Can humanities and sciences really work together?

1. Can humanities and sciences really work together? Richard Parncutt Centre for Systematic Musicology University of Graz, Austria SysMus12: International Conference of Students of Systematic Musicology Montreal, 26 May 2012 SysMus Graz

2. Do weneeddisciplinarycategories?Schwarz oder weiß Text & Musik: Oliver Gies (2009?) Schwarz oderweißJaoder neinGrautönesindmirvielzuallgemeinBittekein “Äh”Bittekein “Jein”In einemeinerSchubladen, da kriegichdichschon rein Hörst du Beatles oder die Stones?Guckst Du Tagesschauoder Indiana Jones?Warst du Zivioderbeim Bund?Bist du schüchternoderdrängstdich in den Vordergrund?Bist du trägeoderagil?Depressivoder mental eherstabil?Trinkst du Weinoderlieber Bier?Hast Du’nReihenhaus m. Garten od. lebst du v. Hartz IV? HähnchendöneroderlieberLamm?Trennst Du Mülloderschmeißt du alleszusamm’n?Fährst du Taxi odermitdem Bus?Sagst du Super-Dickmannodersagst du Negerkuss?Guckst du Arte oder Sat1?Nennst du deinenSohn Jean-Luc oder Karl-Heinz?Gibst du nachoderbist du stur?Liest Du regelmäßig “Bild” oder hast du das Abitur?

3. Abbreviations • ID = interdisciplinary (-ity) • H = humanities • S = sciences

4. Disciplinary categories are necessary!Experts and specialization are the basis of academic quality Each discipline has its own epistemologies • Ways of thinking • Ways of doing research • Ways of training future scholars • Ways of evaluating quality Epistemology • What is knowledge? • Which knowledge exists? • How is knowledge acquired?

5. ID collaboration is necessary!due to expansion and specialisationin all disciplines The research literature is expanding total amount doubles every 20 years! Time/effort to become expert ≈ constant about 10 years or 10 000 hours (Ericsson) Consequences: Research is more specialized Disciplines are SUBdivided Experts confined to SUBdisciplines Collaboration is necessary

6. ID is temporaryDisciplinary boundaries are fuzzy and fluid ID research areas, e.g.: • music history and computing • music analysis and cultural studies • musicology and psychology …become new disciplines/paradigms, e.g.: • computing in musicology • semiotics • music psychology

7. ID is relatively unusual 1. Communication Different ways of talking, researching  misunderstandings  ID costs extra time and energy 2. Academic infrastructures Clear hierarchies are easy to organise • Academic infrastructures impede ID 3. Quality control within disciplines “Own” discipline seems superior to Others • IDrequires academic openness

8. The restofthistalk… Humanitiesandsciences (a) in general (b) in musicology Bringing H&S together in musicology (a) in general (b) in myresearchandteaching

9. Sciences: The study of natureNatural, social, formal sciencesIn French: Sciences dures/exactes Basic sciences  their applications • Physics  e.g. engineering • Chemistry  e.g. manufacturing • Biology  e.g. medicine All three also contribute to war, climate change…

10. Humanities: The study of cultureIn French: Lettres et sciences humaines Ancient • philosophy • arts • institutions Enlightenment • history • languages (linguistics) • cultures (anthropology, ethnology) Modern • diversity, power relations Mostly benign - but can also be evil!

11. Humanities scholars are not “humanists” Humanism • secular • religious • Christian • etc. Humanist • morally enlightened person Scholar • (humanities) researcher

12. “The two cultures”The separation of H & S(Charles Percy Snow, 1959) Symptoms different knowledge, skills, thinking no common culture, feeling of belonging intercultural conflict and hostility – a “cold war”? H regard S as positivist and naïve S see H as romantic and impractical Consequences intellectual specialisation narrow mindedness decline of research breadth/quality  decline of education Less feeling of responsibility  neglect of world problems?

13. Separation of H & S Relationshipsbetweendisciplines in Austrian researchprojectsfundedby FWF1992-2006 FAS.research (2008). NetzwerkederWissensproduktion. Wien.

14. Who isyourEpistemological Other? Definitions • Are you H or S? Is your training and publications mainly in H or S? • Who is your Epistemological Other “EO”? Which academic across the H-S divide is interested in your research? Questions • Think of specific EO colleague back home. • How often do you work with EO? • How important are EO’s ideas to you ? • How might your work benefit from EO? • Would you like to have lunch with EO?

15. H&S: 18th-century inventions Sciences (Naturwissenschaften) • Product of “scientific revolution” • 16th-18th C.; Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Newton… • Term “scientist” was invented c. 1831 = member of British Association for the Advancement of S Humanities (Geisteswissenschaften) • Product of “age of enlightenment” • 17th-18th C.; Spinoza, Voltaire, Rousseau… • Reinforced by (German) romantic movement (18th-19th) • Became a reaction against scientific positivism

16. Four national academic culturesDominant Western academic cultures, 18th-20th Centuries R. E. Lee & I. Wallerstein (Eds., 2004). Overcomingthetwocultures. Science versus thehumanities in the modern world-system. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

17. Differences between H&Stendencies and extremes Points 2, 3, 4 followfrom 1  1 isthemaindifference! But 1 is also taboo(generalpublicthinkssubjective=bad)  Lack of open discussionofthesedifferences

18. 1. Aspects of sub- and ob-jectivity 1. The research object itself (mind vs nature) 2. Distance between researcher & research object 3. Methods: rules, logic, procedures, “discipline”? 4. Concepts: mechanistic vs organic 5. Agreement among researchers vs diversity Example: modern psychology subjective wrt 1? objective wrt 2, 3, 4, 5? 1 2 3 4 5 ? researchobject researcher

19. 2. Size of thesis domainSize of domain within which a thesis is assumed valid Humanities: small (modest?) Specific issues: • Ethnology: cultures, behaviors • History: events, people, periods Sciences: large (arrogant?) General issues: • Acoustics: How is sound transmitted? • Psychology: What is emotion? • Empirical sociology: How does society work? • Computing; neuroscience: How is information processed?

20. 3. Concepts of “truth” Humanities • Relativist (limited by researcher’s subjectivity?) Sciences • Positivist (enabled by researcher’s objectivity?) S can also be relativist • Relativity, quantum mechanics • Kuhn: paradigm shift; Foucault: coupureépistémologique H can also be positivist • If questions have no answer, why ask them at all? • If truth is relative to cultural context, what is culture rel. to?

21. H&S: Claims for superiority S have completely changed our lives! Enormous impact of technological innovations on everyday life: • communications, transport, media, household appliances… • weapons, pollution, overpopulation, less biodiversity, global warming H address fundamental everyday issues! • Humans without culture would not even be “human” • Identity is a strong force in everyday human affairs: Social interaction, family, economics, politics, war and peace Conclusion: Both are right! Implications:  Equal treatment of H&S by universities, politicians & funding agencies • Epistemological equality! End structural discrimination against H (e.g. use the word “science” correctly!)  Balance H&S in musicology

22. Epistemological tensionsHow did they start? Can we resolve them? benefit from them?  General conclusionsaboutresearch, truth, knowledge?

23. Alterity in academia out-group: humanities • literature • history • art and music • in-group: sciences • physical sciences • life sciences • intermediate • social sciences • legal studies • economics

24. English “science” ≠ French “science” The facts: • Latin scientia = (all) knowledge (pre-H-S concept!) • French science = (all) research/teaching (except lettres) • English science = only objective, positivistic research Evidence for skeptics: Look up any “faculty of science” or “school of science”! • generally includes physics, chemistry, biology… • never includes sciences humaines: philosophy, history, anthropology, geography, religious studies… How could academics make this mistake? Epistemologically naïve scientists dominate academia. They think: Even H should use ‘scientific method’!

25. Translating“science”Like many other words: the best translation depends on context English “science” • sciences dures/exactes; naturelles, sociales et formelles La science, les sciences • academia or academe (=the academic world) • research (or research and teaching) • study (implies H, e.g. literary studies) • scholarship (also implies H, but ambiguous  bourse d’études) Scientifique • Noun: academic (e.g. “I am an academic”) • Adjective: academic (e.g. “academic qualification”, “career”) Académique • academic (e.g. “academic question”, “academic ceremony”)

26. Maintaining power with ambiguityHow scientists try to control all academiaHow historical musicologists try to control all musicology What do you mean by “musicology”? Which “science” are you talking about? green = yesplease! red = nothanks!

27. ImplicationsforresearchersCombine & balanceapproachesof H & S! 1. Balance subjective andobjective S: Expose and take responsibility for your own subjectivity H: Partially objectify the object of research 2. Balance specific and general S: Riskgeneralisationtofacilitateapplication H: Treat specific examplesas “ground truth” 3. Balance narrative and numerical S: Incorporate qualitative methods H: Incorporate quantitative measures 4. Balance relativism and positivism H: What is your main thesis? Evidence for and against? S: Consider context(historical, social, cultural, political…)

28. H-S-IDExtreme examples Sciences: Chemistry • Why is the research question important? • What are the implications of the findings? • In both cases consider history, society, culture, politics… • Refer to literature in both H&S (All this in addition to the usual scientific rigour) Humanities: Art history • Clear structure: Introduction, main part, conclusions • Clear statement of question and thesis • Clear statement of evidence for and against thesis • Refer to literature in both H&S (All this in addition to the usual detailed content)

29. H&S in musicology • H&S in definitionsofmusic • Epistemologiesof H&S in musicology • Alterity in musicology • Why promote H-S-ID?

30. Any attempt to define music, e.g.: • an acoustic signal that • evokes recognizable patterns of sound, • implies physical movement, • is meaningful, • is intentionalwrt (b), (c) or (d), • is accepted by a cultural group and • is not lexical (i.e. is not “language”) …implies that musicology must mix H&S

31. Epistemologies of H-musicology inspired by: Jonathan Stock, Current Musicology, 1998

32. Epistemologies of scientific musicology

33. Alterity in musicology • in-group (“musicology”) • history (Western, elitist) • theory/analysis • cultural studies out-group(Others) • acoustics • psychology • physiology • computing • intermediate • ethnomusicology • pop/jazz research • sociology • philosophy • performance research

34. Musicological alterity: A benign exampleNicholas Cook (1998). Music: A very short introduction Exposes musicological prejudice against: • popular and non-western musics (musical Others) • women and non-westerners (human Others) Low awareness of own prejudice against: • S-musicology (other Others?) • non-Angloamerican musicology

35. Why promote H-S-ID in musicology? • Relative sizeofmusicologicalsubdisciplines • Sourcesofevidence in musicology

36. Why promote H-S ID in musicology?Size of musicological subdisciplines Ethnomusicology ≈ Historical ≈ Systematic • IMS (“musicology”): 900 participants, mainly historical • ICMPC (music psychology): 400 – only part of SysMus • many ethnomusicological societies and confs H ≈ S? • amount of research • number of students • social relevance

37. Combining sources of evidence in musicology

38. My attempts to promote H-S-ID in musicology Research • Specific projects • New infrastructures Teaching • Undergraduate • Graduate

39. My relevant research projects Psychology, acoustics, computing (S) of music theory (H) Perception of musical structure: pitch, consonance, harmony, tonality, rhythm, meter (with Annemarie Seither-Preisler) Psychology, acoustics, computing (S) of music expression (P) Computer modelling of expressive performance based on structural analysis of the score (with Erica Bisesi) Empirical sociology (S) of musical identity (H, P) Music and the social identity of migrants in modern cities (with Martin Winter) Two tripartite divisions of musicology • anthropological, historical, systematic • H = humanities, S = sciences, P = practice

40. CIM promotes ID collaboration Each abstract has two authors representing H&S CIM focuses on quality rather than quantity • anonymous peer review of abstracts by H&S CIM promotes musicology's unity in diversity • all ID music research • all musically relevant disciplines

41. PastCIMs

42. Future CIMs Please participate!

43. JIMS • All contributorshaveat least twoauthors • H + S +… • S + H + … • All submissionsindependentlyreviewedby H&S • Issues • Regular • Special (based on CIM)

44. ESF Exploratory Workshop“Cognition of Early Polyphony”Graz, Austria, 12-14 April 2012 10 H + 10 S participants • Present research that addresses the workshop theme • Work across the H-S boundary • Consider future project and grant options

45. Lecture series “Introduction to Systematic Musicology”In 1st semester of Graz Bachelors Program in Musicology Parent disciplines (subdisciplines) • S: acoustics, neurosciences, psychology, computing • H: theoretical sociology, philosophy/aesthetics How to work with them • Hidden truths about contrasting epistemologies • MD & ID approaches

46. Guideline for advanced undergraduate and graduate studentsThe structure of an argumentBringing together H&S in (musicology) research (training) Problems • S ignorecontext! And H! • H lack standardstructures! Solutions • S: Considercontext! • Historical, social, cultural, political… • Background; implications • H: Test a thesis! • Clear question; listpossibleanswers • Clear formulationofthesisandevidence Talk, Monday 3pm, Palmer lab, Psychology, McGill Tell meifyouwanttocome

47. Conclusions The cold war between H & S • Still strong both in musicology and generally • Relatively easy to address and reduce • Research benefits from conflict resolution Criteria for “truth” and “knowledge” • consistent with different sources of information • consistent with diff. researchers (epistemologies) • honest and unbiased • useful • A theory of “truth” should combine H&S! • H & S should be balanced and should work together

48. Political strategies H: Negotiate from a strong position! • “I am what I am and what I am needs no excuses” (Gloria Gaynor) - NOT “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” (Insane Clown Posse) • Awareness raising about positive roles of humanities and the necessity of subjectivity-objectivity balance in all disciplines • Lectures, workshops, projects on equal h-s collaboration • Conflict resolution within humanities to enable united action • Development of research evaluation procedures in humanities • Role models: trade unions, feminism, black power • Political action (e.g. teaching strike) if ignored or funding is cut S: Listen and support! • Expose/include subjectivity, specificity, relativity in own research • Explore/apply H-epistemologies • Promote H-initiatives/concerns in S-infrastructures

49. Announcing: SysMus13InfoMus Lab and Casa Paganini, Genova, Italy Professorial hosts • Antonio Camurri (engineering, U Genova) • Patricia Conti (Conservatorio N. Paganini Genova) • RaffaeleMellace (music history, U Genova) Student organising committee • EdoardoAcotto (Torino) • Manuela Marin (Vienna) • Michelle Phillips (Cambridge) • …