Music Therapy Research: Contributions from Canada/Recherche En Musicothérapie : L'apport Canadien
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is adapted from keynote address, Staying on the Crest with Music Therapy Research, presented at the Canadian Association of Music Therapy Conference in Victoria in May, 2007.1 reviewed great deal of Canadian research in an effort to understand how research fits into the culture of Canadian music therapy, and found an impressive diversity and quantity of this research. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate these characteristics of Canadian music therapy research.Definition of ResearchBefore we can discuss specific research contributions, we must define research. Bruscia (1995) defined research as a systematic, self-monitored which leads to discovery or new insight which, when documented and disseminated, contributes to or modifies existing knowledge or practice (p. 21). Gfeller (1995) described research as a disciplined or systematic inquiry (p. 29) and cited definition of it as a carefully organized procedure that can result in the discovery of new knowledge, the substantiation of previously held concepts, the rejection of false tenets that have been widely acclaimed, and the formal presentation of data collected (Phelps, Ferrara & Goolsby, as cited in Gfeller, 1995, p. 29).Rainbow & Froelich (1987) suggest that research includes four basic steps: (a) clear statement of purpose and the delineation of the specific aspects under investigation; (b) methodology that is clearly described and justified; (c) report of the results; and (d) conclusions that are subsequendy related to existing knowledge.These definitions make it clear that not everything that music therapists do is research, although they may have features in common with research. When therapists observe clients' responses in music therapy, for example, they use observational techniques that might be used in research, but are not truly doing research. In this situation the focus ia on improving work clinical work (or the client's condition) rather than to contribute to or modify existing knowledge or practice, as Bruscia's definition suggests.Questions and Types of ResearchResearch flows from the questions that we ask. Most music therapy questions suggest research method or approach that is appropriate to answer or explore them. While some people begin their research with particular method in mind, it is probably better to begin with the question. Some examples of questions that lead to quantitative or qualitative research designs are presented here.Quantitative ResearchDescriptive. One might ask,How does X influence client during the process of therapy? where X could be variations in the tempo, volume, tonality, or another aspect of an improvisation; the type of instrument used; or things that are happening in the client's life outside of music therapy.Examples of descriptive research in music therapy could include studies that are based on surveys and questionnaires, single subject designs that rely on numerical data to determine the results, and studies of groups of people that use quantitative measures of outcomes but do not include control group for comparison.Experimental. One might ask, Does X treatment work better than Y treatment? X and Y could be music therapy and another creative arts therapy, for example, or music therapy in combination with language therapy versus music therapy alone.In experimental research two or more treatment conditions are compared and random assignment of participants to conditions is preferred. These are standard experimental designs that answer questions about the effectiveness of music therapy. They are often requested by those who determine what therapy should be supported or paid for.Qualitative ResearchIn qualitative research, one might ask, What is it that takes place between the client and the therapist during the process of therapy that makes the therapy powerful (or emotional, or life-changing) experience? …
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 | 0.024 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".