Abstract
Ansdell’s ‘Winds of Change’ paper articulated a distinction in UK music therapy between established ‘consensus’ practice drawing on psychotherapeutic principles and developing or previously hidden ‘community music therapy’ practices based on ecological or social-psychological principles. Writing that addresses different theoretical positions in music therapy (meta-theory) exists from European and American perspectives but far less from a UK perspective. This article considers the view that UK music therapy writing in general has continued along one or other of these paths and that there has been relatively little exchange between them; indeed, that UK music therapists tend to ‘talk past each other’. To explore the matter systematically, this article takes a critical discourse analysis approach to analysing three recent music therapy book reviews. Critical discourse analysis was chosen to identify underlying assumptions (‘ideologies’) that shape thinking and practice, as revealed by language use. Book reviews were identified as texts where reviewers typically engage with authors from different perspectives and in doing so offer potentially rich material for such analysis. The analysis identifies ways in which UK music therapy writing shows signs of stress across a divide between ecological and psychodynamic approaches, with reviewers going to some lengths to reconnect these different positions and so unify a discourse within which ‘fault-lines’ are present. It is suggested that, in the United Kingdom at least, ecological and psychodynamic music therapy writing are becoming more separated as discourses, with a lack of integrated meta-theoretical discussion or examples of shared practice. This inhibits coherent development of the discipline and the effective training of future practitioners. A case is made for greater integration in music therapy writing through both developments in meta-theory and by practitioners sharing examples of cross-theoretical practice.
Keywords
Introduction
Gary Ansdell’s (2002) ‘Winds of Change’ paper articulated a distinction in UK music therapy between established practice drawing on psychotherapeutic principles (the ‘consensus model’) and developing or previously hidden practices based on ecological or sociological principles (‘community music therapy’ or CoMT). The paper was republished in 2014 with a reflection by the author which, while calming the ‘winds of change’ to a gentler ‘prevailing breeze’, broadly reaffirms this distinction (Ansdell, 2014b). These two strands of practice have continued to generate their own theoretical narratives. In this article, I argue that these narratives are in danger of losing touch with each other, and that this separation represents a loss to the development of music therapy theory and practice.
In his paper, Ansdell observes that ‘music therapy is made not found; … we use theoretical narratives pragmatically; … there is nothing that music therapy “really is”’ (Ansdell, 2002: 192). This statement places different narratives about music therapy in a post-structuralist context, suggesting that absolute meanings are elusive. Rather than abandoning the search for meaning, post-structuralism seeks instead for meaning in the differences between signs (words) and their uses (e.g. in theoretical narratives). Interpretation involves studying the ways that narratives cite or refer to each other, rather than the grammatical/logical analysis of individual statements (Belsey, 2002). This is what the current article attempts to do. The approach (critical discourse analysis (CDA)), while not purely post-structuralist, is similarly suspicious of absolute terms, seeking instead for the assumptions (or ideologies) they may conceal and aiming to become aware of possible missed understandings.
While claims about what music therapy ‘really is’ may be treated as at best provisional, some further elaboration of the distinction Ansdell is making is relevant to orient the discussion. Ansdell (2002) explains the term consensus model as a ‘heuristic device’ – that is, an assumption or simplification that enables his argument to progress. He assumes agreement between music therapists about what music therapy ‘really is’ (consensus) in order to disagree with them. Whether or not such agreement exists is a moot point. However, my focus in this article is rather on the disagreement (or difference) that Ansdell articulates, and the ways in which this continues to reveal or disguise itself in recent writing.
Ansdell (2002) does not equate consensus practice with psychodynamic music therapy, but he does base his distinction on differences in practice and theory and finds that, for the consensus approach, ‘the nearest role model is the psychotherapist’. Kenneth Bruscia defines music psychotherapy as where ‘the therapist uses music experiences and the relationships that develop through them in order to … resolve the client’s needs’ (Bruscia, 1998: 219). This certainly includes psychodynamic music therapy, and a recent text by De Backer and Sutton (2014) uses this term in a way consistent with Ansdell’s consensus model. Similarly, CoMT is only indirectly linked to ecological music therapy by Ansdell, but can easily be accommodated by Bruscia’s (1998) definition of the latter as ‘music therapy where the primary focus is on promoting health within and between various layers of the sociocultural community . . .’ (p. 229). Indeed, Ansdell uses the term himself in his more recent writing (e.g. Ansdell, 2014a, 2014b).
I therefore take these terms as representing two major and continuing traditions within UK music therapy that align well with Ansdell’s distinction from 2002. But how do these perspectives view each other now?
‘Talking past each other’
In the summer of 2016, a colleague presented me with a slim book on music therapy called Emotional Expression in Music Therapy: A Kaleidoscope of Perspectives (Konieczna-Nowak, 2016). In the introduction, the editor writes, ‘The aim of this book is to present different perspectives on emotional expression in music therapy. It is not an attempt to define or structure different points of view’. (p. 8). This is certainly the case. Two chapters by UK music therapists (one by Simon Procter and one by Helen Short) stand out by the way the authors write about, or avoid, theoretical perspectives other than their own. A third chapter from a UK music therapist (by Amelia Oldfield) is more nuanced. Nevertheless, the polarisation between Procter’s and Short’s chapters comes across as significant, especially given that both authors are professionals in the same discipline, from the same country and working at the same time.
Procter (2016) describes himself as writing from the ‘so called “music-centred” Nordoff Robbins approach’ (p. 56), and the chapter is clearly aligned with ecological music therapy/CoMT. He argues against psychodynamic approaches to emotional expression in music therapy, but by using dismissive phrases such as ‘the quasi-mechanics of countertransference’ (Procter, 2016: 58, emphasis added) and ‘well-meaning emotional fantasy’ (Procter, 2016: 65), he effectively alienates readers who take such theories seriously. Short’s (2016) chapter, on the contrary, makes no reference at all to theories other than psychodynamic music therapy except to acknowledge at the outset that ‘In this chapter we will explore emotional expression in music therapy from a psychodynamic perspective’ (p. 69, emphasis added). Here, the use of ‘we’ is striking because it assumes – and simultaneously requires – that the reader is comfortable with this perspective and implicitly alienates anyone who is not. In these two examples, I suggest that both authors are openly or subtly distancing themselves and their writing from some others in their professional readership through their use of language.
These observations about language draw on Critical Language Analysis (Fairclough, 2001). This approach focuses on text – actual words, meanings and their pragmatic effect; intertextuality – the relationships of authors and their (presumed) readers and other related texts; and context – in this case music therapy as a profession and discipline, with its various theories and practices. Through these, it explores the underlying assumptions, ideologies and political impact of texts as part of processes of social change.
When invited to contribute to this issue of British Journal of Music Therapy (BJMT), I returned to this book and to the questions it had raised for me. How do music therapists use language when discussing controversial areas of theory? Do music therapists from different theoretical positions speak to each other or past each other, either by mis-representing other positions or by ignoring each other altogether? And how does this impact on the development of music therapy in the United Kingdom?
The differences – even contradictions – between theories and approaches are not themselves assumed to be problematic. However, the extent to which writers from different perspectives address – or fail to address – each other and their professional readership as a whole is taken as a matter worthy of concern. I will argue that authors may be writing ‘from’ or ‘to’ their own positions (monologue) but not always ‘across’ these positions (dialogue).
Discourse, meta-theory and politics
Michel Foucault defines a discourse as a collection of statements (texts) which ‘systematically form the objects of which they speak’ (Foucault and Smith, 1972: 54). The chapters by Procter and Short mentioned above do not easily read as part of the same discourse, or rather coherence is achieved only by dismissing or avoiding one theoretical perspective in favour of another. In Foucault’s terms, they do not appear to be ‘forming’ the same ‘object’.
Writing that addresses different theoretical positions in music therapy (meta-theory) exists from European and American perspectives (e.g. Aigen, 2013; Stige, 2002) but far less from a UK perspective (although see Bunt and Stige, 2014, discussed below; Darnley-Smith, 2014). In the United Kingdom, edited collections of practice-based articles are a common format; these facilitate inclusive and pragmatic sharing of professional experience but do not usually engage with meta-theory. Procter’s and Short’s chapters may be extreme examples of theories ‘talking past’ each other, but I suggest it remains important to consider to what extent UK music therapy writing in general has continued along one or other of these paths with relatively little exchange between them.
The question is not only theoretical but also political. It is about the power of ideas (models, theories) to influence the practice of music therapists, as well as how music therapy is seen by others – both those in positions of power such as commissioners and relatively less powerful groups such as service users. For example, Alison Barrington (2005) responded to critique of the consensus model by defending the professionalisation and regulation of UK music therapy as in the interests of patients as well as professionals. Procter (2013), on the contrary, has argued for a music therapy based on ideas of social capital, emphasising the empowerment of patients and minimising the significance of the professional status or regulation of therapists. This is only one of many ways in which theoretical debates influence music therapy practice and politics, and they remain far from resolved.
Methodology
CDA (Fairclough, 2001, 2003) is a sociological approach that focuses on texts in order to understand underlying dynamics of power and ideology. CDA aims to reveal patterns, assumptions and implicit relationships between authors, subjects and readers in the language of ordinary texts. These are then interpreted and explained in terms of the (political) power, identity and ideological relationships between different social groups.
CDA offers a way to investigate music therapy texts to explore the use of language and its effect in creating and sustaining different ideas about music therapy theory and practice. In principle, any such texts will reveal relevant patterns of discourse, and the examples of Procter and Short above show, in outline, how such an analysis might proceed. Discourse analysis does not lead to theory itself, or even to interpretation of different author’s positions. Rather, it offers observations on the language available and in use by authors in the field and suggests ways in which this discourse shapes what is (and is not) available to be ‘spoken’ by authors and their readers. In Foucault’s words, discourse analysis aims towards the ‘loosening of the embrace, apparently so tight, of words and things’ (Foucault and Smith, 1972: 54). Or, to return to Ansdell, if there is ‘nothing that music therapy “really is”,’ then it is important to be critically aware of the ways in which writers attempt to define music therapy for their own theoretical and practical purposes.
Method
I initially searched for recent articles (2014–2018) using the Boolean search string “music therapy” AND (psychoanal* OR psychodynam*). I excluded ‘psychotherap*’ as a search term to focus more precisely on texts that dealt with psychodynamic approaches, rather than other psychotherapeutic models. Searching the PsycINFO database (which indexes most English language music therapy journals) and the BJMT (currently not included in this database) generated over 100 references. A significant number (21) were book reviews, often by music therapists.
At first, I was minded to discard these but then realised that they offered a potentially rich source for analysis. Book reviews involve both the re-presentation of author’s views and the views of the reviewer themselves (whether affirming, alternative or contrary). This means they are likely to include examples of writing from and about different theoretical positions – that is across different viewpoints (dialogue). This is precisely what the current study aims to investigate.
Book reviews therefore presented themselves as both suitable and potentially useful data for this project. I decided to focus on book reviews that met these criteria:
The reviewer is a UK music therapist (i.e. registered with the Health and Care Professions Council)
The book reviewed is authored or co-authored by a UK music therapist
The review was published within the last 5 years
Edited collections were excluded
Applying these criteria left seven reviews (another eight were of edited collections). Two involved authors already mentioned (Procter and Short) and one was by the current writer. These were avoided to reduce risk of bias. Two others were of books by Ansdell, and one was selected. This left three reviews of significant texts from a range of different author positions: Luke Annesley’s (2015) review of Alison Levinge’s The Music of Being: Music Therapy, Winnicott and the School of Object Relations; Catherine Warner’s (2015) review of Leslie Bunt and Brynjulf Stige’s Music Therapy – An Art beyond Words, 2nd edition; and Sarah Hoskyns’ (2016) review of Ansdell’s How Music Helps in Music Therapy and Everyday Life. 1 All three were published in the BJMT. This was not a criterion, but of the reviews identified in my original search, less than one-quarter came from other journals and none of these met the criteria above.
Analysis
CDA aims to identify assumptions that writers and readers bring to the process of creating and interpreting texts. Fairclough (2001) calls these ‘Member Resources’ or MR (p. 118). Readers’ MR influence the way they interpret texts, and may reinforce or conflict with the assumptions embedded in the language of the text itself. In what follows, readers are encouraged to become conscious of their own MR, which may or may not coincide with mine.
The approach taken was to select for analysis passages from each review that either directly discuss ecological and/or psychodynamic music therapy, or which (by virtue of their use of language) help position the text in relation to these or other traditions of music therapy. In addition, I was sensitive to any wordings or turns of phrase, however incidental, that acted to cue me to interpret the text in a particular way (drawing on my own MR). This process is subjective to a degree, but it is reasonable to assume that my own MR are likely to be similar to other UK music therapists, while also unique to some extent. In each case, observations are linked back strictly to the text so that interpretations can be checked.
Findings
Annesley reviewing Levinge: The Music of Being: Music Therapy, Winnicott and the School of Object Relations
This book, as the review shows, does not make general claims about music therapy but rather shares the author’s personal experience and thinking. Nevertheless, its title clearly positions the author (and presumed readers) as engaged in a psychodynamic approach (‘object relations’). There is no mention of ecological approaches.
We read at the outset of the review: This [book] is a welcome addition to the music therapy literature in which Alison Levinge explores the relevance of Winnicott’s theories and approach to music therapy, and in particular to her own practice. (Annesley, 2015: 42)
The phrase ‘the music therapy literature’ (emphasis added) carries with it the assumption that there is a single, agreed literature about music therapy – a single ‘discourse’. This, I suggest, cannot be taken for granted. Later the text gives examples from this literature: While the team efforts we are used to seeing in the music therapy literature (recent examples being Sutton and De Backer’s The Music in Music Therapy (2014) or Davies, Richards and Barwick’s Group Music Therapy: A Group-Analytic Approach (2015)) are clearly of great value, giving us diverse perspectives on a single subject, books by a single author seem to be more scarce in recent times. Priestley’s Essays on Analytical Music Therapy (1994), Pavlicevic’s Music Therapy in Context (1997), Ansdell’s Music for Life (1994) and Wigram’s Improvisation (2004) are some examples. Alvin’s Music Therapy (1966) and Nordoff and Robbins’ Creative Music Therapy (2007) are classic works which also fit this model. (Annesley, 2015: 44)
Notice that the two ‘team efforts’ praised are both psychodynamically oriented texts, and this is given no comment or explanation (Sutton and De Backer’s book is subtitled ‘Psychodynamic Music Therapy in Europe’). This may or may not be interpreted as bias, depending on the reader’s MR. However, by including Ansdell and Nordoff & Robbins (ecological/‘music-centred’ writers) alongside Sutton & De Backer and Priestley, this text supports the view that these texts all form one discourse about music therapy, within which different views can be heard equally.
Whether this is accepted by readers is a moot point and may depend on whether readers find texts they consider important included in Annesley’s lists. For example, there is no mention of CoMT (Pavlicevic and Ansdell, 2004) or of more recent ecological texts such as Stige, Ansdell and Pavlicevic’s (2010) Where Music Helps, which would be part of some readers MR. Thus, Annesley/Levinge presents a music therapy discourse that is still unified, but at the expense of prioritising psychodynamic texts and omitting more strongly ecological literature.
Warner reviewing Bunt and Stige: Music Therapy – An Art beyond Words (2nd Ed.)
Warner reviews a new edition of a well-known introductory text on music therapy, first published in 1994 (before ecological approaches were widely recognised). The presence of Stige as a co-author (known for ecological texts such as Stige, 2002) is therefore significant. Near the beginning of the review, we read, Importantly, I feel, there is a respect for the many approaches that are discussed [in the book]. The aim is to provide a suspension of judgement: there seems to be little intention to develop polemical argument, or to identify the most effective approach [to music therapy]. This emphasis on balance and fairness, even if not always fully achieved throughout the book, is a good starting principle to strive for and promotes the value of appreciation as part of the practice of critique. (Warner, 2015: 31)
The careful and repeated importance attached here to balance (‘respect for the many approaches discussed’, the ‘suspension of judgement’ and the absence of ‘polemical argument’) begs the question: why is it necessary to say this? One answer is that readers might assume (from their MR) that a general text on music therapy such as this will have difficulty respecting all approaches and avoiding judgement or polemics. The ensuing recommendation of ‘the value of appreciation’ (‘a good starting principle to strive for’) implicitly criticises approaches that do not at least attempt to achieve balance and fairness, even if in practice they fail to do so. (Both Procter’s and Short’s chapters discussed earlier would fail this test.)
Later in the review, one particular ‘failure’ is addressed directly: However, I would caution that reading this book is not sufficient for students on a course where the main orientation has psychodynamic foundations. Although Bunt and Stige do make reference, for example, to group analysis and provide a number of useful starting references, this is not the main focus, and wider reading is required in preparation and engagement for working with psychodynamic thinking. (Warner, 2015: 33)
The assumption here (perhaps from Warner’s MR as a programme leader) is that at least some music therapy courses have a psychodynamic focus, and this is different from the ‘main focus’ of the book reviewed. Moreover, the text does not take this as obvious or without consequence, but rather as something to which attention must be drawn and which requires ‘caution’.
Warner/Bunt-Stige seems to imply that psychodynamic views are vulnerable to being under-represented in general texts. Moreover, this can easily go unrecognised and is to the detriment of students, and perhaps others.
Hoskyns reviewing Ansdell: How Music Helps in Music Therapy and Everyday Life
Ansdell’s book is the second in a series called ‘Music and Change: Ecological Perspectives’, so is clearly an ecological text. Towards the end of an otherwise overwhelmingly positive review, Hoskyns (2016) writes, As this book has a comprehensive vision and aspiration, I was interested to think about what could be ‘silent’ or missing from the text, following Foucault. I always have some concern that psychotherapeutically informed work in music therapy is rather at a remove in Ansdell’s texts. Some of our music therapy colleagues’ writing (e.g. Hadley, 2003; Odell-Miller, 2001; Robarts, 2009; Schaverian [sic] and Odell-Miller, 2007; Sutton and De Backer, 2009; Tyler, 2003; Watson, 2007) in elderly, adult and child mental health and learning disability has shaped some of the landscape of shared meaning that psychotherapy affords, and they do not appear as scholarly informants. It tends to be other psychoanalysts (e.g. Bollas, Hillman, Stern) who represent psychodynamic thinking, perhaps because earlier music therapy exploration of the relationship with this area is deemed erroneous or lacking something. (p. 98)
There is some complex intertextuality here. Foucault is drawn in to support the focus on what is ‘silent’ in the text, and indeed to lead the critique (Hoskyns is ‘following’ Foucault). It is as if such a critique may be risky, needing a major author like Foucault as an ally to help ensure success. The use of ‘always’ (‘I always have some concern . . .’) also suggests a history of intertextual interactions of this kind, of which the present case is only an example (i.e. previous writing by Ansdell). And by referring to ‘our music therapy colleagues’ and then listing no fewer than seven references, the text gives a sudden shout of (otherwise silent) voices entering the text in a way that demands we see them as part of the same discourse – as if they have a ‘right’ to be there. What ‘could be silent’ in the text is now presented as a silencing of one part of the discourse by another, followed by an emphatic sounding of psychodynamically oriented music therapy authors in a text which otherwise presents an ecological approach. It is even specifically music therapy authors who are overlooked, rather than psychodynamic writing as a whole; these authors (it is suggested) may be ‘deemed erroneous or lacking something’.
CDA interprets this kind of intertextuality as political, an example of a ‘dominant’ and ‘oppressed’ discourse in opposition as part of a process of social change. But what is the direction of change? The text suggests that the ecological discourse is dominant: this passage comes late in the review and is followed by a reaffirmation of the ecological approach, with an attempt to suggest a different balance with psychodynamic theory.
This [criticism] probably says more about my own stance than Ansdell’s writing. I acknowledge that the movement towards a social-cultural stance on music therapy makes a vitally important contribution contrasting with, and complementing, the much more individualistic, internal direction that psychodynamic music therapy promoted in the 20th century. (Hoskyns, 2016: 98)
Hoskyns/Ansdell presents a more complex picture of music therapy discourse. This ecological music therapy book completely avoids references to psychodynamic music therapy without apparent loss. The overlooked psychodynamic discourse returns in a short but strong interjection into the review, like a small protest group on the fringe of a larger rally. This is put concisely near the end of the text: I suggest that exploring psychodynamic and medical models has been a necessary and informative process in music therapy’s journey. I would welcome slightly more inclusivity from Ansdell and maybe a more acknowledged approach to some of the contributions that do not take the ecological position, but might inform understanding of meaning and connectedness in music therapy. (Hoskyns, 2016: 98)
This can be read as voicing hope that a more inclusive discourse is possible, which integrates psychodynamic (and perhaps medical) perspectives with an ecological one. The ecological model, however, is dominant.
Discussion
These reviews may not be representative of UK music therapy literature as a whole. Other reviews (e.g. of edited collections) might show a different picture. However, they do illustrate ways in which UK music therapy writing shows signs of stress across the theoretical divide between ecological and psychodynamic approaches.
CDA takes it for granted that we are all, writers and readers alike, engaged in discourses not of our own making, and which shape us as we shape them. There is no such thing as an ideal author or reader in this view. It is important, therefore, that the observations above are not read as revealing ‘faults’ in the writing – all the authors are competent, even expert, in their field. Rather, the analysis reveals possible ‘fault-lines’ in the discourse itself. It is these that will be discussed here.
The ecological/psychodynamic fault-line
As stated earlier, it is the relationship between ecological and psychodynamic music therapy (rather than the views themselves) that is the focus here. The separateness of these positions shows itself clearly in authors’ and reviewers’ wording and use of texts from alternative positions. Annesley includes just enough ecological references to enable us to see Levinge’s (psychodynamic) book as part of a unified music therapy discourse; Warner sees an under-representation of psychodynamic references in Bunt and Stige’s otherwise comprehensive text as a weakness requiring caution; Hoskyns challenges the absence of psychodynamic references in Ansdell’s major ecological music therapy book, while also endorsing the book itself.
In these examples, psychodynamic music therapy writing appears to be on the edge of mainstream UK music therapy literature, needing to be drawn in by reviewers (Annesley/Levinge) or shown as under-represented or ignored (Warner/Bunt-Stige and Hoskyns/Ansdell). There is clearly a desire on the part of reviewers to bring different views together, but the books themselves either choose not to (Levinge and Ansdell) or find the task too hard (Bunt and Stige).
The pragmatic/meta-theoretical fault-line
One response to this could be ‘So what?’ Does it matter if different approaches pursue their own agendas and ignore others? Will it not ‘all come out in the wash’? Without overemphasising the need for an integrated general theory of music therapy (rather than Ansdell’s pragmatism), I would suggest that separate agendas hinder rather than help the development of theory and practice. As Hoskyns suggests, there is much to learn from listening to both ecological and psychodynamic writers.
Integration, however, requires a space where each approach can put what it has to offer on a shared meta-theoretical table, and where a critical synthesis can be worked out. Music therapy meta-theoreticians do exist, but UK names are not prominent among them. Only with the further development of such shared meta-theoretical understanding can inter-theory debates, critiques and integration take place. A positive (if challenging) outcome of this kind of change might be more frequent publication of vigorously contrary (but still rigorous) reviews – it is rare to come across a strongly argued negative review.
The variety/unity fault-line
Both ecological and psychodynamic approaches encompass a wide variety of work within their respective fields, although perhaps the ecological approach has made more of a virtue of this variety. An emphasis on meta-theory does not mean that uniformity in music therapy theory and practice is the aim. Rather, meta-theory is about identifying when, where and how the various different models are appropriate, or are suitable alternatives, and to clarify similarities and differences between them to avoid confusion.
This is particularly important in training, where single-orientation programmes are still common (at least from website descriptions). There will always be a place for ‘mono’-theoretical texts such as Ansdell’s and Levinge’s, as well as ‘poly’-theoretical ones like Bunt and Stige. What is lacking is a sense of how these approaches might relate to each other within a common framework. It would be a useful project to gather experiences of practitioners who do work across different approaches in different contexts, such as Anna Maratos’ account in CoMT (Pavlicevic and Ansdell, 2004) and Max Ryz in his review of another book by Ansdell (Ryz, 2018). This would help soften boundaries between different approaches and break the identification of practitioners with single approaches. If the best of each approach is to be integrated in practice, it must also be integrated in practitioners themselves, starting with trainees.
Conclusion
In this article, I have used recent UK music therapy writing, and book reviews in particular, to argue that ecological and psychodynamic music therapy texts are at risk of ‘talking past each other’. CDA suggests that texts from different perspectives do not routinely acknowledge or address each other, with reviewers making significant efforts to reconnect or integrate the two approaches. The resulting potential ‘fault-lines’ in UK music therapy discourse inhibit developments of theory and practice, with indications that an ecological identity may now be becoming dominant. I suggest that further developments in meta-theory and examples of practitioners integrating or working across these two theoretical positions can help music therapy to develop more effectively as a coherent discipline in future.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
