Canadian Music Therapists' Perspectives on the Current State of Music Therapy as a Profession in Canada/Les Perspectives Des Musicothérapeutes Sur le Statut Actuel De la Musicothérapie En Tant Que Profession Au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Music therapy in Canada is a relatively young and emerging profession. Since first documented practices began in Toronto in 1950s, field has made significant gains. Our national association, Canadian Association for Music Therapy (CAMT) was formed in 1974 (Alexander, 1993), and this is one of most notable of these gains. Currently, CAMT has approximately 816 members, 541 of whom are accredited music therapists, and seven provincial chapters (CAMT, 2013). It publishes a peer-reviewed journal and hosts an annual national conference. There are six CAMT-approved university training programs that have varying types of involvement in research initiatives, two of which provide education at master's level (CAMT, n.d.-a). A national non-profit organization called Canadian Music Therapy Trust Fund (CMTTF) was formed in 1994 and to date has raised approximately 4.8 million dollars, which has helped to fund over 450 clinical music therapy projects across country (W. Gascho-White, Chair, CMTTF Board of Directors, personal communication, September 5, 2013). Finally, there have been several recent features in Canadian media on music therapy, which not only help to increase public awareness but may also increase public acceptance of field as a legitimate form of practice (e.g., Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2011; Gordon, 2011; Jolly, Pettit, & Mahoney, 2011; Nadeau, 2011; Rooy, 2013; Ubelacker, 2013). However, in spite of these advances, Canadian music therapists still to find work in their chosen profession. Insufficient funding has often been cited as primary reason for this situation (Alexander, 1993; CAMT, 2004a, 2004b); Pearson, 2006), but literature also indicates that there may be other important factors to consider.The Professionalization ProcessIn general, a profession may be defined as highest level of occupational functioning in a particular area (Emener & Cottone, 1989). More specifically, Imse (1960) defined a profession asan occupational group identified by (1) its fund of specialized knowledge and (2) its highly trained membership, who (3) acting with individual judgment, (4) intimately affect affairs of others. It is usually characterized by (1) its code of ethics, (2) its spirit of altruism, and (3) its self-organization, (p. 41)Similarly, Millerson (1964) identified common traits of a profession, which include skills based upon knowledge, provision of training and education, testing competence of members, organization, adherence to a code of conduct, and altruistic service. Aigen (1991) stated that field of music therapy consists of professional standards and responsibilities, educational competencies, certification criteria, acceptable forms of practice, and function of accrediting bodies (p. 80). Therefore, according to criteria outlined above, music therapy in Canada can indeed be legitimately defined as a profession. However, literature search also revealed that new professions often experience a process referred to as professionalization.Professionalization is the process by which a gainful activity moves from status of 'occupation' to status of a 'profession' (Emener & Cottone, 1989, p. 6). Professionalization is necessary in order to safeguard quality, effectiveness, and ethical integrity of practice (Rostron, 2009). Yet, occupation becomes a profession without a struggle (Goode, 1960, p. 902). It seems that music therapy in Canada is no exception.According to literature, new professions often have difficulties differentiating themselves from occupations with similar client bases (Goode, 1960), or face impingement by other professions (Emener & Cottone, 1989). According to CAMT's definition of music therapy, in order for an intervention to fall under scope of music therapy practice, it must be carried out by a qualified music therapist, (CAMT, 1994); however, in Canada potential employers (e. …
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".