MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W111333196

Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues in Music Therapy Training and Education: The Love That Dares Not Sing Its Name /Problèmes Des Lesbiennes, Gays et Bisexuels Dans la Formation et L'éducation En Musicothérapie : L'amour Qui N'est Pas Mentionné Dans Les Chansons

2011· article· fr· W111333196 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bill Ahessy

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian journal of music therapy · 2011
Typearticle
Languefr
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueDiverse Music Education Insights
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLesbianHeterosexismHomosexualityPsychologySexual orientationMental healthTheme (computing)PsychoanalysisPsychotherapistGender studiesSociology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BackgroundLGB individuals have been referred to as a hidden minority, (Pearson, 2003). A minority who experience discrimination in educational, employment, legal and healthcare sectors, and one of the only minorities who experience familial rejection (Davies, 1996; Savin-Williams, 2003; Bowers et al. 2006).In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental illness in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) III, although it was still classified as a pathology by the World Health Organisation until 1990. Historically, a turbulent relationship has existed between sexual minorities and healthcare systems (Davies & Neal, 1996). Although this has improved gready, there still exists widespread homophobia and heterosexism within these systems, and training in this area is much needed (Davies, 1996; Golding, 1997; McFarlane, 1998; King et al. 2003, Bowers et al. 2006). Psychotherapy literature has formerly held either absent or limited and stagnant views of LGB (Milton, Coyle & Legg, 2002, p. 6) and coverage of these has been minimal (Bieschke et al. 1998). However, recendy there has been a marked increase in articles and research focusing on LGB (Rodalfa & Davis, 2003). A recurring theme is the lack of attention to LGB in psychology, psychotherapy and counselling training programs, curricula and education (Clarke & Peel, 2007; Davies, 2007; Godfrey et al. 2006; Garnets & Kimmel, 2003). Davies (2007) highlights how heterosexual bias penetrates both psychotherapy literature and training programs, explaining how as a society, we have been surrounded for decades with negative scripts about sexual minorities and their relationships and so none of us has escaped its insidious and corrosive effects (Davies, 2007, p. 20).For the most part, LGB have not been adequately addressed in the field of music therapy, and consequently have been largely neglected by all but by a few authors. Chase (2004) reviewed literature on working with LGB clients and provided implications for music therapists. There have been case studies by Lee (1996) and Bruscia (1998a, 1998b, 1998c) concerning men with HIV/AIDS, and Hedigan (2005) on working with a chemically dependent male. More recendy, there has been discourse on the integration of one's sexual identity with one's identity as a music therapist (Lee, 2008; Forinash, 2009). LGB in music therapy have been largely overlooked and there has been little relevant discourse in relation to music therapy training, curricula and continuing education. It is imperative that the unique perspectives of sexual minorities are represented in music therapy and that LGB are addressed in training, if graduates are to practice competently in a gay affirmative manner (Lebolt, 1999; Eubanks-Carter et al. 2005).The lack of attention to LGB in psychotherapy training programs, curricula and education has been well documented in the literature.1 Greene (1994) notes how educational institutions can be vehicles for communicating heterosexual bias and this bias has served as an integral part of the underpinnings of theoretical and research paradigms (Greene, 1994, p. 17). In the established psychotherapy-training model LGB perspectives are often excluded, and a heterosexual lens is used in most areas from developmental psychology to therapeutic practice (Davies, 2007). In a recent survey of Canadian counselling programs it was revealed that minimal training in LGB is offered (Alderman, 2004). Furthermore, training often takes place against a backdrop of limited research and visibility of LGB issues (Grove, 2009, p. 79). This lack of attention to LGB had led trainee therapists to report that they feel unprepared and incompetent to work with LGB clients (Philips & Fisher, 1998; Bahr, 2000; Philips, 2000; Garnets & Kimmel, 2003; Alderman, 2004). Clarke & Peel (2007) emphasise that even though people may ascribe to broadly pro-gay principles LGB concerns are often ignored, excluded and marginalised in educational settings. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Communication savante, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,357
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,257
Tête enseignante GPT0,306
Écart entre enseignants0,049 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian journal of music therapyMême sujetDiverse Music Education InsightsTravaux en français237 207