We often find ourselves – as clinicians/health musickers, researchers, educators, and advocates – engaged in the process of review. Review of our work with clients/participants is a part of our ongoing assessment; it allows us to reflect, change, and act ethically. Our review activity in other areas (research, andragogy, advocacy) most often seeks to inform this clinical work, either directly or indirectly. Review can evoke reflection (our serious consideration of a topic) and can foster reflexivity (our ability to unearth our assumptions and values on a topic; Thompson, Citation2022). Review, whether done by oneself or with others, is a process that can facilitate growth and understanding.
Review often takes on a more collaborative and formalized constitution within research. For example, researchers can engage in multiple review processes within a single study, helping to develop theory, establish an ethical practice, communicate results, and discuss findings; some of these review processes happen within their research team or include others, such as during a human subjects review process. Their work may then be reviewed by a book editor, or a journal editorial team, or university peers regarding potential publication.
My experiences on both sides of the review process have led me to believe that collaborative review is valuable, challenging, and sometimes messy. I have learned, in part, how to review better by seeing good examples and not-so-good examples of peer review. I have certainly also learned by making my own mistakes when I review others’ work.
When I began my service as an Associate Editor with the Nordic Journal, the Editor-in-Chief at the time, Joke Bradt, asked that the journal require book reviews to include critical analysis. I believe this update was important because it allowed for book reviews themselves to contribute to an ongoing, dynamic body of knowledge. I believe that all contributions to knowledge, no matter how great and substantial, are limited in what they present. To me, the role of a reviewer (including a book reviewer) is to collaborate, to help clarify, detail, and present perspectives that acknowledge/challenge those limitations. However, tactfulness in such challenges goes a long way to help our community value the growth of diverse work. We as reviewers are also limited in our experiences and perspectives; we must be open to ongoing dialogue and growth as well. Reviewing is not easy; it takes time and effort.
Members of the editorial team of the Nordic Journal are presenting on “The Art of Review” at the upcoming Nordic Music Therapy Conference. I wish to not supplant their presentation, which will focus on peer review in publication, but rather to provide a brief personal reflection on the topic. While some components of review are procedural, there truly is an artistic side of review. I believe the artistic component may be equally if not more important when review is a collaborative process. We are dealing with a need to promote strong “contributions to the body of knowledge,” but we are also working with people who want to learn, grow, and share through research endeavors. How do we balance gatekeeping and procedure with productive communication and the human experience? I suggest the importance of our ability to be open, to listen, and to think about the words we use when we review others’ work and provide feedback. We always have in front of us the opportunity to educate and be educated through tactful and respectful dialogue. We are continually grateful for the community of editors, reviewers, and researchers that make the Nordic Journal of Music Therapy a place of value.
Introducing the manuscripts published in this issue
I begin this section uniquely, with the book review published in this issue. Braedyn Inmon provides a rigorous and insightful review of Collier and Eastwood's Intersectionality in the Arts Psychotherapies (p. 334). Worthy of note are Braedyn’s positional/post-structural dialogue, tactful critique, and well-articulated curiosities, which give the book review a way to expand on the valuable work of all book authors.
Four original research articles are also included in this issue, beginning with the work of Shulamit Epstein, who explores the concept of musical agency as a theoretical framework for music therapy within the realm of preterm infant settings (p. 243). Epstein’s review and analysis within the LongSTEP trial is notable as a way to build depth within larger studies; furthermore, the post-human underpinnings of musical agency in this article provide us with a contemporary philosophical angle with which to review and consider our work. Annie Heiderscheit and Alison Short share the results of an international survey on music therapy teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing us an opportunity to review and engage with innovative teaching practices (p. 261). Lisa Kelly, Niamh Kenny, Cathy McGlynn, Ita Richardson, and Hilary Moss offer an exploratory phenomenological study on music therapy telehealth with people who have dementia and caretakers, reviewing those factors that can help promote successful online service, and potentially greater access to music therapy (p. 281). Nerdinga Snape, Suvi Saarikallio, Esa Ala-Ruona, Martin Hartmann, Olivier Brabant, and Jaakko Erkkilä present a thematic analysis of online diaries after adults with depression review their own musical improvisations (p. 299).
Rounding out this issue is a perspectives on practice article written by Samuel N. Rodgers-Melnick, Joke Bradt, Coretta Jenerette, and Jeffery A. Dusek (p. 319). Their work is based on meetings where review and discussion occurred, leading the authors to proffer recommendations for music therapy practice with people who have chronic pain and sickle-cell disease.