POE+II

__Music-Medicine for the Soul: An Introduction to a Discussion of the Politics of Evidence__
Jana sat back, rested her eyes, and thought, “In this mess of a world, it’s nice to know some things don’t change.” She reached over and turned up the volume of the radio, letting the strains of Brahms wash over her. There was something so clean and ordered about the music. She was glad she had contributed so generously this year to keep such programming available on the local public radio station. She rested and let the music carry away the tensions of another long day.[|(Click here to listen to Jana's music)]

The sonata ended just as the clock began to chime. The announcer thanked those who were listening and began to tell of changes that would be occurring in WGTB’s programming. Jana, only half-awake, paid no attention until the harsh dissonance of the next piece shattered her tranquility. Harsh, discordant, atonal – the “music” (she hated to even use the word in reference to this din) ripped at her soul. Why would they do this; why would they give airtime to such apostasy? She rushed to the phone to register her complaint.

Two doors down, Simone also had turned on her radio. For Simone, it was more a habit than anything; she usually didn’t even pay attention. The radio was just background noise that kept her from feeling so alone in that big house. But today the program was different – not the staid, predictable pabulum that WGTB seemed to play day after day. No, today there was a fresh new sound – one filled with excitement and passion. Simone stopped what she was doing and listened. Suddenly she realized she was weeping, and though a little embarrassed to be feeling so exposed, she was grateful. She hadn’t felt moved like this in such a long time. media type="youtube" key="tB_-vPlMNYk"

Weeks later, there they sat – Jana and Simone – neighbors, but now rivals, as they waited to express their opinions before the WGTB Program Board. This would be the critical day for deciding what kind of music the station would make available to the community. Common sense seemed to say that surely there is adequate airtime to play numerous types of music that would appeal to a variety of interests, but the board had made it clear that the station would play only that which was judged to be true music. The recent programming changes had created enough of a stir among the station’s benefactors to bring about this meeting, but the question remained both for Jana and Simone: In deciding what is truly music, who gets to be in the room?

The Nature of Evidence
In the article titled, [|The Nature of "Evidence" In Qualitative Research Methods] the authors Steven Miller and Marcel Fredericks explore how qualitative research data becomes evidence. Their discussion parallels Yvonna Lincoln's article, [|On the Nature of Qualitative Evidence], describing how data becomes evidence i.e. that data does not constitute evidence but that data becomes evidence when it can be used to support a "claim." Much of what we call "data" is itself phenomenological -- that is, socially constructed and "there" only becasue we are attuned to looking for it. (p. 3) No "evidence" is evidence until we see it from some theoretical, paradigmatic, or metaphysical framework ... Thus what constitutes evidence, and therefore, what justifies it, is the result not only of what questions are posed, but of the framework within which they are posed. (p. 4)

A paradigm is coexistent with the rules of seeing and rules of measuring and thinking that give it its physical objects and scientific laws. Different natural objects are precipitated by different paradigms. What may be true in one, may be false in another. H. M. Collins, 1983, p. 90

The politics side of the issue, at this point, seems to relate not so much to how evidence is used but rather to what consititutes evidence. The Collins' quotation that leads into the Lincoln article discusses the paradigms we use to interpret and measure "reality". It seems to me that is the crux of our conversation -- shaping the paradigms by which we understand and speak about our "reality". What evidence is there for holding on to, or surrendering, the paradigms that help us to make sense of the world? I'm intrigued with this question from a couple of vantage points: I work in the behavioral sciences, which often are referred to as "soft" sciences. That old dualism of "hard" and "soft", however, is the same false dichotomy that feeds the polarization of quantitative as distinct from qualitative research, "measurable" data as distinct from "interpretive" data, and facts as distinct from stories. New paradigms will be necessary that can help bring these various "ways of knowing" together instead of pushing them apart.

Introducing different ways of knowing into research may provide the opportunity for the new paradigms to emerge. In a series of discussions concerning graduate education and the nature of evidence, Pelligrino and Goldman propose that providing new researchers with a broad introduction to modes of inquiry may prove valuable. They suggest this can best be accomplished in coursework devoted to differing epistemologies and philosophies of inquiry.This commitment sets the stage for graduate training that is substantially broadened. Some suggest that a methods core include a balance of quantitative and qualitative methods. Although we are concerned that trading breadth for depth may lead to less methods expertise, the notion that qualitative and quantitative methods are complementary is an important improvement in how the educational community talks about differences. We propose that enabling a mutual respect and regard for different methods is the greatest priority. We suggest this can best be accomplished in coursework devoted to differing epistemologies and philosophies of inquiry [|(Pelligrino and Goldman, 2002 and 2003).]

So how do these arguments impact the decisions with which the WGBT programming board is faces?