Respect-focused writing: An invitation to reflexivity in the use of terminology

Abstract

As authors, we find ourselves in a position of power and great responsibility. The terms, labels, and language we select to communicate our research and practice tell a story about peoples’ experiences of music therapy. The ways in which authors perceive music therapy practice, the people with whom they work, and the findings of their research, are often revealed in the words and phrases they select. Concerns around the use of terminology and language in music therapy publications are not new (Ansdell, 2002; Fairchild & Bibb, 2016; Procter, 2001; Rolvsjord, 2006). Indeed, Fairchild and Bibb (2016) concluded their critical reflection paper with a “call to action” for authors to select language that “more fully represent[s] [participants’] strengths and capacities in spite of their adverse experiences” (para. 21). Perhaps what has grown in volume and strength more recently are the voices of people with lived experience (experts by experience) who are critiquing the language and terminology adopted by authors, researchers, and practitioners. For example, in Tuastad and colleagues’ article (Tuastad et al., 2022), music therapy participants from a community mental health setting described how the title given to a concert event made them feel further stigmatised. During focus group interviews, participants requested that future music therapists in this context needed to “tone down the focus on mental illness, [and] turn up the volume regarding the importance of doing music” (p. 1). In response to critiques from experts by experience, some journals are now providing guidance about the use of labels and terminology (The National Autistic Society, 2022). One of the key issues regularly discussed is authors’ selection of identity-first versus person-first language. Debate around the use of these different formats is ongoing, and there are diverse points of view within and between different communities. For example, while it currently seems to be preferred to write “person with cerebral palsy” (person-first language), within the autistic community many advocates are calling for “autistic person” (identity-first language) to be used over “person with autism” (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021). While there is no clear consensus that identityfirst language is preferred in all circumstances, some autistic people have highlighted that person-first language is not inherently respectful and in fact may have the opposite effect. The term “person with [condition]” implies that the condition should be considered separate to the person, and that having this condition is fundamentally a negative experience (Sinclair, 2013). When health conditions and differences are universally positioned as a negative, discrimination towards disabled people (ableism) is likely to thrive (Kumari Campbell, 2009). I have seen many examples of ableist language in published research articles. I am going to give a few examples next, so if you are an expert by experience, you might like to skip to the next paragraph to minimise additional harms. There is still a tendency for NORDIC JOURNAL OF MUSIC THERAPY 2022, VOL. 31, NO. 5, 383–386 https://doi.org/10.1080/08098131.2022.2115208