Interdisciplinary interactions between humanities and sciences in music research

1. Interdisciplinary interactions between humanities and sciences in music research Richard Parncutt Centre for Systematic Musicology University of Graz, Austria • Audio Communication Day • 27 June 2014, TU Berlin SysMus Graz

2. Centre for Systematic MusicologyUniversity of Graz, Austria Lecturer (current) Lecturer (previous) Student assistant Student assistant Professor and Head Secretary Annemarie Seither- Preisler Bernd Brabec de Mori Sabrina Sattmann Andreas Fuchs Richard Parncutt Michaela Schwarz Sessional lecturer Student assistant Project assistant Project assistant Student assistant FWF Postdoc Erica Bisesi Florian Eckl Marlies Bodinger Hande Sağlam Stefan Reichmann Martin Winter

3. 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?

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. Interdisciplinary (ID) is necessary!due to expansion and specialisationin all disciplines The research literature is expanding total amount doubles every 20 years! The time/effort to become an expert is about constant about 10 years or 10 000 hours total (Ericsson, “expertise research”) Consequences of expansion: Specialization: subdisciplines sub-sub-disciplines Venia: Researchers can no longer represent “whole disciplines” Collaboration: Subdisciplines must work together

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

7. ID is unusualIt costs extra time and energy 1. Communication problems Different ways of talking, researching  misunderstandings 2. Structural problems Clear hierarchies: easy to organise, but impede ID 3. Quality control problems Different quality mechanisms  “Own” discipline superior?

8. The restofthistalk… HumanitiesandSciences (H&S) (a) in general (b) in musicology Combining H&S in musicresearch (a) in general (b) in myresearchandteaching

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

10. S: The study of the natural worldObjectivity: Researcher is separate from research object. Basic S  applications • Physics  e.g. engineering • Chemistry  e.g. manufacturing • Biology  e.g. medicine All three also contribute to war, climate change…

11. H: The study of human cultureSubjectivity: Scholar is part of research object. Ancient • philosophy • arts • institutions Enlightenment • history • languages (linguistics) • cultures (anthropology, ethnology) Modern • diversity, power relations Mostly benign - but can also be evil!

12. Science ≠ Wissenschaft! The facts: • Latin scientia = (all) knowledge (pre-H-S concept!) • German Wissenschaft = (all) research/teaching • English science = objective, positivistic research Evidence for skeptics: Look up any faculty or school of science! • generally includes physics, chemistry, biology… • never includes history, arts, language, literature… How could academics make this mistake? Thesis: Epistemologically naïve scientists dominate academia. They think: Even H should use ‘scientific method’!

13. TranslatingWissenschaft Wissenschaft academia or academe (=the academic world) S: research (or “research and teaching”) H: study (e.g. Literaturwissenschaft = literary studies) H: scholarship (but can also mean Stipendium) Wissenschaftler/in academic (e.g. “I am an academic”) wissenschaftlich academic (e.g. “academic qualification”, “academic career”) akademisch academic (e.g. “academic question”, “academic ceremony”)

14. Geisteswissenschaftler/in ≠ humanist! Humanism= Humanismus • secular • religious • Christian • etc. Geisteswissenschaftler/in = humanities scholar “Scholar” suggests humanities The difference A humanities scholar is a trained academic A humanist is a morally enlightened person

15. Berlin Audio Communication Groupexamples of mixing Humanities, Sciences, Practice New music instruments (Egermann) S (instrument technology), H (reception), P (performance) Music media use (Lepa) S (empirical sociology, statistical analysis), H (social context) Acoustic environments (Weinzierl) S (acoustics, signal processing, psychology), P (performance)

16. H&S are 18th-century inventions! S (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 Science H (Geisteswissenschaften) • Product of “Age of Enlightenment” • 17th-18th C.; Spinoza, Voltaire, Rousseau… • Reinforced by (German) romantic movement (18th-19th) • 20th C.: increasing opposition to positivism

17. Epistemological tensions20th - 21st C.  Imbalances due tohistory and politics -- not content!

18. “The two cultures”The separation of H and S(Charles Percy Snow, 1959) Symptoms different knowledge, skills, thinking intellectual specialisation narrow mindedness no common culture, feeling of belonging Consequences hostility, conflict – a kind of cold war affects quality of research and teaching less responsibility for global world problems

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

20. H&S: Claims for superiority S changed our lives! Enormous impact of technological innovations on everyday life: • communications, transport, media, household appliances… • weapons, pollution, overpopulation, biodiversity, climate H address fundamental issues! • Culture defines “human-ness” • Social identity is a strong force in everyday human affairs: family, economics, politics, conflict… Implications:  Equal treatment of H&S by universities, politics & funding  Balance H&S in music research

21. Alterity (Otherness) in academia (Wissenschaft) out-group: H • literature • history • art and music • in-group: S • physical sciences • life sciences • intermediate • social sciences • legal studies • economics

22. H-S-ID: Examples S: Chemistry • Why is the research question important? • What are the implications of the finding? • Consider history, society, culture, politics… • Refer to H-literature H: Art history • Clear structure: Introduction, main part, conclusions • Clear statement of question and thesis • Clear statement of evidence for and against thesis • Refer to S-literature

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

24. H&S in musicresearch • Definitionsofmusic • Epistemologies • Sourcesofevidence • Alterity • Size ofsubdisciplines

25. 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 mixes H&S

26. Epistemologies of H-musicology inspiredby: Jonathan Stock, CurrentMusicology, 1998

27. Epistemologies of “scientific musicology”

28. Combining sources of evidence in musicology

29. 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

30. Maintaining power with ambiguityHow scientists try to control all academiaHow music historians try to control all musicology What do you mean by “musicology”? Which “science” are you talking about? green = good☺ red = bad

31. 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

32. Projects to promote IDin musicology Research • Specific projects • New infrastructures Teaching • Undergraduate • Graduate

33. Current research projects Perception of musical structure with Annemarie Seither-Preisler, Sabrina Sattmann, Andreas Fuchs S: Psychology, acoustics, computing H: music theory, music history Computer modelling of expressive performance (with Erica Bisesi, Anders Friberg) S: Psychology, acoustics and computing H: music theory, music history P: music expression Music and migration with Gerd Grupe, Martin Winter, Hande Sağlam S: Empirical sociology H: Ethnomusicology, theoretical sociology, cultural studies

34. 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

35. Past CIMs

36. Future CIMs

37. Integrated H-S cooperation • 1. All contributorshave at least twoauthors • If 1st authoris H, 2nd must be S (and vice-versa) • 2. All submissionsarereviewedbyH & S

38. ESF Exploratory Workshop“Cognition of Early Polyphony”Graz, Austria, 12-14 April 2012 9 humanities scholars meet 9 scientists • Research projects • Discussion across H-S boundary • Future projects/grants

39. 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 • Contrasting epistemologies • Multidisciplinary and ID approaches

40. Guideline for advanced undergraduate and graduate studentsStructuring the argument of a theoretical paper in the social sciences S: Considercontext! • Historical, social, cultural, political… • Background; implications H: Test theses! • Clear question; listofpossibleanswers • Clear formulation; evidence

41. Political strategiesto promote H-S-ID H: Negotiate from a strong position • Lectures, workshops, projects on H-S collaboration • Conflict resolution techniques • More H reviewers in S journals • More research evaluation in H S: Listen and support • More consideration of context • More subjectivity, specificity, relativity • More H epistemologies

42. 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 Other academic is interested in your research? Questions • How often do you work with an EO? • How important are EO’s ideas to you ? • How might your work benefit from EO? • Would you like to have lunch with EO?

43. Conclusions Criteria for “truth” and “knowledge” should be • consistent with info sources • consistent with researcher’s epistemologies  “Truth” is often a combination of H&S! The conflict between H and S • Still strong in musicology & generally • A solution would be mutually beneficial  Universities should bring together H&S!