Reflections on Change in Arts-based Research: The experience of two music therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of engaging in arts-based research is unique; it draws upon the creative essence of the researcher to work with artistic forms which carry intangible information that is perhaps unknowable by other means. In this process, the researcher is engaged wholly; all faculties of the person are drawn into the artistic world. This article explores the experiences of two music therapists conducting arts-based research studies, weaving together distinct narratives with common themes. The reader is taken along the journey of two separate music therapy research projects: one whose participants are a group of music therapists, one whose participant is a child living with mental health challenges. Thinking retrospectively, the researchers discuss links between their personal artistry and the arts-based research process, exploring issues such as trust, creativity, and the credibility of information carried in artistic media. Visual art, musical excerpts and creative writing are included. By exploring the professional and personal journeys as music therapists in the arts-based research process we highlight the strengths and challenges of this approach that shaped our studies and gave light to emergent understandings through the arts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".