recent advent of post-intentional phenomenological study challenges this
assumption.

Dialogue with Related Literature
Authors have provided valuable guidance regarding knowledge
generation and evidence. Carter and Little (2007) offer a detailed
reporting framework, with definitions and rationales for epistem-
ology, methodology, and method. Edwards (2012) provided a
sequence of steps that graduate students could take to promote
clarity in their research writing, which included the reporting of
epistemology and methodology. Each of these articles offers useful
direction toward understanding and reporting; however, such guid-
ance appears limited regarding a specific, organized framework.
Other authors have communicated inclusive approaches to
understanding and valuing research. Abrams (2010) applied
Wilber’s “integral” fourfold idea,12 overlapping two common philo-
sophical problems: the exterior (objective) and interior (subject-
ive), with the singular (one) and the collective (many). Abrams
notes that components in any domain can “inform” another to
some degree; however, he also asserts that all evidence ultimately
can be reduced to one of these four categories, focusing on differ-
ences in kind. Adding to Wilber’s “integral” idea, Bruscia (2014)
discussed “critical inclusivity” (p. 253) in music therapy practice.
Transferring this idea to research, I agree with Bruscia on the fol-
lowing; when we see differences as options, find commonalities
within approaches, and work to see the value in each approach, we
benefit as a field. I also agree with Lather (2006) when he notes that
we need to think about “difference differently” (p. 52). I believe
we benefit when we understand difference not only as categorical
(difference in kind), or even only as occurring in gradation (differ-
ence in degree), but also when we understand difference as a sin-
gular, dynamic event.13 I believe that this re-envisioning of Crotty’s
framework provides the capacity for all three demonstrations of
difference, resulting in a uniquely flexible framework that lends
itself to nuanced understanding and detailed reporting.
12
A fourfold is a common philosophical tool to demonstrate the interactions
between two sets of “opposing” ideas. Wilber’s fourfold is commonly referred
to as “All Quadrants, All Levels” (AQAL).
13
This approach to difference is based on Gilles Deleuze’s multiplicity concept,
and can be understood as another way to approach connective thinking.
Vol. XX, No. XX 23

Taking into Account New Developments and Potential Exceptions
I began this article providing examples of our diverse and com-
plex research, some of which require further discussion. Crotty’s
framework originated at a time when mixed methods, arts-based
research, and “ontologically driven” approaches were uncommon.
I also mentioned at the beginning of this article that the boundaries
between epistemology (knowledge), metaphysics (reality), and axi-
ology (value) are porous. In some instances, manifestations of real-
ity (metaphysics/ontology) or value (axiology) can play a distinct
role in the generation of knowledge. Crotty acknowledged interac-
tions between ontology and epistemology,14 but largely focused on
epistemological concerns. To this effect, more recent developments
in research may not immediately align with Crotty’s framework.
According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2018), mixed methods is
a methodology that uses and synthesizes both quantitative and quali-
tative methods; he adapts Crotty’s four elements to fit mixed meth-
ods (pp. 34–36), providing guidance for an array of mixed-method
approaches (pp. 34–47). Viega (2016) notes that three of four vari-
ations of arts-based research can be informed by Crotty’s four ele-
ments, while also being informed to varying degrees by the artistic
process and a particular type of aesthetic value15 (pp. 5–6). These
approaches align with Aigen’s (2015) assertions regarding the cre-
ative musical endeavor in our body of knowledge. Critical realist evalu-
ation demonstrates how metaphysical concerns of cause and effect
can be evaluated beyond standard observation and experimentation
(Pawson & Tilley, 1997; Porter et al., 2017). Embodied research takes
into account the actualities and potentials of sensation and bod-
ily action, indicating how a corporeal ontology can inform know-
ledge (Spatz, 2017). An ontologically driven “new analytic” focuses
on emergence of knowledge as informed by process metaphysics,
post-structural thought, and the burgeoning post-human position
(Jackson & Mazzei, 2018). Each example above demonstrates the
influence that other branches of philosophy can have on knowledge
generation. Further study and detail regarding metaphysics, ontol-
ogy, and axiology to this effect is certainly warranted.
14
Crotty (1998, p. 10) provides insight to this effect, challenging the simplicity
of Lincoln and Guba’s (1994) “paradigms.”
15
Viega defines his own aesthetic position in the article. One may also consider
the range of aesthetic positions and ontological positions for art that could
further diversify such interactions in research.

While Crotty discussed the embedding of history and philosophy
within many research endeavors, he did not discuss the framing
of historical or philosophical research. Historical interpretations,
philosophical inquiry, and arguments can also be written from dif-
fering vantage points (Wheeler & Murphy, 2016, p. 1852); Crotty’s
epistemological positions and theoretical perspectives may there-
fore be useful in historical and philosophical writing.
Resources
A final challenge to typologies deserves consideration; those
using categories for reporting may approach such as a surface task
to check off of a list, rather than as a tool for informed action.
Crotty’s intention was to provide researchers a way to understand
how they gain and justify knowledge; his book examines epistemo-
logical positions, theoretical perspectives, and methodologies in
great detail. Alvesson and Skoldberg (2009) also provide readers
with worthwhile information on some theoretical perspectives and
methodologies. Wheeler and Murphy (2016) provide in-depth
information on a broad range of methodologies and some theor-
etical perspectives. Readers can also locate many useful primary
sources in each of these books, as well as in the present article.
Resources for theoretical perspectives can also be found in Table 1.
Implications for Music Therapy

The knowledge framework can inform music therapy through
three facets: the researcher, the research consumer, and the ongoing
body of knowledge. Researchers who understand and assess these
four elements will (a) garner a stronger and clearer understand-
ing of their research question(s); (b) more readily engage with the
philosophical assumptions underpinning their knowledge-gather-
ing process; (c) be better able to design a framework where ele-
ments and factors cohere; (d) make research decisions based on
contextual need; and (e) be more capable of reporting their under-
stood knowledge framework in a clear and concise fashion. Research
consumers can also use the knowledge framework to understand
and assess the strengths, limitations, and coherence of a study.
I believe such creates a stronger research culture, promoting dia-
logue and greater awareness. Furthermore, consumers may be
Vol. XX, No. XX 25

better able to both relate and transfer studies to practice, theory
development, and further research (Baker & Young, 2016).
Research projects inevitably result in new questions for research-
ers and consumers. These questions can inform new studies that
follow the same epistemological and theoretical line. However,
a researcher or consumer who understands these four elements
can see the potential for new questions from different epistemo-
logical positions or theoretical perspectives. Results of an objectiv-
ist experimental study may open up avenues for a constructionist
analysis that facilitates greater theory development, or a subjectiv-
ist critical inquiry that details an important minority perspective
within an intervention process. Research can therefore be under-
stood as creating an interdependent, connected body of knowledge
that embraces the power of difference, contributing to broader
and deeper bodies of generation, action, efficacy, effectiveness,
and impact (Robb & Meadows, 2015).
Conclusion
Music therapy research, as a complex and diverse pursuit of
knowledge, seeks to understand how music relates to health. The
field benefits when we are able to more clearly understand and
articulate “how we know what we know” in our research studies.
Crotty’s knowledge framework provides one way to show how four
elements―epistemology, theoretical perspective, methodology,
and methods―connect with and inform each other. The re-envi-
sioned knowledge framework seeks to address some of the com-
mon challenges related to typologies, promoting flexibility and
capacity for emergent approaches. Researchers, consumers, and
the research culture at large can take steps toward greater under-
standing and reporting the diverse philosophical underpinnings
of research, using the opportunity to celebrate difference in kind,
difference in degree, and difference in action.
References
Abrams, B. (2010). Evidence-based music therapy practice: An integral understand-
ing. Journal of Music Therapy, 47(4), 351–379. doi:10.1093/jmt/47.4.351
Aigen, K. (1995). Philosophical inquiry. In B. L. Wheeler (Ed.), Music therapy
research: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives (pp. 447–484). Phoenixville, PA:
Barcelona Publishers.

Aigen, K. (2008). An analysis of qualitative music therapy research reports
1987–2006: Articles and book chapters. Arts in Psychotherapy, 35, 251–261.
doi:10.1016/j.aip.2008.05.001
Aigen, K. (2012). Publishing qualitative research in the Nordic Journal of Music
Therapy: Guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors for evaluating manu-
scripts. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 21, 109–110.
Aigen, K. S. (2015). A critique of evidence-based practice in music therapy. Music
Therapy Perspectives, 33, 12–24. doi:10.1093/mtp/miv013
Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative
research. Los Angeles: Sage.
American Music Therapy Association. (2015). Improving access and quality: Music
therapy research 2025 proceedings. Silver Spring, MD: American Music Therapy
Association.
Ansdell, G., & DeNora, T. (2016). Musical pathways in recovery: Community music ther-
apy and mental wellbeing. London: Routledge.
Avis, M. (2003). Do we need methodological theory to do qualitative research?
Qualitative Health Research, 13, 995–1004. doi:10.1177/1049732303253298
Baker, F. A., & Young, L. (2016). The relationship between research and practice. In
Wheeler & Murphy (Eds.), Music therapy research (eBook version, pp. 124–152).
Dallas: Barcelona.
Belsey, C. (2002). Poststructuralism: A very short introduction. London: Oxford
University Press.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. New York: Prentice
Hall.
Boggan, C. E., Grzanka, P. R., & Bain, C. L. (2018). Perspectives on queer music
therapy: A qualitative analysis of music therapists’ reactions to radically inclu-
sive practice. Journal of Music Therapy, 54, 375–404. doi:10.1093/jmt/thx016
Bradt, J., & Dileo, C. (2014). Music interventions for mechanically ventilated
patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2014. doi:10.1002/14651858.
CD006902.pub3
Bruscia, K. E. (1998). Standards of integrity for qualitative music therapy research.
Journal of Music Therapy, 35, 176–200. doi:10.1093/jmt/35.3.176
Bruscia, K. E. (2014). Defining music therapy (3rd ed.). University Park, IL: Barcelona.
Butler, C. (2003). Postmodernism: A very short introduction. London: Oxford University
Press.
Carroll, J. W., & Markosian, N. (2010). An introduction to metaphysics. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2007). Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking
action: Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research.
Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1316–1328. doi:10.1177/1049732307306927
CONSORT. (2010). CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a
randomised trial. Retrieved from http://www.consort-statement.org
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. London: Sage Publications.
Vol. XX, No. XX 27

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? New York: Columbia University
Press.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th
ed.). London: SAGE.
Edwards, J. (2012). We need to talk about epistemology: Orientations, meaning,
and interpretation within music therapy research. Journal of Music Therapy, 49,
372–394. doi:10.1093/jmt/49.4.372
Ettenberger, M., Beltràn, A., & Yenny, M. (2018). Music therapy song writing with
mothers of preterm babies in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU):
A mixed-methods pilot study. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 58, 42–52. doi:10.1016/j.
aip.2018.03.001
Feast, L., & Melles, G. (2010). Epistemological positions in design research: A brief review
of the literature. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Design
Education, June 28–July 1. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/pub-
lication/236619107_Epistemological_Positions_in_Design_Research_A_Brief_
Review_of_the_Literature
Feichtinger, J., Fillafer, F. L., & Surman, J. (Eds.) (2018). The worlds of positivism:
A global intellectual history, 1770–1930. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gilbertson, S. (2013). Improvisation and meaning. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies on Health and Well-Being, 8, 20604. doi:10.3402/qhw.v8i0.20604
Goldman, A. I. (2002). The sciences and epistemology. In P. K. Mosser (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of epistemology (pp. 144–176). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–
117). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism and Semiotics. London: Methuen.
Hiller, J. (2016). Epistemological foundations of objectivist and interpretivist
research. In Wheeler & Murphy (Eds.), Music therapy research (eBook version,
pp. 357–414). Dallas: Barcelona.
Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2018). Thinking with theory: A new analytic for quali-
tative inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative
research (4th ed.). London: SAGE.
Kaplan, A. (1998). The conduct of inquiry. London: Routledge.
Kitcher, P. (2002). Scientific knowledge. In P. K. Mosser (Ed.), The Oxford handbook
of epistemology (pp. 385–407).
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching
research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 19, 35–57. doi:10.1080/09518390500450144
Matney, B. (2015). The use of percussion in therapy: A content analysis of the lit-
erature. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 25, 372–403. doi:10.1080/08098131.2
015.1084027
Matney, B. (2017). The effect of specific instrumentation on anxiety reduction in
university music students: A feasibility study. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 54, 47–55.
doi:10.1016/j.aip.2017.02.006
Matney, B. (2018). Understanding literature reviews: Implications for music ther-
apy. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 27, 97–125. doi:10.1080/08098131.2017.
1366543

Meillassoux, Q. (2010). After finitude: An essay on the necessity of contingency. New York:
Bloomsbury.
Melhuish, R., Beuzeboc, C., & Guzmán, A. (2017). Developing relationships
between care staff and people with dementia through music therapy and dance
movement therapy: A preliminary phenomenological study. Dementia (London,
England), 16, 282–296. doi:10.1177/1471301215588030
Moules, N. J., McCaffrey, G., Field, J. C., & Laing, C. M. (2015). Conducting hermen-
eutic research: From philosophy to practice. New York: Peter Lang.
Pace, D. (1978). Structuralism in history and the social sciences. American Quarterly,
30, 282–297. doi:10.2307/2712503
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: SAGE.
Pawson, R. & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage Publications.
Polkinghorne, D. (2006). An agenda for the second generation of qualitative stud-
ies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 1, 68–77.
doi:10.1080/17482620500539248
Porter, S., McConnell, T., Clarke, M., Kirkwood, J., Hughes, N., Graham-Wisener,
L.,…Reid, J. (2017). A critical realist evaluation of a music therapy intervention
in palliative care. BMC Palliative Care, 16, 70. doi:10.1186/s12904-017-0253-5
Robb, S. L. (2012). Gratitude for a complex profession: The importance of theory-
based research in music therapy. Journal of Music Therapy, 49, 2–6.
Robb, S. L., Burns, D. S., & Carpenter, J. S. (2011). Reporting guidelines
for music-based interventions. Journal of Health Psychology, 16, 342–352.
doi:10.1177/1359105310374781
Robb, S. L., Burns, D. S., Stegenga, K. A., Haut, P. R., Monahan, P. O., Meza,
J.,…Haase, J. E. (2014). Randomized clinical trial of therapeutic music video
intervention for resilience outcomes in adolescents/young adults undergo-
ing hematopoietic stem cell transplant: A report from the children’s oncology
group. Cancer, 120, 909–917. doi:10.1002/cncr.28355
Robb, S. L., & Meadows, A. (2015). Research frameworks: Ways to communi-
cate about the state of the science and develop comprehensive programs of
research. In B. A. Else & A. F. Farbman (Eds.), Proceedings from MTR 2025:
Improving quality and access: Music therapy research 2025 (pp. 19–115). Silver
Spring, MD: American Music Therapy Association.
Rollin, K. (2009). Standpoint theory as a methodology for the study of power rela-
tions. Hypatia, 24, 218–226.
Sajnani, N., Marxen, E., & Zarate, R. (2017). Critical perspectives in the arts thera-
pies: Response/ability across a continuum of practice. The Arts in Psychotherapy,
54, 28–37. doi:10.1016/j.aip.2017.01.007
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry.
In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp.
118–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seel, N. M. (2012). Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (p. 1168). New York:
Springer.
Sheppard, A. D. R. (1987). Aesthetics: An introduction to the philosophy of art. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Vol. XX, No. XX 29

Simons, P. (2009). Metaphysics: Definitions and divisions. In J. Jaegwon Kim,
E. Sosa, & G. E. Rosenkrants (Eds.), A Companion to metaphysics (pp. 413–415).
West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Singer, M. (2005). The legacy of positivism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Spatz, B. (2017). Liminalities: A journal of performance studies, 13, 1–31.
Stige, B., Malterud, K., & Midtgarden, T. (2009). Toward an agenda for evalu-
ation of qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 1504–1516.
doi:10.1177/1049732309348501
Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.
Strong, J. (1890). Strong’s exhaustive concordance of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Abingdon
Press.
Thompson, G. A. (2018). Long-term perspectives of family quality of life following
music therapy with young children on the autism spectrum: A phenomeno-
logical study. Journal of Music Therapy, 54, 432–459. doi:10.1093/jmt/thx013
Tyson, L. (2014). Critical theory today: A user friendly guide (3rd ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Uhlig, S., Jansen, E., & Scherder, E. (2018). “Being a bully isn’t very cool…”: Rap &
Sing Music Therapy for enhanced emotional self-regulation in an adolescent
school setting—a randomized controlled trial. Psychology of Music, 46, 568–587.
doi:10.1177/0305735617719154
Vagle, M. D. (2018). Crafting phenomenological research (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Viega, M. (2016). Science as art: Axiology as a central component in methodology
and evaluation of arts-based research (ABR). Music Therapy Perspectives, 34, 1–3.
doi:10.1093/mtp/miv043
Weber, M. (1962). Basic concepts in sociology. London: Peter Owen.
Weinberg, D. (2014). Contemporary social constructionism. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Wheeler, B. L., & Murphy, K. (2016). Music therapy research (3rd ed.: eBook version).
Dallas: Barcelona.
Windsong, E. A. (2018). Incorporating intersectionality into research design: An
example using qualitative interviews. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, 21, 135–147. doi:10.1080/13645579.2016.1268361
World Health Organization. (2006). Constitution of the World Health Organization—
Basic Documents (45th ed., Supplement). Retrieved from http://www.who.int/
governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf
Young, R., & Colin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructivism and social construction-
ism in the career field. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 373–388. doi:10.1016/j.
jvb.2003.12.005
Zammito, J. H. (2004). A nice derangement of epistemes: Post-positivism in the study of sci-
ence from Quine to Latour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

A Knowledge Framework For The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Knowledge Framework For The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Music Therapy, XX(XX), 2018, 1–29

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jmt/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jmt/thy018/5151282 by INSEAD user on 23 December 2018