[Original Voices: Reports]

Exploration and Application of Dissolution Approaches for Belief Conflicts in Music Therapy

By Masako Otera

Abstract

In this article, the author attempts to clarify the structure of belief conflicts for different approaches in music therapy by presenting a typical thinking process that can be applied by music therapists. Dissolution Approaches for Belief Conflicts (DAB) is a methodology that consists of a group of methods and theories that were specifically created for the dissolution of belief conflicts. This article demonstrated the application of this approach to develop an effective attitude and method of thinking for music therapists. In addition, this approach can promote mutual understanding in the field of music therapy and help prevent future belief conflicts over the differences in clinical and research approaches.

Keywords: music therapy, belief conflict, structural constructology

Introduction

Since the occurrence of the Great East Japan Earthquake in March 2011, I have been acutely aware of the issue of the existence of belief conflicts among people. The experiences from this compound disaster have shown that no single explanation can successfully answer the various questions raised by the catastrophe. For example, one of the greatest concerns for residents in Japan is in regard to the aftermath of the nuclear accident, and since then people have been arguing over the safety issues of debris processing and the maintenance of nuclear power plants. I acknowledge these discussions but recognize most of them as belief conflicts that have generated an overall ineffectiveness in such discussions. These belief conflicts are very common in our daily as well as our professional lives because many of these beliefs are simply produced by an individual’s way of thinking.

In recent years, although we have made tremendous progress professionally, we have had a history of belief conflicts in regard to different clinical approaches, theories, research methods, education, and trainings. The licensing issue in Japan is one personally familiar example of belief conflicts in music therapy (Ikuno, 2007). This caused a serious split between board members of the Japanese music therapy association and resulted in discord and emotional conflicts among Japanese music therapists. In the United States, there have been active discussions over the professional entry level and people have argued the pros and cons of this issue from various standpoints such as clinical service, professional advocacy, learners’ convenience, and financial circumstances in academic institutes (Silverman, 2012; American Music Therapy Association, 2010; American Music Therapy Association, n.d.). The topic of whether or not music therapy is a science or an art has been extensively discussed (e.g. Pavlicevic, 2002; Aldridge, 1996; Ruud, 1980) and has even extended into belief conflicts over research methods and their clinical relevance (e.g. Otera, in press; Aigen, 1998; Aldridge, 1996; Forinash, 1993). The confrontation between two professional organizations in the United States from 1970s to 1990s was one of the most prominent examples of how belief conflicts had created uncomfortable situations in the professional world (Robbins, 2007; Wheeler, 2003). In addition, it developed unproductive attitudes such as misunderstanding, mistrust, and miscommunication in music therapists. I am not trying to identify here how social, environmental, political, and cultural circumstances caused these issues. Instead, I would rather focus more on the attitudes of music therapists and their approaches of thinking since these aspects are the main source of development for such belief conflicts.

As stated by Munro in Wheeler’s essay (2003), music therapists have become more open to different approaches, especially when compared to situations in the past. However, I assume that there are more than a few music therapists in the field who continue to keep their attitude and interests based only on certain clinical approaches or methods (Wheeler, 2001). According to Bruscia’s lecture at the American Music Therapy Association (AMTA) conference (Bruscia, 2011), he emphasized the importance of integral thinking toward different approaches and claimed that decisions on clinical techniques, goal settings, evaluation methods, and therapists’ attitudes need to be based on the clients’ needs, and not the therapists’ preferences. His assertion implies that music therapists have a tendency to focus on one approach based only on their familiarity and preference of specific clinical approaches or research methods.

As mentioned earlier, belief conflicts frequently generate unproductive relationships and discussions between music therapists. In this article, I first clarify what belief conflicts are in general and then discuss such conflicts in relation to the field of music therapy and its future development.

What is Belief Conflict?

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English (2003), belief is “an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.” Furthermore, Kyougoku (2011) explains that belief is a reality that is derived from one’s immediate experiences. In other words, everything that appears to us is our reality, which in turn forms our beliefs. For example, the reality where I see a pen in front of me is my belief. In addition, the reality where I hear the sound of an ambulance is also my belief. Another person may not see or experience these realities in the same manner that I do because these are derived from my own experiences. In fact, someone may say that most people can recognize the existence of a pen or sounds of an ambulance, but a baby would have no idea about what a pen is or a person from a foreign country may not recognize the sound of an ambulance according to Kyougoku’s idea.

This raises the question: What makes one recognize the experienced phenomenon as a reality? Saijo (2005) and Kyougoku (2011) describe that an individual first constructs the experienced phenomenon according to one’s intentionality and the constructed structures are then perceived as live realities, which creates the belief. This process of belief formation is regulated by the principle of “intention-correlativity,” which refers to “the existence, meaning, and value of things that are correlatively defined by the subject’s body, desire, purpose, and interest/intention” (Saijo, 2005, p.53)[1]. This principle defines one’s orientation in the way of constructing the experienced phenomenon, although it is sometimes difficult to recognize one’s formed beliefs, since it is processed unconsciously.

Saijo is a developmental psychologist who originally established structural constructology to resolve belief conflicts in the human science field. This new philosophy emerged from the blended ideas of existing theories including Husserian and Takeda’s phenomenology, Saussure’s theory of general linguistics, and Ikeda’s structuralist philosophy of science. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to present a detailed description of structural constructology, I would like to note its potential as a meta-theory (or even an epistemological framework) that can make existing music therapy theories and methods function more effectively. It has been increasingly accepted by various academic and clinical disciplines in Japan because of its deep logic in principle and wide range of versatility.

Finally, Saijo defines belief conflict as “a fundamental confrontation which is caused by a person who places absolute trust in something without recognizing one’s belief” (Saijo, 2008, p. 46) [2]. This definition suggests that a person needs to understand the structure of one’s beliefs (constructed from the experienced phenomenon); otherwise, it may result in a belief conflict with other people. In the next section, I would like to clarify the structure of belief conflicts that commonly occur in music therapy.

Structure of Belief Conflicts in Music Therapy

Figure 1, a modified version (Otera, in press) containing the flow of a music therapist’s decisions during selected relevant approaches, shows thought processes contributing to the development of belief conflicts. On the left side of the figure, there is a field that focuses on philosophical issues of music therapy such as the existential meaning or roles of music, therapist, and client. Supporting theories and views for these ontological questions are also discussed in this area. Methodological issues regarding clinical approaches and research methods are placed in the right side of the figure.

The expected flow in this figure would be as follows: a music therapist begins his/her determination in the left side of the figure by first exploring what music, therapist, and client is, and then recognizing his/her epistemological view and theoretical background. Considerations for methodologies such as choosing appropriate clinical approaches or research methods generally occur after the philosophical exploration. However, many music therapists are more interested in methodological issues than philosophical issues and tend to demonstrate a limited way of thinking toward clinical approaches. For example, a music therapist may recognize a child’s screaming voice as a part of the child’s musical expression and then improvise music along with the screaming voice. Conversely, another therapist may identify the screaming voice as evidence of undesirable behavior and may criticize the improvisation as an inappropriate intervention since the therapist is reinforcing the child’s behavior. As the diagram in the right side of Figure 1 shows, the latter therapist may begin to examine clinical techniques and assessment/evaluation methods simply because s/he questions the other therapist’s clinical approach. In this case, the concerns of the latter therapist continue to circulate within the methodological field without being aware of the influence of the philosophical foundation on the methodological differences (Otera, in press). As a result, the two therapists are at risk of being involved in a belief conflict over different clinical approaches.

However, even if they focused more attention on philosophical issues and were aware of their own epistemological backgrounds, the same thinking pattern would be created because their thinking processes are the same as in the methodological field. For example, if the latter music therapist questions about recognizing music as a stimulus because s/he believes that music is a medium for clients’ musical experiences, s/he may also start questioning the music therapist as a treatment provider because s/he values a music therapist more as a musician. In addition, s/he does not recognize a client as a treatment recipient and values the client’s role more as a subject who explores and heals oneself. Therefore, this thinking process (seen in Figure 1) is maintained by his/her epistemological viewpoint and would result in circulation within the philosophical field.

In recent years, discussions or studies suggesting a need for promoting theoretical discussions (including philosophical concerns) have increased (Edwards, 2005). However, as Figure 1 indicates, just being aware of one’s theoretical background or differences among various approaches is not a fundamental approach to prevent belief conflicts since it may only decrease some risks of belief conflicts caused by misunderstandings. Although differentiation and recognition of various approaches based on each therapist’s epistemological views will most likely result in discussion of its relative merits, some music therapists have recognized that discussing the superiorities or inferiorities of such approaches can be unproductive. Whereas I acknowledge the importance of recognizing one’s own background in methodological/philosophical foundations, it appears that we need to discover another approach to improve our overall attitude and way of thinking.

Therefore, I would like to present two ideas that can help prevent future belief conflicts. Firstly, music therapists need to acquire an effective attitude and way of thinking that promotes mutual understanding of music therapy. Bruscia (2011) asserted the importance of being an integral thinker who does not continually focus on one way of thinking, although he does not provide an actual methodology. Secondly, there is a need for meta-theoretical studies that substantiate the efficient uses of existing theories and approaches without biased judgments based on undoubted beliefs. In this article, I mainly address the first idea because it prioritizes the second one as a prerequisite for the prevention of future belief conflicts. The second idea would require intensive theoretical discussions for defining philosophical and methodological issues in music therapy. I have worked on the second idea in my previous study (Otera, in press) and primarily focused on the definition of the ontological meaning of music as well as belief conflicts over definitions and understanding of music in music therapy research by using structural constructology and Dissolution Approaches for Belief conflicts (Kyougoku, 2011). This experience made me conclude that more discussions involving this second concept need to be performed elsewhere in the future.

Toward the Dissolution of Belief Conflicts in Music Therapy

The purpose of the current article is to explore the methodology for the development of an effective attitude and way of thinking for music therapists to promote mutual understanding in the field of music therapy. In addition, it would help prevent the development of belief conflicts over different approaches in the future. For this article, I employ Dissolution Approaches for Belief Conflicts (DAB) established by Kyougoku (2011), which is a group of methods and theories specifically created for the dissolution of belief conflicts. This approach was developed as a communicating method for the dissolution of belief conflicts among medical professionals because such conflicts had become serious obstacles for team approaches in medical contexts. Furthermore, it even affected relationships between medical professionals and their patients.

Kyougoku (2011) asserts emphasis on the meaning of dissolution because it is different from resolution. DAB aims to prevent the development of belief conflicts by clarifying the structures of such conflicts. Conversely, the resolution approach proposes a solution for belief conflicts by presenting supporting definitions or theories. The latter approach would provide a definition or theory of what an effective attitude and way of thinking, however, this may create a new belief conflict over the presented definition or theory. The application of DAB to the current exploration is appropriate because it promotes a fundamental thinking process in music therapists to develop an effective attitude and way of thinking for dissolution of current belief conflicts as well as prevention of future belief conflicts. To the best of my knowledge, there are no other methods or theoretical frameworks that may be applicable to the current aim.

Dissolution Approaches for Belief Conflicts (DAB)

DAB provides various practical methods for helping those involved in unproductive belief conflicts. Since the belief formation sometimes occurs unconsciously, targeted people of this implementation may include everyone from individuals to larger groups. DAB involves three levels of discussions based on philosophical, methodological, and practical foundations. Because the philosophical foundation of DAB is based on structural constructology, the principle of intention-correlativity is incorporated into the philosophy. In addition, since it is impossible to cover the entire level of discussion about DAB, I only focus on the following three conditions for dissolution of belief conflicts, which Kyougoku (2011) suggests are necessary before any conflict dissolution can be achieved.

The first condition states that one must “make those who are involved in belief conflicts become aware that humans are subjects who construct experienced phenomenon intention-moment-correlatively” (Kyougoku, 2011, p.67)[3]. Kyougoku discusses that people tend to be confident in their beliefs while not being fully aware of the fact that their beliefs are constructed through their intentionality. If people are conscious about the influence of intention-correlativity, it may prompt them to re-examine their belief system. This intention-correlativity is always under the influence of a moment that brings change in the meanings or perceptions of the experienced phenomenon. This is the principle of “moment-correlativity” (p.174) [4], as defined by Kirita (Kirita, 2009). This principle defines changeable qualities in people’s intentionality. While the origins of one’s intentionality can be rooted in compound factors such as one’s life experience, environment, religion, education and sociocultural status, various moments where one encounters a new situation, atmosphere, need, even weather or climate may trigger temporal changes in one’s intentionality. Structural constructology and DAB mainly focus on one’s experienced phenomenon while acknowledging the existence of these influential factors. Bruscia (2011) discusses his experience of how he changed his role as a therapist according to specific moments during a particular session. This example is well explained by intention-moment correlativity. While he possessed certain intentionality as a therapist, he remained flexible enough to change his approach with the client because there were moments where adjustments had become clinically necessary.

The second condition includes “invalidating the basis for the formation of a belief conflict” (Kyougoku, 2011, p.67) [5]. According to Kyougoku, firm beliefs are more likely to be formed by the “approval of others, successful experiences, and customs” (p.63) [6]. Therefore, formed beliefs may not be shared or understood by others, especially those who are in different situations or have differing viewpoints. If a person realizes that this logic is irresistible, s/he may accept that their firm beliefs need to become invalidated or suspended.

The third condition involves “constructing patterns of promoting mutual understanding among those involved in belief conflicts” (Kyougoku, 2011, p.69) [7]. Kyougoku suggests that the dissolution of belief conflicts cannot be achieved until people share a mutual understanding for concerned issues in belief conflicts. The first and second conditions are necessary for invalidating or suspending a person’s belief while promoting relativisation in his/her way of thinking. However, relativisation does not lead to the dissolution of belief conflicts because this may result in accepting, refusing, or becoming disinterested in all types of beliefs. Therefore, the third condition is important toward orienting those involved in a belief conflict, especially in regard to an agreeable direction through mutual understanding.

In addition, Kyougoku (2011) provides three training steps for acquiring an effective attitude and way of thinking in conflict dissolution. The first step is to recognize what, why, and how their beliefs are formed by exploring the process of one’s belief formation and the structure of the formed belief. In this step, a person is required to provide a list of things that are personally valuable, meaningful, and confident of their existences (which are all beliefs) to identify the influential factors for the belief formation such as point of view and intentionality. The second step is to suspend one’s belief by questioning the reasonableness of the basis of their belief formation. The person who has identified his/her intentionality or point of view in the previous step is now required to identify and question the basis of his/her point of view or intentionality, which may be based on the person’s education, religion, or other life experiences. If the person realizes that these things are not always understandable by others, s/he cannot resist suspending their formed belief. The third and final step is to search and identify meta-intentionality among those involved in a belief conflict by sharing thoughts and ideas. According to Kyougoku, people have their own intentionality, but some common directions or orientations among the individual intentions may be found regardless of their overall viewpoints. These commonalities are called “meta-intentionality,” which can help develop a mutual understanding toward the dissolution of belief conflicts. In the next section, I present some examples of DAB application to belief conflicts in music therapy.

The Application of DAB to Belief Conflicts in Music Therapy

Before discussing the application of DAB, I would like to quote Bruscia’s “Three major ways of thinking in music therapy” (Bruscia, 2011) to incorporate his ideas into my discussion of DAB application in music therapy. According to Bruscia, the three different approaches include: outcome-oriented thinking, experience-oriented thinking, and context-oriented thinking. For example, outcome-oriented thinkers believe that “Music therapy is a Science” while experienced-oriented thinkers claim that “Music therapy is an Art.” In addition, context-oriented thinkers believe that “Music therapy is a Humanity.” Those who believe that music therapy is a science tend to recognize music as a stimulus and claim the need for quantitative methods in music therapy research. Conversely, those who feel that music therapy is an art see music as a medium to promote their client’s experiences. They tend to value qualitative methods and question the clinical relevance of results based on quantitative research. Those who consider music therapy a humanity acknowledge music as a cultural product and are more likely interested in qualitative research focusing on ecological, sociological, and anthropological viewpoints.

In regard to how DAB can be applied to such belief conflicts, I will now show some examples of the application based on the three steps discussed earlier. Some of the examples have been demonstrated in my previous study (Otera, in press). The first step of recognizing what, why, and how their beliefs are formed can be seen in the following example where a music therapist formulates four questions: 1) I think I am an outcome-oriented thinker, but what made me become one? 2) Is it because I value evidence-based practices and have frequent experiences of being asked the effects of music therapy by other professions? 3) Why do I believe music therapy is a science? Is it because I prefer a scientific way of thinking? and 4) What is the scientific way of thinking and do I really understand it? Meanwhile, a different music therapist creates a set of statements and questions based on his/her beliefs: 1) I believe that music therapy is an art and my way of thinking is experience oriented. Is it because of my artistic experiences with my clients during my music therapy sessions? 2) I think qualitative research is more applicable to music therapy research. Is it because qualitative research is convincing to me? 3) Is it also because of my preference for arts to sciences? and 4) What are arts and sciences and have I ever thought about it? A music therapist who is a context-oriented thinker raises a series of questions: 1) I think that music therapy should be more open to the community. What is the root of this idea? 2) Is it because of my community-based working experience? 3) I am comfortable with being a context-oriented thinker. Is it because of my personality seeking openness and diverseness? and 4) Is it also because of my disagreement with traditional ways of thinking based on individual- and treatment-oriented ideas? Through this thinking process, s/he may start questioning the beliefs.

The second step is to suspend a person’s belief by questioning the reasonableness of the basis of the belief formation. The first step discussed above may not be sufficient for making some people give up their absolute confidence in their beliefs. For example, music therapists who are outcome-oriented thinkers may strongly believe that music therapy is a science based on quantitative research. However, this idea may be rooted in how they were taught at school. Music therapists who are experience-oriented thinkers may firmly believe in the therapeutic power of improvisation because of their aesthetic pleasures shared with clients during clinical improvisation. Music therapists who are context-oriented thinkers may place great value on community based approach because of their successful past experiences with community projects. The basis of their belief formation is based on personal experiences, which are not always shared and understood by others. These three types of people may realize that their beliefs may be doubted by others who attended different schools, have not used the same type of improvisation techniques, or do not see the point of recognizing community projects as “therapy”. As a result, the three of them are likely to accept the invalidation of their undoubted beliefs.

As discussed earlier, one’s intentionality is under the influence of moment, and the consequence in the first and second step is changeable due to the moment-correlativity. For example, an outcome-oriented thinker may be interested in qualitative research if s/he has difficulty in applying a quantitative method for a particular clinical phenomenon. In addition, an experience-oriented thinker would recognize undesirably when a client demonstrates self-harming behaviors, although s/he acknowledges most clients’ behaviors as musical or artistic expressions. If a client refuses to perform in public, a context-oriented thinker may respect the client’s refusal even though the participation to the public performance would benefit the client significantly. The third step is to search and identify meta-intentionality, which transcends such influences of moment-correlativity, among those involved in belief conflicts. In this step, music therapists may start to think about the overall purpose of music therapy and its research while suspending their own beliefs. For example, they may come to conclusions such as, “The ultimate goal of music therapy is to work for clients to address their needs”, or “Music therapy research benefits clients but it also develops the field of music therapy.” These ideas are shareable and supposedly might have been shared with other music therapists. However, we may have acknowledged these ideas from a certain way of thinking while holding our beliefs, without recognizing the structures of beliefs, which may have resulted in the continuous existence of belief conflicts in our field.

After the completion of DAB, music therapists may acknowledge the value of a clinical approach that they do not normally practice for the benefit of their clients. Meanwhile, other music therapists may understand that research methods need to be selected according to the overall study purpose. As a result, they may develop an effective way or a method to work or study together while recognizing their own structures of beliefs and the influence of their intentionality. Because the practice of DAB may enable them to acknowledge the existence of other’s intentionality, they may recognize the unproductivity in forcing their own beliefs. Therefore, practicing DAB may provide music therapists with a new way of addressing belief conflicts over varying approaches.

Conclusion

In this article, I have addressed the issue of belief conflicts over different approaches in music therapy and explored the potential of DAB as a methodology for the development of an effective attitude and way of thinking in music therapists to prevent belief conflicts in the field. As a result of my exploration, DAB can be especially useful for music therapists in promoting mutual understanding in music therapy. In addition, it would also help prevent the development of belief conflicts over different approaches.

However, DAB does not always guarantee the successful development of an effective attitude and way of thinking in music therapists. Moreover, the dissolution of belief conflicts is not always achieved if a music therapist worked on belief conflicts after acquiring a certain attitude and way of thinking. This is because of the complexity in a person’s belief formation process, which is regulated by one’s intention-moment- correlativity. Kyougoku (2011) suggests that the efficacy of DAB cannot be estimated a priori because the influence of moment on the consequence during the DAB application is unavoidable. Therefore, Kyougoku makes reference to the potential of DAB for increasing the likelihood of conflict dissolution, and its usefulness needs to be determined by the extent of the alleviation of the current belief conflict. In other words, if a person acquires an effective attitude and way of thinking, it may enable this person to avoid intensifying the existing belief conflicts or create new ones. In addition, one cannot claim DAB as the best approach for conflict dissolution because it may result in creating another belief conflict from the philosophical point of view.

In this article, I mainly focused on music therapists’ attitudes and ways of thinking as the origins of their belief conflicts because this was the most fundamental level of issue to be addressed. Therefore, my work attempted here was to show the process of suspending their formed beliefs and promoting mutual understanding in order to work effectively on their belief conflicts. However, I have not discussed how to dissolute the specific belief conflicts given as examples in this article. A need exists for further examinations to define and theorize what sciences or arts are if one seeks conflict dissolution in the issue of music therapy as science vs. art. Some fundamental discussions including both philosophical and methodological viewpoints may be required and this may lead to the development of a meta-theory to promote mutual understanding for the concerned issue. As mentioned earlier, the theoretical exploration is beyond the scope of this article, but is recommended for future studies. I would like to note that incorporating DAB in these future studies dealing with belief conflicts may also be effective.

In conclusion, DAB is a philosophy-based approach and provides practical and comprehensive methods for dissolution of belief conflicts. It may be a promising new approach for belief conflicts in the field of music therapy. I conclude that music therapists should take advantage of this hybrid approach to promote the growth of the field, which still has room for development.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to express her appreciation to Dr. Barbara Wheeler, MT-BC for her advice and suggestions for this paper.

Notes

[1] Author’s translation

[2] Author’s translation

[3] Author’s translation

[4] Author’s translation

[5] Author’s translation

[6] Author’s translation

[7] Author’s translation

References

Aigen, K. (1998). Creativity in qualitative music therapy research. Journal of Music Therapy, 35(3), 150-175.

American Music Therapy Association (2010). Master’s-level entry: Core considerations. Education & training advisory board report. American Music Therapy Association. Silver Spring: MD. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from http://www.musictherapy.org/assets/1/7/Masters_Level_Entry_Core_Considerations.pdf.

American Music Therapy Association (n.d.). Master’s-level entry: Moving forward. Education & training advisory board report. American Music Therapy Association. Silver Spring: MD. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from http://www.musictherapy.org/assets/1/7/Masters_Entry-Moving_Forward.pdf.

Aldridge, D. (1996). Music therapy research and practice in medicine from out of the silence. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Bruscia, K. E. (2011). Ways of thinking in music therapy. Paper presented at the The William W. Sears Distinguished Lecture Series, American Music Therapy Association 13th Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Edwards, J. (2005). Developments and issues in music therapy research. In B.L. Wheeler, (Ed.), Music therapy research (2nd Ed.) (pp. 20-32). Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.

Forinash, M. (1993). An exploration into qualitative research in music-therapy. Arts in Psychotherapy, 20(1), 69-73. DOI: 10.1016/0197-4556(93)90033-X

Ikuno, R. (2007) At ending my term for board director of Japanese Music Therapy Association - Converting a conflict in music therapists’ meeting to a "musical" dialogue. Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from http://www.voices.no/?q=fortnightly-columns/2007-ending-my-term-board-director-japanese-music-therapy-association-converting

Kirita, K. (2009). Keiki sokansei no teishikika ni mukete. In T. Saijo, M. Kyougoku,&  K. Ikeda, (Ed.), Journal of Structural Constructivism 3, (pp. 159-182). Kyoto: Kitaoji Shobo.

Kyougoku, M. (2011). Iryokankeisha No Tame No Shinnentairitsukaimei Approach [Dissolution approaches for belif conflicts: Communication skills for health care practitioners]. Tokyo: Seishin Shobo.

Otera, M. (in press). Ongakuryoho kenkyu ni okeru ongaku no toraekata wo meguru shinnentairitsu no kaimei [Dissolution of belief conflicts over the ontological meaning of music in music therapy research]. In T. Saijo, M. Kyougoku,&  K. Ikeda, (Ed.), Journal of Structural Constructivism 6. Kyoto: Kitaoji Shobo.

Oxford Dictionary of English. (2003). Electoric Dictionary. Oxford University Press.

Pavlicevic, M. (2002). Music therapy in context (N. Saji, & M. Takahashi, Trans.). Sendai: Hon no Mori. (Original work published 1997).

Robbins, C. (2007). A Journey into Creative Music Therapy (R. Ikuno, Trans.). Tokyo: Shunjusha. (Original work published 2005)

Ruud, E. (1980). A comparison, summary and conclusion. Music therapy and its relationship to current treatment theories (pp. 61-72). NH: Barcelona.

Saijo, T. (2005). Kozo Kosei Shugi Toha Nanika? [What is structural constructivism?] Kyoto: Kitaoji Shobo.

Saijo, T. (2008). Live Lecture Shitsuteki Kenkyu Toha Nanika? [Live lecture what is qualitative research?] SCQRM Advanced edition. Tokyo: Shinyo Sha.

Silverman, M. (2012). Graduate entry status for music therapists. Paper submitted to Education & Training Advisory Board of American Music Therapy Association. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-GOtTRpMKw-MVpxSVFXTFdRVjY5dnVyVjBkcmR3QQ/edit.

Wheeler, B.L. (2001). Expanding my horizons. Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy. Retrieved June 12, 2012, from http://www.voices.no/?q=fortnightly-columns/2001-expanding-my-horizons

Wheeler, B.L. (2003). First international symposium on music therapy training: A retrospective examination. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 12(1), 54-66. DOI: 10.1080/08098130309478072