Comparative literature study

The purpose in qualitative research is to understand events, actions and processes within their own contexts, as opposed to the more atomistic approach of quantitative variable analysis (Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 272). It is only as one “understands events against the background of the whole and how such a context confers meaning to the events concerned, that one can truly claim to ‘understand’ the events” (Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 272).

For this reason, it was decided to present the Alexander Technique and the New Approach literature in separate chapters first, before drawing them together in the comparative literature study. In this way, each method could be described within its own paradigm, using the distinctive categories, concepts and terminology that are unique to each method (cf Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 272). Once the concepts from the two disciplines are integrated in the comparative literature study, the demarcation lines between the two methods may become blurred, leading to unnecessary confusion, unless a clear picture of each method had been established first.

One of the problems encountered in the individual literature studies of both the Alexander Technique and the New Approach, is that any attempt to separate the different aspects of a physical discipline in order to study them in sufficient detail, inevitably results in the artificial splitting up of that which is essentially a complex,

23 integrated activity, in which everything is interrelated. As was mentioned above, individual concepts and procedures can only truly be understood in relation to the whole (cf Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 272), and therefore the Alexander Technique and New Approach chapters were constructed after the model of a hologram, in a similar way to the procedure followed by Babbie and Mouton (2001: xxi) in their textbook on social research.

Both the New Approach and the Alexander Technique chapters begin with a brief introduction, outlining the basic tenets of the method, after which a background study relating to the development of the method is given. The background presents a wider and slightly more detailed perspective of the method, while retaining an overview of the interconnected nature of all the procedures. This is followed by an in-depth and detailed look at the individual processes involved in the method. While this procedure does result to some degree in the overlapping of material, it has the benefit of giving sufficient detail to gain a true understanding of the underlying processes in both methods, without losing sight of the broader context.

Using words to describe information relating to sensory experience is problematic, as Alexander himself, and many others, had found (Jones, 1976: 33). Although a procedure might be very simple in practise, “to describe it is not so simple, and it may require familiarity with quite small detail if it is to be understood” (Barlow, 1973: 223). For this reason, comprehensive and detailed descriptions of specific aspects in both methods were given - a procedure that is entirely congruent with the nature of qualitative description (cf Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 272).

The secondary data that was used in the comparative literature study was selected with specific criteria in mind, as the authority of one’s sources and the degree of representation that they afford, is a decisive factor of the final quality of such a study (Mouton, 2001: 180). F.M. Alexander’s book The use of the self (1932) was chosen as an important source, as it gives his own account of developing the Technique and is at the same time the most accessible of his books. Other sources that were selected for the Alexander Technique chapter include Frank Pierce Jones (1976) and Wilfred Barlow (1973), as they had both personally studied with FM and AR Alexander. It has already been noted that Jones conducted extensive research into the scientific nature

24 of the Alexander Technique, and in Body awareness in action (Jones, 1976), which is used in this study, he gives a comprehensive account of both his research methodology and findings. Barlow (1973, The Alexander principle) was a doctor of medicine who worked with Alexander and eventually became the medical director of the Alexander Institute. Details of his research have also been given earlier. Both Jones and Barlow are therefore qualified to speak with considerable personal and scientific authority on the Alexander Technique.

Alexander Technique by Chris Stevens (1996) was chosen as another Alexander

source. Even though it seems that he had not personally studied with Alexander, Stevens has been involved with many scientific studies investigating the effects of the Alexander Technique, which have enabled him “to find improved ways of teaching the Technique” (Stevens, 1996: 84). Pedro de Alcantara is a musician, rather than a scientist, and although he also did not personally study with either of the Alexander brothers, his book Indirect Procedures (1997) considers the specific application of the Alexander Technique to music performance and teaching, and as such it has special relevance for the purposes of this study. While many other books and articles regarding the Alexander Technique were also consulted1 in the course of the research, these five books form the core of the literature study on the Technique.

For the New Approach literature study, Havas’s four books on the New Approach (1961, 1964, 1968, 1973) and Claude Kenneson’s The cellist’s guide to the New

Approach (which was endorsed by Havas herself), were selected as the main sources.

The biologist Dr Frances Hellebrandt (1969, 1970a, 1970b), who wrote extensive articles on the biomechanical and neuro-physiological rationale of the New Approach, was also used as an important New Approach source. Once again, many other sources2 were consulted as well, but the books and articles mentioned above were specifically selected for their personal and/or scientific authority, and were used as the principal references.

In the individual literature studies, the relevant information was organised into manageable themes in order to facilitate an understanding of “the various constitutive

1 _{See the list of references for the other Alexander Technique sources that were used in this study.} 2 _{See the list of references for the other New Approach sources that were used in this study.}

25 elements” of the data (Mouton, 2001: 108). The patterns and relationships that were identified between the concepts in each method, contributed to the design of the Alexander Technique and New Approach chapters. The ‘Framework of key concepts’ that was developed in the study of the Alexander Technique, served as a model according to which the comparative literature study in Chapter Five was constructed.