Professional Recognition of Music Therapy: Past, Present, and Future

Abstract

Across its more than 60-year history of professional training and practice, music therapists have grappled with professional recognition and an appropriate self- and public identity. The blessing and the curse of music therapy is that one is hard- pressed to find a human that does not in some way identify with various physiological, social, and emotional responses to music (Hodges & Sebald, 2010). While this commonality among the public allows nonmusic therapists to understand and relate to the power'' of music, it is also the same understanding that causes some to dismiss the qualifications and training necessary to engage in the systematic use of music to address the needs of clients across all developmental domains, regardless of age or ability.Watching a competently trained music therapist in action provides an opportunity for others to see how a naturally music therapist can elicit responses from otherwise nonre- sponsive individuals. Educating the public on the type and amount of training that enables the process to unfold is a challenge that we face. Moreover, professional recognition is dependent upon the music therapist's ability to impart the harm that can come from someone who is not trained as a music therapist attempting to provide services.Professional recognition is based on a stated set of qualifications and encompasses the formal acknowledgement of an individual's professional status. This recognition includes ones right to practice their profession in accordance with professional standards and is subject to professional or regulatory controls of a governing body. Beginning with the establishment of the National Association for Music Therapy (NAMT), the idea of professional regulation and outlining qualifications for competent clinical practice has been at the forefront of discussion and debate as it relates to moving the profession forward. According to American Music Therapy Association (AMTA) Historian, Dr. William Davis (personal communication, March 2, 2012) the 1956 Book of Proceed- ings indicates NAMT President, Roy Underwood, announced the formation of a Certification Committee to study registra- tion of music therapists (p. 312). This new standing committee included such pioneers as E. Thayer Gaston, Arthur Flagler Fultz and Myrtle Thompson. The Book of Proceedings from following year (1957) contained guidelines for registration, clearly stating, after December 31, 1960 all persons applying for registration must have completed a four-year degree in music therapy'' (p. 254). This early establishment of the Registered Music Therapist (RMT) designation laid important groundwork for entry-level qualifications of practicing clini- cians, followed some years later by the establishment of the American Association of Music Therapy. In 1971, this was formally designated as the Certified Music Therapist (CMT) and Advanced Certified Music Therapist (ACMT) designations.The foresight of each of these organizations to establish a mechanism that would outline and measure qualifications and training status was quite visionary. By continuing to assess and adjust these mechanisms for recognition at a national (as opposed to individual state) level, it became apparent that an outside organization was necessary in order to bring an increased level of rigor and legitimacy to the measurement of professional accountability. In 1980, NAMT joined the National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA) and the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) as an affiliate member in order for the NAMT Certification Committee to explore the establishment of a certification program for the profession as NOCA/NCCA was considered the leading authority on certification (What is NOCA? What is NCCA? Why is CBMT Involved?'' 1994, May, p. 6). It became apparent that administrative independence of a certifying body (in this case, CBMT) from a professional organization (AMTA), addressed three important legal issues: (a) upholding anti-trust law which prevents the profession form imposing weight onto the certification process, (b) reducing or eliminating appearance of conflict of interest, and (c) protection of the certification process from exposure to undue influence by professional issues and decisions that are based on economic considerations of public interest (BC Status, 1992, p. …