Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wheeler, Barbara L., Ed. (2005). Music Research. second Edition. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.My personal copy of the first edition of the Music book is dog-eared and ruined. I used it through my own PhD dissertation and as a reference during dozens of research courses. Since then, various students of mine in Finland and Canada have used that edition as well.It was on summer 2003 at the European Music Conference in Jyvaskyla, Finland when Dr. Wheeler presented the contents of the second edition of the book. I eagerly looked forward to that new edition and now after reading it, I must say it was worth the wait. The book's 586 pages provide evidence that music therapy has stepped into the research century.The structure of the book consists of four parts, with each section covering a different aspect of research. Part one introduces an overview of music therapy research issues. Part two introduces the research process, discussing the different phases from beginning to end. Part three presents the types of quantitative research, and part four discusses other types of research, such as general music research, philosophical inquiry, developing theory, and historical research. The contributors of the book are all well known qualitative or quantitative music therapy researchers from all over the world. I hope that many Canadian music therapists find this book and allow it to encourage and guide them to start research projects.In the following review I will focus on introducing those chapters of the book that might be especially helpful for a music therapist planning to do a qualitative analysis of his of her own clinical work. Even if you do not understand the research concepts you can simply start reading - and learning - about those concepts step by step. It has been written in such a way that it serves as a stand-alone reference - you really do not need many other research books to start the career of the researcher. I am using this book as a main course material during my MMT research courses.Any music therapist interested in doing any kind of research should start by reading chapter I, Overview of Music in which Dr. Barbara L. Wheeler defines music therapy research and gives clear definitions of the differences, relationships and integration between research, practice and theory. In Chapter 3 Dr. Even Ruud provides clear definitions of research terms commonly used in philosophy and theory of science, such as epistemology, ontology, axilogy, and paradigm. These chapters provide beginning researchers with the methodological basis needed to start their research projects.Chapter 7, Research Topics and Questions in Music Therapy by Dr. Kenneth E. Bruscia provides an overview of the vast array of topics and questions that can be pursued in music therapy research, with three broad topical areas identified: discipline, profession, and foundation. interests appropriate for both qualitative and quantitative research are also presented, and prototypical questions are identified for each type of topical area and research. This chapter is extremely clear and easy to read. Beginner researchers can define whether or not his or her study is under these research topics, and whether or not it is considered assessment, treatment or evaluative research. The researcher can also use this chapter to help decide upon the focus point of his or her research. Quantitative and qualitative research approaches are clearly presented and compared, and using this chapter as a guide would bring credibility to the methodology section of any research report. I think that this chapter really is a must for every music therapy researcher. Holistic description, theory building, artistic re-creation and self-reflection are all investigated through questions concerning events, actions, interactions, experiences, language, artworks, and persons. As these levels progress, they move from description to more profound levels of interpretation. …
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.044 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".