Assessment of quality and impact at the interface between humanities and sciences

The case of (systematic) musicology

Richard ParncuttDepartment of Musicology, University of Graz

Relevance and Impact of the Humanities, University of Vienna, 15-16 December 2008

How can quality and impact

be evaluated in an

epistemologically diverse

discipline?

The structure of musicologyin central Europe

• Specific manifestations of music– historical musicology: “own” culture, Western cultural elites– ethomusicology: “other” cultures, intercultural interpretation

• General musical issues (systematic musicology)– sciences: acoustics, physiology, empirical psychology and

sociology, computing– humanities: philosophy, theoretical sociology, cultural studies,

aesthetics

The structure of musicologyin North America

• (Historical) Musicology• Music Theory• Ethnomusicology

Strongly institutionalized societies, conferences, journals

Exclusion of musical sciencesmusic psychology, music acoustics etc.

…by the way…

“Science” is not Wissenschaft!

In modern Anglo-American English, “science” means• natural sciences + disciplines with similar methods (e.g. social sciences)• “positivist” scholarship

consider e.g. any “Faculty of Science” or “School of Science”

“Humanities” and “sciences” are mutually exclusive

categories

Wissenschaft = scholarship, research, academewissenschaftlich = scholarly, research-based, academic

The structure of musicology an alternative view

• Humanities– history and ethnomusicology– cultural studies, aesthetics, philosophy

• Sciences– acoustics, physiology, empirical psychology

and sociology, computing

• Practice– intuitive knowledge of performer-teachers

(oral tradition)

Why is musicology epistemologically diverse?1. Any attempt to define music involves several disciplines

(a) an acoustic signal that

(b) evokes recognizable patterns of sound,

(c) implies physical movement, (d) is meaningful,(e) is intentional wrt (b), (c) or (d),

(f) is accepted by a cultural group and

(g) is not lexical (i.e. is not “language”)

Why is musicology epistemologically diverse?2. Representations of music ~ subdisciplines of musicology

The “three worlds” (“Popperian cosmology”)

• World 1 physical: music as signal, vibration– acoustics, physiology, psychology

• World 2 subjective: music as experience– sociology, cultural studies, phenomenology, psychology

• World 3 abstract: music as info, knowledge– music theory, computing, psychology

…and why not also World 4 agents: listeners, performers, composers, stakeholders– sociology, cultural studies, psychology

Central role of psychology in (systematic) musicology

Why is musicology epistemologically diverse?3. Music itself versus music’s contexts

Scientific musicology• focus on music itself in different

representations (physical, subjective, abstract…)

• high separation of researcher and research object (a kind of objectivity)

Cultural musicology• focus on music’s contexts (agencies:

psychological, social, historical, cultural, political…)

• low separation of researcher and research object (a kind of subjectivity)

Contrasting epistemologies of humanities musicology

(historical) “Musicology”

Ethnomusicology

“music” score part of culture

readership “musicologists” interdisciplinary

repertory lost disappearing

focus composer, score performance

concepts

individual, idiosyncratic

history, development

musical autonomy

formal unity

culture, typical

tradition, change

social function

cultural uniqueness

authority scholar informants

Source: Jonathan Stock, Current Musicology, 1998

Humanities and sciencesdifferences in approach: tendencies, extremes, clichés

humanities sciences

basic epistemology

relativist, subjective, intuitive, introspective

positivist, objective, transparent, data-oriented

research paradigms

explore, analyse specific cases, assess (moral) value,

qualitative

methods (procedures), hypothesis testing, modeling,

quantitative

aim or output of research

enrichment, detail, insight, theoretical frameworks,

complex conclusions

findings, discoveries, simple facts, laws, progress, practical applications

who researches individuals teams

quality control reputation, cultural awareness replication, peer review

Fragmentation of musicology one discipline or many?

1. epistemological

2. international

3. institutional

4. political

1. Epistemological fragmentation

a “semiquantitative” recent history of music research

0

20

40

60

80

100

année

pro

po

rtio

n

1600 1700 1800 1900 2000

systematic

ethnological

historical

2. Institutional fragmentationusing terminology from alterity research

out-group (Others)• music acoustics• music psychology• music physiology • music computing

intermediate• ethnomusicology• pop/jazz research• music sociology• music philosophy• performance research

in-group (“The” musicology)• music history• music theory/analysis• cultural studies

3. International fragmentationexample: Music theory

• North America– formalist, mathematical, positivist, “scientific”– (formalised) Schenker, (mathematical) pitch-class

sets, (positivist) history of theory– interpretation/standardisation of German research– pervasive quality control

• Germany– intuitive, holistic, diverse, haphazard– analysis of works in social-historical context– ignorance of US approaches (Schenker, pc-sets)– weak quality control

4. Political fragmentation Power, identity and the feeling of belonging

Ambiguous use of word “musicology” broad definition = all study of all music

– entries in Grove, MGG…

narrow = music history of western cultural elites– names of conferences journals, societies

Academic status of humanities in universities: too little power

– culture is underrated

in musicology: too much power– sciences are underrated

Defragmentation strategiesfor an epistemelogically diverse discipline

1. Quality controlexternal pressure, internal procedures (e.g. RAE)

kollegiale Leistungskultur

2. Promotion of interdisciplinarity through new interdisciplinary infrastructures

unity in diversity

Why peer review?a musical explanation

Germans can’t evaluate Ghanaian musicPsychologists can’t evaluate historical research

Musical subculture: – internal aesthetic norms– procedures to promote “good” music

Academic subdiscipline: – internal epistemological/methodological norms– procedures to promote “good” research

Integrating the fragmentsEpistemological synergy involves real people!

• multidisciplinary balance– promotion of minority disciplines– democracy, balance of power

• gender/culture balance – women researchers– non-western researchers

• collaboration– teamwork and collegiality– intra- and interdisciplinary quality control

Collegiality in interdisciplinary teamsultimate aim: productivity

• common goals– research object, academic quality

• democracy– value, rights of members mutual respect

• transparency– clear aims, openness to evaluation

• quality control– within disciplines– individual strengths and weaknesses– constructive

The Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology

Subdisciplines & paradigms of musicologyanalytical, applied, comparative, cultural, empirical,

ethnological, historical, popular, scientific, systematic, theoretic

Musically relevant disciplinesacoustics, aesthetics, anthropology, archeology, art history

and theory, biology, composition, computing, cultural studies, economics, education, ethnology, gender studies, history, linguistics, literary studies, mathematics, medicine,

music theory and analysis, neurosciences, perception, performance, philosophy, physiology, prehistory,

psychoacoustics, psychology, religious studies, semiotics, sociology, statistics, therapy

The Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology

CIM promotes interdisciplinary collaborationEach abstract has two authors representing two of humanities, sciences, practically oriented disciplines

CIM focuses on quality rather than quantity• anonymous peer review of abstracts• independent international experts• same disciplines as authors • procedure is transparent• reviews are impersonal and constructive

CIM promotes musicology's unity in diversity• all interdisciplinary music research• all musically relevant disciplines

Past and future CIMsYear Theme City Host Director

2004 - Graz University of Graz Parncutt

2005 timbre MontréalObservatoire

internationale de la création musicale

Traube

2007 singing TallinnEstonian Academy of

Music and TheatreRoss

2008 structureThessa-

lonikiAristotle University of

ThessalonikiCambou-ropoulos

2009instru-ments

FranceUniversité Pierre et Marie

CurieCastellengo

2010nature / culture

Sheffield University of Sheffield Dibben

Different themes bottom-up unification of musicology

The Jounal of Inter-

disciplinary Music

Studies(JIMS)

Aims of CIM and JIMSa conference series and a journal

• Epistemological synergy– realisation of academic potential

• Productivity– quality, quantity

• Relevance – social, cultural, academic

• Unity in diversity– completeness through inclusion of all

relevant musics, disciplines, researchers

Conference on Applied Interculturality ResearchcAIR09, Graz, Austria, 16-19 September 2009

Areas of researchdiscrimination, ethnicity, identity, comparative theology, in/tolerance, migration, minorities,

multilingualism, Otherness, prejudice, racism, xenophobia…

Areas of application affirmative action, awareness raising, conflict resolution, community interpreting, disability,

culture, education, gender, government, integration, interfaith dialog, international development, law, medicine, therapy…

Conference on Applied Interculturality ResearchcAIR09, Graz, Austria, 16-19 September 2009

Relevant disciplines anthropology, cultural studies,

economics, education, ethnology, geography, history, interpreting, law,

linguistics, literature, musicology, politics, physiology, medicine,

psychology, philosophy, religious studies, sociology…

Conference on Applied Interculturality ResearchcAIR09, Graz, Austria, 16-19 September 2009

Aims• empower researchers

• support civil society

• encourage collaboration

• establish Applied Interculturality Research

Conference on Applied Interculturality ResearchcAIR09, Graz, Austria, 16-19 September 2009

Abstract submissions• two authors, two reviewers• structured:

– Background in… (academic discipline/s) – Background in… (practical aspect/s) – Aims – The research – The application – Implications – References

Assessment of quality and impact at the interface between humanities and sciences Special case: Epistemological diversity

Assessment is inseparable from promotion and intervention!

• assessment– transparent, expert, constructive, impersonal– within subdisciplines

• promotion– improve public awareness– develop career paths, rewards for achievement

• intervention– create interdisciplinary infrastructures– promote diversity and collegiality