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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".