Introduction

McCormack's thesis focuses on the evaluation of joint mobility within the context of professional dance practice. Through a methodical and quantitative approach, the author explores the measurement of joint range of motion among dancers and examines its potential implications for performance, injury prevention, and dancer selection. While the contribution of this work is undeniable in terms of standardizing measurement tools and developing a descriptive understanding of the dancing body, the thesis nonetheless presents significant methodological and conceptual limitations. These deserve critical attention, especially in light of their potential impact on recruitment practices in professional dance training institutions.

1. Lack of Evidence for a Causal Link Between Mobility, Pain, and Performance

One of the main biases of this thesis lies in the implicit assumption that joint mobility is a direct determinant of performance, injury prevention, or pain. However, recent research in biomechanics and pain science emphasizes the non-linear and multifactorial nature of these phenomena¹. The idea that greater mobility protects against injury or ensures better movement quality is not scientifically established. By neglecting this lack of a clearly demonstrated causal relationship, the thesis risks reinforcing a mechanistic and simplistic view of dance practice.

2. Overvaluation of Hypermobility: Between Aesthetic Norm and Risk Factor

The thesis highlights the emphasis placed on joint mobility, particularly in classical ballet, where hypermobility is often perceived as an aesthetic ideal. However, this valorization is not critically questioned. Yet, hypermobility is well-documented as a factor for chronic pain, joint instability, and musculoskeletal injuries². By not problematizing this issue sufficiently, the thesis could legitimize selection criteria that are physically harmful by promoting vulnerable body types.

3. Decontextualized and Discriminatory Normative Criteria

McCormack’s methodology relies on standardized tools to measure joint mobility without sufficiently accounting for inter-individual variability, contextual factors, or functional adaptation capacities. This normalization of range values could encourage rigid selection practices that exclude dancers whose physical characteristics fall outside these norms, without considering their artistic potential or capacity for growth.

4. Risk of Overgeneralizing Data to Pedagogical Contexts

Although McCormack is careful to qualify some of the practical implications of her findings, the clarity of her normative tables may encourage the overapplication of these standards in teaching or selection contexts. Using joint range thresholds as indicators of potential or future artistic success is not scientifically validated and could lead to unjustified pedagogical or institutional practices.

5. A Dominant Biomechanical Approach to the Detriment of the Biopsychosocial Model

Finally, the thesis is rooted in a classical biomechanical perspective focused on the objective measurement of the body. While this approach is useful for quantifying certain bodily parameters, it neglects essential dimensions of the dancer’s lived experience: subjective pain, fatigue, stress, learning environment, and performance pressure. In the domain of musculoskeletal disorders and chronic pain, the biopsychosocial model is now widely recognized as the most relevant explanatory framework³. By omitting this aspect, the thesis limits our overall understanding of the dancer as a sensitive and complex individual.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while technically rigorous, McCormack’s thesis presents important biases and limitations, particularly concerning its potential application to professional dancer recruitment. The implicit assumption of a linear relationship between joint mobility and either performance or health, the overemphasis on hypermobility, the rigidity of normative criteria, and the lack of a biopsychosocial perspective undermine both the validity and ethical relevance of the findings. To prevent potential misuses in pedagogical or selection practices, it is essential that dance professionals, educators, and recruiters engage with this research critically, integrating it into a holistic view of the dancing body that intersects anatomy, artistic expression, health, and bodily diversity.

Notes

1. Lederman, E. (2010). The fall of the postural–structural–biomechanical model in manual and physical therapies. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies.

2. Kirk, J. A., Ansell, B. M., & Bywaters, E. G. L. (1967). The hypermobility syndrome: musculoskeletal complaints associated with generalized joint hypermobility.

3. Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science.