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 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, academe wissenschaftlich = scholarly, research-based, academic

6. The structure of musicologyan 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 ofpsychology in (systematic) musicology

9. 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)

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 out-group(Others) • music acoustics • music psychology • music physiology • music computing in-group (“The” musicology) • music history • music theory/analysis • cultural studies intermediate • ethnomusicology • pop/jazz research • music sociology • music philosophy • performance research

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 fragmentationPower, 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 can’t evaluate Ghanaian music Psychologists 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

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 sciencesSpecial 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