Dimensions, items, and themes of the EPICURE agenda
Below we will outline the items of the two agenda dimensions EPIC and CURE and some possible themes under each item. The items and themes should not be used as fixed criteria or as a readymade checklist, but as starting points for dialogue and discussion. For example; qualitative research traditions vary considerably in relation to how and how much the item of Processing is stressed. Some approaches advocate rigorous and systematic procedures, while others allow for much more flexibility, perhaps to the degree that processing and interpretation are intertwined processes. An agenda approach to evaluation suggests that authors and reviewers position themselves in relation to such differences.
EPIC (the challenge of producing rich and substantive accounts)
| Agenda item | Some possible themes of dialogue and discussion |
|---|---|
| E for Engagement Engagement refers to the researcher's continuous interaction with and relationship to the phenomenon/situation and problem studied. |
Evaluation of engagement could involve reflections on the researcher's access to the phenomenon or field studied; his or her motivation and pre-understanding; the capacity to participate, observe, record, and reflect; and the possibility of prolonged or repeated engagement. The theme of how research focus (problem) and perspective is developed with sensitivity to context and material is usually a theme to consider also (see next items). |
| P for Processing Processing refers to the process of producing, ordering, analyzing, and preserving empirical material. Because research implies reporting, processing involves the process of writing as well. |
Evaluation of processing could involve reflections on questions such as: How is the empirical material systematized, analyzed and presented? How are the researcher's position, perspective, and purpose clarified? How is the empirical material processed and presented textually? Is other expressive media used when relevant? Is the research focus (problem) clarified and refined in the process? |
| I for Interpretation Interpretation involves the act of creating meaning by identifying patterns and developing contexts for the understanding of experiences and descriptions. |
Evaluation of interpretation could involve renewed reflections on the (pre)understanding guiding choice of focus (problem). Other questions to consider could include: How are aspects of the processed empirical material seen in relation to each other? What is the rationale for choice of theoretical contexts for understanding of the empirical material? What is the relationship between the researcher's theoretically informed interpretations and the involved participants' own interpretations of their situation? Have other interpretations been considered and is the argument for the preferred interpretation made clear? |
| C for Critique Critique refers to the (self-critical) appraisal of merits and limits of research processes and products. |
Evaluation of self-critique could involve reflections on how the author(s) demonstrate reflexivity in relation to the other EPIC items such as Engagement, Processing, and Interpretation. It could include critical examinations of methods, material, and results, but also of motivations and inducements. |
CURE (the challenge of dealing with preconditions and consequences of research)
| Agenda item | Some possible themes of dialogue and discussion |
|---|---|
| C for Critique Critique refers to the appraisal of merits and limits of research processes and products in relation to society. |
Evaluation of social critique could involve reflections on questions such as: Do the authors demonstrate awareness of mechanisms of repression and disempowerment? Does the study contribute with new understanding that could reveal such mechanisms? Does the study empower participants and contribute to social change? (Such questions are often difficult to discuss, as the implications and consequences of a study usually are not fully known at time of evaluation. Reflexivity in relation to these issues could be evaluated, however). |
| U for Usefulness Usefulness refers to the study's value in relation to practical contexts. |
Evaluation of usefulness could involve reflections on questions such as: What are the cultural and social conditions that made the study relevant in the first place? How are the research process and products useful for practice and understanding in relation to real world problems and situations? How is it useful for participants, professionals, agencies, and policy? (Note that usefulness is linked to interests, so that this item usually must be seen in relation to the previous one). |
| R for Relevance Relevance refers to how the study contributes to development of the involved discipline(s) or interdisciplinary field. |
Evaluation of relevance could involve reflections on questions such as: How does the study use relevant literature and how does it fit within the existing body of knowledge in music therapy and related disciplines? Is the study original and pertinent for the development of new understanding? |
| E for Ethics Ethics refers to how values and moral principles are integrated in the actions and reflections of research. |
Evaluation of ethics could involve reflections on questions such as: Is the research process respectful to all participants? Does the researcher demonstrate awareness of consequences of the research? How are issues such as confidentiality and informed consent handled? To what degree does the study reflect the diversity of interests and perspectives in the group of participants? What are the relationships between those who tell (participants) and those who write (researchers)? (As implied by the last questions; this item of the agenda could - together with the item Critique - have an integrative function in that the relationships between the various items are considered). |