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

1
Assessment of quality and impact at the interface
between humanities and sciences

• The case of (systematic) musicology
• Richard Parncutt
• Department of Musicology, University of Graz

Relevance and Impact of the Humanities,
University of Vienna, 15-16 December 2008
2

• How can quality and impact
• be evaluated in an
• epistemologically diverse
• discipline?

3
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

4
The structure of musicologyin North America

• (Historical) Musicology
• Music Theory
• Ethnomusicology
• Strongly institutionalized
• societies, conferences, journals
• Exclusion of musical sciences
• music psychology, music acoustics etc.

5
by the wayScience 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,
  academe
• wissenschaftlich scholarly, research-based,
  academic

6
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)

7
Why is musicology epistemologically diverse?1.
Any attempt to define music involves several
disciplines

• an acoustic signal that
• evokes recognizable patterns of sound,
• implies physical movement,
• is meaningful,
• is intentional wrt (b), (c) or (d),
• is accepted by a cultural group and
• is not lexical (i.e. is not language)

8
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

9
Why is musicology epistemologically diverse?3.
Music itself versus musics 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 musics contexts (agencies
  psychological, social, historical, cultural,
  political)
• low separation of researcher and research object
  (a kind of subjectivity)

10
Contrasting epistemologies of humanities
musicology
Source Jonathan Stock, Current Musicology, 1998
11
Humanities and sciencesdifferences in approach
tendencies, extremes, clichés
12
Fragmentation of musicology one discipline or
many?

• epistemological
• international
• institutional
• political

13
1. Epistemological fragmentation a
semiquantitative recent history of music
research
historical
systematic
ethnological
1600 1700 1800
1900 2000
14
2. Institutional fragmentationusing terminology
from alterity research

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

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

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

15
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

16
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

17
Defragmentation strategiesfor an
epistemelogically diverse discipline

• 1. Quality control
• external pressure, internal procedures (e.g. RAE)
• ? kollegiale Leistungskultur
• 2. Promotion of interdisciplinarity
• through new interdisciplinary infrastructures
• ? unity in diversity

18
Why peer review?a musical explanation

• Germans cant evaluate Ghanaian music
• Psychologists cant evaluate historical research
• Musical subculture
• internal aesthetic norms
• procedures to promote good music
• Academic subdiscipline
• internal epistemological/methodological norms
• procedures to promote good research

19
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

20
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

21
The Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology

• Subdisciplines paradigms of musicology
• analytical, applied, comparative, cultural,
  empirical, ethnological, historical, popular,
  scientific, systematic, theoretic
• Musically relevant disciplines
• acoustics, 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

22
The Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology

• CIM promotes interdisciplinary collaboration
• Each 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

23
Past and future CIMs
Different themes ? bottom-up unification of
musicology
24
The Jounal of Inter-disciplinary
MusicStudies(JIMS)
25
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

26
Conference on Applied Interculturality
ResearchcAIR09, Graz, Austria, 16-19 September
2009

• Areas of research
• discrimination, 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

27
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

28
Conference on Applied Interculturality
ResearchcAIR09, Graz, Austria, 16-19 September
2009

• Aims
• empower researchers
• support civil society
• encourage collaboration
• establish Applied Interculturality Research

29
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

30
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