'Drama as Therapy' research seminar
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The RCSSD’s CDthAN (Central Dramatherapy Alumni Network) hosted a seminar celebration of over 1000 citations of the book - 'Drama as Therapy' (Routledge 1996, 2007) by Professor Phil Jones. This research based seminar consisted of eight groups of therapist-researchers from Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Israel, Palestine, the UK and the USA presenting their work and being involved in dialogic interviews with other therapist-researchers and MA/Doctoral students from different parts of the world, including those from the RCSSD’s MA in Drama and Movement Therapy. The focus concerns their published research in relation to their citation of ‘Drama as Therapy’, focusing on the book’s theory and research concerning the ‘core processes’ of dramatherapy. What are the Core Processes? ‘The core processes aim to ‘define the key processes which operate within dramatherapy and show how they can be used in different ways according to the needs of the client group or context…’ (Jones 1996: p99). ‘Jones describes nine core processes derived from theatre...(these are) particularly appropriate because dramatherapists agree that it is involvement in the process of drama...that creates the potential for change in dramatherapy’ (Langley 2006: p 22). ‘First articulated by Jones (1991) the drama therapy core processes are common factors across drama therapy approaches that represent universal in-session process variables and are theorized to be therapeutic and bring about client change’ (Frydman et al. 2022: p1). There are eight presentations/interviews by therapist-researchers Presentations and interviews featuring: 1. Leigh Bulmer, Dr Christine Novy, Amy Thomas and Susan Ward about 'Introducing Movement and Prop as Additional Metaphors in Narrative Therapy' (2005) Journal of Systemic Therapies 24: (2) 60-74. Interview by Akinyi Oluoch. 2. Dr Reem Shamshoum about 'Extracts from ‘Dancing in Nazareth' (2016) from ‘Beyond the Boundary: is there something called real knowledge?’ ALARA Monograph. Interview by Dr Ditty Dokter and Dr Sandra El Gemayel. 3. Rinat Feniger-Schaal about 'Using Drama Therapy to Enhance Maternal Insightfulness and Reduce Children’s Behavior Problems' (20210 Frontiers in Psychology (11): Art. 586630. Interview by Anat Geiger and Professor Phil Jones. 4. Genevieve Smyth about 'Solution-focused brief dramatherapy group work: working with children in mainstream education in Sri-Lanka' (2010) from Arts Therapies in Schools: Research and Practice (ed. Karkou, V.), Jessica Kingsley. Interview by Lujain Faqerah and Dr Emma Ramsden. 5. Lucy Lu and Dr Felice Youen about 'Journey women: Art therapy in a decolonizing framework of practice' (2012) The Arts in Psychotherapy 39: (3) 192-200. Interview by Madeline Montgomery and Professor Phil Jones. 6. Professor Paul Animbom about 'Therapeutic theatre: an experience from a mental health clinic in Yaoundé-Cameroon' (2017) Arts & Health 9:(3) 269-278. Interview by Lanjo Neindefoh and Dawisu Ndzewiyi. 7. Dr Joanna Jaaniste about 'Dramatherapy with Elders and People with Dementia' (2022) Routledge. Interview by Dr Alyson Coleman, Tammy Ivensha, Sam Ruston, Jordan Rapacchi and Dr Chanaphan Thammarut. 8. Dr Angelle Cook, Dr Jason Frydman and Dr Chyela Rowe about 'Understanding school-based drama therapy through the core processes: An analysis of intervention vignettes' (2021) The Arts in Psychotherapy 73: (2) 101766 and 'The drama therapy core processes: A Delphi study establishing a North American perspective’ (2022) The Arts in Psychotherapy 80: (1) 101939. Interview by Dr Alyson Coleman and June VanWeelden. 9. Seminar Recording October 16 2024 Note on Ethics: The seminar interview process was approved by the RCSSD Research Ethics and Integrity Sub-committee (2024) and interviewees signed a consent form. This included consent for the inclusion of the interviews in this respository. All research referred to within the interviews is: from published articles and chapters; within the public domain and was subject to ethical approval within the contexts of the researchers.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,115 | 0,030 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».