Queering the Curriculum: Why Music Therapy and Other Creative Arts Therapy Trainings Need Queer Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Music therapy academic faculty responsible for teaching the next generation of healthcare practitioners have a responsibility to ensure that the learning environment is one in which the principles of equity and inclusion are upheld and practiced. Without queer perspectives included in the curriculum, promotion and continuation of heteronormative and cisnormative attitudes and beliefs increase. As media, culture, and society reflect increasing awareness of and open-mindedness toward queerness, so does the opportunity for reflection and questioning regarding binary identities and exploration of the need to shift to fluid, spectrum identity categories. This questioning begins with perceiving that contemporary social identities are formed from a limited conception of a normative binary that recognizes only heteronormative and cisnormative sexual orientation and gender identities, which can be extended to other inadequate and unhelpful binaries, for example dis/abled and racial binaries that entrench prejudice. Reviewing current teaching environments and methods allows for consideration of how social constructions limit the capacity of educators to fully include attention to, and critique of, all thoughtless binaries – whether gay/straight, female/male, old/young etc. In this paper we reflect on and reveal predominant heteronormative and cisnormative values in music therapy education, advancing ways to make classroom and practicum settings a safe and exploring space, with the potential to positively impact all students and their current and future clients.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".