1 / 28

Managing uncertainty at the “boundaries of knowledge”

jocelyn-zimmerman
Download Presentation

Managing uncertainty at the “boundaries of knowledge”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. STRUCTURING THE ARGUMENT OF A THEORETICAL PAPERin social sciences and humanitiesRichard ParncuttCentre for Systematic Musicology, Uni Graz, AustriaThanks to students in Musikologie Graz who contributed to the development of this approach!Florian Eckl, Johannes Lehner, Manuela Marin, Margit Painsi, Sonja Zechner and others

  2. Managing uncertaintyat the “boundaries of knowledge” Social sciences and humanities (SSH) • unclear questions • uncertain answers e.g.: • systematic musicology • music psychology  Weneed asystematicapproach to theorydevelopment! Last update: 28 May 2012

  3. Unanswered questionsexamples from music psychology • evolutionary function of music • nature of musical talent, emotion • perceptual status of roots, tonics • effect of music on intelligence • trance, ecstasy, peak experiences, flow • association between music and spirituality • music, migration, integration, identity Last update: 28 May 2012

  4. “Truth” and “knowledge”A hermeneutic approach for both sciences and humanities Process-oriented creativity • no clear beginning or end • any draft can be improved • but you have to stop sometime! Repeated interaction: theses evidence top-down bottom-up Last update: 28 May 2012

  5. This guideline is for: • theoretical papers • by advanced students • working alone or in teams • in social sciences and humanities or anyone who wants to • think clearly • convince academic colleagues • achieve academic independence • develop political arguments Last update: 28 May 2012

  6. Curricular context Level-appropriate pedagogical approaches Preparatory level Proseminar, regular seminar Summarize literature • passive • achieve an overview • danger: positivism • Advanced level Research seminar, colloquium Defend a thesis • active • convince others • contribute to research Last update: 28 May 2012

  7. Critical thinking“critical” = careful, complex, constructive, credible • The most important thing you will learn at university! • Helps you address any issue in any discipline • What all universities need to solve their problems! • In teaching, research, administration • What democracies need to function! • E.g. political advertising before election campaigns Further info: Wikipedia on “Critical thinking” Last update: 28 May 2012

  8. “Truth” versus argument What do researchers do? • Search for “truth”? (idealistic) • Try to convince others? (pragmatic) 2 is the only criterion for 1; only 2 has “impact”  Research students must learn: • to convince other researchers • if proven wrong, to accept advice • essential for survival in any academic career! • seldom directly taught! Further reading: Wikipedia “impact factor”, “peer review” Last update: 28 May 2012

  9. Reasoning versus argumentAn evolutionary psychology approach Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2010). Behavioral and Brain Sciences Abstract: Reasoningisgenerallyseenas a meanstoimproveknowledge and makebetterdecisions. However, …reasoningoftenleadstoepistemicdistortions and poordecisions. … Ourhypothesisisthatthefunctionofreasoningis argumentative. Itistodevise and evaluateargumentsintendedtopersuade. Reasoning so conceivedis adaptive giventheexceptionaldependenceofhumans on communication and theirvulnerabilitytomisinformation. … Poor performance in standardreasoningtasksisexplainedbythe lack of argumentative context. Whenthe same problemsareplaced in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out tobeskilledarguers. Skilledarguers, however, are not after thetruth but after argumentssupportingtheirviews. … Reasoning so motivatedcandistortevaluations and attitudes and allowerroneousbeliefstopersist. Proactivelyusedreasoning also favoursdecisionsthatare easy tojustify but not necessarilybetter. In all theseinstancestraditionallydescribedasfailuresorflaws, reasoningdoesexactlywhatcanbeexpectedof an argumentative device: look for argumentsthatsupport a givenconclusion, and favourconclusions for whichargumentscanbefound. Last update: 28 May 2012

  10. “Argument” in SSH Empirical evidence, modeling (scientific aspect) systematic observation transparent design quantitative or qualitative data data analysis interpretation Intuition, introspection, speculation (humanities) motivation context (social, cultural, historic, political, moral) author’s expertise and experience informal interaction with other researchers Last update: 28 May 2012

  11. “Proving theories” in SSH Not possible due to problem of induction You can’t reliably generalize from specific observations You can’t reliably predict the future from the past Can theories be (completely) disproven? Popper (1934, LogikderForschung): falsification Kuhn (1962, Structure of scientific revolutions): paradigm shift Solution: Compare arguments for and against Which side has the most or strongest evidence? Further reading. Wikipedia “Problem of induction” Last update: 28 May 2012

  12. “Good” theories in SSH • falsifiable • empirical test allows for falsification • supported by convergent evidence • from different studies and disciplines • best currently available • may be replaced tomorrow Last update: 28 May 2012

  13. “Good” theories in SSH • simple  parsimonious, falsifiable • general  accounts for a range of phenomena • concrete  clearly defined terms, processes • logical  clear argument • empirical  observation-based, ecological • seminal  inspires new approaches Ockham Kuhn Popper Gibson Last update: 28 May 2012

  14. Poor forms of argumentin SSH Mystical, authoritative “It says in the Bible that God created the world in 6 days” Cannot be confirmed. “It is (un-)true because author X wrote it or I/you think so” Everyone makes mistakes or can be criticized. Democratic, intersubjective “Most people (dis-) agree that…” But research should challenge beliefs! Emotional, pathetic “I have been saying this for years and nobody is listening!” Personal context is ok but cannot be integral to argument EXCEPTION: introductory example (below) Last update: 28 May 2012

  15. Non-argumentin SSH Ethical or political statements “Everyone has the same rights” Assumption, not argument Unsupported claims “obviously,…” “intuitively,…” Ok if it really is obvious. Otherwise omit. Attempts to impress or dazzle meaningless jargon long, complicated sentences personal criticism Just leave it out. Last update: 28 May 2012

  16. Prerequisitiesfor using this guideline To understand and apply it, you will need: • basic academic writing skills • conventions of presentation: headings, citations etc. • a desire to develop advanced writing skills • quality of argument, clarity of thinking, analytic approach • background knowledge in relevant disciplines • or the time and motivation to read a lot of general background • about 20 good, relevant literature sources • or the time and motivation to look for them Last update: 28 May 2012

  17. Metacognition about the research process(not about the object of research) • Metacognition is: • cognition about cognition, thinking about thinking • makes thinking conscious by describing it • enables planning of research process • enhances quality and development of thinking • enhances quality of research • Improve your metacognitive skills by: • reflecting on your own research processes • expanding your vocabulary to describe them • building structures to organise and analyse them Last update: 28 May 2012

  18. A formal approachto creating and presenting a convincing argument • What are the main structural elements? • names? functions? (cf. any theoretical article) • How are those elements structured? • Is basic structure independent of content? • How can I build an original argument? • Does a standard structure improve the argument? Last update: 28 May 2012

  19. Why formalize structure?Why not just be intuitive? • Learn to follow guidelines • conferences and journals • general style guidelines e.g. APA Publication Manual • grant applications • Formal structures can aid learning • balance formality and spontaneity • Strict formalism should be temporary • organisational abilities become intuitive • internalise the message of this approach, then move on Last update: 28 May 2012

  20. The “logical song”Supertramp When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical. And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily,oh joyfully, oh playfully watching me. But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible,logical, oh responsible, practical. And then they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,oh clinical, oh intellectual, cynical.  Develop the ability to switch between • formal, analytical • intuitive, emotional Practice both the formal and the intuitive  balance! Intuition: let spontaneous thoughts lead you to new insights. Last update: 28 May 2012

  21. The structure of an argumentTwo interconnected patterns of connections • Temporal structure • how the argument is presented in time • linear, one-dimensional • Internal structure • how concepts relate to each other • hierarchical, multidimensional Last update: 28 May 2012

  22. Temporal structure of argumentThe basic structure of any narrative • Introduction • holistic, contextualised general  specific • Main part • analytic, detailed • Conclusion • holistic, contextualised specific  general Last update: 28 May 2012

  23. Internal structure of argument Introduction: Conclusion: Last update: 28 May 2012

  24. Examples of argument structurefrom music performance research Last update: 28 May 2012

  25. Three elements of an argumentthat comprise almost the same words • Example • Topic: The origins of music • Question: How did music originate? • Thesis: Music originated in social interaction Last update: 28 May 2012

  26. Formulating a thesisin three stages 1. Explore • Collectsomegoodpublicationsin a topicarea • Find relevant claims in theliteratureandlistthem 2. Believe • Choosea claimthatyoubelievetobetrue • Yourbelief will motivateyoutoinvestigateit! 3. Convince • Find argumentsforandagainstthisclaim • Do theargumentsconvinceyou? Other people? Ifyou/theyare not convinced, returnto 1 or2! Go aroundthecycleseveraltimesuntilsatisfied! Last update: 28 May 2012

  27. Examples of trivial thesesSome things to avoid A choice from only two possibilities (e.g. yes or no) • answer contains only 1 bit of information ( one-dimensional) • better to ask “how” or “why” ( multidimensional answer) • cf. Likert scale versus 2AFC (e.g. yes/no) Example: “X and Y are different with respect to Z” • Only interesting if we add how they are different • Cf. two-tailed test - usually only interesting if we report direction Avoid theses… • that cannot be falsified • that cannot be applied in practice • upon which experts already agree Last update: 28 May 2012

  28. Building up your argument Two possibilities: 1. Fill in the table in the word file • leave the left column and enter the content • discuss it in class or with me 2. Fill in the pages of the powerpoint file • leave the headings and enter the content • present it to the class In both cases: Revise content repeatedly (hermeneutic approach) Last update: 28 May 2012

More Related