Music and Spirituality: An Auto-Ethnographic Study of How Five Individuals Used Music to Enrich Their Soul

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper which adds original knowledge to the field of music and spirituality. 

Abstract. The three main findings should be named in the abstract - three main structural themes: The Privacy of Altering Experience; Self-Therapeutic Realisation; Conscious Continuity.

Literature review 1st paragraph - this needs editing as some of the meaning is unclear. Recommend simplifying your language. 

Methodology is very clear and impressively presented. 

Findings  - Dinesh's narrative needs some editing (middle paragraph) as it became a little clear to understand the point amidst very complex terminology. 

There are many minor typos and minor errors throughout. Please be sure to check the manuscript for any unclear statements.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 This is average but some areas need editing. Occasionally over complex or unclear statements ( as indicated in comments for authors)

Author Response

Thankyou very much indeed for your careful and critical comments and we value them greatly. Please find attached our new document, and also a list of our responses here.

1. This is an interesting paper which adds original knowledge to the field of music and spirituality. Our response: Thank you and we appreciate that.
2. Abstract. The three main findings should be named in the abstract - three main structural themes: The Privacy of Altering Experience; Self-Therapeutic Realisation; Conscious Continuity. Our response: Thankyou. We have added the three themes to the Abstract.
3. Literature review 1st paragraph - this needs editing as some of the meaning is unclear. Recommend simplifying your language. Our response: Thank you and we have edited this paragraph significantly and clarified the meaning of the words spirituality and religion.Pages 1 & 2 in particular are relevant.
4. Methodology is very clear and impressively presented. Our response: thankyou and we appreciate that very much.
5.  Findings - Dinesh's narrative needs some editing (middle paragraph) as it became a little clear to understand the point amidst very complex terminology. Our response: We have returned to Dinesh’s and others' narratives and included excerpts that we have excluded previously. The inclusions are drawn from some of Dinesh’s and others’ reflections and diaries. Pages 4 & 5 in particular are relevant.
6. There are many minor typos and minor errors throughout. Please be sure to check the manuscript for any unclear statements. Our response: We have been through the whole paper and attended to all the typos and minor errors. 
7. Language and expression: This is average but some areas need editing. Occasionally over complex or unclear statements (as indicated in comments for authors). Our response: We have been through the whole paper and shortened some long sentences and simplified others. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A novel methodological approach to questions about the relationship between music and spirituality, using comparative auto-ethnographies. The paper is well-structured, well supported by appropriate citations and the style of writing is excellent.

I have three comments.

1. The conflation of spirituality, faith and belief and the lack of (admittedly difficult to pin down) definition of these concepts. In the first sentence of the abstract, the theme is described as music and spirituality, and in the next sentence this becomes 'faith and belief', with this implied to be synonymous. These are not the same things for everyone, so would recommend a clearer outline of exactly what is meant by spirituality, and a consistent usage so as not to conflate with other aspects of/terms associated with religion. Especially given the focus, via autoethnography, on 'experience' which in some approaches to these concepts, is understood as somewhat distinct from belief. Further, the idea of religion/spirituality as implicitly or primarily about 'belief' is often understood as strongly derived from Protestant Christianity, so given the different worldviews mentioned in the autoethnographic section, I would expect that this kind of conflation of spirituality with 'belief' is not the intention of the authors. Recommend authors review for precision, consistency and working definitions of spirituality, and resist any ambivalent use of apparent synonyms. 

2. Some sweeping claims are made that are not supported by the data and analysis, especially towards the end: for example, "Music is a vehicle that helps individuals in distress," " Music is a vehicle for the spiritual expression of people’s emotions set within their life experiences," and several others. I think the analysis and argument would support both these statements if they replaced 'is'  with 'can be', but as it is they are far too generalised and absolutist. It seems obvious that in many cases music may not help individuals in distress, may not affect them at all, or could even make things worse; many people would and do reject the claim that music has any spiritual dimension for them, even it is important to them. I don't think it would be helpful for the authors to insist that, in these cases, the music really is spiritual for such people even when those people deny that it is. It strikes me as extremely important to not overclaim from the interesting and valuable data presented in the article, towards large unsupported absolutist generalities, about the connection between music and spirituality, statements which in some cases appear themselves as more articles of faith than research findings. Recommend reviewing the entire article to ensure that all such language is rigorously focused on what has actually been shown by the data, previous research sources cited, and the analysis presented in the article. This is likely to be easily resolved in the manner indicated above, e.g. changing 'is' to 'can be' and similar.  

3. As a specific example of 2., there is slippage between analysis of reports from research participants describing spirituality or related topics, and the analysis which takes as established some of the same themes. An example is the sentence "Further, any musical experience that enables a connection with a person’s authentic self, is spiritual." From my own research with people describing their musical responses in relation to spirituality/religion, some people would agree with this statement, while others (who listened to the same music concerts) would strongly disarticulate 'enables a connection with a person's authentic self' and 'spiritual', i.e. I think many would agree that music did the former, while resisting that this meant (for them) it was 'spiritual'. I think it is very important to separate a research participant making claims about their own experience and choosing to use the term 'spiritual' (which is completely appropriate to include), with the authors making broader claims about how music 'is' spiritual, where this is highly subjective and not 'proved' by the data they present. I appreciate this is a complex given the autoethnographic approach, but would recommend bearing in mind the strict distinction between the experience reports of the participants, and the rigorous, impartial academic analysis by the authors of concepts like spirituality (even if they are the same people!).

Author Response

Thankyou very much indeed for all of your comments. We have attended to them all and feel that it has improved our paper significantly. Attached is our new amended paper, and our responses to your individual points are given below:

Point 1:

The conflation of spirituality, faith and belief and the lack of (admittedly difficult to pin down) definition of these concepts. In the first sentence of the abstract, the theme is described as music and spirituality, and in the next sentence this becomes 'faith and belief', with this implied to be synonymous. These are not the same things for everyone, so would recommend a clearer outline of exactly what is meant by spirituality, and a consistent usage so as not to conflate with other aspects of/terms associated with religion. Especially given the focus, via autoethnography, on 'experience' which in some approaches to these concepts, is understood as somewhat distinct from belief. Further, the idea of religion/spirituality as implicitly or primarily about 'belief' is often understood as strongly derived from Protestant Christianity, so given the different worldviews mentioned in the autoethnographic section, I would expect that this kind of conflation of spirituality with 'belief' is not the intention of the authors. Recommend authors review for precision, consistency and working definitions of spirituality, and resist any ambivalent use of apparent synonyms. 

Our response: 

Thank you for your comments. We have addressed (hopefully) the conflations that you have pointed out, being more careful with individual meanings of spirituality, religion, faith, and belief throughout. We have aimed to be more careful and critical with the different usages of all the aforementioned words, beginning with the Abstract and the title of the paper; advancing into the Introduction, where we use spirituality and religion more precisely, rather than assuming the synonymous meaning of belief and faith as well. Then, we also change the Literature substantially, clarifying again, the different meanings of spirituality, being more careful with which words we use to support our argument, and, being clearer about what the paper is for. We also, and this applies throughout the paper, are clearer about which expression we use and why; being more careful not to assume similarities between each of spiritual, religious, belief and faith. Pages 1 & 2, including the title, abstract, Introduction and Literature. In the Discussion, on page 11, we also emphasise our earlier points about the individual and communal differences between spirituality and communality and provide more literature to emphasise this are relevant in this response.

Point 2:

Some sweeping claims are made that are not supported by the data and analysis, especially towards the end: for example, "Music is a vehicle that helps individuals in distress," " Music is a vehicle for the spiritual expression of people’s emotions set within their life experiences," and several others. I think the analysis and argument would support both these statements if they replaced 'is’ with 'can be', but as it is they are far too generalised and absolutist. It seems obvious that in many cases music may not help individuals in distress, may not affect them at all, or could even make things worse; many people would and do reject the claim that music has any spiritual dimension for them, even it is important to them. I don't think it would be helpful for the authors to insist that, in these cases, the music really is spiritual for such people even when those people deny that it is. It strikes me as extremely important to not overclaim from the interesting and valuable data presented in the article, towards large unsupported absolutist generalities, about the connection between music and spirituality, statements which in some cases appear themselves as more articles of faith than research findings. Recommend reviewing the entire article to ensure that all such language is rigorously focused on what has actually been shown by the data, previous research sources cited, and the analysis presented in the article. This is likely to be easily resolved in the manner indicated above, e.g. changing 'is' to 'can be' and similar.  

Our response:

Thank you for your comments. We have removed such claims and been more judicious (we hope) both in our use of data to support our argument, and in the clarity and precision of our ideas. We have been careful not to overstate meanings, and have carried out a careful review of our language to ensure that it is more circumspect. There are various places in the text we have deleted relevant claims. 

Point 3:

As a specific example of 2., there is slippage between analysis of reports from research participants describing spirituality or related topics, and the analysis which takes as established some of the same themes. An example is the sentence "Further, any musical experience that enables a connection with a person’s authentic self, is spiritual." From my own research with people describing their musical responses in relation to spirituality/religion, some people would agree with this statement, while others (who listened to the same music concerts) would strongly disarticulate 'enables a connection with a person's authentic self' and 'spiritual', i.e. I think many would agree that music did the former, while resisting that this meant (for them) it was 'spiritual'. I think it is very important to separate a research participant making claims about their own experience and choosing to use the term 'spiritual' (which is completely appropriate to include), with the authors making broader claims about how music 'is' spiritual, where this is highly subjective and not 'proved' by the data they present. I appreciate this is a complex given the autoethnographic approach but would recommend bearing in mind the strict distinction between the experience reports of the participants, and the rigorous, impartial academic analysis by the authors of concepts like spirituality (even if they are the same people!).

Our response:

Thank you for this comment, and we entirely agree and recognize the complexity that you suggest here. We have thought very carefully about this and made some important additions to the Discussion and Concluding thoughts about people’s motivations, the nexus between knowledge and experience, and also, the ultimate contribution of this piece, and not and being careful about not overstating its significance within the field. The discussion and Concluding Thoughts are important in this part of the response, on pages 11, 12 and 13. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf