Upload
hugo-waterfall
View
216
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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