“Everybody Can Dance the Colour Pink”: A Phenomenological Exploration of the Meanings and Experiences of Inclusive Arts Programs for Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the arts have gained a more prominent place in inclusive educational settings, inclusive arts programming in the context of community recreation requires further exploration. In my practice I have found that while inclusive arts opportunities are in high-demand, programs that run are typically infrequent and short-term, leaving many potential participants without a space to explore the arts. In this research I undertook a phenomenological inquiry into the experience of ten practitioners providing inclusive arts programs. Practitioners were drawn from Southwestern and Northwestern Ontario, and from a variety of arts-based fields. This exploration examined practitioners’ images and understandings of inclusion, disability, the arts, and their experiences with inclusive arts programs. The key essences which emerged as components of the inclusive arts experience for practitioners were: Inclusive Arts as an Enabling Space; Exploring Potential through Creative Expression; Flexibility, Adaptations, and Possibilities for Inclusion; Valuing Sameness and Difference in Ability and the Arts; Practitioners’ Experiences of Receiving Gifts and Feeling Strained; and, Embodying Inclusive Arts Values. Practitioners’ experiences within inclusive arts programs were impacted by the values associated with inclusion and the arts. Practitioners who embodied those values in their everyday life found inclusive arts programming to be highly rewarding and meaningful, despite sometimes significant financial and emotional challenges. The essences are also discussed in relation to three cross-cutting aspects of the practitioners’ experience: the medical and social construction of disability, art as inclusion, and the notion of embodiment.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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 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".